Smooth instrument movement!

[Guest CWD]

>Hi CWD,>>"I've been lead to believe the 3D gauge technology used by>RealAir in their Spitfire, SF. 260 and new taildraggers and>some other developers isn't really workable on cockpits with>many instruments like heavy iron would require.">>I must say that sounds like somebody making exuses. In my>experience that's not the case. The big problem is how much>more work it is to get these gauges working properly and>displaying correctly, with an airliner this extra work would>be magnified due to the sheer number of gauges, which might>not seem worthwhile to a commercial developer.>>The other biggie is it would be very difficult to create>"glass" gauges in this way, it's really best used for>old-style analogue gauges.>>For the record, it was Lou Betti of Dreamfleet who stated in the May/June '05 issue of PC Pilot that they had experimented with 3D gauges about a year previously and found it "economically unsuitable" for more advanced cockpits such as their 727, ATR, or even Bonanza A36. Make of that what you will.

[Guest aca_dia]

I have found the twins FSD has done (flight model by Steve Small) to be excellent in this department. Certainly better dynamics than any other twin for FS9 I have used (in particular the engine out and VMC replication seems to be pretty darn good).

[robert young 2,897]

I agree. I think MSFS has been much maligned for not emulating assymetrical twin prop flying but it IS possible. I don't know the Steve Small aircraft you describe but I know Steve was very enthusiastic about this.I am pretty certain that a bit of hard work and patience can produce realistic assymetrical thrust and associated dynamics in FS.But we'll see.....Kind Regards,Rob Young

[Bill Womack 7]

Not trying to be contrary, because I do very much like the MB339. However, on my system it does not have the same gauge smoothness as the RealAir planes. And by the way, the secret of the smooth gauges isn't a secret, nor is it proprietary. It's right there in the SDK docs, but it takes a bit of cleverness and a whole lot of hard work to get it working correctly. Fortunately, Sean has has the benefit of the former and has done a bunch of the latter, and now we see the result.thanks,

[virtuali 4,419]

>Not trying to be contrary, because I do very much like the>MB339. However, on my system it does not have the same gauge>smoothness as the RealAir planes.Then there must be some issue with your configuration, because on my machine I run at 1600x1200 at 30 fps locked, and it's quite clear the gauges are running at 30 fps as well, because the difference comparing to regular SDK gauges (that run at 18 fps maximum) is very obvious.I do recall you were one of the very few users on C9 forum that didn't notice the increased smoothness and complained about refresh rates not so good as expected. I suggest trying to solve the issue on the C9 forum.However, the MB339 Demo is freely available for everyone to download, so it will be quite easy for everyone to asses performances on their system. That's the main reason for having a Demo in the first place.>And by the way, the secret>of the smooth gauges isn't a secret, nor is it proprietary.Of course it isn't, but it also has its limitations, is not really feasible for complex airplanes, because the size of the model becomes a problem, and you can't have a complex and fully clickable VC, if you start animating needles, or the more complex instruments found in bigger airplanes. After a certain complexity threshold, the impact of the interpreted XML code embedded in the MDL starts becoming an issue.Also, it requires different approaches for 2D and VC, requiring basically twice the amount of work, it's no wonder why their next airplane will not offer 2D at all. Still, many users are requesting it.Mind, I'm all in favor of VCs and getting rid of the old 2D panels, however, many users still prefers 2D, and it has to be Microsoft that should make the first move, and improving VC support while gradually discouraging the use of 2D panels ( for example, they could still support 2D for backward compatibility, but making the default airplanes with VC only, to show the way to developers ). I'm sure, if MS will dramatically improve VC in FS X, and I really hope they will, there will be new techniques to use, and many assumptions learned with FS2004 will need to be reconsidered.

