slavik35ua

On 9/14/2020 at 6:56 AM, kaosfere said:

I had never heard of this airport, or this developer, before today, but I bought it and have enjoyed my first few flights in the vicinity.   It's a small single-runway coastal field in Montenegro with mountains all around and a nice over-water approach, including a little modeled harbor and a bunch of VFR landmarks.  It seems to be adapted from an X-Plane product and some of the building textures might not be top-top quality, but overall first impressions are pretty good.  There are lots more screenshots on the store page at Simmarket if you're interested.   (Can't link due to the rules, but it shouldn't be too hard to find.)

Hey there, I’m the developer of this scenery for MFS. I’m glad you enjoyed it, that’s what I was hoping for ;) 

Many buildings (airport area) do come from xplane, though all of them have been retextured. What’s totally new in the MFS version: all the landmarks, terminal interiors and control tower interior and all textures. 
 

Happy flights!

On ‎12‎.‎04‎.‎2017 at 8:32 PM, Hegedus Marton said:

Hello everybody!

In my opinion, the future is X-Plane 11. I also used P3D and FSX. Firstly the big problem is that: P3D/FSX are 32bit. Okay, somebody said, a 64-bit P3D coming. (maybe) I'm not talking about just this problem. I'm talking about a lot's of problem. This was just one. So the Laminar Research made a wonderful program. Out of the box, the simulator looks very very good, and beautiful. FSX and P3D out of the box, looks horrible. So guys, okay If you install "1000 ton" of addons to P3D/FSX, maybe you will get a better scenery quality and looking. These are very expensive, and you need to hold a lot's of space in your HDD/SSD. But what is the "real hit"?? A program which looking good with more than 100$ add-on's or a program which looking good just out of the box?

For X-Plane 11 you can download a lot's of good freeware scenery's! You also can do scenery's! And what is the best? You can make photoscenery for free into the simulator!

I think they saw what perform the X-Plane 11. I think they going to make also good Airplane's and Scenery's (orbx) for XP11. PMDG did one. They aren't stop here! Aerosoft also made new scenery's for XP11. They aren't stop. And I heard, the orbx is also coming to XP!

I used P3D/FSX. I don't want to install 200GB scenery and mod to get looking good! For me with GTX1080 also bad performance. (I7 7700k,16GB RAM) I don't want this. I'm staying with X-Plane 11!

Thank you for reading!

Has never been said better than this. 

2 hours ago, kevinh said:

You create a whole aircraft flight model by analysing how the aircraft responds in flight to various inputs (control surface position, thrust, the aircraft's motion, etc). This results in a flight model which responds exactly as the aircraft would do to changes. You don't gain anything by analysing it at a lower level.

These days it's possible to predict to how a new aircraft will fly using CFD techniques, which is an even lower level of detail than X-Plane's blade elements. This is great for producing very accurate predicted performance and producing a very efficient aircraft designs. The calculations are complex, but don't need to be done in real time. Once you have flight test measurements to work with you don't need to have this highly detailed modelling to predict aircraft behaviour. You have the test results which tell you how the whole aircraft responds. Such a model produces exactly the same results as one based on CFD or X-Plane blade elements. Except you don't have to model the airflow over each of the thousands of polygons that make up the aircraft's 3D shape and then integrate all these forces to find the toal force on the aircaft. For a flight simulator these calculations must be in real time, So the whole aircraft model is more efficient in that respect.

That's a good lesson for me. Thanks a lot for the explanations.

5 hours ago, kevinh said:

Sorry Viacheslav, I didn't mean it that way. Only that if you speculate about something you should expect that opinion might be challenged. Yes, I shouldn't have been sarcastic but there is a serious point behind that. Whole aircraft models are perfectly valid.

No prob, the whole world can't live in harmony cuz there r always different opinions and that's okay, I do expect my opinion to be doubted/challenged and so do others(I hope), besides that, even if the FAA approves the "one entity" calculation system, would it be more precise to calculate the forces applied on the wings/vertical stab separately, than just calculating how a slight wind shear affected the whole planes tragectory? Or am I wrong? Would be more than pleased to hear your thoughts.

8 hours ago, kevinh said:

If you don't know something don't speculate about it and expect not to be challenged by people who do. I did read carefully and I just explained why your "maybe limited" idea was not correct.

