Sign in to follow this  
Guest

Now thats FLY III is out of business, What about Fly II

Recommended Posts

Hi Michael,As Joe and Colin states, there`s a lot of fine French scenery :)Regarding Norway it has always been a great interest for flying here.One reason is the country itself, people need the airports in order to get around, especially up North. And the winters are long and dark, a good time to make some scenery ! But we are only 4.5 millions here, and me and 2-3 other guys are the only ones making scenery for Fly II.The development for FS2002 has been much greater of course, and Norway Airports is a respectable achievement. I whish people could make models that were convertable for both Fly II and FS2002...but as I see it (and have felt it in the Norwegian forums), they are more interested in argueing about which one is the best sim, which I find exceptionally stupid. Mankind is NOT evolving...just standing still.

Share this post


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

I am primarily comparing in terms of "total volume". And FS series is where 95% of total development has been done so this is my primary benchmark.Michael J.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I whish people could make models that were convertable for both Fly II and FS2002Ahh, a message that has got my attention. Don't think that I have not already looked into this ;-) No guarantee, but I would not rule out a future TerraModels Fly->FS200x converter. I have done some preliminary research, and I am waiting for the FS2002 scenery SDK to release.I do not anticipate there ever being a TerraModels for FS200x, but there might be a converter. I think overall this would be a boost for Fly, because several ex-fly fans have emailed me about this very thing. There are some technical issues though. For example, the Lat/Long positions of the models in Fly, might not match the FS2002 coordinates perfectly. I guess a tool good be developed to reposition the scenery slightly for FS2002.I am not trying to excite anyone about this, but I thought it might spur some ideas :)Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Allen,A converter sounds nice :)And if the models developers for FS2002 would kindly release their models for both sims I would gladly give away my models too. If this was possible, both sims would get a terrific scenery boost !Been dreaming about this for many years ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not trying to excite anyone about this, but I thought it might spur some ideas Well, you got me excited. This may rock this community in a significant way. Good luck with your research! Meanwhile I am more than happy with what is available for Fly!Mannie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the Scenery SDK, I'm afraid you'll have to wait a long time... Looks like they dont want to let go of it. They probably use it for their upcoming CF3, and it's, therefore, apparently still a profit-maker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew,At one time I thought that it would be great to port the FS200x airport sceneries to Fly. Now, I only use the out-of-the-box airport sceneries with FS2002.While there are lots of beautiful airports for FS2002, the typical airport seems to be very inefficient when it comes to optimizing for the best frame rates. In other words, there does not seem to be a low-poly version of the airports models. If there is, then it is not often implemented. I am hoping that there will be something in the FS2002 Scenery SDK that discusses this. I did not see anything in previous SDK's (there is texture use optimizations though...nicely done).I am not saying that all 3rd party airports in FS2002 kill frame rates, I am just saying that they are not optimized well. With the awesome power of the FS2002 AI system, saving airport polygons becomes even more important.Because of this issue, I would personally not want to port the FS2002 models to Fly. Maybe I am missing something here. If so, I wish someone would point it out. I have brought it up about 1/2 dozen times before on the MSFS boards over the years, but nobody ever replies :(Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Allen,A good point. Back to the basics then, the ever important rule about making efficient, low poly models, or models with a low-poly option.Some sceneries may be useful and some may not. If a poly optimizer came up we would be closer. I guess the hardest part is coming to an agreement with the other developers...I have asked questions in the Norwegian forums, but, like you I get noe answer. Strange, huh ?Another thing I`d like to mention again is the hardware. If people want good scenery they can`t expect to get this with a slow, stone age computer all the time. If the users keep up with the hardware, then the models does not need to be that efficient...So, if we let time works for us I think there is still a chance, as long as we all keep Fly II alive :)Well, I`m off for a week, hope I`ll find an Internet cafe in Germany !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the users keep up with the hardware, then the models does not need to be that efficientYou would think that. However...Take the FS2002 AI aircraft for instance. About 98% of them have too many polygons to be used as AI traffic (and a large % don't work anyway, no landing gear). Right now, you can only activate a few at a time, because the majority of the available aircraft available contain lots of polygons (I have seen 8,000 or even 10,000 polygons on some A/C). With these kinds of aircraft, even the fastest machines start to choke if there are 6 or 8 aircraft within view.The Project AI team is working on low-poly A/C for FS2002 AI. They are making them as low-poly as possible, without sacrificing too much detail. I applaud them for their efforts. They are going to knock peoples socks off.As long as I have known, flight sim sofware has always been ahead of the hardware. Have a good trip.Allen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've come into this discussion late - but here's my 2 cents worth. A lot of the 2K2 models (buildings and aircraft) use multiple textures of 1024x1024. In complex scenery, with lots of models using large texture sizes, it's no wonder the frame rates bog down (even on the fastest machines) ...I wish the SMF had the ability to use multiple textures, but that's just me ;-)Cheers,Danny VickersAustralian Fly! Group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kia Ora Preston *:-* ,I am well, hope everything is going good for you - have`nt been around for a while.Kind RegardsAndy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Yves,Nice to see you too, I`m busy with study at the moment - and still holding out hope for the water fix so I can complete NZAA.Looking forward to that stunning looking ATR :) , and your new website.Kind RegardsAndy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Andrew,I`ll be in touch, I am still playing with a few new water animations on and off when I find the time, your photo`s will be very helpfull.Thankyou.Kind RegardsAndy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish the SMF had the ability to use multiple textures, but that's just me I agree Danny. FS2002 handles the texture side of things very nicely.Allen

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