[Murmur 3,940]

>>Not trying to be contrary, because I do very much like the>>MB339. However, on my system it does not have the same gauge>>smoothness as the RealAir planes.>>Then there must be some issue with your configuration, because>on my machine I run at 1600x1200 at 30 fps locked, and it's>quite clear the gauges are running at 30 fps as well, because>the difference comparing to regular SDK gauges (that run at 18>fps maximum) is very obvious.I tried the demo, gauges smoothness is much better than default (more or less on par with Reality XP), but RealAir's are somewhat better.RealAir's gauges seem completely stutter free. Though, all Realair a/c's have simple panels and not many complex systems, as opposed to a Baron or a MB339. This is possibly a factor.Marco

[Guest Zevious Zoquis]

hmm, interesting. I'm not real certain what your point is though. FSX is still a ways away afaik and for now, the RealAir VC is state of the art compared to any of the dozens of payware and freeware planes I have (and in fact render the 2D panel completely unnecessary since the planes can be flown 100% from the VC). Whether the method used to get there can be applied to more complex panels doesn't really matter to me since the planes RealAir has chosen to model are so much fun to fly as it is. It's worth noting too that the smooth gauges are only one of the great things about these planes - others being the top-notch flight modelling, lovely visual models, wonderful extras like the blown engine of the SPitfire and the realview feature which really adds to the immersiveness of the VCs in all the planes.(just curious - I assume you do own at least one of the RA planes featuring the new VCs?)

[LAdamson 240]

>(just curious - I assume you do own at least one of the RA>planes featuring the new VCs?)>I really doubt he does. If he did, he'd have to change that X-Plane slogan!!! :9 L.Adamson

[Murmur 3,940]

>>(just curious - I assume you do own at least one of the RA>>planes featuring the new VCs?)>>>I really doubt he does. If he did, he'd have to change that>X-Plane slogan!!! :9 >>L.AdamsonHe was not responding to my post. However, I do.Marco

[Bill Womack 7]

I don't want to come off as sounding too critical of the MB339, by the way. Like I've said on several occasions, it's a great plane. It's extremely well modeled, has some great liveries, a fantastic VC, and flies great as well. And with the advent of their "advanced" version, it's chock full of little "gotchas" that keep you on your toes. One false move and things can quickly go pear-shaped. And even though it doesn't have RealAir-smooth gauges in the VC for me, they're not bad at all; certainly much better than the gauges in most of the other planes I own. I just wanted to clear that up, because I hate it when people go onto forums and start trashing other developers' work.thanks,

[robert young 2,897]

We're not frightened of hard work here! The reason we are 3d -only is that even if we designed a full 2d panel, it still would not have been as good as our 3d panel. In effect, a 2d panel is a 3d panel frozen and fixed. You can actually treat our VC panels exactly like a 2d panel by setting a zoom level and simply not panning or zooming. The picture clarity is better than most 2d panels.Rob Young - RealAir Simulations

[virtuali 4,419]

>And even though it>doesn't have RealAir-smooth gauges in the VC for me, they're>not bad at all; certainly much better than the gauges in most>of the other planes I own. I just wanted to clear that up,>because I hate it when people go onto forums and start>trashing other developers' work.I think there was some misunderstanding here and I didn't realized it at first when replying to you:If you read my reply to Adverse Yawn, I was referring to Cloud9 MB339 in comparison to Reality XP gauges, not Real Air, but then the discussion drifted again to Real Air (quite right, because the thread is about them...), and I was arguing that it's simply not true they (RXP) have an exclusive on smooth-moving needles, because Cloud9's airplanes has it as well.Of course Real Air method, instead, is very different, but as long as FS remains like it is today, I don't see it very well fitted for anything except small airplanes, because a big airplane with hundreds of moving needle and/or indicators, will need to include too much interpreted xml/mdl code, and that will start to offset the benefit of the good fps over a certain level of size.This, of course, doesn't have anything to do with the fact the Real Air airplanes are very nicely done and fun to use: I've flown with the SF260 at the IFC exhibition last year, with a projector and the TrackIR, and it was a marvelous experience.

[robert young 2,897]

Hi James,I don't think they dismiss us, but it is true a lot of simmers see virtual flying as only exciting if they have a big passenger jet. I enjoy that myself too, but there's nothing like a high performance GA aircraft to hone your basic flying skills. There's also nothing more satisfying than getting a small aircraft down safely into a marginal field in the wilderness in a cross wind and a few gusts of turbulence. Kind Regards,Rob Young

[Bill Womack 7]

Especially when there are power lines thoughtlessly strung right in the approach path. :-sae

[Guest aca_dia]

I love that detail! For the record the SF260 can clear the lines, but just! (this with a light but favorable crosswind)http://www.sealcove.us/sf260.jpg