Ok, so if I don't know something I should stay away from that and never try to express any of my opinions. IMHO People who are familiar with that shouldn't be like "hey go call FAA if you doubt my words"

Thanks

Oh, and that "one entity" says a lot about the calculations, because you know, it's not that precise when you take a 70m long plane and calculate all its movements just as a tiny "one entity", this could be acceptable for GAs, but definitely not for the big airliners 

29 minutes ago, kevinh said:

No, it is not limited by something like that. Just because FSX doesn't let you visualise forces in real time does not mean it doesn't calculate them like that. XP does that primarily to help designers visualise the forces along the wingspan. FSX flight model designers don't need to visualise that because the whole aircraft is simulated as one entity. Also, it wouldn't make any sense not to do it in real time.

Please don't base your criticisms on how you think things might be.

If you read carefully you'll see that I didn't say anything exact about fsx limitations, this was just my assumption, definitely not a statement, so don't make me look like a self-confident physicists who says he's the god of everything and obey him and pray to him. 

Maybe we should finish our physics discussion and I'll continue begging PMDG to make at least one airliner for the mighty xp11.

It is, but limited or something, or maybe not, i'm not a developer of any of those, btw, so I can't say exactly. However, in XPL I can see the flight model making its calculations IRT, by pressing ctrl+m, I can see the thrust vector, I can see the lift vector etc etc...

2 minutes ago, kevinh said:

X-Plane does have a better flight model in that it offers finer detail to the designer. FSX/P3D is a "whole aircraft" model, whereas XP uses aerofoil elements to build up a whole aircraft. XP also has a more detailed lateral-directional aerodynamics so it's better in asymmetric conditions. But each element is still a lookup table, so XP uses those but at a much lower level than FSX. The fact that FSX uses whole aircraft lookup tables does not make that a bad flight model, it's how full flight simulators are usually programmed too. Both FSX and XP follow the same aerodynamic and stability principles. 

Of course they follow same principles, physics can't be different, it's based on the real-life aspects after all, the difference between XPL and FSX physics is that XPL is making its calculations in real time, taking into the account all the factors at that very moment of flying.

13 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

My point was that the advantage of the lights being real lights makes it easier for our modelers to work with. The users see these benefits in that the lighting looks more pleasing, but the real advantage is for the people doing the lighting work. With FSX, you have to use all kinds of hacks to do it.

Advantages in one sim are not there in others. All the same, the sim with the advantage may have a glaring drawback in another, making it difficult for a dev elsewhere. This is not as cut and dry as a lot of people attempt to make it.

Oh, that's the way you meant it, cuz what I thought was that u tried to say that the default lights may seem not easy to work with, turns out they are really nice and good for the dev team. Thanks a lot.

15 minutes ago, scandinavian13 said:

*Steps back in, obligatorily*

For what it's worth, the correlation to real life of crash tolerances are feeble at best in the sim.

Each sim has its own benefits. Not all of those benefits/drawbacks will be known to an end user unless they've developed for the platforms. Having actual light sources makes things easier, in theory, for people like Jason and Vin, who use those features. Dynamics are a different story.

...then again, what do we know about that kind of stuff? We're injecting lookup tables into XPL to sidestep the blade element theory stuff.

(The above line is a joke. People saw the PFPX file that I put together for the DC-6 to use with PFPX for flight planning, saw lookup tables, and immediately accused us of wrongdoing...without doing any research...or bothering to look at the very first line of the file explaining what it was.)

There are tradeoffs everywhere. Different sims are no exception. Arguing otherwise is pointless. Nobody is going to win this discussion.

Hmmm, this made me confused, why are the default XPL lights that weird, that you say only Jason and Vin use it, as I have read, these lights can be modified well, though they can't be fully custom, but the default ones on the 737 look pretty nice, same to JAR/Rotate products, their visuals are nice, especially the Rotate MD80, which has 5 fuses each in 4096x4096 

8 minutes ago, kevinh said:

You may have used FSX/P3D for six years, but that doesn't mean you know how the flight model actually works. If you did you would know the "on rails" comment is just X-Plane enthusiast's trash talk. We all know native turbulence in FSX is rubbish, but if you use something like ASN or AS16 for weather you will get a much better experience. In fact much more turbulence than you need. You seem to be basing your comments on the level of turbulence. That doesn't even begin to cover it.

My debate with you is about the flight dynamics, not what the sim looks like. No one seriously disputes X-Plane looks good.

BTW if you want to play a numbers game, I started simming way back with FS5, but I've been working in flight simulation for 40 years.

