The First Catalina 'Pit Pictures!

[djscoo]

As seen @ Aerosoft Forums (http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=18150&st=240&start=240). I can hardly wait...:jump:

[heywooood]

hominahominahomina :ernae:

[N2056]

Arrrghh! Even the castellated lock nuts are modeled!!!
I have no idea who the guy is that is actually doing the modeling on this, but he has certainly got the respect of a fellow developer!
Well Done, Sir! :ernae:

[Dexdoggy]

Must - have - must - have -c - cat - Catalina!!!

[PRB]

Is there anything cooler than throttle handles on the ceiling? I can't think of anything right now! Looking great!

[spotlope]

Holy occlusion maps, Batman! :applause:

[Murray Cod]

I've got the fire ready to burn a hole in my wallet when the Cat is released.:ernae:

[CG_1976]

This Cat isnt purring to fly its roaring to fly and grace the fsx skies. If theres a USCG paint im buying.

[warbird861]

Arrrghh! Even the castellated lock nuts are modeled!!!
I have no idea who the guy is that is actually doing the modeling on this, but he has certainly got the respect of a fellow developer!
Well Done, Sir! :ernae:

Have you ever heard about the guy who modeled Hughes H-1, which was his first ever modeling project with MSFS (I can't remember his name :redf:)


This Cat isnt purring to fly its roaring to fly and grace the fsx skies. If theres a USCG paint im buying.

What kind of paint would you like? I'm part of the beta-team and I'm also painting the Catalina. I can't promise the paint would be part of the package but I uploas it to the AVSIM on the same minute they release this lovely bird.

[CG_1976]

Well I have this pic from my great uncles Coastie Collection.

[MudMarine]

I'd buy it now if they'd let me!!:applause: Very excited, can't wait for this one!:jump:

[Anneke]

Very nice, but if it's as functional as the Twin Otter X then I'll pass this one on. I have no interest whatsoever in frame rate eye-candy alone

Anneke :wavey:

[warbird861]

Well I have this pic from my great uncles Coastie Collection.

Hmm, haven't seen that picture before. Have you got any pics of the upper side of the wings?

[djscoo]

Very nice, but if it's as functional as the Twin Otter X then I'll pass this one on. I have no interest whatsoever in frame rate eye-candy alone

Anneke :wavey:
:confused::confused::confused:

[Anneke]

What's so difficult.. ? The Twin looks the part but is a joke system wise...:kilroy:

Anneke :wavey:

[Thoe6969]

What's so difficult.. ? The Twin looks the part but is a joke system wise...:kilroy:

Anneke :wavey: Don't know what your getting at,I have the Otter X and think its a great plane,plus it gets great framerates.:isadizzy:

[Anneke]

To each his own, if you like toy planes it's fine with me Thoe6969... I hope the Cat is as real as it get's without dummy switches..:applause:

Anneke:wavey:

[N2056]

To each his own, if you like toy planes it's fine with me Thoe6969... I hope the Cat is as real as it get's without dummy switches..:applause:

Anneke:wavey:

Any particular reason you have to make a statement like that? To each his own is great, everything past that was uncalled for.

[djscoo]

To each his own, if you like toy planes it's fine with me Thoe6969... I hope the Cat is as real as it get's without dummy switches..:applause:

Anneke:wavey:
After all, FSX is a simulator so all the planes we fly are technically toys... As you say, to each his own.:kilroy:

[stiz]

i thought they'd allready done the pit?? I rember seeing pics off it months ago :isadizzy:

[Killbilly]

Any particular reason you have to make a statement like that? To each his own is great, everything past that was uncalled for.

Agreed.

Plus, we do have to remember that "as real as it gets" for a Twotter or a Cat means that you'd have to have a co-pilot sitting next to you and death or serious injury would result from a crash. There is always a little compromise on complete realism. I like systems modeling insofar as it keeps FSX a flight sim and not a switch sim. In other words, I'd rather be flying at 25 FPS in a reasonably realistic model than flipping switches at 12 FPS in three different stations (pilot, copilot, and flight engineer) in a perfectly realistic model. That doesn't mean I earn a "toy" comment like yours any more than anyone else who plays a simulation.

