Flight Toolkit - 0.9.2 - Removes requirement for Alaska DLC

[stonelance 136]

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.

[OMGBBQ32 12]

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

[HiFlyer 9,337]

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.

[rtodepart 761]

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

[stonelance 136]

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.

[HiFlyer 9,337]

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.

[OMGBBQ32 12]

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.

[Air1 136]

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

 

Steve

[OMGBBQ32 12]

So true, but I don't think programming is a strength of mine.