Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Guest adlion944

My opinion of the Lago F-16

Recommended Posts

Guest

I started with Falcon for the Mac and have played through Falcon 4 SP3. I love the lago Falcon. Get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adlion944

I just realized you are speaking to me after replying at flightsim.com forums.You're are off-base in this as you are in your other nasty little post.If "many" posts is TWO, then I guess I've posted many times. Flightsim.com and avsim.And I haven't posted on the Usenet.And I said Lago has very, very nice scenery.Check your facts, Jack.Ps. If your impression is that LAGO F-16 negative reviews have been posted many places, then obviously, I'm not alone in my disappointment with the product. What's the weather like up yer keister? :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Their aircraft modeling needs to take a big step up, that's all". -Adlion944How so?Their F-16 Models are excellent. How would you improve on them model wise??


Ark

--------------------------

I9 9900K @ 5ghz / 32GB G.Skill (Samsung B) / Aorus Master Mobo / EVGA GTX 2080Ti FTW 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adlion944

I was using the word "modelling" to be inclusive of everything having to do with the F-16 package or the Twotter package.This will get technical and won't make sense unless you're an aircraft painter like myself.The F-16 model is designed in such a way that it isn't textured nearly as well as the Mig-21. Much of the fault lies in the texture artists (who didn't have high quality standards like Captain Sim), but the model establishes a single 1024 x 1024 bitmap to paint the fuselage and gear and other parts. On this bitmap, the GMAX modeller gave as much prominence to the gear assembly graphics as the fuselage. If you want a fuselage to look great, it deserves a dedicated texture or two, or at least give the painter the ability to paint a very large representation of the fuselage texture. The Posky 767s and 747s are good examples. They allow a painter to get really detailed with the fuselage even though the Nose and Center bitmaps share space with other parts. The F-16 fuselage texture, is tiny. Open it in DXTBmp and you'll see what I mean. No wonder the logos are blurry. You are looking at a teeny tiny logo on a small bitmap blown up larger than it should be. In all good aircraft models, I should be able to zoom way in before pixelation becomes apparent. Lago's F-16 looks pixelated from when it loads up.The only way around this would be to double the size of the fuselage bitmap. This would give an adequately large fuselage bitmap to paint but now the texture would be 2048 x 2048. Pretty lame texture management. Plus DXTBmp won't handle larger than 1024.And why is the tail respresented in a 256 x 256 bitmap? It's such a large portion of the jet, it should be at least 512. Just low quality standards.To give the fuselage as much space on a bitmap as the gear (which shows on the aircraft a fraction as large) is bad texture management in GMAX modelling.This is just a lengthy discussion to explain why the F-16 doesn't look good. It isn't nit picking. The bottom line is...I load up the B-25 Briefing Time and it looks like a photo. I load up the Captain Sim 727 or Mig-21 and they look like photos.I load up the F-16 and it looks like a fuzzy cartoon.(Ditto, on the Twotter)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FPSFREAK

If you load up the F-16 and it looks like a fuzzy image than you really need a new video card. What I see is someone who A: Really knows what he is talking about yet instead of doing something about chooses just to nit pick or B: If BS was music you'd be a brass band and your playing your heart out. I think the point that most of us are trying to make is if you don't like it DO something about it. The one thing I find spread amongst a lot of the forums are guys like yourself who instead of doing something about a product they have a problem with, choose to just pick stuff apart. All we have heard is how great a painter you are and spouts of all your knowledge. Put the moeny where the talk is. If it's as easy as you have said to fix and as easy as you say to paint, instead of spending time trying to continually pick apart this product show us what YOU have and how much better LAGO could have made it. Like I said this thread was good because it wasn't a flame fest but as I continue to read I'm getting the impression that it's coming from someone who has buried there nose in articles on painting and texturing but hasn't contributed one repaint. I call it book smart and street stupid.(No offense) Here's a challenge as you seem quite versed in the subject. Show us all what you have. Show us how much better it could be and maybe you'll have some of us agreeing with you. You'll also have the added benefit of being able to give back to the sim community instead of ripping apart obviously well put together products. No it's not freeware and yes we should expect nothing but the best from a product we are expected to pay for. On that I agree w you. Here's your chance to do something other than whine about it. Take this for what it is. An opinion and a suggestion for improvement. Not a flame.Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adlion944

