Sign in to follow this  
Hornit

A new Cessna 421C skin uploaded.

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Looks great as usual Eric.....I got a question for you. Im using the 421 and seem to be having some probs with the huge textures. Is it possible to do a skin with 512X512 and or lower bit depth? More like 16bit or the 512 size texture? My V5 is going to be replaced shortly, but for now Im just curious as it should improve the spot plane view dramatically for those with ..ahem..more "challenged" systems. I can run the plane fine, just no matter what I do with the terrain texture etc sliders my terrain stays really blurry, only with this aircraft and the NAMC YS-11.ThanksHornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welp...this is a problem with Text-o-matic. It creates32 bit bitmaps...not DXT3 compressed bitmaps. If youwant to hand install your skins, you can use Imagetoolto convert the text-o-matic processed skins to DXT3to cut the skins down in size by about 75% in file size.Maybe at some point Flight 1 will use Text-o-maticto invoke imagetool by command line on the back end toconvert textures.The caveat of this is that you'll lose some detail.but if you are GPU/CPU challenged, this isnt a bad option.Also if you are considering using this plane for AI, thenits definitely worth doing.As for the YS-11, send me an email. I'll send you someconverted skins.Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 32bit textures could be a bugaboo for old video cards.It was a shame to see 3Dfx fold. They were the industry standard for a very long time.As Eric mentioned, I would suggest making your liveries with Text-O-Matic and then running the textures through Imagetool or Martin Wright's DXTbmp utility to convert them to DXT3 with mipmaps.DXT3 and mipmapping (You have to mip map DXT3) will result in image loss, but for an older video card, it may give you the performance increase you're looking for.That's an excellent looking livery Eric. I'm getting it now :)Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a huge compliment coming from you Roger. Your stuff isAMAZING. Im so digging those air racing P-51's!!!Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, that's outstanding that you're enjoying the Reno Mustangs. As soon as I get a wee bit of breathing room, maybe we'll get to do some racing. That would be great.I'm hoping some geriatric version (big pylons for old eyes) of a Reno racing course will come along soon.I think it would be as much fun to officiate and watch the races online as it would be to actually fly in them :DBest,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am in love with Miss America. Really nice work as usual Roger!By the way these 'Stangs work really well on my V5. Thanks. Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger, one thing I noted...I reduced the alpha channelby about 50% and it REALLY improves the richness of thecolor in the skins, both the F1 skins and of courseany 3rd party ones. Too much shine drops color outof the skin. Me thinks theres a tad too much in thedefault _a.bmp... but just an opinion. I correctedall mine after text-o-matic install by taking thefuselage_t.bmp and using Imagetool to convert it toa 32 bit targa. Then openned the targa in Photoshop,lightened up the alpha channel and saved. Then opennedthe targa in Imagetool and saved as fuselage_t.bmp.Works awesome. The original blue and white planelooks fantastic with just a touch less reflectivity inthe fuselage. Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh...and another thing...Has anybody looked at the engine smoke? it doesnt comeout from the engines. its too far out on the wings.I myself would like the I key option to turn it off anyway.It eats FPS anytime you use this.Eric

