Sign in to follow this  
Guest evansgg

Thank God for FU3

Recommended Posts

Still doing a bit of a system restore after a computer re-org a month or two back I decided to reinstal FS2004 plus recent official patch last night. It took me a good 2 hours to reinstal that plus my add ons including Megascenery Southern California and its recent patch. I then fired up in Southend UK using the ABacus Enhanced Terrain package. This is simply awful in comparison to FU3Uks. Then switched to Banning California. I swear it took at least 15 minutes to load!! IMHO FS2004 is not a good program. Too many tweaking choices, and their premier scenery packs still dont take it to FU3 level. So sincere thanks to all you designers and clever people who have kept FU3 going.:)

Share this post


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

Gary,My enthusiasm for FU3 has increased again over recent weeks, and this has persuaded me to create some more scenery packages for the SanFran region. I have downloaded over 130 DRG (Digital Raster Graphics) maps of this region from the BARD (Bay Area Regional Database) website, and these will be used to create a SANFRAN PYLONS package, together with lots of other new scenery packages, plus upgrades of a few existing packages.Interestingly, there is also a map of the Farallon Islands. I have no idea why these were never included in the SanFran region, but it would be great to see a realistic representation of them in FU3 (with accurate elevation data)......Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris, the existing Farallon islands are OK (in fact they are very clever bits of design - you guys made an excellent package with lots of detail buried in it - I enjoyed the suspension bridge, the wharfs etc). I used to enjoy flying out there but as I said, I haven't loaded up the old areas for ages. Rather than redoing this, why don't you work with agtim or Bogdan to make a topographically accurate St Catalina island? The high airport and cliffs adn touristy nature of the place would make this an excellent joyflight, maybe adding a bit of Los Angeles or Orange Cty as a startoff point in outer terrain. RobD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris I got this the other day and forwarded it to you via the webmail address as it said. I guess you didnt get it either? Big mystery this business of communication failure.Dear Mr Evans,Thank you for your email dated 29/1/05, regarding difficulty sending to the email address Christopher.Low@btinternet.com.The issue that you have advised may require escalation. Before this can be done, we require the following information:* any errors that either yourself or the designated recipient may be receiving,* if the designated recipient can send email to you successfully.Please also try sending to this address using the BigPond Webmail service. As this sendsusing Telstra.com HTTP servers, rather than BigPond SMTP servers, the identifying IP addresswill be different.To send through WebMail, click the Compose button after logging into the following website.http://webedge.bigpond.com/webedgeOnce we have this information, including the results of sending through WebMail, we will be able to investigate this matter further.If you'd like to find out more about BigPond Technical Support, please visit our Help Centreat www.bigpond.com/help The Help Centre is also the place you can get your Frequently Asked Questions answered and try out BigPond Assist, a free tool designed to make it easier for you to solve any problemsthat you have with your BigPond service.Kind regards,James KutaBigPond Technical Support Team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,I would prefer an ACCURATE rendition of the Farallon Islands. I am not doubting the enjoyment that many of you may get with respect to the existing package, but I'm pretty sure that the REAL islands don't include a suspension bridge :-)As for Santa Catalina Island, I am only really interested in the SanFran region these days as far as packages are concerned. Anything that involves the outer terrain scenery is certainly of no interest to me, and I have even lost interest in the high resolution Seattle region. It simply isn't anywhere near as interesting as the Bay area for jet flights (or enjoying the scenery).Since the packages that I mentioned above will take me some time to complete, I prefer to concentrate on these in the near future.Best Wishes,Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Farallon package was made by Bogdan, with the scenery models being made by Ansgar and Bogdan. I don't know if anyone else was involved (probably agtim!). I don't know either if they were trying to render the islands accurately or not. Any comments from the developers? I found it a fun package, an enjoyable flight across water to get there, lost to look at, and a break-through package in the way it linked large scale terrain models with ordinary models (since the islands themselves had to be rendered). I "flew" there many times, mainly in Ansgar/Jon's new DC3.Chris, what you have achieved in your large scale packages is also amazing, and the detail is excellent. And sometime I'll probably reload SanFran - I certainly will reload Seattle and head back to the Cascades again - these areas are great. But at the moment, UK is too much fun and so much to do.RobD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,I completely understand. It is only recently that I made the decision to concentrate on the SanFran region, but you have been developing stuff for the UK South region for what seems like an eternity :-)Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started construction of my SANFRAN PYLONS package last night (there is now a nice line of pylons from just north of San Francisco International, to just south of Moffett Field). This project will take some time, but I am hoping to get a fair amount of work done this weekend. I will post a few screenshots within the next few days.Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Farallon Islands aren't accurately. They use the existing model of the island in the fled and a few modified/cuted examples of this model with textures taken somewere from the SFO scenery. That is why Chris doesn't accept them - he wants real islands.The additional models of the islands were made by Ansgar.B.Adamski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After I've got your pylons package for the Seattle, I started to make it for the SFO. I was wandering why you didn't do it, so I had to make it myself. When I finish it, I'll upload it (both regions) to my page for people in Poland.B.Adamski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bogdan,The reason that I haven't done one for the SanFran region until now is because it is much harder to see where the pylons are located compared to the Seattle region. The huge swaths of cut down trees around Seattle provided obvious markers for the location of pylons, but the San Francisco Bay area is a much tougher prospect. In fact, it's a bit of a nightmare ! I am not even sure if all of the power transmission lines indicated on the Bay Area DRG (Digital Raster Graphics) maps that I downloaded are the large versions. In fact, I suspect that some of them are very small when compared to the monsters that Jon created :-)That's why I posted a thread about detailed San Francisco Bay area maps on this forum. I wanted to know if anyone had maps with this level of detail, but unfortunately that doesn't appear to be the case.I do not want to simply add pylons here, there and everywhere. I am using the maps mentioned above to accurately position pylons in the SanFran region, but this is a slow process. I have to keep checking the various maps, and then identify certain features that match those in the SanFran texture maps themselves. It is very likely that the full job will take several weeks to complete.Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,I did some 11/33kV line poles and released them in the 'jmod3.zip' package:ppole10.bin/t_ppol10.mipThey don't really show up at too great a distance but I found them good near strips to break up the sky somewhat. I used them in the 'Lewis Creek' package and have added them to some of yours as well - again, just near the strips for effect ;)Do we need an intermediate pylon? Let me know 'coz I can do it overnight if need be! And, this one I could reference on one corner, allowing placement on slopes :-wave Exactly why I decided not to do that with the originals, I just don't know :-rollRegards,**************Jonathan Point**************"I'd rather be down here wishing I was up there than up there wishing I was down here"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,Do you have a screenshot of the "11/33 kV poles" ? If they are not visible at any great distance, then maybe we do need a sort of "intermediate". There is one line of pylons that I have in mind for such a model in the SanFran region. This runs all the way from Camp Meeker (west of Calistoga), through the Lake Berryessa and Monticello Dam area, and out across the Central Valley towards Sacramento.Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fired up FU3 the other day and was actually a bit dissapointed with what I saw. I was thinking to myself "I thought *that* looked good?". It's a good sim, but it is almost 6 years old now, an eternity in terms of computer advancments.I agree about the tweakings though. You can spend literally weeks just tweaking settings and installing stuff without actually flying, easily spending 100's of

