Whats the fuss about gMax?

[Guest]

So it's not a myth ? I dont wish to sound like an anorak (I bought TSM) will it have similar features as TSM ? When is it due ? Assuming you know !Thanks in advanceGeorge

[Guest]

From the viewpoint of someone that has done development in both FSDS and GMAX, I can probably shed some light on the subject. First of all, from a designer's viewpoint, its hard to put a "better" tag on one of the products. "Better" is a very subjective term and can differ from person to person. Each has strengths and weaknesses. GMAX is far superior in the animation department. But it falls flat when it comes to texture mapping. Mapping is VERY difficult in GMAX as compared to FSDS. Powerful, but difficult. There are numerous other tradeoffs like this, but I'd have to say, in the end, that GMAX is stronger in more areas than FSDS. As far as overall ease of use, I can't agree with the prevailing viewpoint that GMAX is harder to learn and use. It's really not. It looks like it at first because its so massively complex. But when you use GMAX for a while you find that 98% of its functionality isn't needed in the design of an aircraft for FS2002. They could take most of the buttons and functions out of GMAX and I'd never know they were missing. The trick is learning which of those many functions is really useful and which aren't. From a simmers standpoint, what has been said about poly counts having the biggest impact on performance, that much is true. And I'm very conscious of this fact when I design. But its been my experience that GMAX allows me to take the design to a higher poly count, with more animation before I see the performance hit. No that doesn't mean I can have 50,000 polys instead of 10,000, the difference isn't anywhere near that marked, but its there.Like I said, when everything has been brought to the table, you can't put a "better" label on either product. Its very much a matter of personal taste. But I think that GMAX's strengths far outweigh its weaknesses and I prefer it heavily over FSDS. I have no idea what FSFS 2 is going to add to the pot, so I can't comment, but right now GMAX is the tool of choice, IMHO. :-)Mike Stone

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Abacus will post an announcement regarding FSDS 2K2 shortly. Thank-you Louis Sinclair for updating!Now if only A&SD would be updated. Peter, I will pay you almost ANYTHING for a 2K2 update! I'm getting 2-3 fps with my "updated" 2K2 scenery when I'm averaging 9-12 in populated 2K2 default areas.Tools! I need tools! GOOD tools! ;-)

[Guest Scott Campbell]

Mike,I agree, gMAX runs a LOT faster than FSDS material (just look at Oshkosh, not possible using macros and whatnot with FSDS and A&SD).But I still like using tools I already know (obviously). I don't have the time to keep learning new stuff. Besides that, there just is nothing intuitive about gMAX to me. It just makes no sense. It's like a hodgepodge of stuff all slapped together with no flow or logic.And the thought of manually having to enter in the lat/lon, altitude, and direction or each and every object just makes me cringe. :-erks Without a map, and simple click and placement, it's just not something I'm going to do.So I am more than happy to leave the complicated design and development to you and those who know what they're doing with gMAX. So, please do keep that up (eventually ;-)).In the meantime, I'll just keep waving my magic platinum card and hoping the tools I know and love will get updated. ;-)

[Guest]

Sorry for the image but I prefer GMax aircraft over FSDS. Until FSDSII is released, I'll make my decision then. But here's some 3DS work by a friend of mine that does commercial artwork for living - Gmax is just a handicapped version of 3DS. http://www.gremlan.org/~jdata/webdone.jpg

[edetroit 933]

Looks like FS2004! :-lol

[Guest]

>I just want to know why do everyone keep begging for gmax >stuff. If the model is FSDS they just throw it away. I've >seen users not downloading aircraft just because of it not >being gMax. So, can anyone list a big list of pros & cons of >gMax & FSDS please? :) >Apart from the fact that Gmax aircraft perform correctly as AI, any Gmax object has less of an effect on framerates.My guess is that Gmax models actually use DirectX to do screen calculations, whereas every non-DirectX object in the scene has to use Flightsim's built in display code.Because Gmax is using DirectX, the processing of display of these models might well be getting handed off to the GPU, not to the CPU. If this is what's happening, then obviously framerates are going to be increased.I believe FS2004 is going to be Gmax model only. Because of the increase in CPU and GPU speeds (as well as Directx 9.0) I think there are going to be some stunning visuals and framerates possible. The overall display code in FS really does need to be split from the CPU. Eye candy and raw simulation will both benefit.

