We been cast aside again...

[jkcook28]

Rats!!!

http://www.realflight.co.uk/hellcat.php

[Felixthreeone]

And this surprises you? I've come to grips with it already. Someof my favorite development houses going FSX. Thats forward progress, right? Well, I have said it before and I will say it once more.....My next Flightsim platform will be FS11. I do not care if not one single addon I currently have works with it......I will not go FSX. I have it, have tried it, and that iis it. Ok..enough ranting....I'm going to go fly my CWDT Hellcat now :friday:

[Lionheart]

And this surprises you? I've come to grips with it already. Someof my favorite development houses going FSX. Thats forward progress, right? Well, I have said it before and I will say it once more.....My next Flightsim platform will be FS11. I do not care if not one single addon I currently have works with it......I will not go FSX. I have it, have tried it, and that iis it. Ok..enough ranting....I'm going to go fly my CWDT Hellcat now :friday:

lol... I agree with that.

I tried to fly a new payware last night in FSX and it boots up in a ball of parts. 4 Gigs of DDR3 RAM, new rig, quad core, and very low slider settings and I cant run a good detail plane on it....

[Daveroo]

lol... I agree with that.

I tried to fly a new payware last night in FSX and it boots up in a ball of parts. 4 Gigs of DDR3 RAM, new rig, quad core, and very low slider settings and I cant run a good detail plane on it....

bill you keep buildin em for us for FS9 and we will keep buyin em....roll on baby

[Desert Rat]

amen to that!!

I don't have a Hellkitty installed for FS9, been eyeing up that CWDT one for far to long now.

Jamie

[huub vink]

There are still far more great models available for FS2004 than there are currently for FSX. Here we complain about designers who stopped creating FS9 models and in the FSX forum there are people complaining that their favourite model isn't FSX compatible......

I guess the grass is always greener on the other side :costumes:

Huub

[LonelyplanetXO]

Yeah, not a lot of point in moaning about developers going to FSX. Fact is the FS9 design tools are a pain to use and I hear the FSX ones are great. Unfortunately, for many of us FSX is completely useless - an inevitable result of it being designed by the McDonalds of software houses.
Bottom line? Lots of users still use FS9 and they're happy to buy. Yes, there's a greatly increased degree of work involved in supporting two platforms - it's up to each development house to decide whether the investment is worth the effort. I applaud and support the ones who choose to say "yes" to FS9.

LPXO

[Quicksand jr]

Rats!!!

http://www.realflight.co.uk/hellcat.php

I know, tell me about it,......:friday:

[whitehawk_2009]

Remember what happened with the 152? Maybe they will see how much of the market their missing.

WH

[Milton Shupe]

Man, my computer barely runs FS9 well so I understand your pain with not moving forward.

FSX development is more intense and then to also backward engineer to FS9 is a real pain with the differences with animations and textures. I can understand them needing to decrease the workload.

As for me, I do not need the extensive overhead of FSX nor the highly intense aircraft developed for it. Give me a great flight model, a quality panel, a nice exterior model and nice looking VC with the basics and I'm good to go. My view is that aircraft should not hog all the "head-room" ... leave some of that for scenery, AI, quality sounds, and MP.

For businesses to stay current and profitable, these decisions have to be made and I wish them the best as they forge ahead. I do not begrudge those who can keep up and enjoy doing that, and I understand some of us must ... wait. It's nice to have some company back here.

[hey_moe]

I guess another way to look at it is when you go to Avsim or some of the other flight sites the FS9 add on by far pass the FS10 add on.

[Desert Rat]

As a learner, I recently backwards engineered Ted Cooks Master to CFS2, I can appreciate the problems between making models for two sims. I wanted to bring my updated (simple) model back to FS9 so the new texs could be used. But I found it harder to do that than the original backstep. Still workiong on it, but don't expect quick results. Fine getting nice reflective models, but getting them VC anims to work!! Dagnammit!

It's a lot of work, and I'm a generation behind. I'm just learning, but what seems like the simplest thing to the end-user can be HOURS of work for a moddeler, and that's just the simplest stuff, add in special gauge coding, timezones between team members, etc, etc, it is boggling stuff....

Muchos kudos,
Jamie

PS. just ordered FSX gold, time will tell, lol. I have an Iris F20 burning a hole in my HD to try, amongst others.

