Sign in to follow this  
Guest Stamatis

Freeware attacks...never ends....

Recommended Posts

Caught this thread at flightsimnetwork...http://www.flightsimnetwork.com/dcforum/DC...ID10/29206.htmlIMHO, I wouldn't care if the new CRJ flew like a 777.... Flight models can be changed by anyone, but the work behind a visual model or repaint is hard, and what did we pay for it?Considering some of the players in the above mentioned thread, I'm not surprised.... But IMHO, it's pretty lame to be attacking any freeware in a public forum...-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

>Hey children, stop complaining on go suck on your bottles. :-rollIf you don't like the plane, delete it and move on. These guys spend hours of their own to time give us excellent FREE aircraft. Just shut up and move on.Above is the response I posted on the tread. Some people need to get a life.Ryan-Flightpro08 :-coolVATSIM Pilot/ControllerZLA ARTCC Controller 1 (C-1)SAN TRACON Lead [link:www.taxiwaysigns.com]Taxiwaysigns.com Scenery Designer-----------------------------My "Home Made" System Specs:Intel Pentium 4 2.2GHz ProcessorTurbo Gamer ATX Mid-Tower with 420W Power SupplyEPoX 4G4A Motherboard with Intel 845G ChipsetVisiontek XTASY GeForce4 128MB Ti4600 (Det 40.41 Drivers)512MB PC2100 DDR RAM40GB Matrox 7200RPM Hard DriveWindows XP Home Edition*No CPU or GPU Overclocking*3dMark2001SE Score: 11298

