FSDS version 2

[Guest]

Who says that FSDS will not comaptible with FS2004???FSDS 2.0 already has working the same key features of Gmax including key frame animation and relective textures. HOWEVER, FSDS 2.0 does things much easier than Gmax. How about just picking the name of you part from a list for animation (or damage) as opposed to typing in after looking it up from a seperate list.How about 2 steps to get a model into FS2002 (as opposed to the 12.5 that have been reported for Gmax)How about support for extended BMPs INSIDE the program. Haw about key-frame animation and standard aircraft animation built in. (No AA needed)How about support for SDL macros. (Gmax doesn't have that.)Haw about part heirachy for just animating one part and each part assigned to that part will follow. (Same with damage profiles)How about building the main model AND VC in the same file. New to FSDS and Gmax doesn't have it. How about the designer himself answering questions about the program in public forums. (When was the last time a Gmax programmer answered a question? I know...NEVER)So before you go off knocking a program, be sure you have your facts straight. Dave Eckertwww.daviator.com

[Guest]

>Hi Lee >>Why do you think FSDS is likely to be left out in the cold? >I'm not having a go at you here, but I don't think you're >right. >>The difference at the moment is that the gmax compiler makes >an Mdl in the new FS2002 format & FSDS makes Mdl's in the >old FS2000 format. >>FS2004 will not be supporting the old FS2000 format Mdl. >This old Mdl format has nothing to do with FSDS. It was a >set format for FS2000 that FSDS had to comply with. >The new version of FSDS will make an Mdl in the new FS2002 >format, just like gmax does. I can't see a problem. >>If the Mdl format changes again, neither gmax or FSDS will >work without having an update to their Mdl compilers. >The only way FSDS could then be left out in the cold is if >Microsoft keep the new Mdl format a secret from Louis >Sinclair & Abacus. >If they do that, they can stick their simulator. >>Please set me straight if you know different. >>David Maltby Hi David, MS holding back is a big reason for the delay in Getting FSDS 2.0 to this point. They promised and promised SDK info to Louis and they say "Oh, we ran out of time. Sorry". I heard them say this to me. Last year at OshKosh I was told that Louis would have the info he needed to make FSDS CFS3 compatible. This year at OshKosh and again at the Avsim conference in Tahoe I was told, "Well, we don't have time right now." Funny, they have to time to make Gmax work. Typical MS, squash the little guy. Dave Eckertwww.daviator.com

[Guest]

One more note, yes Gmax is free but you do have to pay extra to get the game pack to make it work for FS2002. Also, why is it OK for MS to make $70 per game or Discreet to make several thousand for a commercial license but for one guy working out of his house part-time to make a great little program like FSDS and sell it is so wrong? Beleive me, he's not getting rich on this. And yes, I am probably his biggest promoter. So what's in it for me? Nothing financial. Louis is a friend to me and the flightsim community and he deserves our support. He has listened and added many great features just on suggestion in forums. FSDS started at 1.42 and is now up to 1.6b. All upgrades to this point have been free. If you disagree, then do us a favor and remove ALL of the FSDS aircraft you have on your hard drive. See how many you'll actually have left. Dave Eckertwww.daviator.com

[Brian_Gladden 0]

Well Said Dave, And if you are Louis' biggest supporter I think I'm #2. Brian

[Guest]