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eric,Actually, that's why the alpha channel is separated, so that repainters can adjust it for their respective works accordingly. On the style of excellent paints that you and Ron are doing, I would run the alpha in the white areas in the neighborhood of 205 while bumping the painted areas and numbers up to 225.The way I did the Reno Mustangs is a prime example of that. It gives a better contrast and looks more realistic for the contrast between the polished aluminum and the painted areas.As you say, too much reflectiveness gives the opposite effect desired and appears to dull the color for painted areas although 205 suits my taste for eggshell or offwhite.Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eric,Yup, know about the smoke.This is because the engine locations had to be set to a certain area to achieve the dynamics of the aircraft. I made the decision not to burden Steve with a change to it because it is too close to dead on to mess with it. Given the option of smoke dead on or flight dynamics dead on I chose the obvious. So... hit the start button, close your eyes and count to 4 then do the same to the other engine..:-lolI swear it will fix it !! :-lolBest,Jim Rhoads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,I've made some alternative DXT bitmaps for the 421. They don't have the same image quality as the 421's default 32bit textures, but the load times are much quicker.Backup your original textures and place these in your texture folder for the 421 :)I'm heading out the door now, but yes, I will try to make a short tutorial for converting 421 textures to DXT. That way you'll be able to download your favorite liveries and convert them without being confined to the one's I'm linking to below :)http://www.the-hangar.net/dxt3.zipBest,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger,wow that was quick. Thanks for the link, I'm downloading it as we speak. I tried converting them to DX3 and create mipmaps after that. I tried converting all textures and it worked with the exeption of the panel and VC is basically black (not the gauges, just the panel), so I guess I didn't do it right.....will keep trying.Thanks again and I'd love to see that tutorial of yours so that I can start converting some other aircrafts' textures on my good ole` Pentium3 ;-)Cheers,Peterhttp://home.neo.rr.com/zaehringer/pipersignature.jpgPIII600,512MB,Win98SE,DirectX8a,Geforce32DDR(Det.22.80),SBlive(4.06.703)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Peter,Not to fear, you're almost there. The only step you need to change is to use DXT1 instead of DXT3 for the bitmaps that DON'T end with xxxx_t.bmp and you've got it :)I begged off leaving home because CART is racing at Leguna Seca on the Speed channel :)Best,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I left the panel and vc stuff alone as it runs fine on my system actually, i did just the exterior textures.Hornit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eric knows the right person to talk about this with is me and this isn't the right venue.First of all, as Eric might have realised, thre are reasons it is where it is and despite what Eric may think I actually do know what I am doing. This is a workaround to a screw-up in the simulator. The smoke generation point as defined by MS is the same as the thrust point in the simulator. It is not a variable : it is tied to thrust points and it can't be turned off. Dynamic workarounds to multi-engine highlight this : having the startup smoke generation point the same as the thrust point is, of course, patently absurd and it was flagged as yet another anomaly during the FS2002 beta testing process and blown off, along with asymmetric flight and yaw response on multi-engine a/c. Don't believe me ? > "Steve Small" wrote in message> news:O2gGx#dMBHA.2072@...> Track ID: 275174433> Area Aircraft> Sub Area Beech Baron> Sub Component Flight Model> Build CURRENT BUILD> Beta ID > Name Steve Small> E-mail steve.small@bigpond.com> Phone > Problem Type 2 - Functionality impaired> Is the Problem Reproducible? Always> Bug Title ASYMMETRIC FLIGHT> Detailed Description of the Problem:SS COMMENTS :> The torque effect on this and presumably all multi-engine prop a/c is> just plain wrong. A multi-engine prop a/c should not be leaping left > towards the bushes when both engines are operative on take-off. Similarly, > slow speed flight towards VMC with one engine caged is unrealistic. > Previously bugged and commented on. To all intents and purposes this is a> single engine a/c which anyone who's type rated on a Baron - as I AM -> should observe. Pull an engine after takeoff is a non event : little > impact except on climb rates.>> Asymmetric effect on prop flight models needs a lot of work.> Steps to Reproduce CONSISTENT> Changed Date 8/26/2001 3:06:04 PM> Status Active> Closed Date 8/22/2001 9:20:10 AMSS NOTE : THIS IS THE FUNNY BIT : MICROSOFT'S ANSWER >>> Resolution Unable to reproduce the bug>> Comments -------------------- From : BetaID -----------------------> Submitted: Aug 26 2001 3:06PMSS COMMENTS :>> In a prop twin (contra rotating props or not) such as a B58, on power-up> at takeoff there is virtually no yaw response of significance. Changing > slider settings had no impact. By your theory .... 50% realism settings > should produce pretty much no need for rudder input but presently you need > almost full rudder input. The a/c is effectively uncontrollable at> Published crosswind component. Suggest you re-think your response. Maybe> you should try flying a similar a/c. You have made great improvements > to the physics model but I wish you'd just take the time to listen a > bit more to folks like myself who actually know what the hell> they are talking about. Do you need to see a copy of my log book ? 1000> Hrs + in the B58 alone.>> -------------------- From : MS Product Group --------------------> Submitted : Aug 22 2001 9:20AM>> Make sure Aircraft > Realism settings are set as desired.>SS COMMENTS :> Seminole, or Navajo - it really doesn't matter which type), with no> crosswind component and with both engines producing normal relative power,> there is no pronounced yaw effect to the left that dictates large rudder> input. The a/c tend to go straight ahead with not a lot of rudder activity> and certainly no need for a constant bootfull of right rudder.>> Anyone who has had any flight time in multi-engine a/c I would imagine> will recognise the phenomenon I am describing and will recognise these two> separate issues.>> So, long after submitting the Bugs, I later found them closed with the> comment :>> "Make sure Aircraft > Realism settings are set as desired. ">> Well, unfortunately this response is not appropriate and highlights> what I guess can only be a communications failure or that the phenomenon> associated with multi-engine flight are not understood.>> The point is that the above recommended solution simply is not viable> for two valid reasons :>> 1. To achieve the normal, negligible yaw effect on a normal take-off> in a normally functioning multi-engine a/c, the sliders have to be all the> way left (to zero effect) which ... is clearly inappropriate. But, in that> position, you do see what a normal take-off with two good engines should be.> A paradox. The solution to this problem should be to use full realism slider> settings but of course this makes the problem worse :(>> 2. Using the minimum realism setting, which I can only presume what> the recommended approach was, makes the second issue - the already weak> modelling of asymmetric - even weaker.>> The Bug is presently re-opened but unless I can be assured I am> explaining myself adequately I suspect it will be closed again with the same> answer, and the Bug will continue unaddressed to Production.>> Is the phenomenon I am describing understood, and will it be> addressed ?>> Thanks in advance for clarification.>> Rgds,> .....> Steve Small> Canberra, Australia>> ----------Well, the bug report was closed off again and at that point I realsied Microsoft weren't interested in plausible munti-engine behaviour. So, after banging my heasd against the wall, I quit the Beta process and devised all the workarounds they either didn't want to implement, or that they didn't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>Well, the bug report was closed off again and at that point >I realsied Microsoft weren't interested in plausible >munti-engine behaviour. So, after banging my heasd against >the wall, I quit the Beta process and devised all the >workarounds they either didn't want to implement, or that >they didn't understand. In all seriousness, I don't believe Microsoft has the time or will to implement all the changes you, Ron Freimuth, & others desired. Too much to worry about, let alone making FS2002 a completely accurate multi-engine sim, or totally accurate aerobatic simulation........ for that matter! Just to MANY directions to go, with what is basically an entertainment sim for the masses.Which IS the reason I didn't support the Steve Small/Ron Freimuth versus Microsoft "war" to begin with! :)But BTW------ love the C421 & Cheyenne flight models---- good work!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

G'day Larry,Oh heck it wasn't a war, just frustration having some MS clerk telling qualified folks they "Cannot Reproduce" or "Check Realism Settings" ... vacuous replies to everything submitted of substance does annoy and we all have limits. Hopefully there are more than a few at MS that "Cannot Reproduce" :-lol Thanks indeed for the feedback, I do appreciate it. Especially from another driver (who 'can reproduce'). Best,

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