Could FSX Compiler make a FS9 model??

[Lionheart]

Hey guys,


In my pursuit to make high detail models that work in both FS9 and FSX, I have been running into the limitations of the FS9 compiler (alot).

It occurred to me today. What if one could have the FSX compiler create a model and use Hex editing to create the FS9 model from it???


Sounds crazy.. But what if? Take out all of the GUID bits, etc.... Create a FS9 model platform and paste it all together into one big happy file from two other files.




Bill

[stiz]

i reckon even if it was possible, it would be wwwwaaaaaayyyyyyyy to much effort for so little gained.

It'd also mean opening up the .mdl file and i cant see that happening any time soon :kilroy:

[gera]

Bill, that sounds like drinking wine from the bottle..........:jump:

[Lionheart]

Bill, that sounds like drinking wine from the bottle..........:jump:

LOLOL..... :costumes:


Its called desperation... This darn thing was compiling fine all day yesterday, deep into the night. I add 2 parts and bang, it wont compile.. Says the file is too large. Crashes.....

I am at the brink of getting upset again.. but I know it wont do any good to throw the computer out the window, slug the wall a few times, yell things in French, and break open the bottle of wine (this early in the day)....

My eyebrow hairs are a sufferin...


Just think though. What if you could (could) actually burn 2 models in the FSX Gmax compiler, and copy/paste them into a file that would have your interior and exterior, and from there, drop that bad boy into FS9 and Voila! A high detail mesh, close proximity Vertices, and boucoups of polygons.. That would mean I could add some passengers in the back!

man................




Bill

[stiz]

prolly allready done this, but have you cut down the polys on parts to the bare min possible? Not just useing the optimize tool as to be honest that does a crap job really :kilroy:

[Lionheart]

prolly allready done this, but have you cut down the polys on parts to the bare min possible? Not just useing the optimize tool as to be honest that does a crap job really :kilroy:

Hey Stiz,


Yep.. I took a load of parts out (hid them from the scene) and re-exported, bang, crash... I hid the 'new' parts, bang, crash... I loaded up a file from yesterday and it compiled.. So something in the assembly is definately causing this. I cant seem to find out what it is. Could be a hidden part, where the name was deleted but the part is still in the scene..

Hey... I can merge the parts to a new scene and retry it... Might work!

Brb...

[Mathias]

Just come over to the dark side! :costumes:
The crappy compiler is the main reason why I didn't do a lot of work for FS9.
The 4mm cockpit weld alone was a step back from FS8 as far as building is concerned.

[Lionheart]

Just come over to the dark side! :costumes:
The crappy compiler is the main reason why I didn't do a lot of work for FS9.
The 4mm cockpit weld alone was a step back from FS8 as far as building is concerned.

LOLOL.... :costumes: Roger that Mathias.

I am actually working in both FSX and FS9. The FSX compiler really spoils a developer, but I still like making models for FS9 as well.


Stiz,

That did it. I found two parts that were detached from the Exterior. They were 'hidden', which means it should have compiled perfectly fine, but it didnt, lol.. Glad I found that. Saved my walls, and some French language at high volume.



There must be a way to make higher density mesh models in FS9... There must be.

[N2056]

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5379/fsxdarthuj8.jpg

[MCDesigns]

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/5379/fsxdarthuj8.jpg

No kidding!!

Bill, even if you could compile a larger than what the FS9 compiler would compile model, wouldn't your model then be to resource intensive to even use in FS9?

[LonelyplanetXO]

I'd imagine probably not, if FS9 is running on an FSX capable PC. :)

LPXO

[Lionheart]

Robert, lol... Where did you get that FSX / Lucas advertisement at??

:costumes:

Yes Michael... And my 32bit high rez textures dont help either. :banghead:

But, oh.. what 'shiny' details I can achieve.... :d



Bill

[N2056]

Bill, I found the pic on the net & did a bit-o-editing in PSP :costumes:

Seriously, Bill's predicament is a tough one. It's the massive issue every developer has to face, and I really do understand why he asks the question. This is why you guys are seeing many of the big guns deciding that it's FSX only from now on...Personally, I just don't have the time or energy to support 2 sim platforms as this is very much a part-time thing for me. When I got to the point that Pete was taking 20+ minutes to compile i saw the writing on the wall...along with the fact that a lot of things like part animations were done differently. With the FSX compiler the same model was compiling in under 2 minutes. Ultimately time is money.

I really do admire your drive to create good product for both sims...but I'm afraid you will never see answer to your question.

[MCDesigns]

Personally I don't see the point of creating new products for FS9, but that is just me and if I was doing payware fulltime for FS I "might" feel differently, but I highly doubt it.

Whenever I see a post about a new commercial addon for both sims, I can't help but think that they could get the FSX version out quicker is they weren't jacking around with an FS9 version of which there is probably a version that exists for that sim already.:banghead:

While I don't understand it, I do admire Bill's persistence, dedication and drive to still deliver to the FS9 users.:ernae:

[n4gix]

Personally I don't see the point of creating new products for FS9, but that is just me and if I was doing payware fulltime for FS I "might" feel differently, but I highly doubt it.

The chief problem is that ~30% of all "new sales" are still for the FS9 platform...

...of course, if no more new product were developed for FS9, perhaps more would finally make the switch! :icon_lol:

[n4gix]

It occurred to me today. What if one could have the FSX compiler create a model and use Hex editing to create the FS9 model from it???

