Carenado Fokker F50 Released

[wombat666]

Another very informative post Bjoern, TY.
Aside from needing to copy your 'wall of text' to print out and digest (thanks for that all by the way!) I'm beginning to understand why the over modelling causes aggro.
I might get branded as 'Heretic' for this idea, but if developers stopped with all the interior bling, as in entire passenger cabin furnishings in civil types or multiple stations in the military subjects, that might (possibly, maybe?) ease the load?
Given that I try to 'fly' in sim instead of wandering around the aircraft a fully furnished interior is a total waste for me.
If one doesn't ask one never knows.
Must be time for my medication, certainly time I was sleeping!

[jeansy]

it hasnt been mentioned why the model is so large, theres ground support vehicles that come with the package

[Bjoern]

Another very informative post Bjoern, TY.
Aside from needing to copy your 'wall of text' to print out and digest (thanks for that all by the way!) I'm beginning to understand why the over modelling causes aggro.
I might get branded as 'Heretic' for this idea, but if developers stopped with all the interior bling, as in entire passenger cabin furnishings in civil types or multiple stations in the military subjects, that might (possibly, maybe?) ease the load?
Given that I try to 'fly' in sim instead of wandering around the aircraft a fully furnished interior is a total waste for me.
If one doesn't ask one never knows.
Must be time for my medication, certainly time I was sleeping!

Well, it's not the "what" that kills, but the "how".
There are some planes with very nice, yet efficient cabins and stations around and especially on smaller planes, it does make sense to have these things included. If everything is kept relatively low poly with little to no animations, devs can get away with it. SCS' Tu-134, for example, profits immensely from its glass nose navigator station because of the great vistas offered, yet remains a FS9 model with all its limitations.
Some models also keep their cabin models hidden (thus decreasing the load on the rendering engine, but not the memory impact), unless the user actively wants to explore it by clicking the cockpit door/curtain to make it visible (e.g. Chuck Jodry's Citation Sovereign).
So basically, there may be a lavatory as long as it doesn't have a lot of polys and there's no flushing animation.

[jankees]

The Ansett that Jan Kees did was never a f50 scheme it's was worn by the f27.

Looks a lot like a F50 to me though..


But I may do some F27 schemes, not sure yet...

[BendyFlyer]

Yep Ansett used the F50, I remember hitching a ride on FND from Canberra to Sydney. While I liked the F27 (Mate of mine flew them with East West, said the checklists [106 items] were horrendous to remember and do) the F50 with its tiny windows, baggage in the back, uncomfortable seats and squeezy interior and it was noisy. I did not like it at all, peformance wise it seemed fine but the Fokker style was gone it seemed. They were desperate days for Fokker and they went to the wall not long after Will I get it? No, happy with the JF F27. One day somebody might do the F28 1000 or 4000, it was a gem!

[bazzar]

I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about. Are we seriously suggesting that the average customer has to concern themselves with drawcalls and model sizes?
Developers these days have been brow-beaten into providing more and more fidelity, detail and authenticity- but wait- not at the expense of framerates please and keep the cost down and keep the texture sizes down and don't use too many polygons whatever you do...

It is all very simple. If you want these levels of detail, it is going to take polygons and PBR style materials and textures to achieve them. If you have a computer that cannot handle that then maybe that product is not for you. You can't ask a developer to dumb down a project to suit lower end computers any more than you can ask that developer to produce all this candy for a small price.

Models are going to get larger and larger, trust me. There are export engines capable of allowing that even for 10 year old sim engines like FSX. PBR can be adapted to suit 32 bit operating systems. That is excellent for compatibility using the same models across different simulators. The price? More memory, better cards. That's the price of progress.

[jeansy]

[wombat666]

I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about. Are we seriously suggesting that the average customer has to concern themselves with drawcalls and model sizes?
Developers these days have been brow-beaten into providing more and more fidelity, detail and authenticity- but wait- not at the expense of framerates please and keep the cost down and keep the texture sizes down and don't use too many polygons whatever you do...

It is all very simple. If you want these levels of detail, it is going to take polygons and PBR style materials and textures to achieve them. If you have a computer that cannot handle that then maybe that product is not for you. You can't ask a developer to dumb down a project to suit lower end computers any more than you can ask that developer to produce all this candy for a small price.

Models are going to get larger and larger, trust me. There are export engines capable of allowing that even for 10 year old sim engines like FSX. PBR can be adapted to suit 32 bit operating systems. That is excellent for compatibility using the same models across different simulators. The price? More memory, better cards. That's the price of progress.

