First Super Connie in 10 years!

[diegoxs]

Check out our forum. A preview release of the L-1049 Super Constellation by Manfred Jahn and team.
http://calclassic.proboards55.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=862&page=7

[Panther_99FS]

Is this for FSX ?

[diegoxs]

It's a FS9 SDK model but performs perfectly in FSX! This release is a preview of what is coming. There will be all version of the Super Connies; also the earlyer short nosed and the military versions. All with VC.

Diego

[Panther_99FS]

Thanks
Looks like it will be fine in FSX & FSX SP1...

[Cazzie]

Got the Paint Kit from AvSim, can't wait, must do something with this, just have such a passion for the Connie, about the only tube I worship! :rapture:

Caz

[Panther_99FS]

Got the Paint Kit from AvSim, can't wait, must do something with this, just have such a passion for the Connie, about the only tube I worship! :rapture:

Caz

:icon_lol:

[Kiwikat]

Is this for FSX ?

It's a FS9 SDK model but performs perfectly in FSX! This release is a preview of what is coming. There will be all version of the Super Connies; also the earlyer short nosed and the military versions. All with VC.

In other words what the response should have been:

NO.

... :sleep:

[barryward12345]

Who cares what sim this is for?? It is for whatever Sim it was designed to be for. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT!

Barry

[Kiwikat]

Who cares what sim this is for?? It is for whatever Sim it was designed to be for. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT!

The point is that the community should be asking for FSX models by now. Even from freeware developers. It is the reason FS9 is still so popular. Computer performance has caught up with FSX, but the number of addons isn't even in the same galaxy.

IIRC this is also the FSX forum. This plane is not intended for FSX. I'm not a moderator though... thankfully :engel016:

(That's the last time I'm going to bother even trying to stand up against the flow here. It is really pointless (and usually counterproductive) to post any opinions contrary to all the members' general beliefs.)

[Panther_99FS]

Who cares what sim this is for?? It is for whatever Sim it was designed to be for. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT!

Barry

Barry,
In the past, there's been confusion about compatibility of aircraft in FSX/SP2. That is why I asked the questions that I did. There are quite a few people who fly only 100% FSX/SP2 aircraft...

And some of these FSX/SP2 aircraft have problems/issues in FSX/RTM & FSX/SP1. That is why clarification was needed :)

[mike_cyul]

Barry,
In the past, there's been confusion about compatibility of aircraft in FSX/SP2. That is why I asked the questions that I did. There are quite a few people who fly only 100% FSX/SP2 aircraft...

And some of these FSX/SP2 aircraft have problems/issues in FSX/RTM & FSX/SP1. That is why clarification was needed :)

Right. There really is no such thing as an "FSX" aircraft. It should be specified whether it is "FSX", "FSX SP1", or "FSX SP2/Acceleration" (or all of the above!)....

Complicated enough? :)

Mike

[thunder100]

Thanks
Looks like it will be fine in FSX & FSX SP1...

Hi also SP2 ACC the only place where I can test

Godspeed

Thunder100

Starliner team

[Kiwikat]

Right. There really is no such thing as an "FSX" aircraft. It should be specified whether it is "FSX", "FSX SP1", or "FSX SP2/Acceleration" (or all of the above!)....

Complicated enough? :)

Mike

FSX is now SP2 and accel. A model designed for one of those will work with the other. Applications aren't made for XP SP1 or SP2 anymore, they are made to work in SP3 (but most happen to conveniently work in SP1 and SP2). Real FSX airplanes are made for SP2 and acceleration and are compiled with the FSX compiler, not the FS9 compiler.

[mike_cyul]

FSX is now SP2 and accel. A model designed for one of those will work with the other. Applications aren't made for XP SP1 or SP2 anymore, they are made to work in SP3 (but most happen to conveniently work in SP1 and SP2). Real FSX airplanes are made for SP2 and acceleration and are compiled with the FSX compiler, not the FS9 compiler.

