Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

stonelance

Flight Toolkit - 0.9.2 - Removes requirement for Alaska DLC

Recommended Posts

I just uploaded a new version: http://flighttoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/FlightToolkit_0_9_2.zip

 

If you have problems with AddonBuilder crashing on launch, please try installing this as well: http://flighttoolkit.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/vcredist_x86.zip

 

 

Changes:

- Removed the dependency on the Alaska DLC being installed in order to use the tools.

- Improved FSX conversion of FlightInstrument settings (should fix the 0 speed and alt in the HUD)

- Fixed conversion of models with scaling in the bones.

- Fixed error during conversion of turboprop aircraft.  They should now be converted successfully, although most likely they will still not be flyable.

- Vastly improved the optimizations within the model during conversion.  There are still some issues with more complex aircraft such as the 737 and 747.

 

Let me know if you run into new issues!

 

- Stone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I get this message from Flight when flying the Piper Cub: "Landing gear down while travelling at high speed. Raise the landing gear by pressing 'g' or button 08."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Piper Cub: "Landing gear down while travelling at high speed.

 

 


Hmm, and the piper cub has fixed landing gear?

 

I'd be a lot more concerned that Flight thought the Piper Cub was traveling at high speed.  :D

 

Hook

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I found the problem and it should be fixed in the next version of the tools.  Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cessna 172: Left flaps only work. I believe the weight is tail heavy because the nose rises at 38 knots or so.

Airbus A321 (Just for fun): Nose wheel dug into surface of runway, Another nose wheel is an A321's length away from the A321. The aircraft drifts right on takeoff, must put left rudder. Flaps are invisible.

All Aircraft, including the Piper Cub: Aircraft registration blacked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I noticed on all multi engine aircraft that it appear as though only the first engine is working.  I'm not sure why this is and have tried to spend some time debugging.  I am worried it may be a bug in the Flight sim code since the multi-engine was never tested in the released updates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  I noticed on all multi engine aircraft that it appear as though only the first engine is working.  I'm not sure why this is and have tried to spend some time debugging.  I am worried it may be a bug in the Flight sim code since the multi-engine was never tested in the released updates.

But we know that the "whale" works, or is that different?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, good point.  Maybe I need to look into what is different between the conversion aircraft, and that one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stone if i was going to start working on plane just for flight what would it be diferent from working on a plane for fsx ??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

stone if i was going to start working on plane just for flight what would it be diferent from working on a plane for fsx ??? 

What plane? I'd be interested by anything! I wonder if a glider would work in Flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any plane i was just wondering if there was any diference from what it takes to create a fsx aircraft but FLIGHT NATIVE instead .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now the only way would be to create it for FSX and then use the tools to convert it. However, I have been working on some code that will allow people to convert FBX models to Flights model format. Other than that there are some significant differences from FSX. The materials are all in separate simprop files (can be converted to XML), the animation scripts are all lua now. Th collision geometry is from Havok and the sounds are fmod. The sim data is also stored in XML files in Flight instead of the cfg and air files.

 

From purely the modeling perspective, there isn't really a difference though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess we'll have to wait. I can't convert 3rd Party FSX aircraft to Flight anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right now the only way would be to create it for FSX and then use the tools to convert it. However, I have been working on some code that will allow people to convert FBX models to Flights model format. Other than that there are some significant differences from FSX. The materials are all in separate simprop files (can be converted to XML), the animation scripts are all lua now. Th collision geometry is from Havok and the sounds are fmod. The sim data is also stored in XML files in Flight instead of the cfg and air files.

 

From purely the modeling perspective, there isn't really a difference though.

 

Finally!!! A sim decided to use Havok. I have asked again and again why sims don't take advantage of Havok and PhysX etc. Even things like speed-tree, but the best answer I can gather is everyone wants to re-invent their own proprietary wheels.

 

That explains those super accurate collision physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply stone . I sure would love to have a fully converted piper meridian in FLIGHT ;-) .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiFlyer:

Flight only uses Havok for collision detection and forces with non-terrain geometry.  Flight still uses it's own sim engine and collision for the rest of the physics and the terrain interaction.  The main reason I know of that a flight simulator wouldn't use Havok or PhysX is that they don't support double precision, which is needed when you want to simulate at the scale of the entire Earth.  There is also often way too many objects in the scene to use the 3rd party physics efficiently.   In Flight we had to do a lot of hacky stuff to only provide a small number of nearby objects to the Havok engine, and as you fly around we have to keep shifting stuff so that the origin in Havok is always near the player for improved precision.

 

I wish we had spent more time to integrate Havok into the sim more fully as I think the collisions could have been even better (none of the airplane sticking through the ground ever).  Unfortunately we started on it late and I think the main sim dev would have rather used his own stuff since we had been using it for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiFlyer:

Flight only uses Havok for collision detection and forces with non-terrain geometry.  Flight still uses it's own sim engine and collision for the rest of the physics and the terrain interaction.  The main reason I know of that a flight simulator wouldn't use Havok or PhysX is that they don't support double precision, which is needed when you want to simulate at the scale of the entire Earth.  There is also often way too many objects in the scene to use the 3rd party physics efficiently.   In Flight we had to do a lot of hacky stuff to only provide a small number of nearby objects to the Havok engine, and as you fly around we have to keep shifting stuff so that the origin in Havok is always near the player for improved precision.

 

I wish we had spent more time to integrate Havok into the sim more fully as I think the collisions could have been even better (none of the airplane sticking through the ground ever).  Unfortunately we started on it late and I think the main sim dev would have rather used his own stuff since we had been using it for a long time.

 

Thanks Stonelance. Wasn't aware of the Precision issue, but I was always thinking of local effects anyway: particles for wing vortice's, fog and smoke effects (imagine a plane actually pushing the fog, causing swirls as it lands.) rain and wind and water effects as well as local collisions.......

 

Snow or dust or sand blowing across the runway (particles again) contrails that respond to wind, engine exhaust. All those little extra touches that make users smile and up the immersion.

 

Maybe even some of the pathfinding tools for AI planes and things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would've been nice. If simming ever gets close to reality, I'm guessing it's the next generation who's going to be doing that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alex, from my perspective, you ARE the next generation.

 

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites