Lago's list of objects for Service Pack 3..disappointin

[Guest Frank Betts]

I have hundreds of scenery objects I have built for different virtual flying bush companies and airlines. I use them once and then they just get sent to the Virtual warehouse just waiting for others to see and use. I have a scenery project now that involves over a hundred objects alone and it is still growing. I hate to trash them cause it took some time to make them up. Oh well.

[Guest]

Exactly the same here Frank. The same situation exists for us (well, them now that I'm retired) at Flight Ontario. The group must have created hundreds of objects over the past few years (the latest with gMax, the earlier with 3D Studio), yet they all go to waste for anyone else's scenery. We had discussed it before and would have been more than happy to give them away if they could only be used by a large enough community (not just one or two other projects). Something along the lines of an FSSE, but with an open architecture and free viewer for end users would fit just perfectly.I'm sure other long-time designers feel the same way. Wow... That would be an extremely impressive amount of new scenery in such a short time if such a thing existed. Some enterprising company (or freeware group) just needs to step up to the plate.Take care,Elrondhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/Boycott-RIAA.gif]"A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle."[/font://http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/B...cle."[/b][/font

[Sidney Schwartz 11]

Just go to www.airliners.net and do a search for aircraft type MD11 and airline UPS.Sidney Schwartz [KPDX]

[Guest]

Since we all know of the HUGE limitations of the M$ default AI crap, I do NOT wonder why people want their static's back!TM

[Guest JonP01]

In adding a slightly different flavour to the thread, I am quite happy with FSSE and the various service packs that have been subsequently released. True, most of the objects do not suit my purposes, nor do they suit my taste. And there are certainly a large number of objects that I would personally like to see - objects that I have specifically asked for have never appeared. In actual fact I think the entire product is too far biased to large airport enhancement, and GA seems to be a bit of an afterthought. Infact the first thing I do whenever I install an update is to get rid of those pre-packaged sceneries that come with the update. No use to me whatsoever.HOWEVERWhen I bought FSSE, I fully realised these limitations and in the end it was my decision to part with a very reasonable 25 euros. In the scheme of things FSSE is but one scenery tool I use to enhance my virtual FS world. I also use mainstream freeware scenery creation tools, as well as the MS effects SDK. So that makes three tools of which FSSE is only one. Depending on what scenery I am creating, I simply choose which of the three tools is the most appropriate. It is usually a fairly simple decision as to which one ends up being used on a particular project. There are some things much more easily done with FSSE and other things much more easily done with a tool such as Airport or the Effects SDK. So all in all I have a suitable set of tools for which to go about enhancing the virtual world.I agree though, if a user *only* uses FSSE, then a lot of them will be pretty disappointed. I still believe it is a great *supplementary* tool, however. I would never have bought it had I intended to rely soley upon that product to enhance scenery.

[Guest Frank Betts]

Hello Elrond, It never hit me until you mentioned others who have a huge inventory of dorment macros. Yes, what a pool that would be. Your "WOW" pretty much sums it up. Have a nice weekend Elrond.

[Guest Stamatis]

"Since we all know of the HUGE limitations of the M$ default AI crap, I do NOT wonder why people want their static's back!""We all know"? "AI Crap"?Can it be you are refering to another sim? I use FS2002 and my AI Traffic is one of the most realistic features of this sim.Btw, I am not refering to the default ATC implementation, which I agree leaves a lot to be desired, but to the AI Traffic, designed using the freeware tools available to us (Ttools, AITM, PAI, just to name a few)Stamatis

[Guest]

>Btw, I am not refering to the default ATC >implementation, which I agree leaves a lot to be desired, >but to the AI Traffic, designed using the freeware >tools available to us (Ttools, AITM, PAI, just to >name a few) Stamatis, this is a cheap shot, but as we go way back I know I can do it to you.Ive been for several reasons three times in Amsterdam Schiphol airport in the last three days. For some undefined reasons I saw an Fedex 737 and an MD11(?) UPS standing next to each other there for there days solid next to each other on a freight platform. Now let's assume we would like to get this done in FS2002, you with AI and I with FSSE. As you know perfectly well, this will take about 20 seconds with FSSE. You will need to download Gmax models of both aircraft (assuming you can find them), install them, decompile two files, edit them, compile them, check them etc....and in the end I doubt you could keep them there for three days straight. I'll be on my fifth beer before you have found, downloaded and installed the aircraft, let alone put them on Schiphol.No comment on AI traffic, using the SUPERB tools by guys like Lee Swordy (I recommend him for an award on the next AVSIM conf...) it is a great tool for the experts. The readers of this forum will known Lee and some of them will have used his great tools. But to be honest, if we would depend on them LAGO would be out of business. Your friend,Mathijs

