The ReaAir Spitfire achieved something new for MSFS and that is smooth guages and smooth frames in demanding scenery.Little seems to be made of this fact which "could" have far reaching implications for more complex and demanding aircraft? or maybe not?The RealAir Spitfire has achieved IL2 in MSFS and it would be fantastic if equally smooth VC operation could be carried through into complex glass cockpit aircraft with not only the frames but clarity of the RealAir offering.Does anyone know how this has been achieved and whether the same effect would work on multiple guages and more important on glass cockpit displays?Peterhttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/101140.jpg

Hi,If I have understood correctly, the RA Spit uses a gauge technology based on a structure where the gauge needles are built into the 3d model itself. Therefore it would only be feasible for simple "steam gauges" such as the ones in a Spitfire. Complex CRT/LCD screens like in modern jets would be, if not nearly impossible but at least horribly troublesome to create as they contain so many elements that would need to be modelled.Sad if it is that way, as getting VC gauge performance like the Spit has would be one of the major breakthroughs to increase enjoyability of this simulator.

saddly it is only for needles, which are in fact 3D polygons, and not gauges bitmaps like gauges are for FS.This 3d-needle feature is new to FS2004 and has been already lenghtly discussed in the panel and aircraft design foum long ago! the effect is indeed very good, at the cost of loosing the 2D panel, and it is limited to rotatinf needles mostly (well it can be more complex than that, but it would require even more coding...)Hope this helps!

Would it not be possible to combine RXP glass gauges with a 3d cockpit that contains all the "non-glass" gauges?I notice that the Spitfire still has a few gauges that are not part of the model, but rather conventional gauges, defined in the panel.cfg file.Best of both worlds?

Hi, Peter.About two years ago I posted here some information regarding the panel efficiency and how this can be improved. At that time I built a quasi 182 RGT, for 2k2, that I eventually ported to FS9, not with very good results, because of the changes in the Flight dynamic and see through texture, or lack there of, they introduced.My findings were that smooth updates are achievable with just about any type of efficient, C works best, gauges, as long as the number of textures / VCs are kept low.A 1024x1024 can be used to cover the primary / captain side of the cockpit and 500 or less can be used for the rest. If the number of VCs are kept at 3, or thereabouts you can get very good updates. Games can be played with the 3D needles, assembly code etc., to improve code efficiency, but basically what it boils down to is the amount of visible pixels that need to updated in the amount of time you have, this includes the outside scenery, background tasks etc. I created a no scenery test panel and found the max. updates of a simple gauge was about 20 per second, which is sufficient for a smooth perception.Bottom line is that anyone that keeps things simple can achieve good results, the problem is that it

Not to take anything away from what RealAir has accomplished with the Spitfire, but there aren't that many gauges to refresh in the VC. The fewer the gauges, the better the refresh rate and FPS. But the more complex the instrument panel, the worse the refresh and fps. When the refresh rates get as good as they are in the Spitfire for the PMDG 737( or other complex vc), then you're really making a breakthrough.

>Hi,>>If I have understood correctly, the RA Spit uses a gauge>technology based on a structure where the gauge needles are>built into the 3d model itself. Therefore it would only be>feasible for simple "steam gauges" such as the ones in a>Spitfire. Complex CRT/LCD screens like in modern jets would>be, if not nearly impossible but at least horribly troublesome>to create as they contain so many elements that would need to>be modelled.The RealAir Spit's gauges are simply XML code that has been embedded in the .mdl file itself via MakeMDL and the ubiquitous MakeMDL.parts.xml file. Since XML is fully capable of "vector drawing," using this technique to produce hi-resolution glass gauges is certainly possible!However, the gauge creation & debugging process would be horribly time consuming! :(As with the Spit, any "relatively simple" panel should be doable, but complex glass would be a nightmare.

>saddly it is only for needles, which are in fact 3D polygons,>and not gauges bitmaps like gauges are for FS.Ummm... notice that the ADI is fully functional? I suppose one could argue that the artificial horizon is just a complex "needle," but I see no reason why the vector driven code in XML should not work just as well...

Sure! I'd be glad to see an example of such coding! maybe could you provide us a preview screenshot or functional model?

Since you said that it is simple xml code, couldn't be possible to develop all the logic outside of the mdl and then put it inside. If this is possible, then there is no problem. I'm sure I miss something.Jos

It

>Sure! I'd be glad to see an example of such coding! maybe>could you provide us a preview screenshot or functional>model?Jean-Luc, I don't do XML, but I have seen numerous examples of vector drawn XML gauges in the Aircraft & Panel Design Forum. Perhaps Jan or one of the others there would try porting their code via makemdl.parts.xml to see how or if it will work... ;)