Okay, your 40 years and i'm no one in the sim industry and know nothing about the flight dynamics, but all of your proofs base around something like "it's not on the rails", "xpl amateurs phrases" and so on, but how about a firm proof why you don't think, that XPL has better FD

2 hours ago, kevinh said:

I know FSX/P3D is not "on the rails". I thought we'd established that. I was just asking you to confirm it for yourself. I don't think you understand the flight modelling in FSX/P3D so you aren't really qualified to discuss it.

Have u read my previous posts? 6 years in total on the "FSX" engine, i'm more than sure what i'm talking about the flight model, but, the very big thing that differs the physics between fsx and x-plane is the extreme weather. Try to fly in so called "red zones" in X-Plane and you'll be dead, and what happens in FSX/P3D? "Light chop", I've been flying on the PMDG 747 recently, and flew into a big red splat on my screen, but nothing happened, AS16 and PMDG747 didn't make me dig the ground, but in the default 737 in XP11 I simply got "Structure over-g" and dived deeply. So, the "rails" subjects can be discussed sooooooooooooo long, and i'm not exaggerating. 

Here's my screenshot taken right now to highlight the beauty of XP11 once more, and just imagine the gorgeous PMDG 737/777/737 shiny like this. Outstanding

Oh, forgot to say about the lights, in XP the lights are real lights, not a texture, just look at these landing lights, you can see how they illuminate the glass they are behind, and the fuselage,(scr taken yesterday).

12 minutes ago, kevinh said:

I only mentioned the default 172 in default weather because even in that state with no payware addons it shows FSX does not run on rails. I'm puzzled that you think GA planes perform the same in all sims. Maybe you should try A2A's GA sims, or XP11's 172.

I run FSX-SE by the way. That doesn't need any tweaking ether.

So you talking about physics but still think FSX/P3D is not on the "rails", okay, I think our conversation should be closed to avoid future arguments and misunderstandings, I think we'd better stay with our opinions and just enjoy what we have, waiting for the developers to be cross-platform, so everyone could enjoy each amazing plane in each sim, however, till that happens, i'll probably be sitting in the real plane.

Peace

On ‎01‎.‎05‎.‎2017 at 3:53 PM, kevinh said:

I'm sorry, but the claims that P3D and FSX fly on rails are so discredited and lazy that they are hardly worth responding to. So I recommend you take a flight in the FSX default 172 in the default stormy weather scenario then reconsider your "flies on rails" comment. Or just put a crosswind on. That's not even considering well modelled payware aircraft weather engine addons. Things X-Plane is notoriously lacking.

I've not flown a large airliner myself, but I have flown Level D sims for 744s and 777s many times. Believe me, the rotation forces required are not large. Real aircraft control forces are of course not comparable to flightsim, as most simmers use hobby yokes and sticks which are very lightly loaded. But control deflection can be comparable if you calibrate things well. And if you were honest with yourself, you would have to acknowledge that the control deflection required for rotation in X-Plane is no greater than it is in FSX.

Crosswinds, wind shears, default Cessna, that's not serious, general aviation is almost same in every sim, I've been flying in FSX for 4 years, 2 years in P3D, and now coming close to 2 month in X-Plane, so, as you can see, i'm pretty experienced simmer, and X-Plane 11, is the sim which is, well, if not the best in physics aspect, but definitely more comfortable then 2006-year 32-bit code FSX/P3D, it's much more simple and does not require any tweaking, affinity masks, NVidia inspectors, VAS monitoring, ENVTEX and so on, it's ready from the box, especially annoying thing is P3D, when they charge you 60$ for a 32bit in 2017 (laughs intensively), give it a try, and you won't come back to P3D/FSX, but even I do, because of PMDG, so, and some mentioned before, X-Planers aren't so "narrow minded" 

3 hours ago, downscc said:

This topic is for opinions and few object that you express yours.  However, to disdain others with  trash language because they have different opinions is out of place.  Please act with respect for others and their opinions. Thank you.

I didn't mean to offend someone, but if somebody was, my sincere apologies, just a little butthurt.

15 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Ha ha, I think you took the "bait" on that one. The PMDG products don't rely on the default aerodynamics built in to FSX and P3d.  The "piece of wood" kind of talk  falls into the category of hyperbole. None of the 3rd party XP11 aircraft handle any better than their closest 3rd party FSX/P3d counterpart and that's because the "high end" P3d/FSX aircraft like PMDG's, RealAir's, A2A's, etc. are developed by people with first hand familiarity with the real life aircraft. Of course, the default C172 in XP11 is light years more realistic than the default FSX C172 and that's basically the selling point of XP11.