[Guest GerrishGray]

Let's get something right here about FS2004. It's going to be a DirectX-only version, NOT gMax-only. gMax is just a third-party tool that MS supply at a special inclusive price with FS2002 Pro.When the authors of other tools such as FSDS catch up with the new floating point DirectX command set (as Lou seems about to do shortly!), we will no longer have to use gMax if we don't want to and will be able to get all the soon-to-be-compulsory advantages of the new command set from friendlier and more familiar tools.CheersGerrish

[Guest]

Sounds good, is there anywhere I can see a list of features ?For scenery design look at FSCB (?) from Derek Leung, it's easy and will use both asd and api macros. For freeware (no disrepect meant) the service is excellent.George

[Guest]

"friendlier and more familiar tools"This will be the greatest advantage for me, I've spent well over two years with FSDS and still not got there with everything! For some things believe it or not I've resorted BACK to AF99 then imported them into FSDS.The learning curve involved in GMAX has been a difficult one personally even after working in other avenues in Studio Max, there again I might be a bit thick ! Cant wait !George

[Guest cwright]

> Mapping is VERY difficult in GMAX as >compared to FSDS.... Mike, I know lots of people have had problems with mapping, but once you know one or two things, it's extremely easy! Of course the 'one or two things' is the critical part. For example, if you know how to use the Mesh Select modifier to tell the UVW Map modifier which part of the mesh it should apply to, then mapping becomes *very* powerful - and easy! And that's without even using the Unwrap UVW. Also, when mapping in Gmax you can use the Gmax view windows, including perspective, while in FSDS you only have a very restricted and small view. I've no doubt that mapping in Gmax is much easier and more powerful than FSDS - providing you know those 'one or two things'!>As far as overall ease of use, I can't agree with the >prevailing viewpoint that GMAX is harder to learn and use. >It's really not..... No question, the Gmax learning curve is steeper - but not a lot steeper. Providing one works through the standard tutorials and does not try to run before he can walk, then it's not very difficult. I originally used FSDS, but as I recall the Gmax learning experience was quite easy as well as enjoyable. Although Gmax doubtless has performance advantages, the thing that strikes me is the user interface. Once you get accustomed to it it's a joy to use. FSDS simply can't compete. The FSDS user interface is essentially identical to that of Imagine, a modelling program I used on my Amiga back in the Stone Ages of computing. Imagine was a great program for its time, but now it looks incredibly primitive - and, sadly, so does FSDS. For example, you can't click on objects to select them (I believe you can make all axes visible and click on them, but that would be hopeless in a complex virtual cockpit). I'm sure FSDS2 will have many improvements, but I doubt if the user interface will change very much - one man can only do so much. Tucker Hadfield stated that the version of Gmax that ships with CFS3 will have features to make aircraft design easier. That's to be welcomed. But even now I regard Gmax, warts and all, as a superb program with buckets of power and a beautiful user interface. I simply can't imagine using FSDS2. Best regards, Chris Wright

[Guest]

Brian,>As for the statements that a Gmax plane is easier on >framerates than a FSDS one I beg to differ a little bit. >It's the number of polygons, vertices and number of textures >that the plane has that makes the biggest difference. Sorry, but I have to disagree on this. Of course the complexity of a model makes the biggest difference, but if you make two indentical models, with the same number of polygons and the same amount of textures, the one made with GMax it's more than three times as fast then the old one.The reason for this it's not GMax itself, but the fact that the new FS2002 instructions are used by the exporter to create the model.The reason for the new instructions of being faster it's due to the fact how a 3d model is rendered. Your graphic accellerator *only* understands triangle meshes, nothing else. With the old instructions, the BGL language allowed for very complex polygons structures without requiring to be divided into triangles. That job was made by FS itself in real time!! The new instructions packs the model into a triangle mesh already in the BGL, and the job is made only once by GMax and the GMax exporter plugin, then FS engine doesn't have anything to do than pass it to the graphic card, entirely skipping a costly rendering step, because the mesh it's already in the card-friendly format.Another difference it's the changing state of the rendered. A state change is, for example, when a scenery or aircraft calls texture A, then texture B, than texture A again, then C, then B, than A again.Or can be a change of material or color.Every state change it's time consuming, so the exporter *sorts* the objects before, according to their material or texture, so all the parts with the same material/texture are called together, with a single material change at beginning. This is done by the exporter, and it's another significant speed improvement, especially when the model is using a lot of different materials many times.>I bought the 421 Eagle (very well made) but I can't fly it >because it's such a frame hog... and it's Gmax. that's another issue. GMax it's not a magic trick box. One must to know of to use it and how to keep control of polygons structures. A very important improvement would be designing in multiple LOD levels. But it's something that could be *very* annoying, because it forces the developer to an additional workload ( you basically need to model your object 3 or 4 times, in different resolutions ) but it can obtaing *huge* frame rate savings. Once developers will fully undertstand this issue, you'll see very complex yet quite framerate-friendly models. The MS default AI planes are all done like this, that's why they can be used in numbers for AI traffic, without killing the framerate.And this the reason our recently released Honolulu scenery it's so faster than any scenery around. It's ALL done in GMax, not only the 3D part, but even all the 2D taxiways and tarmac layouts. Old instructions are pratically not used, and the speed increase it's really something easy to behold. And yes, it uses multiple-resolution models extensively.>Many designers think that because GMax is more effecient, >they can throw in more polys to a part or make it even more >complex, therefore negating the efficency of a GMax model >over an FSDS one. this is true. It's easy to get carried away with the power of GMax, one can easily create a 20.000 polygons fuselage in seconds without realizing it.I'm not saying that FSDS have not the right to exist anymore, if they will update it to support the new instructions insted of the old ones, it may be as fast as GMax yet easier to use.best regards,