[Panther_99FS]

Personally,
The Classic Warbirds Design team Hellcat suits me just fine for FS2004. And RobH has done a LOT of repaints for it....:mixedsmi:

[Felixthreeone]

Personally,
The Classic Warbirds Design team Hellcat suits me just fine for FS2004. And RobH has done a LOT of repaints for it....:mixedsmi:

Agreed. :ernae:

[dandog]

If the grass is greener on the other side, time to take care of YOUR side. :costumes:

[wombat666]

Personally,
The Classic Warbirds Design team Hellcat suits me just fine for FS2004. And RobH has done a LOT of repaints for it....:mixedsmi:

Agreed twice!:friday:

[MM]

Milton has it right.

As ever!

[MudMarine]

I wouldn't be too upset over one plane. FSX is still a pain in the sack and I'm finding myself returning to FS9 more and more......new doesn't always make it better?

[Roger]

It's true that to run FsX is expensive. When I-last-but-1 upgraded my rig it was mid Fs8 and when Fs9 came it worked but struggled with a lot of traffic or weather. So when I upgraded 5 years on it was intended to fly FsX. In a year or two time rigs to run FsX will be relatively cheap so then will be the time to upgrade and maybe try FsXI.
With what I see in FsX with my rig it is hard to go back to Fs9 because it looks less real.

[Panther_99FS]

Well I'm finally at some type of equilibrium....

I've finally realized that these type of threads are kinda like cockroaches - they'll never totally disappear...:mixedsmi:

[skyhawka4m]

Here's my question...

If its so hard to back engineer to FS9 from FSX, then why not make a top notch FS9 aircraft and forward engineer it. Look at the new F-86, what will it have in FSX that it does not have in FS9? My guess would be rivets, but who cares. I've seen some really bad rivet jobs lately and if they were to life the drag would be a killer to any real plane.

My money would be on someone who develops for kick ass plane for FS9 and then makes it flyable in FSX. They to me are the true simm sales people. Unless someone can sell me on self shadows which I haven't been sold on yet.

[Lionheart]

Well I'm finally at some type of equilibrium....

I've finally realized that these type of threads are kinda like cockroaches - they'll never totally disappear...:mixedsmi:

LOLOL.....! :costumes:


You are the one that usually starts them Panther! lolol....




Bill

[Felixthreeone]

Here's my question...

If its so hard to back engineer to FS9 from FSX, then why not make a top notch FS9 aircraft and forward engineer it. Look at the new F-86, what will it have in FSX that it does not have in FS9? My guess would be rivets, but who cares. I've seen some really bad rivet jobs lately and if they were to life the drag would be a killer to any real plane.

My money would be on someone who develops for kick ass plane for FS9 and then makes it flyable in FSX. They to me are the true simm sales people. Unless someone can sell me on self shadows which I haven't been sold on yet.

Amen, skyhawk. Amen.

[stiz]

Here's my question...

If its so hard to back engineer to FS9 from FSX, then why not make a top notch FS9 aircraft and forward engineer it. Look at the new F-86, what will it have in FSX that it does not have in FS9?

ok i'll bite :mixedsmi:

1 - 99% of the animations will have to be redone with some being added since FSX doesnt do pivot animations (for lack of a better term) like FS9.

So if you had an airilon that worked fine in fs9, to get it to work in fsx you'd need to animate it at the down - centerd - up positions, then tag it with the animation manager.

2 - all the textures in the 3d program need to be changed and tweeked

for fs9 you could just leave all the materials as "standard" whilst fsx has its own material type, which alows you tweak just about every aspect of it.

3 - all custom xml that was made for the plane would have to be redone so as to work in fsx

so say the following code worked fine in fs9:

<part>   
     <name>switch_wingfold</name>   
     <animation>  
             <parameter>   
                     <sim>  
                             <variable>FOLDING WING LEFT PERCENT</variable>  
                             <units>Percent</units> 
                       <scale>25</scale> 
                     </sim> 
           </parameter>   
     </animation>  
     <mouserect>   
                 <cursor>Hand</cursor>   
                 <tooltip_text>Toggle Wingfold</tooltip_text> 
           <event_id>TOGGLE_WING_FOLD</event_id> 
     </mouserect>   
</part>

to get it to work in FSX it'd need to be changed to the following:

