API Macros, request

[Hornit 3]

Im looking for some good api's of Control towers and hangars with associated textures. There seem to be very few of these available anywhere and I just dont have the time to be making them. Any suggestions? It would be nice to have a larger tower and some contemporary looking hangar buildings.Hornit

[Guest]

Most look FS98ishThe rest are made from photographs of whichever airport a designer has worked on and become part of that scenery.It's rare for someone to release an API unless it's some sort of generic transportation, car, bus, truck, lorry. yacht etc.

[Hornit 3]

Thats my problem, Im getting good at making convincing buildings and houses in the "advanced building" section of Airport 2.6 but the problem is there are no good hangar/tower api's or the ability to make one there. The generic buildings just dont cut it IMHO. Could you suggest a way thats relatively easy to make my own api's, Im aware of a lot of the programs but dont want to have to spend a month to learn how to make macros.Hornit

[Guest]

"Hornet" Do you have FSDS or better yet use gmax and make your ownthere are people here that can help you with both. Try it you just might like it!. Dan http://members.rogers.com/klasik2/danlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Hornit 3]

Well I decided to try Nova 1.6 today and within half an hour Im making macros on my own!! There is plenty here to help me get some more realistic textures and I have already duplicated two hangars for my sceneries so far. Ill work up a few towers over the next week or so too!. Seems like a nice program, easy to use, and fast. Will be well worth the 20$ Ill pay to register it. Gmax is a twisted, non-user friendly app IMO and Im not going to learn it at this point. Just too frustrating.Hornit

[arno 1]

Humm, it's a long time ago that I used VOD (Nova comes from VOD) and I find that program frustrating :). I don't know how much has changed, but as far as I know you can't see the object in 3D with the textures on it while you are making it and the placement of the different parts of the objects was also not that simple........GMax might be hard to learn the first few days, but once you know a little bit how it works, you are really going to like the program, as you can easy model any building you can think of :)ArnoMember NL2000 Teamhttp://home.wanadoo.nl/arno.gerretsen

[Guest]

To bad you feel that way if you take the time to learn it you will not want to go back the the old tools. Like I said ther are people here that can help you get over the hump of the U.I. Take a look at the posts here in this forum about gmax vs the other tools better frame rates the ability to work with and have full control over textures as you create you mesh(model) I for one can not beleve that people have put up with the old tools for so long when doing meshes. Macros KILL frame rates I will not use 'em anymore for meshes. Ask your self why many "games" are now done with 3DSMax FS2002 for one and as gmax is a subset of the above you will be using standard tools that the industry as a whole uses. In short use the old tools to add to airports( runways lighting etc) and a "real" tool to create your models. Hope this helps Danhttp://members.rogers.com/klasik2/danlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Guest]

gmax should be the way to go.I know it's frustrating. However, stick with it.It's simple to have multiple objects in a NOVA macro, once you've clicked the relevant box on the top there.

[Guest]

As I read this post, I was thinking about how people learn, and how we communicate. I found your posts some time ago a tad annoying cuz you kept pumping gmax. I wanted FSDS to remain the greatest modeller out there. Why? Cuz I already knew it, and that meant I could spend my time using my current tools instead of learning to use a new one. I'd tried to learn gmax once and found the interface and jargon a turn off. On top of that, it looked like GMAX would require me to input a lat/long/hdg for each object, that was a huge turnoff.So I asked myself, why does Dan keep talking about gmax?Yet you did, and it was truelly because you did that I asked for help running a test to find out scientifically if gmax was better. There were too many variables and anecdotal evidence being presented up to that point for me to be SURE that fps were better using GMAX. Especially cuz I'd just studied the notion of using scasm libraries to improve the efficiency of my scasm models made in fsds. Thanks to George's hard work putting the test together, I finally had scientific results. A factor of 2 times better frames with GMAX, comparing library objects written in scasm and library objects written in GMAX? My My....Then and there it was clear, there was no option. The only thing I needed to change my mindset was clear reason and time, the first was accomplished, and I emotionally created the second by accepting I'd not complete any projects for some months to come.So I began to study gmax, and its now about three weeks later. I love it, the modelling features and jargon finally make sense (almost, LOL) texturing is understandable, and with Georges "fsregen" program and middleman ver 1.1, placement of GMAX models is just as easy as with the old tools! Now gmax models become library objects, which can be called with everyday macros. The efficiencies remain because the object code remains gmax, but the placement is identical to the old days.So, thanks Dan for carrying the flag for GMAX. You were right to tell us it's far and above the best tool for modelling in fs2002. I would have learned GMAX faster if I didn't have preconceived notions about modelling from my years of experience creating macros, so if I was starting fresh it would be even more inticing to start with GMAX, but each to their own.Bob Bernstein