Your opinion about the Twin Otter is valid because it is your opinion. Your attitude toward those who have different opinions is not.

[warbird861]

i thought they'd allready done the pit?? I rember seeing pics off it months ago :isadizzy:

There was some hassle and the developer and beta-team changed and we basically started all over again :banghead:

[stiz]

now that sucks :frown:

[warbird861]

There's some new pics HERE (http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=18150&view=findpost&p=132265) :wavey:

[Anneke]

Agreed.

Your opinion about the Twin Otter is valid because it is your opinion. Your attitude toward those who have different opinions is not.

You are right, I'm apologize. I think I'm too passionate sometimes about (sim) flying...:redf:

Anneke :wavey:

[warbird861]

Four new picture
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=3530
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=3531
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=3532
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=3533


Had to do some images for the Dutch Catalinha foundation (we support each other in this product). And they looked cool so I decided to post them here. Note that ALL textures are still pre-beta, that's one of the things being worked on this week.

[Txmmy83]

hope that this level of details allowing a good frame rate


BR
Tom
Simaerobatic

[Big_Stick]

You are right, I'm apologize. I think I'm too passionate sometimes about (sim) flying...:redf:

Anneke :wavey:

That's what we could use a little more of around here; a reality check. Thanks for that apology, it really was for all of us, given Ickie is so close to just shutting the site down all together.

Not every switch can be duplicated as there are many systems that FSX does not model. Sure, they can be made to click on/off, but that's about it. If a plane does a good job of modeling the key systems and flies well, and looks good, that is an achievement in itself.

The trend now seems to be more towards massive amounts of eye candy (animated pilot figures, smoke, light, effects, gauges showing readings that aren't really derived from the sim but from well-crafted code) because the sim itself is limited on what it can provided.

[Lightning]

given Ickie is so close to just shutting the site down all together.

Close to shutting this site down?:faint:
First I've heard of any of this.

PLEASE PLEASE say it ain't so.

[some1]

gauges showing readings that aren't really derived from the sim but from well-crafted code

What's eye candy in this?

[Kiwikat]

What's eye candy in this?

I tend to agree with your assessment, but it isn't finished yet. I'm sure the final product will have proper weathering etc.

For the final performance hit the F16 gives, it doesn't look that much more detailed than many of my other aircraft. It may have 8 times as many polys, but it doesn't look 8 times better. I wish Aerosoft would go back to performance oriented projects like the Twotter. That looks good but it gives me default plane FPS. The AlphaSim T-34C looks even better, and it still gives me default plane FPS.

More polys isn't the answer... evidently Aerosoft thinks otherwise. If the Catalina ends up having anywhere near the amount of polys the F-16 has, I'll probably be skipping it. It's not worth that sort of performance hit for a SMALL gain in detail. Plus, if the final textures were to be disappointing, more polys won't save the whole thing from being disappointing.

Just my few cents... :mixedsmi:

[MCDesigns]

Thanks for the HU on the new images. the detail and Mathijs's comments on detail are making me a little concerned. Sounds like Mathijs is contradicting himself, first saying that framerates are a vital concern and then stating they design for top end systems only as doing it for lower ends systems would be counter productive and that they design for future sales. I would be interested in what % of sales they get at initial release and then a year later, I would think the majority comes at initial release or not long after with residual sales being lower, especially with the lifespan on each FS.

As for comparing this product to the F-16 and the H-1, well they are 2 different products at two different levels of detail, so that doesn't seem valid. I was under the impression the same team that did the H-1 was doing the cat, but the textures in the pit so far don't seem like it, either way, we'll see at release time.