Well ,well, well.Didn't I start up a hot one :)It seems that there are those who are die hard FSDS, and those who are die hard G-Max.Coming from the perspective of someone who flies the models rather than builds them, I suppose it doesn't really matter what program the aircraft you're flying was designed with. If it looks like a Beech, it's a Beech. I guess it's kinda like A Grumman Tracker, for example.Grumman Trackers were built in the United States (sorry Tracker fans, I don't remember where in the US) for the US Navy. Canada wanted some and had De Havilland Canada build them in Toronto. Now without nitpicking, they're the same plane, just a different factory. Same with FSDS and G-Max.In the end it's only a matter of how much fun you're having and not what software was used to design the aircraft. I personally wish success for both programs as it will only benefit us all! Designers and pilots.And just to make it fair, I'll list a couple of aircraft designed in both FSDS and G-max that I think show the best each has to offer.FSDS Aircraft1. Phoenix Simulations B777-200 (I'm pretty sure that was done with FSDS) A revolutionary aircraft model with features unlike any before it. Might be standard fare by todays standards, but when it was released, nothing could touch it.2. Dassualt Falcon 50 by Yannick Lavigne, Fred Banting and Rob Young.Even better now that it has been brought up to FS2002 standards.3. Jan Visser's R4D Nats. Round engine nacelles, clear flight deck windows, and "remove before flight" tags all over the place. A very crisp visual model. Did I mention it's a DC-3?And in the G-Max category.1. Milton Shupes Dash 7. Fully reflective textures, a soon to be virtual cockpit, and all the little things we've come to expect in FS2002.2. Project Open Sky's Boeing 767 series. Flexing wings, reflective textures, and a mate up with 767PIC makes this definate must have.3. Antti Pankkonen's Eurocopter AS365 Dauphin. Not so much a revolution in visual modelling, although it is a beaut, as one in flight dynamics/panel design. The very first FS helicopter to have an auto pilot. Either way, I had fun with them all.CF-AOAKyle

[Guest]

Sorry but I didn't mean to seem to snippy. Yes, Gmax is very powerful and does a fine job of modeling A/C. I just like having a choice. I don't want Gmax replaced I just want FSDS (and Louis) to get the same consideration from MS. I also want the other 3D CAD apps to have a shot too. The more the merrier. We'd ALL benefit from that including MS. Watch soon for new FSDS 2.0 A/C. They will have reflective textures, full animation, fS2002 compliant MDLs, and more. Dave

[Guest]

Thanks for the replies Lee & Dave.It really isn't a technical issue is it.It seems that the Microsoft FS team are getting a lot more Microsoft than FS these days.

[Guest]

Hi Dave,Choice is always a good thing. Like I said earlier, it will benefit us all, both as pilots and designers. Now if we could only get MS to open up the FDE files for us. I seriously doubt that they'll do it as I read somewhere that the info is proprietary. But it would be nice to have aircraft that would spin and stall properly. I always wanted to know how easy it is to suffer a departure stall!And there is something nice about having a developer that will actually listen to it's customers without getting lost in the large corporate BS. Not that MS doesn't listen, it's just that there are so many people who all want to be heard, it can take as much time to deal with that as it takes to design the software. Anyone that has ever uploaded something can attest to the amount of e-mail one may recieve regarding this or that. With over 13,000 downloads of my smoke files at FlightSim.Com (I think a few even made there way over here), I know I've received enough.Anyways, the personal touch, so to speak, is a nice feeling to have with a developer. It's nice to be heard and to see that your input has not gone unnoticed. Well this thread has turned out to be insightful and informative. It has also opened my eyes somewhat to the pros and cons of both softwares. In the end, I'd have to say, to each his/her own. Whatever works for you, all the power to you to create the fabulous add-ons that we've seen over the years.Now if only someone would model the Dash 8 Q400 series and give those darn RJ's a run for their money......CF-AOAKyle

[Guest]