[Guest]

Gee Bob I don't know what to say but thank you for the above commentsIt's just that I know from using 3DSMax and Maya I new that some onehad already done the underling math Kenetix(now discreet) also worksclosely with many hardware firms and people at Microsoft for direct Xcompatability and the open G.L people as well makeing sure that their code will work on many different platforms. So I thought well I would try it for FS2002 and yup for meshes it's great as I get 15 to 25fps with everything maxed out except A.I(I have a lowly PII 400mhzwith a Radeon 7200 64mb DDR card)and when using macros I got 4-6fps. So I new it was a no go on the macros all I can say to everyoneis look again at the framerates with stuff done with the above(both planes and static models) to see the differance. Anyway I don'twant to sound like a salesperson for Discreet!! I think we all willbe using several tools to do scenery we just need to find the best tools for each area (world mesh,runwayslighting and modeling. Danhttp://members.rogers.com/klasik2/danlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Hornit 3]

Well I wont give up but the learning curve sure is steep for gmax. I have found apt 2.6 to be a nice tool once i got the hang of it. i mostly just exclude things in the default airports and add more accurate surroundings and structures to my airfields so the frame hit is not bad unless i get out of hand with it. With Nova making simple things like hangars etc is VERY easy and it is simple to do scenery really. I haven't even scratched the surface with Gmax yet and Im pretty frustrated. Hornit

[Guest]

We'll help you!This afternoon I'm studying 3DS Max and will produce an absolute beginners tutorial for buildings etc.I know it's tough when you find a tutorial and it's geared for a model of a human or creature or robot.The Kiwi site is a good place to start!

[Guest]

Hornit, I made Tacoma Narrows for 2002 with scasm macros. Its detailed, and the textures are extended bmps, each of the building textures are 512x512 pixels. This is proof that nothing stops you from designing with scasm macros.The issue is what the logical choice is for you both for now, and the future. I am only sharing some perspective and new learning.Why you may ask am I switching if Tacoma worked out ok? Its because if I use a twice more efficient mode of design then I wouldn't have had to stop adding detail to Tacoma when I did! Plus, check out the ttached jpg, notice I'm at 17.5fps, this is a P3 800...wouldn't it be cool to see that at 25fps? Course now that I have invested time into GMAX I'm tickled with many internal details I can now employ, but I wouldn't argue those details were enough to suggest changing on their own.And Ihor is right, plenty of folks learning gmax. In fact from a help standpoint, you'll be in the mainstream now asking questions about gmax, we're all learning together at about the same time.Bob B

[Guest]

!!! !! I like it Bob I would like a few fields up to say Bellinghamincluding say KPAE,Arlington ( can't remember the code LOL) and a few others so we can "fly" around our neck of the woods you know places like Friday Harbour(I am Canadian!!) hence the spelling Port Angeles etc. That would be way cool would it not? Dan http://members.rogers.com/klasik2/danlogo.gifhttp://members.rogers.com/eelvish/flyurl.gif

[Guest]

Yes, Dan...I'd love it. I even have some photos for Arlington. I'll finish the upgrades to Harvey and Bowerman first, they're well on the way, but after that....maybe we could collaborate! I'd really like to do Roche Harbor. Its a very cool airport, a tiny strip, but the resort would be fun to model. You ever get over there? Get good photos for textures? Probably be a while for me to get up there.B