Default can be very nice.....

[huub vink]

Apart from the DC-3 texture everything you see is default. As you can see default can be very nice!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/DC3-1.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y210/Huub_Vink/DC3-2.jpg

[Skittles]

I think sometimes it's easy to slag off the default aircraft. There isn't one of them I don't like.

When you think about how much payware developers charge for one aircraft, it really is astonishing how much you get for your money with FSX/flight sims in general.

In the very basic FSX pack you get 18 aircraft is it?

[noddy]

The second shot is a real beauty, not done much flying in default a/c apart from the F-18.

[Bjoern]

The default CRJ is the way to go for me.

[CheckSix]

Huub, fantastic shots!

Having recently thrown off my shyness shackles I took the plunge and joined a small, peaceful Virtual Airline and rejoined VATSIM after a few years lay off from both but thats a different story (Wow! I love the VAFS system) I have been flying the Default A320. Not being a "heavy" driver usually I have been enjoying the views and the flying.

I agree Huub, MS did a bang up job on the default aircraft they gave us even if they are not 100% according to the anoraks.

[tigisfat]

I think sometimes it's easy to slag off the default aircraft. There isn't one of them I don't like.

When you think about how much payware developers charge for one aircraft, it really is astonishing how much you get for your money with FSX/flight sims in general.

In the very basic FSX pack you get 18 aircraft is it?


Payware does not bequeath the true value of FSX, FSX bequeaths the true value of payware in 99.999 percent of all circumstances.

The thing I like best about the default aircraft is their poly count/awesome texture ratio. I don't understand why more developers don't produce default FSX level models, but with knockout textures and VCs. There are a few aircraft out there with outstanding and complicated (FPS flooring) models only to be wrapped in cartoons. What a waste of a model.

I'd love to see (because I'm a layman) the poly counts of some of our favorite models.

[skyhawka4m]

I think the level I'd like to see more planes developed at are like those of Tim Conrad. Awesome FPS, very clean lines, detailed, and lost of paint scheme options, and not complicated to paint or fly.

[Skittles]

Payware does not bequeath the true value of FSX, FSX bequeaths the true value of payware in 99.999 percent of all circumstances.

The thing I like best about the default aircraft is their poly count/awesome texture ratio. I don't understand why more developers don't produce default FSX level models, but with knockout textures and VCs. There are a few aircraft out there with outstanding and complicated (FPS flooring) models only to be wrapped in cartoons. What a waste of a model.

I'd love to see (because I'm a layman) the poly counts of some of our favorite models.

Download the draw call monitor made by Arno (don't remember his second name) over at FSdeveloper. That will tell you the poly count of any model you load into it, as well as the draw calls.

[lifejogger]

Looks very good. I like flying the default aircraft because you get good frame rates with them.

[Lionheart]

Youre quite right Huub. That DC3 is a real beauty. The model is well done and its fun to fly. Really puts one into the era with that radio equipment and panel.



Bill

[Kiwikat]

There are a few aircraft out there with outstanding and complicated (FPS flooring) models only to be wrapped in cartoons. What a waste of a model.

Ain't that the truth! A certain 350,000+ poly fighter jet comes to mind... :wavey:

[Bjoern]

Ain't that the truth! A certain 350,000+ poly fighter jet comes to mind... :wavey:

Or a 200000+ poly heavy...or turboprop.


Anyways, it isn't the number of vertices, it's how they are mapped to the textures that determines the performance impact.

A model with 10000 vertices mapped to 10 different textures performs worse than a 100000 vertex model with 2 textures.