Lol, I'm not expecting PMDG quality in my AI but I do want it to look good. There are trade offs for sure, but the difference in quality over performance doesn't add up between MTX or T360 and whats available from the freeware developers.

Yes - there's no question that FAIB have pushed the boundaries with their native FSX B737 and Airbus range. I've said this before - it would also be great if TFS would convert their excellent FS9 A380-800. As we know, there are some fantastic FS9 models around - we just need them to go native!!!

Cheers

Jont

Guys, what is the hit on performance using .dds vs .bmp textures with AI? Especially on faib models! Thanks

 

 

 

Sent from my Lumia 900 using Tapatalk

 

 

the hit on performance using .dds vs .bmp textures with AI?

 

 From what I've seen the DDS textures run flawlessly. This is the format intended by MS when FSX was made and is what is suggested in the SDK. The new FAIB models look incredible as most repaints have been painted from a 2048x2048 paintkit.

By the way - in Traffic X - does anyone know the original authors of the good looking:

 

F-16

Hawk

Mirage 2000

SU27

Tornado

 

Cheers

 

Jont

Also - just giving the heads-up on this - checkout FlightSim.com - in the file library - search John Young - some really stunning native FSX military ai aircraft................many thanks for these John - I've not come across them before.

Cheers

Jont

I have an obsession with AI, and when I'm not flying I love tweaking my collection to keep it up to date with current schedules.   I have been following the FSX native AI development with great interest, as I've learned that there are great performance benefits to be had from using true FSX models.  I believe we are in the early innings of a mass introduction of new FSX native AI, as evidenced with the releases of the FAIB narrow bodies (737 and A318/318/320/321) and UTT 747-8,MD-11,787.  I am most excited about FSX natives of the most popular types, like the 737 and Airbus narrowbodies, because they take up the most resources in our virtual world and the performance benefits of the FSX optimized models for these abundant types are most apparent. 

 

We really need the developers, either new blood like FAIB or UTT, or the legacy artists like TFS, to step up to the plate and create true FSX models of the next most popular tubeliners like the 777 and A330.   Aardvark has FSX models for most of their releases, but unfortunately, they are just port overs, and only selected models have been updated.  I.E., I'd love to have an FSX ported Aardvark 747-400RR to help performance at British Airway's hub at Heathrow, but they only updated the GE model.   My dream of running 100% AI, even at busy hubs like Heathrow, with all my complex addons and the PMDG 777 is becoming more and more possible thanks to the fine folks at FAIB, UTT, and Aardvark.   And even though the AI fanatics tend to be more pro-FS2004, I am finally seeing more of them finally joining us on the "dark side."  This can only help FSX AI connoisseurs, as it appeared to me the most prolific AI modelers and painters were resistant to change, and I don't blame them, because it's a lot of work to create new paints and models for a new platform.   But you cannot stop progress, and every day more and more folks are switching to FSX, that's my take based on anecdotal research on the subject matter.

 

What really bugs me is the silly changes Aces made to some of the AI properties in FSX.   There are some animations that no longer work, like spinning fan blades, and landing light/wing light splashes cannot be independently controlled apart from the logo lights.  No biggies really to me, the increase in frames more than offsets these minor visual details for me.   Also, I think in FS2004 upon arrival or before engine startup AI parked at the gate would turn off their logo lights, but leave on the wingtip nav lights and cabin lights.   Kinda neat, and another point for FS9 vs FSX.   But what really irks me is the lightmap issue.   This makes an otherwise simple upgrade process for the Aardvark models, rather torturous.  I haven't tried it, but I have heard that I can paste the paints from an Aardvark 737-800W to the FAIB 737-800W, even though the FAIB is an entirely different model, because the FAIB author wanted to make it easy for folks to transition between the two.  But the lightmap issue presents a roadblock.  I'm not going to create a new FSX compliant lightmap for every paint, and I'm sure the repainters have the same thought on paints they already released.  I can only justify updating a few of my Aardvark models, like the ones I see the most at my busy hubs.

 

Sometimes I look at some of the steps backward Aces took when FSX was developed and I just want to scream.  But all in all, I love FSX and I'm thankful for all the freeware and payware developers who are keeping this dead platform alive! 