Out-bloody-standing reply Baz!
"Developers these days have been brow-beaten into providing more and more fidelity, detail and authenticity- but wait- not at the expense of framerates please and keep the cost down and keep the texture sizes down and don't use too many polygons whatever you do..."
Exactly, the demand for more bling and 'study sim' levels of complication seem to be the big ticket but the expectation that this will run on a 10+ year old sim and 10+ year old hardware is naive to say the least.
I've learned a lot from a few exchanges with one of our SOH members......and I'm still learning.

[IanP]

What Baz said, but with one proviso in my experience, some developers just push poly count because they can. It becomes a challenge for them to see how high a polycount model they can get to compile and run.

Also, some customers just believe that more polys = "better model", without understanding the cost of it, and complain that developers who don't put every little bump and cranny on a model are just being "lazy". Some other customers understand it, want it anyway, then simply lie about how well it works in their sim. More customers couldn't care less. They buy it, realise they can't run it, so bash it in public and either leave it to languish on their sim or uninstall it. Most customers buy get it, realise that it runs a bit slow, so turn settings down to use it, or have it installed, but don't use it because they can't run it the way they want.

PBR has been used in 32-bit games for donkeys years now... Especially comnbat games and RPGs. They just run fewer, smaller, textures than we demand in the FS world and they load and unload them on a more frequent basis, using levels, timed matches and the advantage of smaller view radii. I've just been watching videos all about how to do it in earlier versions of Unreal and Cryengine as part of an online course.

Cheers.

Ian P.

[ncooper]

Intriguing as this is, what is the correlation between a model file size and what it displays?
Out of curiosity, I looked at the:

PMDG DC 6 and its model files are 16.4 mb and 21.3mb.
The Majestic Dash, 4.52 mb and 6.15 mb
The Just Flight Fokker F 27, 10.8 mb and 14.8 mb.

[mgr]

Hiya,

Sorry if we run too much off topic.

This is how i see it, there are different types of developers, some make the same kind of detail with less MB's (this is called optimal design), there are developers which make the same kind of detail with (a lot) more MB's. The latter is called not so optimal design yet "quick" design...

So this is not about how much detail you see, yet how the amount of detail was produced.

Regards,

Marcel

[mgr]

On topic :
Current operators: http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/f50fleet.htm
Past operators: http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/f50fleet-previous.htm

Marcel

[Bjoern]

I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about. Are we seriously suggesting that the average customer has to concern themselves with drawcalls and model sizes?
Developers these days have been brow-beaten into providing more and more fidelity, detail and authenticity- but wait- not at the expense of framerates please and keep the cost down and keep the texture sizes down and don't use too many polygons whatever you do...

It is all very simple. If you want these levels of detail, it is going to take polygons and PBR style materials and textures to achieve them. If you have a computer that cannot handle that then maybe that product is not for you. You can't ask a developer to dumb down a project to suit lower end computers any more than you can ask that developer to produce all this candy for a small price.

Models are going to get larger and larger, trust me. There are export engines capable of allowing that even for 10 year old sim engines like FSX. PBR can be adapted to suit 32 bit operating systems. That is excellent for compatibility using the same models across different simulators. The price? More memory, better cards. That's the price of progress.

The cars are getting heavier, the engines are more powerful, yet the drivetrain to bring and keep it all in motion stays the same (at least as far as FSX is concerned).


More demo versions of new products would be nice, but unless publishers play along, hard data on the models is the only way to gauge the risk of having to run the refund gauntlet.

Intriguing as this is, what is the correlation between a model file size and what it displays?
Out of curiosity, I looked at the:

PMDG DC 6 and its model files are 16.4 mb and 21.3mb.
The Majestic Dash, 4.52 mb and 6.15 mb
The Just Flight Fokker F 27, 10.8 mb and 14.8 mb.

I don't have any of these models, but from the filesize and what I know about two thirds of them (Dash and F-27), I'd rank them Dash, F-27 and DC-6 in terms of rendering performance.

[bazzar]

Most publishers have a minimum and recommended system advice on the sales sheet. Quite simply, if your rig is not up to the specs then leave the product be. If there is a demo, then download that and try before you buy. De-compiling, reverse engineering and just "fiddling" is not the answer. A newer, more powerful simulator engine is.Or upgrade your rig. 1 million polygon models are here and so is PBR.

I think this thread needs to return to its original purpose, a release announcement.

[StormILM]

Most publishers have a minimum and recommended system advice on the sales sheet. Quite simply, if your rig is not up to the specs then leave the product be. If there is a demo, then download that and try before you buy. De-compiling, reverse engineering and just "fiddling" is not the answer. A newer, more powerful simulator engine is.Or upgrade your rig. 1 million polygon models are here and so is PBR.

