Sign in to follow this  
badderjet

Oh c'mon! How much longer?

Recommended Posts

Until all you wonderful modellers create and/or update all my favorite acft to FS2004/Gmax standards? (oh and they of course must all have finely detailed working DVC's!) *grin*

Share this post


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

Ha ha, good joke.Most likely as soon as they get with the SDK a new MakeMDL in their hands, man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two weeks.Two years if you want functioning LDVs in gmax aircraft.>Until all you wonderful modellers create and/or update all my>favorite acft to FS2004/Gmax standards? (oh and they of>course must all have finely detailed working DVC's!)>> *grin*Felix/FFDSPegasus Aviation Design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry buddy but that request does not belong here!!!! That's a complaint that what "you don't have, and could possibly could be, can be possibly available but you donot have it. But hold your horses GEEZ it's been.... What 3 days now ??? Take my advice... Download every SDK MS has ever produced, go to the FSDS forum and facts/downloads and take in every bit of info they have ever posted. And read evey post on both this forum and "the other guys forum" learn how to make it yourself. See how long it takes you...If that's not good enough, sell your FS04 to your neighbor..Thou shalt not rely on a developer, but relish and give thanks to what they produce. It took them 5 X 1000000 *3 Time to develop it than it took to make this rant against the developer s and you.Grin or no Grin.... Just bad.It took up too much bandwidth..so did this post..... Sorry all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehm guys? I think he was kidding?

John NoppeScreenshot forum moderatorAVSIM Online

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John, Say it ain't so! A post in AVSIM made in jest, dripping in the sauce of ironic sarcasm?>Ehm guys? I think he was kidding?>>

John Noppe>>Screenshot forum moderator>>AVSIM Online

Felix/FFDSPegasus Aviation Design

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I'm sorry buddy but that request does not belong here!!!!>That's a complaint that what "you don't have, and could>possibly could be, can be possibly available but you donot>have it. But hold your horses GEEZ it's been.... What 3 days>>Grin or no Grin.... Just bad.Gotcha! No room for humor here. Your point of modellers having no sense of humor is well taken. (I had a much higher opinion of them, but will defer to your experienced judgement)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey E,No worries m8, I got the joke. For a bit of info, here is what the MS team told me yesterday at their booth at Oshkosh.I spoke to both one of their aircraft modelers and the girl responsible for the new cloud system (forgot her name, but really nice lady. She is the voice behind this video http://www.microsoft.com/games/flightsimul...ds_lowband.wmv). They are aiming to get the SDK out faster than they did last time. Although that would be nice, if I remember correctly, last time it took them close to 8 months after the release of the simulator. So even if they do release it faster, we could still be months away from it.Without the SDK it might be hard to accomplish some things if their building methods have been changed from FS8 to FS9. So it might be that some features will be missing for a while. No one wants to release their planes with missing features, so you might see some developers holding off a bit. Some might actually be able to do without the SDK, depending on their ability and a little bit of luck.Flight Factory Simulations is working on the Cirrus project now, but since the new MakeMDL (program made by microsoft that exports an aircraft from gmax to FS) is not out yet, things like clickable VC are not done because they are not in widespread knowledge just yet (although it seems some people already have that working, possibly using a beta MakeMDL from MS).On the downside, you will have to wait a bit. On the good side, MS has improved on many of their stock aircraft, plus included very good new ones. I am having a blast flying around in the Jenny, or a J-3, and even the good ol' Cessna (which I tend to use for low level aerobatics in spot view. After all, it is almost like a big R/C plane ;-)).I hope this clarifies the matter a bit. And as far as I am concerned, any questions are still welcomed here, so don't be shy and fire them our way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took this as a light-hearted way to find out what to expect from developers towards re-releases. :-)I will be releasing updates for my aircraft this week to get everything working as it should (at least as close as I can for now). As for new features, where documented, those will come later.So, FS9 updates now, new features later. :-) Clickable VC instruments work by default on most things but I find them hard to see and use on dark panels.There are some serious flight dynamics changes that affect liftoff and climb (nose heavy and lift changes - see FSAviator's post) ... trying to compensate there until facts are known.Some texture management changes require attention as well in the alphas.There are a few gauge issues of course, fortunately minor for me.The last thing is to light the daytime VC better since we are likely to do more VC flying with clickable gauges there. Bill Laeming's post on that will be helpful. Thank you Bill. :-)Still sorting out the differences but things are looking good here, though concerned about the FD changes.Milton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Flight Factory Simulations is working on the Cirrus project>now, but since the new MakeMDL (program made by microsoft that>exports an aircraft from gmax to FS) is not out yet, things>like clickable VC are not done because they are not in>widespread knowledge just yet (although it seems some people>already have that working, possibly using a beta MakeMDL from>MS).Hey Fabio!There isn't anything "special" about the "Clickable VC." It simply works... No one has to do anything peculiar or differently than they did before.Just make sure not to make click spots too small!I've just about finished updating the Socata TB20GT, since I've already completed my part of the Beechjet 400A, the Hawker 400XP and the Premier I.BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bill!Thanks for the info. I talked to Hal Brian today, the guy in the MSFS team that lead the beta, and was featured in the Discovery Wings feature about FS, but I forgot to ask him that. But at the same time I read this post out loud in our office, one of our modelers said "Yeah, I know. I got it working already" :-). Guess I gotta improve my real world commnication skills, too used to just using Trillian or ICQ :-).Anyways, meeting the FS team was very nice. We did an informal presentation on what we have so far for the Cirrus, and MS seems to not only be impressed, but very receptive. We all got immediatelly included in the beta team for the upcoming SDK.Tomorrow we have a nother visit with the team, so if you or anyone else has any questions you'd like me to ask them, fire away. I'll be checking the forum for the last time before heading out to Oshkosh (our office is 30 min. away from KOSH) at 17:00 Zulu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Tomorrow we have a nother visit with the team, so if you or>anyone else has any questions you'd like me to ask them, fireAsk them why they didn't include all my favorite acft? *grin*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>There isn't anything "special" about the "Clickable VC." It>simply works... No one has to do anything peculiar or>differently than they did before.>>Just make sure not to make click spots too small!Nope. Of course, what you mean are usual gauges, yeah, they work at once. But we are talking about the 3d parts which are clickable, i. e. levers, switches etc. they don't work yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>There isn't anything "special" about the "Clickable VC." >It>>simply works... No one has to do anything peculiar or>>differently than they did before.>>>>Just make sure not to make click spots too small!>>Nope. Of course, what you mean are usual gauges, yeah, they>work at once. But we are talking about the 3d parts which are>clickable, i. e. levers, switches etc. they don't work>yet.Oh, but they do workl! Simply use the same gauge that you use on the 2d panel, but strip the graphics out of it!The Beechjet 400A, Hawker 400XP and Premier I all have 3d modeled "parts" on the ECU. We had already removed the 2d graphical equilents from the 3d gauge so as not to show along with the 3d parts.It works just fine!As a quick test, take a single switch that you use on the 2d panel, make another version w/o the bitmaps. Create a 3d model in the usual fashion, then use the 'stripped gauge' in the {VCockpit} section of panel.cfg.Of course, on a practical note, I honestly don't see anyone actually "panning down" to the ECU to make use of those click spots! Sheesh, talk about clumsy!But, the concept is proven to work, so on something that's already in line-of-sight, such as an AP under the eyebrow of the glareshield... :)BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/28072.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/28073.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/28074.jpghttp://forums.avsim.net/user_files/28075.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Oh, but they do workl! Simply use the same gauge that>you use on the 2d panel, but strip the graphics out of it!>>The Beechjet 400A, Hawker 400XP and Premier I all have 3d>modeled "parts" on the ECU. We had already removed the 2d>graphical equilents from the 3d gauge so as not to show along>with the 3d parts.>>It works just fine!>>As a quick test, take a single switch that you use on the 2d>panel, make another version w/o the bitmaps. Create a 3d>model in the usual fashion, then use the 'stripped gauge' in>the {VCockpit} section of panel.cfg.>>Of course, on a practical note, I honestly don't see anyone>actually "panning down" to the ECU to make use of those click>spots! Sheesh, talk about clumsy!>>But, the concept is proven to work, so on something that's>already in line-of-sight, such as an AP under the eyebrow of>the glareshield... :)Yeah but that's faked and is not the way how it's intended. Since the list with the new animation tags for switches and levers is not even out to the public, neither the new MakeMDL nor the gMax plugin, so no SDK at all, which means: No real clickable levers (you have to grab some invisible mouse spot on the panel instead of the 3d lever itself) and 3d switches; at least here you will get problems with your method, since there are no tags yet to have e. g. light switches which could be animated in the VC. See them really working in default FS9 aircraft.But nice thought anyway.Better wait for the SDK, then you can do everything properly.Cheers!Etienne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Yeah but that's faked and is not the way how it's>intended. Since the list with the new animation tags for>switches and levers is not even out to the public, neither the>new MakeMDL nor the gMax plugin, so no SDK at all, which>means: No real clickable levers (you have to grab some>invisible mouse spot on the panel instead of the 3d lever>itself) and 3d switches; at least here you will get>problems with your method, since there are no tags yet to have>e. g. light switches which could be animated in the VC. See>them really working in default FS9 aircraft.Well, I wouldn't call it "faked," since those particular 3d parts do move in response to mouse input...But, I will concede your point regarding such things as simple switches for which there are no known animation tags... yetBut, for the moment, those things that we do have known tags for will work. Look at the 3d switch for "Speed Brakes." It is fully animated and will politely toggle on/off in response to mouse clicks.I'm simply trying to be helpful, and don't wish to be argumentative... I'll just keep any further findings/thoughts to myself from now on... :(BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Well, I wouldn't call it "faked," since those particular 3d>parts do move in response to mouse input...Yeah sure, but if we had the SDK, we could do that with all switches and levers. Sure they do move in response to mouse input, just not input which has been done directly on the 3d lever in the VC!>But, for the moment, those things that we do have known>tags for will work. Look at the 3d switch for "Speed Brakes."> It is fully animated and will politely toggle on/off in>response to mouse clicks.Yeah yeah. Maybe I was not clear, do you actually have FS9? Maybe you don't know what I mean. Sure it will move according to the state of the speed brakes, but the 3d lever itself won't be clickable (yet), right? I mean, 'it' would not be if there was no underlying gauge, then it just would move according to the speed brakes, but no clicks on it.>I'm simply trying to be helpful, and don't>wish to be argumentative... I'll just keep any further>findings/thoughts to myself from now on... :(Ohhh, why's that now! ;-) I think there's np need for that. Besides I never doubted you were helpful... And also hasn't to do with argumenting here, maybe I was just not clear enuff with the levers/switches clickable without any 'underlying gauge', since that's the original sense of this new function in FS9. I assume I was talking of the levers itself all the time, whereas you actually meant gauge clickspots, which - yes - do work out of the box. :)But no prob, let's wait for the SDK then we can do this stuff without the underlying gauges, plus a lot of new tags for many types of switches and levers which didn't exist at all in FS8, especially some new ones for the special requirements of all that the vintage aircraft... :-hahTake care,Etienne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>But no prob, let's wait for the SDK then we can do this stuff>without the underlying gauges, plus a lot of new tags for many>types of switches and levers which didn't exist at all in FS8,>especially some new ones for the special requirements of all>that the vintage aircraft... :-hahHaving taken the Vega apart, I can see now precisely what you're talking about. There is no entry for the ECU in the VC section of the panel.cfg file, yet the mouse points are clearly there...Although this could be easily duplicated using our "existing technology" by simply raising the planar 'projection poly' to be level with the tops of the levers, the new method in the forthcoming SDK will (hopefully!) prove easier to implement.My apologies for misreading your own observations... :)BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Although this could be easily duplicated using our "existing>technology" by simply raising the planar 'projection poly' to>be level with the tops of the levers, the new method in the>forthcoming SDK will (hopefully!) prove easier to implement.Interesting idea, actually. Havn't thought of this.