[stiz]

its still in early beta guys, so of course its not going to look as good as the final one :)

They also said from the start that the F16 was gonna be a computer eater and that they try to do one every couple of yours (computer eater not f16) that pushes the limits :engel016:

[CodyValkyrie]

The Cat is coming along nicely. If one of the Aerosoft guys wants to chime in and say more, that would be cool. I "believe" that it will be more systems intensive. I'm looking forward to filming this.

[warbird861]

Yup Stefan, the modeller of H-1 is also making the Cat. And this is also more performance orinted product so this something completely different than F-16. Also like Mathijs states that textures are pre beta, they do not reflect the quality of the final product, actually the beta-testers don't even have any cockpit textures.

[Kiwikat]

And this is also more performance orinted product so this something completely different than F-16.

I really hope that is the case. :rollerskater:

[Warrant]

This bird is gonna be another attack against my bank account :faint:

What a great looking Catatina. No doubt there will be a Dutch Navy livery :jump::bump::ernae:

[JorisVandenBerghe]

I hope it's not that intensive. A fluent sim means a lot to me (ok, the Falcon is a serious frame-eater, but I've noticed that the sim runs very smoothly at even barely 15 FPS with it, I don't have any stuttering with it!)...:ernae:

But I recall Mathijs saying it's important that people don't have to upgrade their hardware all the time...but they said too the F-16 was one of their 'push-the-limit' projects which are rather seldom in their catalogue (can't remember any other title of them that could bear this name, actually).

My opinion: just keep an eye on the respective WIP topic of a particular plane, like the Cat. If you know it's going to be a tough one to run and you don't like that, don't buy it. But most of the time it's frame-rate friendly design from Aerosoft, as far as I know...:applause:

Edit; Warbird861 (which name do you use again at the Aerosoft forum ? I know you have a Tahiti X beta member signature...) was faster...:typing:

[some1]

I tend to agree with your assessment, but it isn't finished yet. I'm sure the final product will have proper weathering etc.


I didn't make myself clear sorry. What I meant is that I don't see anything 'eyecandy' in doing gauges controlled by custom code, and I was referring strictly to Big_Stick's statement. But now I see that he was talking rather about doing fancy dummy gauges that don't have any systems behind them.

The truth is, developers are still mostly limited by sim 'eye candiness' rather than systems modelling. There are only few things that can't be custom coded, this way or another. There are much more visual effects that simply cannot be made because we have very little abilities to affect how the FSX looks (things like lights, particles or shaders)



For the final performance hit the F16 gives, it doesn't look that much more detailed than many of my other aircraft. It may have 8 times as many polys, but it doesn't look 8 times better. I wish Aerosoft would go back to performance oriented projects like the Twotter. That looks good but it gives me default plane FPS. The AlphaSim T-34C looks even better, and it still gives me default plane FPS.

More polys isn't the answer... evidently Aerosoft thinks otherwise. If the Catalina ends up having anywhere near the amount of polys the F-16 has, I'll probably be skipping it. It's not worth that sort of performance hit for a SMALL gain in detail. Plus, if the final textures were to be disappointing, more polys won't save the whole thing from being disappointing.

Just my few cents... :mixedsmi:

That's what I can agree 100%. To me F-16 model is not well designed: it is several times heavier than ordinary aircraft, while it doesn't look even twice better. The geometry is heavily concentrated in some 'cool' places, like landing gear, nozzles or HUD frame and ICP, while other areas like air intake still are no better than in default aircraft. The textures are good, but not spectacular, so my overall impression is "nice looking, but too slow".

My computer is quite fast, but I set FSX to achieve smooth fps with "normal" aircraft. Which means I still have to reduce details to fly F-16.

Ah well, I just hope they won't develop Catalina this way.

[warbird861]

...but they said too the F-16 was one of their 'push-the-limit' projects which are rather seldom in their catalogue (can't remember any other title of them that could bear this name, actually).
...