I don't interpret your message as a flame. I appreciate your feedback. Everything I said is true. It gets technical because that explains why the product is subpar. Technicalities aside, the product just doesn't measure up to the CS727 or B-25, or LOTS of other payware products. (BTW, there is lots of scenery that doesn't measure up to Lago's GeoRender and Honolulu.)As I have said on numerous posts, there are many products that I LOVE. Some developers are doing great work. This isn't me being a brat and not playing nice with everyone, it is simply me calling out a PAYWARE developer for not living up to the standards of the competition. It was particularly vexxing because this add-on wasn't cheap and it is based on one of my favorite aircraft in history.That said, your suggestion that I do something about it is much like suggesting I suit up in pads/uniform and try to outperform an NFL quarterback who I think sucks. I don't pretend to be a panel developer/gauge developer or GMAX modeller. But if I did know how, I can promise my quality standards would've been much higher.That said, you definitely didn't look up my profile under my user name. If you search under my full name here and especially on flightsim.com, you'll find a very large number of repaints, panels and sound files that I've contributed dating back to early days of FS2000. I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours repainting and uploading for nothing more than the hope that others enjoy my work. Didn't ask for a dime. And unlike payware, I dont' believe anyone has a right to pick apart freeware. But payware is fair game. And since this F-16 isn't even as good as the FREEWARE Falcon 50 that was released for FS2000, something's wrong with Lago's F-16 team.Lastly, I don't need a new video card or new drivers. I have a GeForce 4 4200 128MB AGP in my Pentium 4 2 Gig with 512 MB of RAM. I run in 1028 mode at 32 bit with most sliders pegged. It is illogical to suggest I have a video card problem when I love the looks of the B-25 and CS727 and dislike the F-16. If I truly had a video problem the B-25 wouldn't look good either. Or were you just being glib (you need glasses, etc.)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with FPSFREAK. The LAGO F-16 Models/textures are FAR from fuzzy. In fact on my system they are perfectly clear.You might need a new video card or better drivers for your existing one Adlion. Because what you are experiencing certainly isn't indigineous to the LAGO F-16, it sounds more like you have a system issue. You also stated in another thread here that the RFP model looks like it is from FS98 (or something along those lines) and that is just flat out incorrect as well.I think your system may have issues.:(


Ark

--------------------------

I9 9900K @ 5ghz / 32GB G.Skill (Samsung B) / Aorus Master Mobo / EVGA GTX 2080Ti FTW 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adlion944

Shane and Bobby:Thanks for the replies. My system is perfectly fine. I may get the blurries all the time in ground textures, but overall, I'm in extremely good shape. The slower I fly, the better off I am with blurries, but that's another matter. No matter what tweaks I use, the blurries never go away. I've tried everything from drivers to swapping out vid cards. Problem remains. But airplanes never blur, just ground textures. From the looks of your screenshot, your system displays ground textures exactly like mine.Also, I don't think the DreamFleet 737 external model is good, never did. But the panel, air file and sound set go nicely with the Ariane GMAX 737-300. Very nicely. I fly the Wilco PIC with a Posky plane. Because that aircraft model was terrible. I never said it was easy to get every component right. But the B-25 did. And the CS727 did. And the Sia Marichetti did. And the Piper Meridian did. Since the Lago F-16 came after those, it knew what it had to live up to. And it decided to undershoot other payware packages' quality.The nice looking screenshot you posted is 640 x 512 and practically anything looks good at that resolution, even default MS aircraft. Completely different story if shown in 1024 x 768. I'll just say this... zoom into any fuselage text/logos on the F-16. Just zoom in 2X. Blur city. That's because the logos are blurry on the textures. Garbage in, garbage out.Edit: I was going to add some full size screenshots, but the forums are so slooooooow today that I gave up.Hey, I didn't say the F-16 is terrible. I'm just saying it doesn't live up to most other payware packages from FSD, Flight 1, DreamFleet, PSS, Captain Sim, the Sia Marichetti, the B-25, etc. As Simon would say, it just isn't good enough. Not world class. I gave it a 6 or 7 out of 10. Let's say it's closer to a 7. That's not so bad, right?Oh... enough wasted time. I'm off to flying the CS727.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FPSFREAK

Dave, Have you ever tried to post a 1024x768 screenshot and keep it under 125K?. That shot was actually 1280x1024 and resized in photoshop7 to fit the specs of this forum. I noticed that you took some sort of a beating over at flightsim and it seems the same thing is happening here. LOL. I did notice you saying you couldn't even read the heads up display over in the other forum. Dude, you need glasses or a new videocard. I'm sorry but your issues are way off base. I can read the smallest print on my HUD in either cockpit or VC view. I see rivets on all my F-16's that are sharp and crisp.(Must be my 9700 doing its magic) and whats the matter w "This dog can hunt" You stated that you don't like anybody putting writing on your planes. Dude you really need to put your yoke and pedals away, get out into the sunshine for a while, notice that not even the world around you is perfect and consult a psychiatrist. I see some issues.. LOL. I doubt you'll ever take me up on my challenge of creating a repaint for this plane that is good enough for you or anyone else so until said time....I think your way off base. Sorry but I think most people would agree. Happy Flying!!Bobby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adlion944