[Guest]

>The group must have created hundreds of objects over the past >few years (the latest with gMax, the earlier with 3D >Studio), yet they all go to waste for anyone else's scenery. > We had discussed it before and would have been more than >happy to give them away if they could only be used by a >large enough community (not just one or two other projects). Mmmm.... if we would have access to hunderds of object in native fs2002 library format things would change for sure. The main problem will always be the quality. Let me give an example.... I got send a very nice object in Gmax library format that depicted a nice airport bus. Real cool, with details like rear view mirrors etc. Unfortunatly this single object caused a test scenery to drop from 30 fps to 20 fps (it is very hard to define drop in framerate so all data is relative to my experience on my machine) because in some locations there were 8 (!) textured polygons overlapping each other. Even on the Radeon chipset that is rather good at that stuff this, would get into problems with this. In a online product we would probably be able to explain this was not caused by the 'FSSE like' product. In the boxed product we would be in deep trouble because people would blame the tool.Another problem... Let's assume my friends at Dreamfleet created a great Fokker 50. Typical Dreamfleet stuff, Gmax, fully animated, textured etc. 10 Mb... Adding three of them would bring the Reno desert to it's knees in framerate terms:-) But what if the user would like to share this 'FSSE like' scenery with other people... We can't include this object as it is obviously copyrighted. Sharing between user is a basic design element of FSSE. And with success as we have more addon files for an FS addon then has ever been shown before. You can't argue with 750 files send in by users, right?When these problems are sorted out we are one step further to creating the tool you (and others and I) would like to see. Call it my (our) limitation but I simply did not see how to do it commercially. Like you indicate... this is freeware country and when we released FSSE there where some idications people were working on it. It seems to have been more complex as seen because I have yet to see any scenery design tool that works INSIDE fs2002. It's simply very difficult and in modern FS terms that is equal to expensive. Even using a $40 sales price does not even get close to making my spreadsheet show a profit. To make it simple, if it would have made money, I or somebody else would have done it long ago. And as far as I know nobody is even working on a tool like FSSE that is totally open. I know why and I hope you see will understand some of the problems regarding a product like that. People who say that we are making a mistake (and that is putting it nicely:-) most probably do not make a living on FS2002.To make it even more simple. I can not afford a FSSE like tool that is open. I can't afford the money to have it made and customers can't afford to pay for to buy it (and to pay for the support). If anybody proofs me wrong I'll be glad because that would give us a tool that I would REALLY like to have on my disk.Elrond, I simply can't get it done, sorry.Mathijs

[Guest daves0]

Mathijs,You may have seen a post I just made on the thread about you guys missing an opportunity, but in case you missed it, I will talk about it briefly here.Why can't folks that are modelers, make objects that a suitable for FSSE, obviously avoiding the large planes of 10megs, etc....send them to you, and you install them as needed into the packs and release them?Cannot these modelers release the rights to the models to you, or retain the rights and allow their use in your product????That seems simple enough and would relese you from having to make more objects and still be able to expand the FSSE pack offerings.Also, why not do theme packs?Such as...Bush Scenery Pack...many different cabins, fishing boats, northern animals, various docks...and so forth.A tree pack....various trees from different parts of the world...Airlines Packs...put 3 or 4 airlines with all the differing models of planes they use in a pack....Factory Pack....City Buildings PackSmall town PackFarm Pack....etc etc....OH...vehicle pack---those cars--red and blue--are not too good to look at :)sorry.......so a car pack would be nice....You see the possibilities here.There are many hobbyists here that are capable of making these objects and probably willing to give them to you for proper acknowledgement of their creation....I think mainly we just want to be able to have the most realistic experience with the simulator.Maybe you could even release to the modelers the portion of the developement software allowing the creation and inclusion of the objects into the format required to be used in FSSE...they could then add the objects, have it formatted correctly and uploaded to your site for inspection and final preparation.If this too costs too much money for you, a small charge for these downloads, if the quality and diversity of the models is adequate, would more than likely be bought by us....no problem..I, for one, would pay for addon packs if they had a reasonable amount of objects and enhanced my flying experience...