I think this thread needs to return to its original purpose, a release announcement.

With all due respect, systems specs are one thing, model size and the latter factoring into VAS consumption are another and it is very relevant to those who are considering purchasing a model like this one. It is a perfectly logical and ethical side discussion here which to be vert frank isn't hurting anyone or anything. Most of these high end models run fine on my aging system in terms of FPS but in terms of VAS, there are ones like the Carenado Cheyenne and this release which have massive models which are digging into the VAS allotment. Fact is, regardless of how much tweaking one does, you can't fly some models (with their large MDL files and 4096 textures) in between high end scenery. At some point you're going to use up all the available VAS (usually at the end of the flight with the destination scenery finishes eating what's left of the VAS). The boundaries are being pushed to create better products which is perfectly fine but it is a fact such advances are outgrowing FSX's known limitations and from an ethics standpoint, it makes sense to expect these limitations and design the product according for one sim platform or another. Carenado did take care of my issue with the Cheyenne III. They offered me a different model (I could pick any from their hangar) and they admitted to me that the MDL size was very possibly the cause of my issues. Truth is, most of their models are being used in either version of P3D now as well as X-Plane and those platforms handle bigger more detail models a lot better. I ended up going with the Turbo Commander as my model replacement. Unlike the full version of the Cheyenne III, I can get out of the traffic pattern with the Turbo Commander without a VAS OOM but when flying between two high end scenery locations, I start running out of VAS with the Lite model the Turbo Commander. With my PMDG 737NGX and Aerosoft Airbus, no such issues.

Anyhow, we've covered very good ground here over the course of this thread.

[Bjoern]

Carenado did take care of my issue with the Cheyenne III. They offered me a different model (I could pick any from their hangar) and they admitted to me that the MDL size was very possibly the cause of my issues.

Fortunately, publishers are quite liberal about refunds or offering alternatives if you just can't make a model perform better.

Most publishers have a minimum and recommended system advice on the sales sheet. Quite simply, if your rig is not up to the specs then leave the product be. If there is a demo, then download that and try before you buy. De-compiling, reverse engineering and just "fiddling" is not the answer. A newer, more powerful simulator engine is.Or upgrade your rig. 1 million polygon models are here and so is PBR.

Hardware requirements mean little to nothing. I could have a 6 GHz i7 with the fastest RAM, video card and SSD out there and still would suffer performance penalties by million poly models, no matter the sim platform. Bottlenecks are everywhere.

[jeansy]

Noting there are no US registered F50s, what do people want, a private livery or a Airliner livery, Im not doing both as I dont have the time

for the airliner which one?

@waka172rg JKB told me the Air NZ scheme is on his list

[waka172rg]

Looks a lot like a F50 to me though..


But I may do some F27 schemes, not sure yet...

My apologies thanks Jan looks as crisp as your paint lol

Yep Ansett used the F50, I remember hitching a ride on FND from Canberra to Sydney. While I liked the F27 (Mate of mine flew them with East West, said the checklists [106 items] were horrendous to remember and do) the F50 with its tiny windows, baggage in the back, uncomfortable seats and squeezy interior and it was noisy. I did not like it at all, peformance wise it seemed fine but the Fokker style was gone it seemed. They were desperate days for Fokker and they went to the wall not long after Will I get it? No, happy with the JF F27. One day somebody might do the F28 1000 or 4000, it was a gem!

Thanks that's great info

Noting there are no US registered F50s, what do people want, a private livery or a Airliner livery, Im not doing both as I dont have the time

for the airliner which one?

@waka172rg JKB told me the Air NZ scheme is on his list

Mat thanks for that it would be greatly appreciated Jan

[jeansy]

3x F50s uploaded> http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/...downloads_file







Mine and JKB's fokker list http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/tags/f50/

[kalong]

Hardware requirements mean little to nothing. I could have a 6 GHz i7 with the fastest RAM, video card and SSD out there and still would suffer performance penalties by million poly models, no matter the sim platform. Bottlenecks are everywhere.

I agreed and just to remember, we try to draw the world guys.

[jankees]

this will be my next one:

[jankees]

and one more in the pipeline

[Fireball6]

they look promising and will be added to the fleet ......

Thanks for doeing all the artwork

All the Best

Dirk

[jeansy]

Another F50 repaint done

[jankees]

and I uploaded Braathens, AirNostrum, and adapted the Alliance paint for our kiwi friends:


since VH-FKO regularly flies in New Zealand