Guys, what is the hit on performance using .dds vs .bmp textures with AI? Especially on faib models! Thanks

 

There's no difference in performance. If you did thru your FSX textures folder and some of the other root texture folders in FSX you will see a lot of .bmps being used by default.

 

Performance is equal enough to the thousandth of a second you wont notice a difference between the two. Consider GEX and FTXG use .bmp for ground textures, you sky and cloud textures are .bmp. If .dds was faster ACES would have used them exclusively as would have GEX and FTXG, REX for sky and clouds.

 

Also, all the payware AI textures from MTX, UT2, etc would have shipped with .dds if it made a difference in performance.

 

The main reason you'll see them used from time to time is that the .dds format is required if a specular texture is used for an aircraft or scenery item.

 

So to recap, spending hours to convert .bmp to .dds wont net you any gain in performance. Any gain you think you see is purely a placebo effect.

 

If you dont believe me just ask NickN on his forum and he can give a technical explanation of why there's no difference.

 

 

So to recap, spending hours to convert .bmp to .dds wont net you any gain in performance. Any gain you think you see is purely a placebo effect.

I wasn't talking about converting any textures, and I am certanly not planning to. Thanks anyway for the explanation.  My concern is that bigger texture files with greater resolution will probably cause drop in performace in places abundant with AI traffic. Thats all.
 

How can you tell if the AI Aardvark aircraft are optimized for FSX?  It seems most are just FS9 ports.

 

I just picked up UT2 but, due to performance hits, I only want to stick to FSX native.  I've been browsing around FAIB and UTT but I can't find any models for aircraft such as the B757, 767, 777, etc.  Are the models available on TFS site FSX native?  It dosnt say.

Hey Greg, the only way I know of to easily tell which AI models in your collection are FSX native is through an application called AI Aircraft Editor.  You can obtain this from http://www.interkultur.de/gossmann/fsx/phpatm/index.php?PHPSESSID=5881a9ba51931e506a7d11fadcbfed7c&direction=0&order=nom&directory=Tools

Once installed, you can inspect any of your AI models/paints, even see a preview of the model including animations in a small 3d window!

 

See this screenshot, I highlighted in the red box where you look for model format, it will be FS9 or FSX.

 

 

 

As far as other models such as the 757 or 777 are concerned, those two are not available in FSX format, at least not yet.  Aardvark, which makes the popular FS9 models for most narrowbodies, including the 757, had released a FSX ported package of their FS9 models (aiafsx01.zip at the AVSIM library) but be aware that you need to be comfortable with manually updating the model files. 

 

But here is the most important point I need to make: Since you already have UT2, you really don't need FSX natives of the aardvark, TFS, or DJC models anyway since UT2 packages FSX native models of the popular AI from those three major AI developers.  That is one of UT2's selling points, the inclusion of FSX native models of the popular freeware models!  I would say unless you like to fiddle with AI paints because you find the user contributed paints more current, like myself, forget about upgrading to FSX AI because all your UT2 models already are FSX native.

 

 

But here is the most important point I need to make: Since you already have UT2, you really don't need FSX natives of the aardvark, TFS, or DJC models anyway since UT2 packages FSX native models of the popular AI from those three major AI developers. That is one of UT2's selling points, the inclusion of FSX native models of the popular freeware models! I would say unless you like to fiddle with AI paints because you find the user contributed paints more current, like myself, forget about upgrading to FSX AI because all your UT2 models already are FSX native.

 

Well that is what I thought as well!  However, it appears that most people, even the mods over at the UT2 forum, say it is easiest to just add an aircraft model when adding a livery that isn't included in UT2 (because I was thinking the exact same thing - if the FSX native models are already there than why can't we just find the paints that are missing for the already existing models?).  Frankly, I don't know the answer.  I'm recently brand new into AI and trying to learn what I can. 

 

So, the next question begs: will this work?  is this what you have been doing?  If I'm going to find paints for already existing models, what is the best way and where can I look for repaints for the UT2 models?  Do I need AI Aircraft Editor to find the original manufacturer of the AI model, in order to find paints for the specific model (realizing that every modeller could even make the exact same aircraft have different dimensions).

 

Thanks for your help - trying to learn all that is AI!