The two formats are totally incompatible, Bill. It's more than just some header information. There's a reason why the new FSX compiler is 90+% faster than the slow and ancient FS9 compiler!

Moreover, a major part of FSX's less-than-stellar performance is due to ACES having to leave so much "legacy code" in the executable to support the "slow and ancient" .mdl format... :bs:

[Lionheart]

The two formats are totally incompatible, Bill. It's more than just some header information. There's a reason why the new FSX compiler is 90+% faster than the slow and ancient FS9 compiler!

Moreover, a major part of FSX's less-than-stellar performance is due to ACES having to leave so much "legacy code" in the executable to support the "slow and ancient" .mdl format... :bs:


Roger that Bill.

I guess I wont devote tomorrow to stairing at endless MDL code, trying to figure a way to fuse them into an FS9 MDL. It was a good fantasy though.

Thanks Michael.

I prefer FS9 to FSX, as most of you know. Thats the sim I usually fly in. I just cant handle the terrain in FSX. I'm sorry Aces. The rest of it is awesome, but the scenery ruins it for me. I love it otherwise. (I wish it ran faster or smoother as well, but I guess thats the way it goes).

So I guess for a personal motive, I make FS9 models as well as FSX models, creating the FSX model second after the refinements are finished on the FS9 model.

My secret is out.. arrghh....


<--- ducks from the veggies being thrown :kilroy:



Bill

[Roger]

Strange that Bill,
The fact that ground now looks a lot more "real" to me is the reason I find it difficult to go back to Fs9??

[Lionheart]

Strange that Bill,
The fact that ground now looks a lot more "real" to me is the reason I find it difficult to go back to Fs9??

This is what I see when I fly in Phoenix. No grass around a desert airport, and not grass on the mountains. (or golf courses).

I think the world of FSX. Not bashing it. I just cant handle the scenery. Thats all Im saying. I would think England looks far far better then my dusty ole Phoenix Arizona with our dried out shrubberies and cactii...

:ernae:


Bill

[stiz]

looks to me like you've got an addon scenery thats messing things up a bit :wavey:

[Mathias]

There's something seriously going wrong with your textures, that's for sure.

[lucas81]

I will check it tomorrow. But it may be default FSX landclass. Aces put additional vector drawn scenery (look at the gold courses) which does not fit the default, desert one (because there is no desert-like golf course texture in the FSX, only the grassy one :) ) . The default scenery is of course totally messed. FSX adds new regionalisations, but the default landclass is mostly hopeless. Squre-like cities, desert cities (textures taken from the Mediterrean region) in the middle of the Europe (this is how my country looks like on the default FSX), the same vector drawn data as it was in the FS8/FS9 (the USA, Canada, Western Europe, Japan, OZ have much better one). The good thing is the mesh has been improved (38 meter and 76 meter for some part of the World)

Bill, I can recommend you Cloud9's landclass for the different parts of the world. It costs 10$ each and it is worth the money very much. Iam using Asia/Africa, USA and Europe (which extends my landclass from the Ultimate Terrain X)

Sorry for small OT.

[Roger]

This is what I see when I fly in Phoenix. No grass around a desert airport, and not grass on the mountains. (or golf courses).

I think the world of FSX. Not bashing it. I just cant handle the scenery. Thats all Im saying. I would think England looks far far better then my dusty ole Phoenix Arizona with our dried out shrubberies and cactii...

:ernae:


Bill

Looks bizare Bill,
Doesn't look anything like my Arizona??

[n4gix]

So I guess for a personal motive, I make FS9 models as well as FSX models, creating the FSX model second after the refinements are finished on the FS9 model.

Bill, I've found that it's far faster and easier to develop the FSX version first, then "downconvert" the model to FS9 standards... :ernae:

[LonelyplanetXO]

I might be wrong but I think what Bill's saying is that because he prefers FS9 he develops the model for himself first then when he's happy with it, out of consideration for other users he creates an FSX version. If you consider that he develops firstly for pleasure and secondly for commercial reasons, that makes sense.
At the risk of being out of step - I appreciate this is the FSX forum; I'm with Bill. I have both + Accelleration plus a fast PC, but just plain old prefer FS9. I still buy addons as do many FS9'ers, so clearly there's still a market.

LPXO

[Cazzie]

I might be wrong but I think what Bill's saying is that because he prefers FS9 he develops the model for himself first then when he's happy with it, out of consideration for other users he creates an FSX version. If you consider that he develops firstly for pleasure and secondly for commercial reasons, that makes sense.
At the risk of being out of step - I appreciate this is the FSX forum; I'm with Bill. I have both + Accelleration plus a fast PC, but just plain old prefer FS9. I still buy addons as do many FS9'ers, so clearly there's still a market.

LPXO

You bet your bippie there's a market. But I am fairly well satisfied with all the land mass and payware I have purchased over the years for FS9, so now I have started getting those aircraft for it I have put off for so long.

I still love the consistent life-like frame rate in FS9 too and I know exactly where I am in the USA, something that FSX confuses me with it's false textures, even with GEX-USA and UTX-USA installed. FSX needs ground textures and "real" landclass real bad.

Caz

[FAC257]

Lionheart

Phoenix shouldn't look that bleak. That would be depressing. :)

Here's the same shot, same airport with UTX-US & FSG US Landclass working together.