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really see any problem.Freeware is not immune to criticism, the thread appears different than the nit-picking that was going on over here.Too much emphasis on looks over flying characteristics is a legitimate concern IMO.The real problem may be designers trying to do everything instead of leaving what they don't have enough expertise in to someone else.But then isn't that why groups like POSKY exist, so they can bring all these separate skills together on the same project ?Ernie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JohnWe do have a problem and no its not directed at a specific freeware aircraft.Every area of the aircraft has to have extreme attention to detail for the whole package to be considered complete.That means flightdynamics and realism as well as sounds and panel/instrumentation/sytems and interior visual accuracy as well.Without all these areas being a masterpiece then you can only consider the aircraft to be an unfinished attempt.There are very few people who can work flight dynamics maybe in the whole flightsim world they can be counted on one hand.This to me means the flight dynamics engine is to complex and specialised an area for the ordinary enthusiast and blame for this has to lie with Microsoft.Not even Microsoft themselves can make their flight engine work with their own stock aircraft as shown by the very poor quality of aircraft dynamics released with the stock product.To get accurate flight dynamics requires not only exceptional skill but hundreds if not thousands of hours of work trying to compensate for inadequacies in the flight engine.That Skill and commitment isnt available in the flight sim world and hence "poor flight models"Microsoft need to redo the flight engine, fill in the flaws and make a flight dynamics editor which not only is user friendly but works. Then all aircraft can have realistic feel and performance without the developer needing the brain of Einstein and locking himself away for a couple of months .That means that for FS2004 Microsoft should really rewrite a new flight dynamics engine as well as supplying a very good tool that will allow the ordinary person the ability to create accurate flight dynamics in a reasonable time frame.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>The real problem may be designers trying to do everything >instead of leaving what they don't have enough expertise in >to someone else. >>But then isn't that why groups like POSKY exist, so they can >bring all these separate skills together on the same project During this last year, I'm getting the impression that the best expertise in flight modeling have gone payware.........which is fine by me. Seems there is now, far too much research and programming to do it for the "love" of it.ALL of my recent downloads for aircraft that I'm really happy and impressed with have been "payware". If it's freeware, I can only suppose that 2-6 thousand hours hasn't gone into the project; meaning I'm not going to expect top notch visuals as well as flight dynamics.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>There are very few people who can work flight dynamics maybe >in the whole flightsim world they can be counted on one >hand. Yep----- I think I counted about 5 myself :)>This to me means the flight dynamics engine is to complex >and specialised an area for the ordinary enthusiast and >blame for this has to lie with Microsoft. As far as I'm concerned MS market's this as a game/simulation and is not responsible for a complex and easy to use model. But then of course, all the "masters" of flight modeling will continue to gripe.... which is understandable, but not MS's problem.>Not even Microsoft themselves can make their flight engine >work with their own stock aircraft as shown by the very poor >quality of aircraft dynamics released with the stock >product. I would call MS's default flight models as average. Not poor, but nothing exceptional. They still allow flight from point A to B with normal control movements. Some "very poor" models don't even allow that without much "stress"!>To get accurate flight dynamics requires not only >exceptional skill but hundreds if not thousands of hours of >work trying to compensate for inadequacies in the flight >engine. >>That Skill and commitment isnt available in the flight sim >world and hence "poor flight models" >One thing for sure----------- whether Rob Young did all the flight model programming for the RealAir SF260 and you did the testing, or however it works............................. it's truely a masterpiece with probably the most "inventive" flight dynamics yet for FS2002!!!!!!!! I can't get over just how FUN this aircraft is to sim fly, let alone flight dynamics that are so darn believable!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LarryThanks for the 260 compliment but my posting is to show why in most cases MSFS is a visual feast rather than a complete aircraft feast.Yes it is a game but it doesnt have to be. We may only have five hermit like Einsteins but that isnt enough to feed the whole flight sim community and a better way has to be surely foundPeter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"...Without all these areas being a masterpiece then you can only consider the aircraft to be an unfinished attempt...."But really, who are we to hold freeware to this standard, and to decide what stays vs. what gets publicly trashed in these forums?I've dl'd a number of freeware products that don't come close to hitting the mark in flight dynamics. But some of them have had outstanding visual models... My point is rather than publicly trashing freeware artists, pick and choose what's best, rather than what's worse. Otherwise, we may miss outstanding visual models at the expense of someone shying away from a release due to the example being set over at flightsimnetwork, and elsewhere. OTH, we may also miss a great set of flight dynamics if released with a less than perfect visual model. Freeware authors aren't paid to take embarrassment or to deal with the likes of people who've long since been banned from this forum..... -John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Thanks for the 260 compliment but my posting is to show why >in most cases MSFS is a visual feast rather than a complete >aircraft feast. >I totally understand. BTW----- I do believe that the spin characteristics are more believable with the SF260 than what was achieved with the Decathalon/Citabria for FLY. With this model, there is NO time too think..........gee, I'm beginning a spin, what do I do now? The "break" into a spin is fast, believable, and a rewarding sim experience! The added sound really adds to the senses too!Maybe I just never had FLYII working correctly enough to experience the spin.. L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peter I hear what you are saying about the Flight Dynamics engine that MS has provided. I guess I think it does react to the laws of nature pretty darn good. You increase the MOIs and responses slow down, increase the mass and aircraft climb slower, increase the available power and aircraft climbs faster.....Just what exactly have they not modeled correctly? Yes, increasing mass does not increase the MOI, kinda nice really. Wish the real world work that way if requested. To be able to tweak these features a good review of a technic known as "Design of Esperments" would go a long way. No, you should not expect in 15 minutes to be able to get the response you are looking for. How do you judge when you have a "good tweak"? Now many of the people saying how bad the flight model is even know how to make step changes and measure response times? Not many in this group. The flight engine MS has developed can be made to do what every you want it to do, provided you take the time and understand the physics of the systems. No need to try if you are wondering what MOI is?PETER -- The "You" is not directed specificly towards you. I know everyone will pile on me now, but if one person can made a good - "real" flight dynamic system, then shouldn't everyone be able if they worked at?Yes, it is easy to say the MS FS engine is junk, but that sounds just like the comments about gmax. You get a complicated machine/program and yes it does take work to master it. Top end software that has dozens and dozens of different features is never easy. Come learn ProE with me and you will see what I mean. ;-)Best RegardsBob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BobYou are missing my point.To make a complete aircraft is now becoming such a specialised and labour intensive occupation that I feel it is expecting too much from the Freeware author of old.Someone who is a genius creating aircraft visuals with GMAX cant be expected to be a Rob Young Steve Small or any of the top flight dynamic experts who are capable of making a top notch flight model.Neither can they be experts creating gauges or any of the multitude of specialist tasks which make up the complete aircraft.This of course doest take into account that even if they had those universal skills the time required would be horrendous.Therefore in my opinion peoples expectations are getting more demanding especially when they purchase top notch commercial packages and that is what they will compare freeware to.If freeware isnt going to slowly die there will have to be easy to use tools which the developer can use to make each of the areas of creating a superb complete aircraft much quicker. The developer will then not have to be an Einstein in each development phase.Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