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jimmi,It would be nice if the following aspects of FU3 could be included in the next version of MSFS:-1. PHYSICS BASED FLIGHT MODELS.....Despite the ability of aircraft designers to program extremely accurate flight models in MSFS (assuming that they add enough numbers to the database), I would still prefer to see flight models that are based on real world physics. This would result in more accurate ground handling...and the ability to simulate the ENTIRE flight envelope of an aircraft. I have never been impressed by the flight models in MSFS, and the reason for this is that they do not pass the "Chris Low test". This involves (as you are no doubt well aware) flying "low and slow", without using trim, and with a high angle of attack :-)2. EXTERNAL VIEWPOINTS.....Single key commands for various viewpoints please. I think I can survive without a keyboard command for de-icers or "seatbelt on" signs :-lol3. USER INTERFACE......I would like to see a completely redesigned version. The current one is basically "Windows FS".4. THRUST REVERSERS....I don't know what they are like in FS2004, but they were abysmal in FS2002.5. VFR COCKPIT VIEW.....Maybe the new virtual cockpits are better these days, but I prefer to have a good view of the outside world when I'm flying. Obscuring 85 per cent of the view with switches and dials might have been a good idea when CPUs were slower than a horse and cart, but clock frequencies are measured in GIGAHERTZ these days (not GEE-GEE HERTZ) :-lolChris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>Jimmi,>>It would be nice if the following aspects of FU3 could be>included in the next version of MSFS:->>1. PHYSICS BASED FLIGHT MODELS.....Despite the ability of>aircraft designers to program extremely accurate flight models>in MSFS (assuming that they add enough numbers to the>database), I would still prefer to see flight models that are>based on real world physics. This would result in more>accurate ground handling...and the ability to simulate the>ENTIRE flight envelope of an aircraft. I have never been>impressed by the flight models in MSFS, and the reason for>this is that they do not pass the "Chris Low test". This>involves (as you are no doubt well aware) flying "low and>slow", without using trim, and with a high angle of attack>:-)Chris,I'm so thrilled to once again, being able to respond! :D As you know, I've used every version of MSFS for years. I've also downloaded demo's of X-Plane with physics based models for years, and own Version 7 as well.To be blunt, after flying the RealAir simulations Marchetti SF260 & Spitfire as much as I do, I really don't like flying an X-Plane physics based model at all! As someone else said, X-Planes seem to feel the same and have no individual character. The two planes above are filled with character, and can do a much better job of side slipping, aerobatics, and spins..................than these physic based models.BTW-- Dreamfleet, FSD, Flight1 and others have nice models too. I just happen to like canopies, and am somewhat biased.L.Adamsonedit: P.S., what's wrong with trimming for slow flight? Trimming is natural for power changes such as this. Even the default 172 will plug along in slow flight at a high angle of attack. Just tried it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to recreate your pic in FU3 (I assume the pic is from MSFS? You didn't say but it looks better colour depth so probably is). Here's the results:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/106118.jpgDifferent angle of plane, slightly different viewpoint in plane - sorry, best I could do.RobD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Larry,Maybe I have just tried the wrong planes, but I could never get them to fly in MSFS like they do in FU3. They always seem to be incredibly sluggish when responding to changes in engine power, which results in a tendency to "bob up and down" when even small power adjustments are made. This CAN happen in FU3, but it is nowhere near as severe.I like to fly low and VERY slow....in a jet plane. The lowest speed that I can fly the Beechjet in FU3 is around 115 knots. That's because this is the take-off speed of the jet with 20 degrees of flaps (and trim set to default). In other words, I take-off at 115 knots, I cruise at 115 knots, and I land at 115 knots. I control ascent and descent entirely by engine power changes, and all of my final approaches are executed by "feel". I do not use IFR navigation or ILS approaches (since the controller isn't very good at providing consistent altitude instructions), and I also don't use the autopilot.As for flight models, assuming that the Dreamfleet planes in MSFS exhibit amazingly accurate flight characteristics......I would still prefer physics based flight models :-) I am not looking for accuracy down to the last micron. I am not interested in the performance data of a Boeing 737 matching that of its real world counterpart to perfection. What I want is a plane that will react to a complex, dynamic environment by obeying the laws of physics and aerodynamics.I'm curious. How do planes interact with complex weather and turbulence in MSFS ? Is this another "by the numbers" calculation ?Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Feel" and reaction to power changes is one of my favorite parts to flight simulation. I noticed the improvement with the release of CFS2 a number of years ago. For the record, I see very few MS planes bob up & down (porpousing) with throttle changes. Would have to be a very bad flight dynamic file.But all isn't well in "pysics land" either. Check this thread out....http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?showtopic=11258

