Thanks Michael...

hi! It's in the dll.xml file, found in user/appdata/roaming/Microsoft/FSX. You won't regret switching to Opus cameras, they really work very well!

Michael, I'm either dim or not seeing what's in front of me.. I haven't changed an xml file before. What do I have to do for it to allow me to edit the text?

Open the file with editor, not with IE. Search for the EZdok entry and change the "false" to "true", Save the file and you're good to go.

Open the file with editor, not with IE. Search for the EZdok entry and change the "false" to "true", Save the file and you're good to go.

 

Thanks... sorted!

Slightly belated response to the topic, but how did you get on with the OpusFSX cam Rockliffe? Have you gone back to EZDok since?

Slightly belated response to the topic, but how did you get on with the OpusFSX cam Rockliffe? Have you gone back to EZDok since?

 

Hiya, I have to admit at staying with Ezdok. I haven't had time to try Opus cams out to be honest. I will investigate shortly, I'm sure...

Ok.  Well i'm relatively new to Opus and i was hestitant to check out the new camera effects since i was so comfortable with EZDOK. But i spotted some Camera Definition Files on the download section of the Opus site and gave them a whirl. Took off in a wet n' windy EGNT. The Cameras do show the turbulence in the right places but didn't quite have the fluidity of EZDOK. I'm only capable of 2.7Ghz so a faster system may be smoother, but at least i was getting a smooth shake with EZDOK. As with most things in FSX, if it works well enough, dont mess with it.  I am tempted to check out Accufeel as i have read some interesting views on that.  At least Opus is worth it alone for the WX engine anyway. By the way, i found the EZDOK disable was in exe.xml (which was in the same folder as dll.xml).

I have to admit that I have seen a few videos of Opus cams and I am not that impressed. I agree with what you say about the fludity. IMO the Opus effects come across as being a little false and not natural looking. But as I say, that's just my opinion. Maybe what I saw the cams were not set up correctly, who knows...

Obviously a video is never as smooth as the real thing since the frame rate is slower than the effect itself but the cameras are recorded in real life aboad aircraft so it is as real as it can get. They are sampled accelerometer data at 20 ms rate, all but this doesn't come across on the videos. The DHM is also intelligently tied into the weather. We have received numerous posts complementing us on how realistic the effects are from experienced pilots and we are pilots ourselves and all other products just seem simulated wobbles to us, that is what spurred us on to capture real life acceleratometer data to bring added realism to the simulator, I don't see how you can get any more realistic effect than data recorded on the actual aircraft. If your system isn't capable of displaying the DHM smoothly then you won't be getting the best out of it, but don't expect ossilating wobbles, that would be totally false, every RW pilot will attest to that. We have just spent 3 days flying across Europe to Venice in very turbulent conditions and difficult conditions without witnessing a single ossilating wobble, turbulence is not a smooth ossilation.

 

Personally I would not bother with the sim without the DHM effects, it just doesn't seem realistic enough.

 

Stephen

Obviously a video is never as smooth as the real thing since the frame rate is slower than the effect itself but the cameras are recorded in real life aboad aircraft so it is as real as it can get. They are sampled accelerometer data at 20 ms rate, all but this doesn't come across on the videos. The DHM is also intelligently tied into the weather. We have received numerous posts complementing us on how realistic the effects are from experienced pilots and we are pilots ourselves and all other products just seem simulated wobbles to us, that is what spurred us on to capture real life acceleratometer data to bring added realism to the simulator, I don't see how you can get any more realistic effect than data recorded on the actual aircraft. If your system isn't capable of displaying the DHM smoothly then you won't be getting the best out of it, but don't expect ossilating wobbles, that would be totally false, every RW pilot will attest to that. We have just spent 3 days flying across Europe to Venice in very turbulent conditions and difficult conditions without witnessing a single ossilating wobble, turbulence is not a smooth ossilation.

 

Personally I would not bother with the sim without the DHM effects, it just doesn't seem realistic enough.

 

Stephen

 

Hi Stephen, thanks for the post. As I said, the vids I have seen may not be a true representation of the Opus cam effects and so I am very happy to be persuaded otherwise. Do you have a link to a video that shows Opus cam in it's best light? Cheers...

Hi Howard

 

All videos sample the screen at a fairly low sample rate, nothing like the 20ms sampling rate of the DHM data so they will never match the experience of what you should actually see on your sim.

 

Regards

Stephen

Opus cameras too complicated?  Yes.  I've tried several times to get it to work but always go back to EZDOK.  Everytime I set up my cameras in OPUS then shut down FSX and restart with the same plane I have to start from scratch and reconfigure ALL my cameras...saving cameras with plane types is so confusing.  Is there a tutorial on youtube? 

There is a tutorial in the Live Camera manual. You have to save your cameras otherwise they are temporary. The latest beta saves them all the time now anyway to stop you making that mistake. Also you can import camera definitions from our downloads page which means you don't have to set them up yourself.

The camera definitions import is only in the beta, correct?

 

Thanks,

 

Scott

True, but apart from an 'Undo' option I don't think there is going to be any more changes. We may post the next beta, which will include the second phase of the flight plan assistant software, as the next release after it has had a little time in use. Perhaps in two or three weeks time. Our betas are really just a way of introcing new features whilst involving the users in the development cycles. That way many people get to use the new features as soon as there is something of use and are able to offer feedback and play an active role in the product development.

 

Stephen :-)