I think it's good to indicate what variation the model has been tested on, though - as there is not just the model, but airfiles, too. Things which tested well with SP2/Acceleration have had issues with SP1, for example - not the model, but other variables, as well.

Mike

[Kiwikat]

I think it's good to indicate what variation the model has been tested on, though - as there is not just the model, but airfiles, too. Things which tested well with SP2/Acceleration have had issues with SP1, for example - not the model, but other variables, as well.

Mike

Yes I think developers should mention if things might not work in SP1. That still doesn't change the fact that FSX Sp2/accel is the most current version that developers should be building for. The vast majority of simmers who use FSX have SP2 or Acceleration.

[Panther_99FS]

That still doesn't change the fact that FSX Sp2/accel is the most current version that developers should be building for.

I would debate that this "rule" you've stated doesn't apply to freeware developers :)

[hobofat]

I would debate that this "rule" you've stated doesn't apply to freeware developers :)

Not to jump in and step on any toes and such, Kiwikat does have a point that this is the FSX forum. But others have a point that this is a freeware developer. Go hang out in the CalClassic forums, and what you have amongst the developers there is a highly knowledgable and very experienced group (many are older aviators) who I guarantee you aren't running rigs capable of FSX. They create for themselves and for anybody else who enjoys such things in the environment that they use. You will notice that M.Jahn's Constellations are only uploaded in the FS9 section at avsim and they fully explain that it is for FS9 and that any FSX use is not supported in any way and that things may not work properly.

If you would like an FSX/SP2 Connie, JustFlight is going to release one eventually, made by Aeroplane Heaven.

[Panther_99FS]

Go hang out in the CalClassic forums, and what you have amongst the developers there is a highly knowledgable and very experienced group (many are older aviators) who I guarantee you aren't running rigs capable of FSX. They create for themselves and for anybody else who enjoys such things in the environment that they use. You will notice that M.Jahn's Constellations are only uploaded in the FS9 section at avsim and they fully explain that it is for FS9 and that any FSX use is not supported in any way and that things may not work properly.


Exactly why I asked the starter of this thread for clarification :)

[barryward12345]

The general thrust of this thread was :

1.Is this for FSX ?

2.It's a FS9 SDK model but performs perfectly in FSX!

3.Thanks
Looks like it will be fine in FSX & FSX SP1...

... at which stage, everything is completely clear. Those who have FS9, FSX, FSX SP! can download it if they so choose. Those who run SP2/Acceleration may also decide what they want to do.

There was no further need for this :

In other words what the response should have been:

NO.

After this, there follows a pedantic argument as to what really constitutes
"FSX" and or a pedantic discussion of just exactly what FSX "is"

I still say - who cares?? Download it or don't.

Barry

[Panther_99FS]

I still say - who cares?? Download it or don't.

Barry

For the 2nd time too :engel016::engel016:

[Kiwikat]

After this, there follows a pedantic argument as to what really constitutes
"FSX" and or a pedantic discussion of just exactly what FSX "is"

It is that kind of attitude that will keep the flow of real FSX freeware at a weak trickle (if that). Hopefully people will begin to ask their favorite authors to learn and build FSX.

For now it looks like the only freeware that will ever be on my system are Piglet's fine works :ernae:

[barryward12345]

I am afraid to say that you are going to have to ask the freeware developers as to why they do not appear to be developing purely for SP2 ( hereinafter called "True FSX"). I am sure there will be reasons - possibly a number of them.

But there is no point in being pernickety (good word?? :wiggle:) about hobbyist developers not doing so, or failing to be absolutely specific in their explanation as to what version of FSX their creation has been designed for (or even if it is a FS9 portover) . The bottom line is that it either runs on your machine in a satisfactory way (to you ) - or it doesn't.