<PartInfo>
    <Name>lever_toggle_wing_fold</Name>
    <AnimLength>100</AnimLength>
    <Animation>
      <Parameter>
        <Code>
          (A:FOLDING WING LEFT PERCENT, percent)
        </Code>
        <Lag>400</Lag>
      </Parameter>
    </Animation>
    <MouseRect>
      <Cursor>Hand</Cursor>
      <MouseFlags>LeftSingle</MouseFlags>
      <TooltipID>TOOLTIPTEXT_FOLDING_WING_HANDLE</TooltipID>
      <CallbackCode>
        (&gt;K:TOGGLE_WING_FOLD)
      </CallbackCode>
    </MouseRect>
  </PartInfo>

now, doenst take long with just one if your used to it, but when you've got 100+ custom bits of code it takes a while :isadizzy:

4 - new textures would have to be done, bump, spec etc

Any repainter will know how long that can take

Now to another bit that bites if your doing payware, the money side, a good model can cost $3000 plus (i've personaly been quoted $4500 for one), then you have whatever the gauge guy charges, then you have whatever the painter charges, then you have what the airfile guy charges, so it does soon add up.

So if you've just paid all of the for a top notch fs9 model, then wanted to convert it to FSX, what would that cost?? well i charge $400+ to do a conversion and anything i cant do i pass to someone else who would charge their own amount, then you'd prolly have to get a new gauges for some things which would cost as well, the painter would probabley want some more to do all the spec and bump maps as well. So thats a possible $4000 plus for both, thats a cost that most payware people just aint willing to pay, and can you blame them??

Also, if your going for a next gen type plane, with tons of detail etc, then even the best FS9 plane couldnt even get close to what your after, it just isnt possible.

I'm sure Bill will back me up on this, building for 2 sims that are so different is a major pain and most developers dont want that hassle so just build for one, weather it be FS9 or FSX. Bill is crazy and builds for both, and look what its turned him into!! :costumes::ernae:

I'm sure i've said things which i'll get slaped for later but hopefull it'll help answer questions as to why people only build for one

[Lionheart]

Well put Stiz...

But you didnt really 'stress' the actual 'magnification' of all that is involved.

** Animations: Where once we have gauge code that made a animation work, in FSX, there is a secondary 'string' header that goes in the top file, stating the aniation run length (if there is one) its type (visibility, animation only, effect such as a light, etc).

Second, concerning this subject. They changed the 'verbage' on the code. I can only think that it was done to keep new gauges from working in FS9. (Taking a new plane and putting it in FS9). Simple adjustments, such as changing names of Nouns and verbs and making capitals necessary creates a new code that must be re-written over an older FS9 code. This means, if you have 25 former animations, 25 dual input new code writings will be required. (Remember, each animation/effect code has 2 sections).

** Materials: Stiz talked lightly on FSX Materials. In FS9, you had a simple Material page. With FSX, you have like 5 types of graphics (DDS files) inputs, with critical 'tuned' Alpha channels, which will tell weather a material is transparent enough, even though you select a Opacity slider. Along with 5+ plus (yes, can be more) types of graphics, you also have 4 to 5 pages of Material data to punch in... 4 to 5..... (ticks, sliders, entries, etc).

** New mesh means you can go crazy, which allows a person to go through and turn a 'tire' for instance from a 400 poly object, to go through Mesh Smooth / 1 Iteration, and now its 2,000 polygons. Do that on about 50% of the parts, such as gauge bazel rings. That can take a few days.

** Mild airfile and config handling tunes... The plane handles somewhat slightly different, so slight tunes are required for those who really want a 'precise' handling plane.

** New Mapping: FSX brings in a new way of handling graphics. Less is faster. Thus people (like Stiz) have been on to remapping 4 graphics pages (sheets, bitmaps, DDS textures) into one larger 2048 pixels square sheet. Doing this several times lowers the 'draw calls' and enhances the aircrafts efficiency in FSX. But....... now each and every part (2,000?) must be remapped to those new 'super sheets'.

(Stiz is a revolutionist in this field and has now done this to many payware planes that were converted over, enabling them to run far faster then just a simple conversion to FSX from FS9. Salute! ).

That is 'some' of the things that must be done to birds that undergo a dual reality (twin sim) platform. I am surely leaving out some bits, but its 3:AM, so I am allowed to forget this late at night. :d

New codes for gauges, animations, effects. New texture handling. Man hours....


To quote Paul Harvey... 'And now you know.............. the rest... of the story. ' :d


Bill