Hi,If you mean by open up the FDE files the "*.air" files. I think probably in the future everything will be included in the aircraft.cfg file Although a lot more is defined there in fs2002 than FS2000 some of the entries have to be added to the *.air file too as defined in the SDK.. I believe the trend is to eventually eliminate the *.air file totally, just as the old *.mdl file has been eliminated in favor of the new *.mdl which is a RIFF file format...The old *.mdl file format was actually a *.dll file ..One thing I have to agree on is the MS sim Program really STINKS as far as simulating a stall and entry into a spin... this is not a fault of bad entries into the *.air files as it is bad simulation modeling on the part of MS flight simulator.. This goes as well for all of the MS combat series simulators too... They incorporated really bad flight modeling there as well.. not only spin and stall charatoristics but really crappy flight modeling of all the models. Especially keeping track of energy gain and loss and applying it to the aircraft..The CFS multiplayer setup really stinks too.. there is nothing worse that fragging the hell out of two opponents,, only to have them respawn on your tail.. I have flown combat sims since the DOS days and the very best there was as far as flight modeling of the aircraft and spin dynamics was Air Warrior..( you blacked out too if you pulled too many G's) When you shot your opponent down he respawned ok but it was back at his air field where he had to take off and spend 15 more minutes to gain altitude, energy, and position to get back to the action..thats what I call real combat flight simulation, not the garbage MS puts out..Mike Crosthwaite.

[Guest]

Hehehe,Yeah, I never really considered CFS to be so much a "flight sim" as a shoot 'em up type of "game". I played a bit of Air Warrior but much preferred Warbirds. Now that was a challenge?As for the .air file, I'd really like to know how easy (or difficult for that matter) it is to end up a pile of smoking wreckage at the end of the runway. I don't mean to sound mean or insensitive, I'd just like to know how it is possible for one to get into that kind of trouble. By the looks of the TSB accident database, it happens all the time, yet all the bad stuff that can happen to one never occurs in FS. Oh yeah and turning on the failures is like disabling one of your mags in real life before take off. You know it's going to happen. That kinda takes all the "oh crap, now what do I do" out of it.CF-AOAKyle

[Guest cwright]

HI, Dave, good to see you're still banging the drum for Louis! I hope FSDS2 is successful. It is probably ideal for people who need a good introduction to aircraft building. I assume that in terms of performance (e.g. framerates and appearance) FSDS2 will be as good as Gmax providing Microsoft give Louis the necessary information. Sadly, though, this may not happen. However, I think that in terms of the user interface FSDS2 will still be far behind Gmax. For example the perspective view still looks very limited. I regard it as essential to be able to model in the perspective view and I assume this still can't be done in FSDS2. The FSDS user interface is essentially the same as Imagine (a modelling program that came out on the Amiga many years ago) and quite possibly Louis was able to use the Imagine source code. To design a new user interface to match that of Gmax would be a *huge* task, particularly for one man. Here are my comments on your list.... To animate in Gmax all you need to do is click on an object, enable animation and start moving the object/objects to create key frames. Couldn't be simpler. You don't need to look up lists - but you can if you want to. The export process in Gmax is very simple. Just select export and go and the .mdl is placed into the aircraft. Of course I'm assuming you're using Middleman. If not you will need to click an extra button. Extended BMPs - that is an advantage. Of course animation has always been built-in with Gmax. SDL macros - another advantage, though for me standard Gmax animation is fine (but it would be nice if the animations could be smoother) Gmax has powerful support for part heirarchy. For example, animate a part in Gmax and then link other parts to it and they will all animate together. In Gmax both the main model and the VC are in the same file (they are placed into separate groups with standard names) About the last one - the designers giving personal support - no question, FSDS is lightyears ahead! And I speak from personal experience. As I said, FSDS will be fine for many users. But for myself, having tasted the forbidden fruits of Gmax, I can't conceive I'd ever want to go back to FSDS. The user interface is just too limited. Gmax may be a little more difficult to learn - but not much - but in my view its power and elegance still remains far ahead. And there will be significant new enhancements, including probably an aircraft design plugin, that will ship with the CFS3 version of Gmax. Best regards, Chris

[Guest]

Hi,You know what I mean then about CFS . Im glad Im not the only one who considers it an arcade game and not a combat sim..Warbirds was/is another excellent combat sim. I flew it briefly under a free trial but had already subscribed to a server that had Air Warrior so I never pursued it further.I also think the failures part of FS have not been done right either.Knowing the what the failure will be and when takes all of the fun out of it..I think they should change it to random failures and let the user pick perhaps, structure, instrument, mechanical failure etc..but never know when or what the failure will be...Mike.