O.K. Larry,Based on multitudes of previous posts, you've finally convinced me that I need to upgrade my yolk/stick/rudder hardware. The equipment I'm currently using has worked very well with FS2K2 - but it still doesn't give me the "feel" I had with FLY! (NOT talking about FLY! II). While I agree that the SF260 is the BEST flight model ever produced for Flight Simulator - I'm still not experiencing all the realism I enjoyed with Rob's FLY! models. For example, the SF260 spins nicely for me - but it usually takes 1/2 to 3/4 of a revolution before the spin really kicks in. I know you've posted it before; but I wasn't paying enough attention - exactly what flight control hardware are you using? I'm in the mood for an upgrade....Thanks,Marc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>We do have a problem and no its not directed at a specific >freeware aircraft. >And not just at freeware either...>Every area of the aircraft has to have extreme attention to >detail for the whole package to be considered complete. >yes, the expected standards have gone up so much that it is becoming impossible for any single individual to meet them (and for teams too, at least in a reasonable time).>Without all these areas being a masterpiece then you can >only consider the aircraft to be an unfinished attempt. >Or a complete attempt at a partial solution.>There are very few people who can work flight dynamics maybe >in the whole flightsim world they can be counted on one >hand. >Yes, and therefore they've all (or most of them) been taken in by commercial groups who can offer them proper compensation for their efforts.>This to me means the flight dynamics engine is to complex >and specialised an area for the ordinary enthusiast and >blame for this has to lie with Microsoft. >Or possibly with the complexity of the thing we're trying to model here.Remember that the FDE engine has grown in an evolutionary way, it's bound to be a complex piece of code.If Microsoft had decided at some point to trash it and start over, the community of addon producers would have been up in arms about Microsoft causing them to loose all their previous effort (just look at the threads about the supposed killing off of FSDS aircraft and 2D panels for FS2004 here...).>To get accurate flight dynamics requires not only >exceptional skill but hundreds if not thousands of hours of >work trying to compensate for inadequacies in the flight >engine. >No comment, quite correct.>That Skill and commitment isnt available in the flight sim >world and hence "poor flight models" >Another factor is that many people have serious preconceptions about what the flightmodel "should" be based on the shape and size of the aircraft.Without ever having been at the controls of one, they decide that a strong torque effect causing the aircraft to veer off course is wrong, or that a 747 must be a lumbering beast that doesn't respond to control input very well.They will hold it against the FDE programmer when he (or she) creates an FDE that is correct yet does not meet the preconceptions of the user (which are often wrong as I said).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"They will hold it against the FDE programmer when he (or she) creates an FDE that is correct yet does not meet the preconceptions of the user (which are often wrong as I said)."Very good point.Judging a flight model can at sometimes be even more subjective than judging the... visual model! :-)What is a good flight model for Peter may be a lousy one for me, and vice versa. A lot depends on each individuals' setup, hardware etc., as well as the accuracy or authenticity of the data at his disposal.Other than that, I agree 100% with what Peter Sidoli says.Stamatis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

StamatisHence why its important for the developer to use real world pilots on type to convey that feel.My only concern with real world pilots on type is that they dont usually make good testers of flight simulators and dont convey what is lacking well as well as realising that at the end its all a compromise dealing with an inadequate flight engine.I also take the point about different hardware and control systems a point we also noticed.All the developer can do here is to build for the most commonely used controls and hope the lesser well known controls arent too far out.This brings the subject full circle to the fact the MSFS is a creative platform which at the moment tends towards a visual feast rather than a flightsimulator.To make it more complete for the freeware developer MS have to look at easing the burdens on aspects of building by creating easy to use and quick tools which removes a large portion of the Einstein Factor.CheersPeterPeter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Peter, I probably did miss your point. I just don't know how you can blame MS for the challenges of releasing a new aircraft. If you want complex models it will take complex development. The bottom line is not for MS to make this a simpler program, but for the users to make it an open system. Take the parts you need from a library of developed features. You need gmax people and gmax seats, I need paint ...If we the users, would open up our projects, then every one could contribute. Not just the multi talented few and we would see a boom in aircraft development and features. We are doing it to ourself.An Open system for the physical model is what is needed first. Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Peter,"Hence why its important for the developer to use real world pilots on type to convey that feel.My only concern with real world pilots on type is that they dont usually make good testers of flight simulators and dont convey what is lacking well as well as realising that at the end its all a compromise dealing with an inadequate flight engine."I share your concerns. I have found very few real world pilots who have the patience/willingness to sit down for months and work in tandem with the software developer. Unfortunately, I have learnt to stay away from products advertised: "Tested by a real B7xx pilot" or similar."To make it more complete for the freeware developer MS have to look at easing the burdens on aspects of building by creating easy to use and quick tools which removes a large portion of the Einstein Factor."As I wrote above, I agree with you. For those who regard MSFS as more than a game, and I am sure all of us frequenting such Fora do, then what you say above is a necessity.Stamatis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this