FSX has been an expensive "game" to get to run well - MANY people just can't see the justification to buy the latest quad core machines with the latest expensive vid cards needed to run it. Any decision by Aces to design a computer game that needed future generations of computers to be able to run it satisfactorily would have been a FOOLISH decision - and it appears that this has now been proven. I am sure that there are MANY hobbyist developers who do not have the latest computer system - and who do not intend to do so. I believe that you had better get used to freeware offerings that have been designed on machines capable of running FS9 and FSX SP1 adequately. OR - as you said, restrict yourself to the offerings of fewer hobbyists.

Barry

[Murray Cod]

and here is a photo of a Super Connie at the Avalon International Airshow in Melbourne, Australia yesterday.

[Panther_99FS]

For now it looks like the only freeware that will ever be on my system are Piglet's fine works :ernae:

If that's your decision - cool :)

Thing is, none of us are in a position to tell freeware designers what to build & how they should build....The easiest way to lose a freeware designer is to demand they build things in a certain way...:engel016:

Look at what happened to Mike Stone...

[stiz]

2.It's a FS9 SDK model but performs perfectly in FSX!




well it wont perform perfectly as the props will dissapear behind the clouds :173go1:




:ernae:

[Kiwikat]

I believe that you had better get used to freeware offerings that have been designed on machines capable of running FS9 and FSX SP1 adequately.

Capable of running FSX SP1? SP2 improved performance. Real FSX planes run better in FSX than portovers do in FSX, whether it is stock, SP1, SP2, or acceleration. So if the machine is "capable of running FSX SP1 adequately" it would run a true FSX plane even better, no matter what version of FSX they are running.

Since no one else seems interested in real FSX freeware, I'll stop commenting on it.:rapture:

[OBIO]

I'm going to chime in here on a few points:

1) I am looking forward to this series of Connies. Manfred Jahn and team has done some incredible freeware for FS9, and I am sure that this series of Connies will be just as nice. I love his Avro York...just wish it had a VC...but can live without it.

2) As of last week, I have FSX Deluxe. It was given to me by the owner of a local pizza and sub shop (along with a set of Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar flight sticks). I installed it, flew it a bit, did not like the laggy performance on my older system, was not impressed with what I did see...nothing there that FS9 did not have with better performance. I unistalled it..not sure if I will ever reinstall it. And I am sure that this pattern is not new....I am sure that there have been many many simmers who got FSX and found it not to be an improvement over FS2004 and who shelved it. Luckily for me, I did not pony up $60 for what I see as a worthless and bloated sim...like I did with CFS3.

3) For a while now, I have been trying to learn Gmax with the goal of becoming a developer of freeware aircraft...mainly for CFS2 at first then FS2004 later on. But, I have seen time and time again, developers being torn apart for not adding this or that detail, for not doing this or that version of a certain plane, for not having clickable gauges, for having something less than perfect. And all this negative attitude has dampened my enthusiasm for becoming a developer....why spend hours and hours of my time developing a sim aircraft only to catch flac from people who I shared it with for free? And I know that my choices in the planes to develop would not have much appeal to the general CFS2 community....trainers, transports, early GA aircraft...so the odds are high that I would catch flac for my choices.

4) I think it is wrong for anyone to demand that a freeware developer do a certain plane or for a certain sim...especially if it is a sim that they do not have, that their system will not run or that they particularly don't care for. If you want a freeware Connie for FSX, then learn to model and create it yourself. That was the original impetus for me wanting to learn to develop aircraft...there are a great many planes that I want to be able to fly in CFS2...namely some of the early training aircraft, transports, GA aircraft that were used by the military. Those modelers who still produce CFS2 native aircraft focus on WW2 combat aircraft, since CFS2 is a WW2 combat flight sim. Totally understandable. There is no way that I would demand that any one of them produce a Lockheed Electra L10A or Lockheed Hudson L14 or a Desault Super Mystere B2.