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem with the FU3 graphics are:-clouds-mesh quality (I was using a 19m mesh based on 5m source data. as you can see in my shot there's a lot of elevation detail on the ground)-Textures (256 colours vs 32-bit DXT compressed for FS)-Mipmapping (FU3 textures get blurry very quickly in the distanceThen there's the ineractive VC's that I have fallen in love with. Those make 2D bitmaps seem a bit outdated.Of course all this is to be expected given that theere are several years between the products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't argue with those comments, Jimmi. Nevertheless, I can't help feeling that I would prefer a version of MSFS that is more streamlined. In fact, my dream would be to see an "FS UK", which included everything that was great about Microsoft's Flight Simulator, everything that was great about Flight Unlimited 3, but with a scenery area restricted to the entire United Kingdom (in the kind of detail that can now be seen when using the VFR Photographic Scenery, VFR Terrain Mesh, and Gary Summons' UK2000 airports).And all for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting....but that problem seems to be due to the X-Plane world being broken up into FLAT segments, each of which is subject to calculations based on a SPHERICAL Earth. It has nothing to do with the flight models of the planes themselves, since they are simply abiding by the laws of physics. The problem lies in the fact that the implementation of those laws in X-Plane is obviously slightly flawed.I see no reason why that can't easily be solved.Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I didn't list the weak points of FS though. I could come up with quite a list unfortunately. I say unfortunately because I'm sure most here would like to see a sim that'd do everything FU3 does only better. FS isn't that sim, not yet. But it does look pretty and some payware planes fly quite well so for what I like to do in the sim, it provides a better compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The terrain mesh isn't a factor. As you would know from the Isle of Wight scenery, agtim has made detailed meshes for this area, and is presently developing a mesh for the whole of UKS. Where have you guys been? Haven't you flown over agtim's Welsh mountains yet? The mesh there is high quality and the detail mind-blowing (at 4m/pixel dare I say better than MSFS?) Chris, you should be aware of this - agtim's work is just about in your backyard! My comparison shot is from around London, where we are using a simplified terrain mesh. I agree about the clouds - one of LGS's great successes was to produce volumetric clouds way ahead of MSFS, but of course what was good for the first clouds is now a bit dated. The MIP fading is a problem too, although when you fly FU3 you don't really notice it too much. Its when airports suddenly appear out of nowhere that you wish the depth was a little greater. But my main concern with FU3 is the limited colour palette, which makes the ground a bit blocky. I haven't flown MSFS but I imagine they have the same problem in some areas, since they are using larger terrain textures (5m/pixel) - but probably to a lesser extent since they have a greater choice of colours. Surely these are fine points though? The feel of flying is what its about. Nothing in my mind can beat takeoff from a detailed airport such as LCA - realistic planes, terrain, airport etc.As to Gary's scenery, you have to be kidding. We're talking about replacing a 6 year old sim with 4 year old packages? Chris, I have volunteered to show you how to make models, I have released kits for making runways, manuals on how to make scenery, most people have mastered it now who wanted to. Instead of ignoring my work you could have got in and helped, you know. If you've got useful suggestions for improving the UK packages, I'm interested. Otherwise, go talk about Gary on the MSFS forum if you don't mind.RobD.

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