[Guest]

>As far as overall ease of use, I can't agree with the >prevailing viewpoint that GMAX is harder to learn and use. >It's really not. It looks like it at first because its so >massively complex. But when you use GMAX for a while you >find that 98% of its functionality isn't needed in the >design of an aircraft for FS2002. They could take most of >the buttons and functions out of GMAX and I'd never know >they were missing. The trick is learning which of those >many functions is really useful and which aren't. Perhaps this deserves a separate thread, but allow me to ask it here, since you're obviously folowing this... :)Given that GMAX is highly 'configurable,' perhaps the greatest gift to the FS developer's community would be a 'customized .cfg file for GMAX,' showing only those flyouts that are truly useful?

[Guest]

Personally, I prefer FSDS over GMAX simply for the textures. In FS2000 painters were forced to rely on their skills to deliver a realistic and aesthetically pleasing plane. In FS2002 with GMAX anybody can paint a livery, slap a 20% alpha on it and call it "shine". There was a sudden burst of painters as soon as FS2002 came out, mostly because its so 'easy' to paint a livery compared to an FSDS model which looks plain without shine or alpha. The most disgusting thing i've ever seen is some of the alpha channels placed on a lot of planes, I have seen some running up to 40% alpha channel, which makes the plane look like its coated in a 6 inches of wax. I really preferred the days when painters like Greg German and Bodo Mueller were held up to the highest standard because of their skill in artistry and accuracy, rather than how painters are now considered great because they can slap on a 50% alpha.As far as models go, I prefer FSDS over gmax 100%. In my opinion an FSDS model has a much more realistic look than a GMAX model that looks, simply put, "cartoonish". Even if I turn off the alpha channel on such planes, its extremely hard for them to seem nearly as realistic looking as FSDS models. I think the other thing is the animation with FSDS planes, many authors don't create their own animation methods, and use the ones with gmax, therefore they end up looking like you're getting 2 fps when flaps deploy (great example would be the PSS A320). Of course, GMAX does have the 'FPS Advantage' (though I have yet to see any increase in FPS with pretty much equally detailed models). Of course, lastly the whole AI traffic argument comes up, but personally I can live with AI traffic that seem to hover, and I do right now anyway, because simply put, they look better than GMAX aircraft.Of course, thats just my opinion, but its how I feel.Scott

[Guest]

I'm not sure I follow the reasoning there Scott, if you use identical techniques that you find in FSDS in gMax you can achieve the same results. I'm with you 100% when you say that slapping on an alpha channel doesn't automatically mean you have a good set of textures, but used well where appropriate they provide designers with an additional effect to draw from in their palette. FSDS 2 will also support reflection maps - does that mean it will be inferior to FSDS 1.x? I'm sure we've all seen appalling FSDS-made planes, that doesn't mean that FSDS or all planes made with FSDS are rubbish.There's no question that gMax compiled planes are better at keeping FPS as high as possible. Take a plane designed and created in FSDS then bring it into gMax and recompiling the MDL triples the FPS possible - with identical models. I'm sure we'll see identical results with output from FSDS 2.Back to the original point though, only a looney would automatically turn down FSDS built planes. FSDS made it possible for the first time for people to build high quality planes that actually began to look more like planes than origami models. The fact that FSDS is a great design program is amply proved by the many high quality models that are out there. At the moment though gMax is by far the most powerful design program for FS and is a variation on 3DS Max which is what MS themselves use, this in itself speaks volumes. I'm sure there will always be a place for programs like FSDS, and I'm sure FSDS 2 will at least balance things on the technical side (FPS, materials, etc). In terms of modelling functionality though I don't see that FSDS can ever catch up written as it is by one person rather than a large software house like AutoDesk (of which Discreet is part). Not everyone wants or uses these facilities though - and for those it's great that there's an alternative in the shape of FSDS.Take a look at the following gMax tutorial, complex? Yes - but once understood a modeller can produce a highly accurate and smoothly shaded wing that uses far fewer polygons (especially at the tip) in a fraction of the time it takes in FSDS.http://www.airexotica.com/tuts/wing/wingtut.htmHave funFinn