You guys are talking nothing but sh*t, because all the aircrafts in FSX/P3D fly like they are on the rails, wind shears, gusts, they are like toys, but in X-Plane you really sweat when trying to land a plane with bad weather conditions, and all the words like "PMDG has their own physics" are complete bullsh*t, take a landing as an example, or a take-off, you slightly pull the toke and the aircraft lifts off easily, like a feather, real aircrafts don't fly like that, for a simple comparison google some "justplanes" videos on youtube, and you'll see, how much force pilots apply to lift-off/flare. 

13 minutes ago, kevinh said:

The flight sim industry has always been slow because to develop a new simulation environment is an enormous amount of work, there's a whole world to simulate. Driving game developers can very quickly create a few game locations or race tracks that don't even have to bear much resemblance to reality. Flight sims have to look extremely accurate and the less visible parts, such as the navigation ground stations, still need to be accurately located. They need to dynamically model weather and atmosphere in a realistic way. The physics involved in accurately simulating aircraft (and their systems) to the standards we are all accustomed to is orders of magnitude harder than creating a vehicle physics model and customising that to replicate the limited number of cars the developer provides with their game.

You are assuming a lot in saying X-Plane is the future. It still has only a fraction of the users of FSX/P3D and that won't change simply by PMDG providing more X-Plane products. There are already several good airliner sims available in X-Plane and it hasn't made much difference. I have XP10 but I haven't yet used it for VA flying because the X-Plane ecosystem is so sterile and it isn't well supported for online flying. It has taken a couple of decades for MSFS and now P3D to get where it is. It could take many years for X-Plane to catch up to that level.

The other thing that needs to be said is that if you get XP11 there is no need to uninstall P3D (or FSX). There is no law against using more than one sim and you don't need to decide to be in either one or the other camp. I have FSX, XP10 and FS9 installed and used for various purposes.

I do agree with what you've said, however, I have both sims on my PC, but after flying in XP11 and getting used to so called "close-to-reality physics" I almost can't fly normally in P3D, our loved PMDG 737 fells to me like a flying piece of wood, but just 1 month before I could fly it with my eyes closed, so, in this case, we can't sit on two chairs simultaneously.

5 hours ago, downscc said:

You are very wrong if you think most the work for a PMDG product is in developing the 3D objects or models.  That might be true if you are building an airplane for the SDK to use the simulator's default flight dynamics, engines, autopilot and navigation but then it would not be a PMDG product.

Why'd u decide so? Most of the work is concentrated on systems, not the 3D visuals, also i'd like to add, that default XP11 SDK(dynamics, engines, A/P) is amazingly good, it renders everything pretty well, maybe you've never tried the XP11 if you're saying such words... Wing flex, reflections, etc, all of these is built in in the default XP11 SDK, and does not require any additional animations as the P3D/FSX does, it's way better

On ‎23‎.‎04‎.‎2017 at 6:12 PM, downscc said:

It is not an "export" in any meaning of that word.  Much redesign is required to the code and graphics.  It is not a problem if you are willing to spend the time and money and are assured a large enough market to recoup the investment.  "Shouldn't be a problem,"  goodness.

I know it's not just a double click in "XPtoFS", it's a big amount of work to do to make this thing work in P3D/FSX, but the fact is, that all the 3D models are same, just in different format, and as I heard, making aircraft systems in X-Plane is way easier and more comfortable, because LR gives a pretty good SDK kit for developers, so... 

They're exporting the cloudmaster from X-Plane into P3D/FSX, so doing vice versa shouldn't be a problem 

Has anybody questioned that delicate question before or not, but are you guys going to be diving further into X-Plane world and moving your masterpieces there?(737/777/747), X-Plane 11 is out now, and is having some serious problems with good planes (Boeings lol)  in it. Thank you for your reply

1 hour ago, WarpD said:

Contact the developer of SODE.

I'm registered on their forum, but can't create a topic bout this, it says "you don't have enough rights to do this"

sent them a direct email.

Hello, dear forum members,

when installing SODE, I faced this trouble, and I don't have a clue how to fix this thing, any help will be appreciated.

Are you sure it's not random clouds interfering?

 

 

Vic

Absolutely, I've tried to discover this thing many times, and every time it happens. Whenever the object is straight ahead of me, it can't be seen lighting, but as soon as I turn my head away to look forward, I can nicely see the object lighting with my "side vision"