I'm not coming across very well, obviously.And I didn't take a beating. Some ahole posted a smarmy little diatribe and I absolutely smoked him. No reply yet. He took the beating, not me. I shoot from the hip, but I try not to be mean unless provoked.And the screens I made were 1024 x 768 jpegs, just under 125K. I made them in Paint Shop Pro.This one way inefficient way of communicating is exhausting. I ###### the whole day away instead of doing yardwork. For that, I admit, I must seek help. My wife is annoyed I haven't left the house. I haven't even flown much. Just freakin forums. Like the weekend I wasted playing Command and Conquer. That game is like crack cocaine. I uninstalled it. Anyway...If I had you here at my computer you would see what I'm talking about. My machine is fine. My eyes are fine. I just am pickier than you. "Born to Hunt" or whatever looks really bad. The type is plastered to the fuse in the model, not via the textures and it isn't antialiased. Nevermind. I would love to show you A to B comparisions, etc. Screenshots and one way discussions are awful. These boards make chatrooms seem efficient by comparision. To sum up, the F-16 looks mediocre. Not terrible, but not great. Not worth my 30 bucks that's for sure.Hey, I'm picky about food and movies, too. I watched John Carpenter's "The Thing" last night after reading rave reviews and my wife and I turned it off after about an hour out of boredom. It's a curse - being so selective.Anyway... happy flying in your F-16. I'm taking the 727 out for a spin around Atlanta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest adlion944

Last post here, too.We watched "The Thing" because I rented it from Netflix for lack of anything better right now. It's one of those cult movies I've always heard about. Totally stupid plot. Boooring. We thought it sucked and ejected the DVD after an hour. I'm in the minority on that one. And this is from a guy who absolutely loves "Aliens". And correction - it is 20 years old. LOL.Anyway, back to flightsimming...Yeah, my HUD looks like that too. Very blurry, way too small. To say nothing of the teensy weensy HUD in the CRT. That thing is useless. I would've preferred a weather radar or stores display to play with. I find the main HUD squint city. It's better at nite, but terrible in the daytime. Shoulda been larger or more crystal clear. Pilots don't get the view we see in FS2002, the HUD is right up in their face. I'm not sure there was a solution, but it hurts my eyes as it is.As for the exterior shot, that's a nice one, compression didn't affect it at all. Now remember, I never said this was a terrible model, I just said it doesn't live up to the realism of the B-25 or 727. It is cartoonish by comparision. Look at the fuzzy panel lines on the top of the fuse. And the extremely fuzzy/blurry USA (stars) insignia. The "Dog Can Hunt" type looks bad. The blue stripe and squadron crest on the tail are very blurry. The backs of the missles aren't textured. If you look down the F-16's throat, you'll see a ridiculous looking "fan" texture. The gear bays are low, low, low rez. Just sloppy IMHO. Not up to the photorealism of Captain Sim or the B-25. I've seen worse. I've seen better. BTW, I do like the exhaust, the pilot and canopy. Those parts are great.When I look at the B-25 from any angle and zoom way in, it still looks incredibly lifelike. The F-16 only looks good from certain angles and as long as you don't zoom in at all, it is passable.Nuff said. Time for bed. If my wife lets me get in with her :-)C ya, Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FPSFREAK

Dave, Last post, this is getting old real fast. One question first....Where the hell have you been that you just watched "The thing" from J Carpenter. That movie has to be at least 15 years old..LOL These are 1024x768. For some reason PS7 will only let me save these at around 40% and still keep them under 125K. So bear with them. Even at this quality I'm still trying to find the cartoonish look you speak of or the unreadable HUD. Oh and one more thing. You paid $30 for yours?. I got mine for $24 and can count on a free version for CFS3 when it's released. To me, 2 planes of this quality and finish for $24 is a bargain in todays world. Take care...BobbyP.S. Listen to the wife. Get out more.LoL...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest FPSFREAK

I wasn't suggesting you need glasses. I'm just trying to figure out where you come up w the statement"I load up the F-16 and it looks like a fuzzy cartoon" I wear glasses but I would not consider it to be fussy and cartoonish. No I didn't check your posts or any other info about you on flightsim.com. I'm here and this discussion is here. I have made my points as you have yours. I am sticking by my statement that if you don't like something, that's fine and everyone has an opinion. It's statements like the above and the fact that you keep bringing up the DF737 which is without a doubt, graphically, a less well done model for comparison, that makes me feel your just ripping something for the sake of creating a discussion. I don't have the painting talent you state you have so I cannot sit here and say I could make it better. If you look back in the threads you will see that short of coming right out and saying it you have said that you could. All some of us are asking for is proof that it could be made better and these errors as you suggest exist. Perhaps you could spend some time working on a repaint for here. This is the place for the discussion. If not I understand. I just figured that you made it appear very easy to repaint the issues and fix the things you found wrong that we could all benefit. That's it. Made my point, spoke my piece. Anybody else care to input?.BobbyP.S. Can you point out the cartoonish look you speak of in this image?

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  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...