[Guest]

Hi Mathijs,I understand where you are coming from.It was I who was contemplating and trying to organize a group to do an interactive (ie: within FS) tool on a freeware basis before FSSE hit the scene - our idea and intention to do so was based on the Fly! II model. Then FSSE came out and it was so similar to that model, but for FS. Unfortunately at the same time, I was having some serious health issues among others which ended up with my retirement from developing in the sim scene. Because of those two factors, the organization of such a group went along with it.I am sure you are right, that for an organization setup and with the size of Lago, opening up data files like most companies can do and releasing a free viewer while charging for an Enhancer's version must not make financial sense. I of course defer to your own expertise on your own company.Hence the suggestion for some other company or freeware group to do a similar subset designing tool but with ease of use as the foundation, because it *could* be feasible for another group that is setup different than Lago (including commercial interests). As a lifelong programmer, I have the utmost respect for FSSE and the other tools your company has made over the years - it is absolutely clear that you all are a great talent in this field. There are a lot of other extremely talented commercial and freeware developers in our community as well though, some that I've had the immense pleasure of working with. It must be because of the maturity of the siming market, or maybe its the demographics that make up its fan base - or the openness of its community (not necessarily products, but community). Regardless of the reasons, the siming field overflows with talent, great and small.It is unfortunate that a tool like Fly! II's designer or FSSE hasn't been made yet that has been designed from the start using the ease of use methodology, but open architecture. While Fly! II's designer is completely open, it is of course for a much smaller market sim (and one that is unfortunately dying) - hence its lack of widespread use even within the Fly! II community. As you say however, that wasn't the focus of Lago when they made FSSE, and I understand why you all made those decisions even if I personally don't agree with them - and how hard it *can* be to retrofit a different model to an existing tool even if desired.Developing a tool that works within FS as you all have done would indeed be a good challenge... But thats also what makes it so much fun as a programmer, as I'm sure you well know. Working within the confines of FS as a platform can be interesting to say the least at times, but again, thats what *can* make it so much fun.I hope in the near future Lago can somehow see its way to building a profitable model around an opened FSSE. Or if not, another commercial or freeware group takes the challenge and does so in Lago's stead, as you say. I think the past few days have proven the desires of many in the community for just such a tool and the possibility of a business model upon which such a tool might be based. I might still be interested in participating in any such project myself (if it was freeware since that suites me best), as long as I wasn't tasked to organize it - my life has gotten in the way of doing such a thing again.In any event, I personally appreciate your participation in the past few days of discussion - even in the face of a bit of hostility. I respect you for that. Hopefully it may have been fruitful for either Lago or another group.Take care,Elrondedit: I apologize for the length of this post :-eek! It sure didn't feel this long while writting it! :-)http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/Boycott-RIAA.gif]"A musician without the RIAA, is like a fish without a bicycle."[/font://http://members.rogers.com/eelvish/B...cle."[/b][/font

[Guest]

Well hello Elrond can you say gmax? one can make any object ones little hart disires. Anyway it's nice to see you around my friend. Dan

[nudata 10]

Elrond be careful Tom may be further offended with suggestions that FSSE be made open.I went so far as to say that it was a bad decision and was called to task by the owner. I continue to stand by that = closed systems such as FSSE are always going to result in angst. They also raise costs fro adding new items. Costs that CANNOT be directly related to new sales.Dick

[Guest]

>All I know is FedEx doesn't own any Shorts... Yes they do! We get one every morning at EGCC (Manchester UK which eminates from Paris and goes onwards to Glasgow as 'Express Farnair 8003'!! Peter Leadbeater,Air Pierre, Warrington, UK.

[Guest]

>Meantime, the major GLARING missing object I can see is a >lack of a container ship.... and I suppose that would go near the Control Tower in Mike T's airport then !?Peter Leadbeater,Air Pierre, Warrington, UK.