The old Aerosoft Manhattan scenery for FS9 and the Seahawk & Jayhawk were supposed to be these 'limit pushers', but I don't know how demanding they were as I never had Manhattan and I got the Seahawk so late that I already had proper hardware to run it. I just realize that I haven't flown it for ages, I'm off to do some chopper flying :running:

[MCDesigns]

The old Aerosoft Manhattan scenery for FS9 and the Seahawk & Jayhawk were supposed to be these 'limit pushers', but I don't know how demanding they were as I never had Manhattan and I got the Seahawk so late that I already had proper hardware to run it. I just realize that I haven't flown it for ages, I'm off to do some chopper flying :running:

Manhattan for FS9 was unflyable till I upgraded, but even though I ran with max settings, even at KLAX with full AI/real weather, I still had problems using Manhattan with real weather.
The seahawk for FS9 was flyable when released, but the boxer included with it was a complete overkill of detail which is why I put off getting the FSX package

I really respect the fact Aerosoft makes no excuses for pushing forward with FSX design, it's just their views and products are hit or miss. I wonder how many purchased the F-16 are are no longer using it due to the detail.

[Kiwikat]

I wonder how many purchased the F-16 are are no longer using it due to the detail.

Again, I don't find the F-16 much more detailed than any of the good performance planes I have. A ton of polys does NOT mean a ton of detail. Good texturing results in a ton of detail.

I don't fly it much due to the performance I get with it, not because its too detailed. Aerosoft and some of you seem to be equating polys (I heard the -16 is 350,000 polys somewhere... maybe its more) with detail. That's only a very SMALL part of it. If they wanted the F-16 to be more detailed, they should have used higher resolution textures, especially on the exterior. 1024 x 1024 is hardly detailed anymore.

I'd venture to guess you could chop HALF the polys from the F-16 and use smart texturing and you would NOT be able to tell the difference. When the model is around 35 megs between the interior and exterior, chopping half the polys could help performance quite a bit. There's no reason NOT to optimize when you can't tell the difference anyways (not saying Aerosoft didn't optmize their F-16 models, but much more could have been done).

To me, announcing the extremely high poly count sounds like bragging more than anything. There are MANY other products out there that look as good if not better than the F-16 does, and they have a third or maybe even less of the polys the F-16 has. That being said, the F-16 does look good and its a solid product. I enjoy flying it, but the performance hit for what I get doesn't seem worth it to me. Most other developers seem to be able to balance performance and detail and get an equally stunning product.

[Big_Stick]

What's eye candy in this?


The way it's done is to take one or more valid sim parameters, create some .xml or C++ code, put those parameters through the code as an .xml gage or .gau file, and use the result to animate a gage or part. Some very "realistic" results can be obtained through this kind of trickery. The method can also be used to activate controls, like slats or flaps, variable-sweep wings, landing gear lockout, and other stuff.

[Warrant]

I'm very satisfied with the Aerosoft F-16, and fly it almost daily. I added almost all extra paints available on the net, and tweaked/modified the birds to personal satisfaction. The F-16 however, is not really limit-pushing (at least not for me). Hope the Catalina will be of at least equal quality (and they will find time to develope a two seater F-16, and the latest development variants after release of the Catalina, though a dual seat Flanker (SU-30 MK and variants) would also be on my top favourite list)). :wiggle:

[warbird861]

Here's a new texturing example :wavey:

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=3661

Remember, still early beta

[stiz]

cant wait :jump: :jump: :jump:

[Boomer]

I wonder how many purchased the F-16 are are no longer using it due to the detail.

If I am in the mood for a fast mover its the 1st one I go to! Doesnt drag on my rig at all.

Personally I like that Aerosoft is on the bleeding edge.

[ErnstF]

There are MANY other products out there that look as good if not better than the F-16 does, and they have a third or maybe even less of the polys the F-16 has.


....... :icon_eek: ...please, tell me more about these products!!?? I`m flying the Aerosoft F-16 every day, and I think this is the best jetfighter-model there is, both inside and out.

[jankees]

Looks great, but are you sure about the spelling of "maneuvers"?

[grumpos]

Looks great, but are you sure about the spelling of "maneuvers"?