>My apologies for misreading your own observations... :)No problem Bill. ;-) I think we both now know what each other meant, eh? :-smooch"Nobody's perfect."Cheers,Etienne :-wave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Although this could be easily duplicated using our>"existing>>technology" by simply raising the planar 'projection poly'>to>>be level with the tops of the levers, the new method in the>>forthcoming SDK will (hopefully!) prove easier to implement.>>Interesting idea, actually. Havn't thought of this.I'm constantly searching for ways to keep a/c "backwards compatible" as much as possible... at least, for the next twelve months or so. Although there are undoubtely many who've already "upgraded" to FS9, there will remain a very large and undoubtedly underserved market of FS2k2 diehards who's money is just as "green" as the FS9'ers is!We at Eaglesoft DG don't want to lose a still significant part of the market because our product(s) aren't backwards compatible! :)OTOH, we don't want to lose the competitive edge by not making full use of the new features that will be available as soon as the SDK is delivered and parsed... :)As I mentioned in another thread, although the clickable/animated stuff on the overhead of the Ford Tri-Motor is "cute," practically speaking no one will actually use them! Well, not more than once anyway...I mean, can you visualize panning around and up, just to wind the pitch trim? :)BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Bill,Interesting conversation going on here. In my talks with Hal Brian today I asked him what he thinks the trend is for FS, either VC or 2D. His answer was in parallel with my own feelings, that neither is the perfect solutions. Advantages and disadvantages in each one.Personally, I have been forcing myself to just use the VC to get used to its "clickability", and after a couple days, am pretty comfortable doing it. Meaning, I have not used the 2D panel for two days, and things are falling in place. Guess it just takes getting used to. Also, remember you can change the panning speed in the VC (AFAIR), which should make things easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Personally, I have been forcing myself to just use the VC to>get used to its "clickability", and after a couple days, am>pretty comfortable doing it. Meaning, I have not used the 2D>panel for two days, and things are falling in place. Guess it>just takes getting used to. Also, remember you can change the>panning speed in the VC (AFAIR), which should make things>easier.Oh, well I've been a VC fan for quite awhile, which would explain of course my preoccupation with such things as lighted gauges & daytime floodlights... :)As far as the main panel goes, I have no issues with using the click spots there (as long as the resolution is kept high). But, IRL a pilot in a Tri-Motor would simply reach overhead with his right hand and wind the pitch trim. He wouldn't have to look at it to do so. I'll continue to use the rocker switch on my yoke though, thank you very much... :)BillAVSIM OmbudsmanFounder and Director,Creative Recycling of Aircraft Partshttp://catholic-hymns.com/frbill/FS2002/images/fartslogo.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of general comments. The default FS9 aircraft has both clickable gauges _as_well_as_ clickable 3D-items in the virtual cockpit that is not assigned as a gauge. Typical things here are certain knobs, levers, and switches. The looks will improve well inside the virtual cockpit, but the end users ability (such as myself) can no longer "fix as desired" these elements. As an example, a battery rockerswitch in 3D looks good, but I can then not modify it to start/reset certain timers if correct conditions exist. A typical thing I would have liked to "fix" is the way navlight/panellight switch seem to be inaccurate to say the least. Check out the Mooney i.e., no way to turn on the cockpit dome-light :( C'mon Microsoft, give us luminous/bright support in VC!!Microsofts panels in virtual cockpit might be very (or even extremely) "economic" in terms of framerate and texture usage, but it does come at the cost of having no options whatsoever in terms of gauge placement and panel usage. I.e. there is no way I can change the 172SP vc panel into a 172P vc panel (those old square fuelgauges etc). Heck, even the radios have large ugly knobs that prevents the use of addon (selfmade) radios. Even the "transparent texture trick" (for removing a yoke) failed.For those making aircrafts "from scratch" as a gmax model, I would like to suggest to keep the end-users options open, by not locking up the design as much as Microsofts standard aircraft. Minimize use of actual 3D-gauges, and provide enough texture space so that a panel can be rearranged.I'm not making aircraft, I only modify/build panels and gauges. So far, I'm obviously limited to standard aircraft. My favourites are the C182, C172, and DC3! :) With "some" adjustments to their panel.cfg files (setting up views in a usable manner) they all become very much flyable/usable from VC alone. I'm very reluctant to use the keyboard for every thing, so setting up default view directions (pan view down => looking onto trimwheel and lightswitches i.e.) is very important to me. Using the yoke rocker for trim adjustments would work as an electric trim, which is not very realistic on all aircraft. A direct view where I can actually grab the wheel is my preffered method of "handflying" the aircraft.For those few "enjoying" (is that even possible?) the old 421B, I'm not even going to attempt fixing it until a full SDK arrives, or a patch. It's also far too heavy on the frames for my system to be flyable (P3/733 - yuck). Since it's still lacking a model, it's not going to be released anyway. Reading the FDE issue, I'm not even sure it the flight model, which was brilliant in FS2002, works with FS9.Just me few cents :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this