Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. After having a private conversation with Milviz and realizing that we made a mistake in not sending them the document we have presented in this forum (it was a technical mistake) we have decided to apologize for making this case public. As a result of that conversation we also want to make clear that Milviz model is not ours.
  2. Hi, We are the developers of the ATR-72 500 published by McPhat/Aerosoft (pg 9, plane manual). Last year MilViz announced in their facebook page that they were developing an ATR 72-600 (see Fig. 1). When we saw the first screenshots we recognized immediately our model (see Fig. 2). We couldn’t believe it, but after making a more in depth comparison we think there’s no doubt about the matches between the two models. Getting to match the camera position, angle and focal length, and superimposing both images we what you can see in Fig. 3. We sent an email to MilViz asking them if they have used our model in any way, under permission or not, and they replied that “we can categorically assure you that we are not using any parts of the McPhat/Aerosoft ATR-72”. Then we sent to them this document, asking how could they explain the coincidences between their model and ours. They didn’t reply. This post is meant to show the matches between our model and their model. In the first pictures (Figs. 1, 2 and 3) you can see how their model (in blue) matches with our model (in red) in almost every part. The exact match in shape could be attributed to the fact that we are both modelling the same aircraft. But, at least in this case, this can’t be a valid explanation, because we modeled the ATR using only pictures as a reference for all the shapes (we only had the overall dimensions of the aircraft; we didn’t have other particular measurements at all or CAD drawings). As you can see, the shapes match exactly in the fuselage, nose, tail, belly, engines,... Take for example the nose: both models have not only the same nose shape, but also the windows have the exact same shape and the positions of the antennae and the pitot tubes are also exactly the same (see Fig. 4). Or take the tail: again, the exact same shape and the exact same position for the antennae (see Fig. 5). If we compare our model to other developer´s ATRs (by Razbam Sim and Flight one), the differences between those models and ours are obvious (see Fig. 6a and 6b). On top of that, it’s almost impossible for two models to have the same errors. We’re not proud of this but, as it has been pointed out a couple of times by the users, the shape of the tail cone in our fuselage is curved (see Fig. 8), while in the real one is a clear straight line (see Fig. 7). Flight one got this one right (see Fig. 6b). An extreme example would be the frames we did around the passenger's windows. In our model, this frame protrudes to the outside (see Fig. 9). But this frame doesn’t exist in the original aircraft! As a matter of fact, you won’t find those protruding window frames in any aircraft, of course, since they will increase drag! The reason we had to model those was because we didn’t have enough texture resolution to paint the frames. You won’t find that kind of window frames in any other model and this is a trick we aren’t proud of: it was a last time fix for us. Another extreme example: if you compare the rear door in our model with a picture of the door in the real aircraft you will see that the space between the steps and the door itself is much shorter in our model (see Figs. 10 and 11). It’s surprising to see that MilViz has done the exact same mistake! Their door matches exactly with ours! Compare any two 3D models of the same aircraft and they won’t match as MilViz model matches ours. Even if we modeled again the same aircraft, our second model wouldn’t match the first one. Now, besides all of the matches we have found there are also some differences. Mainly the position of the wings, engines and main landing gears and other minor differences. Our guess is that MilViz have not just imported our model and include it as part of their model. This couldn’t be the case just because our model has been decimated (an automatic operation used to decrease vertex amount by collapsing nearby vertex based on an angle threshold) and so it doesn’t have a proper topology to work with. But they may have retopologized our model and made some changes on top of it. This technique consist in taking one model and build another upon the first one, snapping every vertex of the new model to the surface of the former one. It’s like tracing a drawing. (You can see an example here: Now, this implies an unauthorized use of our model, so it’s almost the same as directly “using parts of our model” (something they deny). When creating a 3D drawing or model out of pictures and free info, most of the work consist on investigation, making mistakes, corrections, checking the model and start again, so by tracing our work they are avoiding this 80% of the work, if not more. As we said, we asked privately and politely to MilViz if they have used our model in any way and they answered that they “can categorically assure you that we are not using any parts of the McPhat/Aerosoft ATR-72”. Then we sent them this document and asked them how they explain the coincidences between the two models and they didn’t reply. We have also sent this document to Aerosoft, since they are obviously also concerned, and they understand us and support us. Since MilViz have not given us an explanation, we have no choice but to make the case public, hoping that this way MilViz give us a valid explanation. Best regards, Alfredo Torrado & Juan Alcón.
  • Create New...