Well that is what I thought as well!  However, it appears that most people, even the mods over at the UT2 forum, say it is easiest to just add an aircraft model when adding a livery that isn't included in UT2 (because I was thinking the exact same thing - if the FSX native models are already there than why can't we just find the paints that are missing for the already existing models?).

You pretty much hit the nail on the head, there are basically zero repaints for UT2 models, even though they are simply FSX compliant mods of the freeware FS9 models everyone else is using and making paints for.   So, as the mods say, you need to download and install the FS9 models/paints and assign as required in UT2.   But you know what, and I can't believe I haven't thought of this in all the years I've been messing around with AI and replacing paints in UT2, why can't I take a FS9 paint for the Aardvark 737-800 and drape it over the UT2 FSX 737-800, which for all intents and purposes is also an Aardvark 737-800?   Theoretically this should work, and will save the user from having to install the Aardvark model if they don't already have it.  All one would have to do is paste the texture folder into the UT2 737 folder, and add the paint info text entries in the 737's aircraft.cfg file.   However, there are two reasons that this is not a good idea:

 

First, until I find out for myself when I test it out, the paint may not display correctly because the paintkit used to make the daytime bitmap paint is for the FS9 model not the FSX model.  Second, the nighttime bitmap file, or lightmap, is structured differently in FSX vs FS9.   In FSX, the tail logo has to be embedded in each individual lightmap for every airline, as opposed to FS9 models where they all use the same "blank" tail lightmap file.  Open up one of the aircraft paints of a UT2 paint and you will see what I'm referring to.   You are not going to find these FSX formatted lightmaps for most of the repaints out there, although, authors are starting to offer them now since there are a few FSX native Aardvarks out there, and of course, because of the FSX native FAIB and UTT models.

 

Anyhow, the process of searching for replacement paints/models and installing them into your sim via UT2's GUI interface is a little subhobby in itself.  If you have the time and inclination, in can be quite addictive, and it is worth it for two reasons.  UT2 never updates the liveries, except for last year with the release of a new schedule that accounted for the new Delta livery to replace the old Northwest liveries that users were complaining about.   Also, UT2 will only offer one engine variant for each model, so if you fancy having a RR engined British Airways 747 using UT2, you are out of luck.  Therefore, you go get the FS9 Aardvark 747-400 RR model with the corresponding BA paint, and viola, you have a more realistic presentation of the BA fleet at Heathrow!

 

Regarding the question about AI Aircraft Editor, and finding the original AI Model author, that may not be necessary.   This application is really just a utility to help manage your repaints, or adjust some parameters like touchdown effects or wingspan dimensions.   With time, you will become familiar with the authors and the models they release, but here is my quick skinny on the AI landscape for the freeware modelers, at least for the most prominent AI traffic:

 

The original "big three" modelers:

Aardvark - narrowbody Boeings, widebody Boeings 747 767, Embraer 170-190 series, Mcdonnell Douglas DC9-MD80 series

TFS - widebody Airbus, widebody Boeing 777

DJC - narrowbody Airbus

Here is the complete list of UT2 models and the freeware models they are based on. Note, the one engine variant used per model is listed so you will know which ones you have to obtain on the "secondary" market:

 