Its correct if its a US built aircraft.

Best wishes
Steve P.

[Panther_99FS]

I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion....

I find it quite amazing that A2A can achieve a HUGE level of interior/cockpit detail but yet doesn't take nearly the hit in FPS as some Aerosoft products.....

Just something to ponder...:kilroy:

[lucas81]

ROB is a very talented modeller and he exactly knows which aircraft components shall be modelled at very high detail and which not. Besides that he maps and PAINTS the interiors. This allows him to plan everything very carefully from scratch. My 2 cents regarding the A2A :)

[Panther_99FS]

I should also add that A2A enjoys the same FPS advantage over AlphaSim interiors as well...


I'm going to throw a monkey wrench into this discussion....

I find it quite amazing that A2A can achieve a HUGE level of interior/cockpit detail but yet doesn't take nearly the hit in FPS as some Aerosoft products.....

Just something to ponder...:kilroy:

[some1]

ROB is a very talented modeller and he exactly knows which aircraft components shall be modelled at very high detail and which not. Besides that he maps and PAINTS the interiors. This allows him to plan everything very carefully from scratch. My 2 cents regarding the A2A :)

I think the main reason is that ROB runs FSX on a reaaaly ancient computer, with everything set to low except aircraft details, and that made him very sensitive about performance.

Pray he won't upgrade his computer in the nearest future. :costumes:

[ROB]

Some day I will. Beware!

regards
ROB

[djscoo]

I should also add that A2A enjoys the same FPS advantage over AlphaSim interiors as well...
I have also noticed that A2A seems to be the masters of the realm of High-detail, High-performance aircraft...Hopefully Aerosoft's claims of the Cat's FPS-friendly design are accurate.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Unfortunately, Mathijs made this comment (http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?showtopic=18150&view=findpost&p=136255):



QUOTE ( Maverick322 @ Dec 30 2008, 11:15 )
Dear Mathijs Kok,

I think this is a bad case from Aerosoft! Yes, hardware is becoming cheaper but there are still people who cant afford to buy new hardware every year. So I think it's important that developers should trive for low FPS. But good news that the Catalina would run smooth.http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif<!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good point, but what you state makes any progress into a more in-depth and more immerse very hard. If we make software for middle of the road hardware bought 12 months ago we would be just repeating what we done before. The Catalina is intended to be sold for 18 months at least. So we always make it run fine on top of the range hardware when we launch. We got a shop full of products that will run fine on somewhat older systems.

Now this means that for some users our newest products will not run satisfactory. But we don't hide that, we'll tell people that they need serious hardware for some products. The Catalina will have hardware requirements along the line of the F-16.


Microsoft Flight Simulator X (SP 2 or Acceleration)
Windows XP/Vista with the latest Service Packs (XP recommended)
Intel Core 2 Duo CPU (2x 2666Mhz) or equivalent (Core 2 Quad CPU recommended)
2 GB RAM
DX9 Graphic Card with at least 256 MB (512 MB strongly recommended)

Most likely we'll increase the CPU demands a bit. Even when we go up two levels we are still under the 200 Euro level and 8 levels below the top spec CPU. I think those are realistic specs early 2009. I realize some people can't afford that. But again, we got a shop full of products that will run fine. When we launched Manhattan in 2006 most people complained it looked great but was a slideshow. I have not heard that comment in the last 18 months. So if you buy the newest software and expect it to run on old hardware you can be disappointed.

So while the F-16 runs fine to me at 12-15 FPS (and the strangest thing is that it runs fluently, compared to the 25 FPS I get most of the times with the Twotter), I don't know what to expect from this. Finn, beta member at Aerosoft, notes FPS is very good:


But progress is going well and FPS so far is very good, even on my low end maschine (AMD Athlon +3500 single core) !
Perhaps Warbird861 can tell us more about this ?

[warbird861]

Examples of prerendering (what ever that is :kilroy:)

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=4232
http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=4231