I would love to see this on A2A aircraft, as I am a dedicated customer. This topic sent me searching their forum for more info...

 

Lewis from A2A says, "its not so much the fps impact as it is the quantitative impact on a finite number [of effects] imposed by the host simulator."

 

and,

 

"This wouldn't be appropriate for the Accu-feel product as its a general add-on that is designed to be transparent, so you don't need to edit any files etc for aircraft. Raindrops is possible in FSX but that would be for a per plane basis, they are quite old tech so you get an old outdated FS2004 style effect + take up quite a lot of things that could be used for other systems and animations etc."

 

Bummer.

 

But I would never trade Accusim systems for rain. No way.

That is not true, at least on my system with RealAir, I see no FPS changes with or without the rain effect. 

Unless you are an experienced developer with access to a GMax/3ds Max/FSDS source file of an aircraft, this gauge will be of absolutely no use to you since it requires a gauge polygon across the windscreen. And 99.9% of any existing airplane add-ons are not equipped with one.

 

So at the moment, the technique is limited to my FSX default A320/321 cockpit upgrade and currently one (and maybe a second) work in progress project from other developers.

OK thanks for that info. Let me know if you market it-I'll be the first to purchase :-)

Jay

That is not true, at least on my system with RealAir, I see no FPS changes with or without the rain effect.

 

 

Hi angeli662,

 

What is "not true" for RealAir may be completely inapplicable to A2A because of the way the aircraft is modeled.

 

Lewis has posted on this a number of times going back several years e.g. see Lewis' post: Re: Expectations. I have no reason to doubt him.

 

If you want to make the "not true" claim, I recommend opening a thread at the A2A Forum (in the 'Pilot Lounge' for example) and give Lewis or one of the developers a chance to respond.

 

Best,

Rob

The RealAir rain effect has no impact on FPS or smoothness for me either. It is also an incredibly realistic simulation and a well-guarded trade secret. That's the main reason that it hasn't been duplicated on a variety of aircraft.

That is not true, at least on my system with RealAir, I see no FPS changes with or without the rain effect. 

 

Well apparently RealAir left bandwidth for this effect. A2A put resources elsewhere. I'll trust Lewis' evaluation of A2A's capabilities.

Hi angeli662,

 

What is "not true" for RealAir may be completely inapplicable to A2A because of the way the aircraft is modeled.

 

Lewis has posted on this a number of times going back several years e.g. see Lewis' post: Re: Expectations. I have no reason to doubt him.

 

If you want to make the "not true" claim, I recommend opening a thread at the A2A Forum (in the 'Pilot Lounge' for example) and give Lewis or one of the developers a chance to respond.

 

Best,

Rob

 Rob, there is no need to start a new thread about this topic, I have no complaints, I own several A2A products and Like them very much. But I don't believe  that is impossible and it would  a huge hit in performance if they did it,  RealAir did it and I think other developers  could do too if they want it. 

Flysimware's learjet and MU-2 have these as well

Jay

OK thanks for that info. Let me know if you market it-I'll be the first to purchase :-)

 

As I've said before, the technique is airplane-specific. I'm pretty open regarding assisting other devs in incorportaing it into their aircraft, but there's never going to be a standalone add-on for end users since it's simply not possible.

I'm surprised no one took the bait on my previous post. The method behind the RealAir rain effect is actually quite simple.

I'm surprised no one took the bait on my previous post. The method behind the RealAir rain effect is actually quite simple.

 

It very much looks like the same - or at least a very similar - method to what I'm using in the A321 cockpit (looping bitmaps).

It's a little more complicated since it has moving vs. stationary, but you are correct.

It's a little more complicated since it has moving vs. stationary, but you are correct.

 

Well, so does my solution. Switching between two types of bitmaps isn't much of a hindrance.