AIA

73G  -  737-700  -  non-winglet version

73H  -  737-800  -  winglet version

73J  -  737-900  -  winglet version

73K  -  737-500v2  -  winglet version

73L  -  737-300v2  -  winglet version

73S  -  737-200

73W  -  737-700  -  winglet version

74D  -  747-300  -  PW

74E  -  747-400  -  GE

74X  -  747-200  -  PW

74Y  -  747-400f  -  GE

75W  -  757-200  -  RR  -  winglet version

100  -  Fokker 100

717

721

722

733  -  737-300v2  -  non-winglet version

734  -  737-400v2  -  non-winglet version

735  -  737-500v2  -  non-winglet version

736

738  -  non-winglet version

739  -  non-winglet version

741  -  747-200  -  PW

742  -  PW

743  -  PW

744  -  GE

752  -  RR  -  non-winglet version

753  -  RR

762  -  GE

763  -  GE

764

D8F  -  DC-8 all Freighters

D93  -  DC-9-30

D95  -  DC-9-50

E70  -  Embraer 170

E75  -  Embraer 175

E90  -  Embraer 190

E95  -  Embraer 195

EM2  -  Embraer 120

F70  -  Fokker 70

M80

M87

M90

T20  -  Tupolev Tu-204 / Tu-214  -  PS90

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

TFS  -  The Fruit Stand

310  -  GE

332  -  RR

333  -  RR

342

343

345

346

AB6  -  300-600  -  GE

DH1  -  DHC-8-100**

DH2  -  DHC-8-200**

DH3  -  DHC-8-300

DH4  -  DHC-8-400

S20  -  Saab 2000

SF3  -  Saab SF340A/B

772  -  RR

773  -  RR

**uses the same paints

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

DJC

318  -  CFM

319  -  CFM

320  -  CFM

321  -  CFM

J31  -  Jetstream 31

J41  -  Jetstream 41

SWM  -  Fairchild Metroliner

 

The newer developers following UT2's release, and often used to replace UT2 models because they have better detail:

Alpha India Group - 757, CRJ 700-900

AI Malcontent - CRJ 200, DC-10 series

 

The "young guns", new entrants who have surfaced in the last 2 or so years with many FSX native models.  These models are so realistic, they look like user flown aircraft!

UTT - 787, MD-11

FAIB - Airbus narrowbody series, Boeing 737 series (both NG and classics)

 

So, in summary, UT2 has FSX native models and paints for the most popular commercial jets.  But the paints can be limited and dated, since UT2  does not update the liveries when they release new schedules.  You may also want to see special paints or engine models not included in UT2, and for that you have to install the FS9 model and paint by scouring the net.   But for the majority of users who don't have time to fuss around with AI, and just want to see plausible fleet representations with super accurate flight schedules, that is all one may need and UT2 serves that purpose perfectly.

 

For the DIY hobbyist obsessed with detail and seeing accurate liveries that reflect the continuous updates in the real world, UT2 makes it super easy for you to add the replacement paint and model, you just need to get your hands dirty and find the paints and install them manually into your simobjects folder.   These replacement paints are easy to find here in the AVSIM libary, and from external sources like Alpha India, United Traffic Team, and other websites maintained by the paint authors themselves.   I have noticed quite an uptick in these AI paint websites, as AI repaints are considered an artform, so you have plenty of choices when it comes to adding more color to your AI skies. 

 

I'm going to investigate adding FS9 paints to the UT2 models, but remember, it will result in liveries with poor tail logo appearances at night since there are very few FSX compliant lightmaps for the big three models.  But I will leave you with this tip:  you can save yourself a lot of work manually downloading all the FS9 models/paints from scratch if you install ALL World of AI packages ever released.   That way, you just click a few buttons, and viola!  you have all the major AI models/paints installed which you can then import into UT2 if you see fit!   Just be sure to delete the .bgl flightplans added to FSX by WOAI, you don't want to see duplicate airlines in the sim.

 

Sorry for the wall of text, but I'm passionate about AI and UT2.  Let me know if you have any questions.

Thanks for the explanation, AJ. 

 

I had been thinking the same thing but was told it would be best to find more models to go along with the textures.  I do realize that if there is no FSX repaint for one of the AIA, DJC or TFS models than an FS9 repaint will have to do, and also deal with the subsequent tail lightmap issue at night.  For the sake of keeping only FSX native models in flight sim I think it is just an issue we'll have to put up with.  It also seems much more difficult to find widebody models and repaints.  With the abundance of FSX models and paints created by FAIB, I do think I'm just going to install their 737 and A3XX series models and paints rather than scrounge the internet to find paints for the UT2 AIA model (and even then most likely have to put up with an FS9 paint).  It seems like that may be the easiest solution for the 737 and A3XX series, as their website is so nicely laid out and everything is extremely easy to find (and they have a ton of paints for their models).

 

The list you provided is extremely helpful.  However, I noticed the 777F (77X) and 777-300ER (77W) are missing from your list.  Any idea who made those models?

 

It also seems rather strange that, with all the FSX native models created by these 3 developers, it is so difficult to find FSX native paints for their models; or am I looking in the wrong places?  Where do you go to find FSX native paints for your widebodies, or did you install other FS9 aircraft models and paints for those more difficult to find paints (since the paints could be created for any of the developers models)?  It certainly seems like it's going to be a mix and match of developer models for the same aircraft type just to get liveries!

Hope you had a few cups of coffee before you read my reply.  I'm dizzy just looking at it :wacko2:   There is no easy way to explain my approach to AI, it's a rather confusing hodge podge of UT2 and old school WOAI "bgl style" flightplans, all accumulated over the past 4 years.   UT2 suppling the major carriers, and traditional bgl traffic for GA/Bizjets/Military and Cargo operators not covered by UT2.  And just about ALL of my UT2 major airlines are not even using UT2 supplied flightplans.   You may have read about a companion module for UT2, called the Powerpack.   What this program does is it allows you to replace the entire flightplan in UT2 for an airline with a user submitted flightplan.   Basically, these community flightplans consist of 3 text files, and I use PP to import those flightplans into the UT2 database, which then allows these "bgl style" fps to take advantage of all that UT2 offers: FPS saving features like hiding ground traffic when you climb above a certain altitude, planes that fly real world routes, and those nifty printed timetables. 

 

As long as you are prepared for the legwork involved with going onto the intrawebs and foraging around looking for the necessary base models and paints, it is a very enjoyable hobby and with time you will figure out the "system", as to where to look for paints.  My first go to site is the avsim library of course, but here is the process I use when hunting down needed paints:  Since I use UT2 Powerpack to install TTools formatted flightplans from sources like Alpha India, those flightplans often include a text file that has direct links to the repaints the fleets require, so you don't even have to search manually on the web for the paints!

 

Getting back to your reply, yes, you will not find any UT2 specific repaints for their FSX native models.  No one really took on that project since UT2 was released, perhaps because AI is seen as a freeware community and since UT2 is payware it kind of goes against their philosophy.   But the FAIB airbus and 737 are fantastic, and well worth the effort.  I don't know if they really offer much improvement over the UT2 FSX models, but they sure look a little nicer.  I think most of the folks who are in love with the FSX FAIB models never owned UT2 to begin with.  I can justify the work involved installing the new FAIB models because UT2 models only comprise maybe 15% of my AI traffic worldwide.  Hard to believe, but that's how much work I have spend over the years replacing the UT2 models.  Why?   I was annoyed seeing my local U.S. Airways airbuses with CFM only engines, so I replaced them with a mix of CFM/IAE DJC FS9 models.   So even though I own UT2, I am basically in the same camp as non UT2 owners in that the majority of my AI models for the biggest airlines in places where I frequent are FS9 native models, so it was exciting for me to grab and install the FAIB airbus and 737 models/paints.   Hope this makes sense.   

 

Regarding the 777F and 777-300ER, that is a prime example of a subset of an aircraft type that is omitted by UT2, only to be covered by a single variant.   No 777F, as there are very few cargo carriers in the UT2 schedule anyways, and the 300ER (and it's shorter sister the 200LR) is a very noticeable omission for the OCD crowd, myself included.

So, you will need to find the TFS base models for those two 777s (err, three if you include the 200LR).   A few more noticeable models that UT2 doesn't include: MD-11, 767 Winglet.   And don't get me started on the CRJ/ERJ-145/ATR.  Those are some, homely, models that were made by a competing traffic program developer.  

 

Bottom line, depending on the level of obsession, you are going to end up with a whole mess of new models and paints in your simobjects folder.   To help keep your sanity, keep all the UT2 models in their own default folder, and create a separate folder to house all the freeware FS9 or FSX models you acquire from external sources, and don't forget to tell FSX where that new folder is in your FSX.CFG file.  If you decide to use Powerpack to replace entire UT2 airline schedules because they are updated in a more timely manner, and have a more accurate fleet representation, be sure to go into UT2 and toggle off said airline to avoid duplicate traffic.   All I can say is play around, get comfortable, and it all becomes second nature.  Another topic that you may want to investigate:  Mip mapping.  With mipping, you get nicer looking AI liveries in the sim by eliminating shimmering.  Also, you may opt to change the bmp file format from the standard DXT3/5 to DXT1.   This will cut file sizes significantly, with little image quality loss.  But you can only change the bitmap format for daytime textures since it strips the alpha channel in nighttime bitmaps, ruining those light maps. 

 

My advice, sign up for registered owner access at the UT2 forums, there is plenty of instruction and tips that go into further detail on all the points I make here.  

 

Best of luck!

 

I hope I answered your question, phew!