OBIO

[stiz]

3) For a while now, I have been trying to learn Gmax with the goal of becoming a developer of freeware aircraft...mainly for CFS2 at first then FS2004 later on. But, I have seen time and time again, developers being torn apart for not adding this or that detail, for not doing this or that version of a certain plane, for not having clickable gauges, for having something less than perfect. And all this negative attitude has dampened my enthusiasm for becoming a developer....why spend hours and hours of my time developing a sim aircraft only to catch flac from people who I shared it with for free? And I know that my choices in the planes to develop would not have much appeal to the general CFS2 community....trainers, transports, early GA aircraft...so the odds are high that I would catch flac for my choices.


tip number 1 for anyone thinking of modding anything for any game - have a thick skin, no matter what you do, someone will demand that rivit 298364a thats located under the panel to the left and behind rivit 298363a, be moved 0.284736 of an inch to the left so that it matches the picture of the custom build on they found on google.

Also for every 2/3 bad comment theres hundreds which are perfectly happy with it, but they dont say anything (some do though) as there perfectly pleased with what you've made, and just fly it

:engel016:

[dharris]

:friday:I have been using Manfred's L-1649 for some time now and it works quite well with fsx. If it only worked in fs9, it would still be worth the download. In fact there is so much out there, new, for fs9, I reloaded fs9 and use it the way I wanted before I had the equipment to run it right. I think I am leaning to make the fs9 install retro to the fifties with Cal Customs retro airports and ai. Then just use Fsx for the the newer stuff. When the new Connie hits I will use that to be sure, but I use all the connies I can find. Some better than others to be sure, but works of someone's labor and free besides, I just thank them for their efforts. I cannot do what they have done and I consider it a privledge to use their creations. Their passion is in the making and sharing of their hard work, and I for one don't mind taking these up with all the gratitude I can muster. I don't think that the majority of people care if it is an exact fsx or fs9 creation, so long as it works well and displays well. I know some folks , need it to be the"real thing" but then I have flown in the Connies and believe me, she was a thing of beauty to work with and fly with. Even my old Wv-2's "well almost" were beauties, as far as this being an FSX forum, how many times have we seen OT in here. And besides, if someone brings up an fs9 model that will work in fsx it is to our advantage. Some may bring a lot of joy. Just my opinion.

[MCDesigns]

This discussion/arguement can be solved quite easily, use the FSX compiler which creates 2 MDLs and it IS an FSX (SP1, SP2, doesn't matter) aircraft and can labeled such. Don't use the FSX compiler and it is NOT an FSX aircraft and shouldn't be labeled such, not hard to figure out.

Noone is demanding anyone design for a certain sim or putting expectations on any freeware developers, just that they be honest as to which compiler they used and label it as such.

Stiz is correct, onless there is some miracle workaround that I am unaware of, unless you use the FSX compiler, you will have the prop issues all portoivers suffer from and this is far from working perfectly.

:focus: diegoxs, thanks for the heads up, look forward to trying her out! :ernae:

[MCDesigns]

3) For a while now, I have been trying to learn Gmax with the goal of becoming a developer of freeware aircraft...mainly for CFS2 at first then FS2004 later on. But, I have seen time and time again, developers being torn apart for not adding this or that detail, for not doing this or that version of a certain plane, for not having clickable gauges, for having something less than perfect. And all this negative attitude has dampened my enthusiasm for becoming a developer....why spend hours and hours of my time developing a sim aircraft only to catch flac from people who I shared it with for free?

Because the main person you should be designing for is yourself and as long as you are happy with it, who cares what others think of it. When you go commercial is when it matters what others think

Sorry FSX didn't work out for you. Hope you continue with your gmax designing though!

[Kiwikat]

This discussion/arguement can be solved quite easily, use the FSX compiler which creates 2 MDLs and it IS an FSX (SP1, SP2, doesn't matter) aircraft and can labeled such. Don't use the FSX compiler and it is NOT an FSX aircraft and shouldn't be labeled such, not hard to figure out.

Noone is demanding anyone design for a certain sim or putting expectations on any freeware developers, just that they be honest as to which compiler they used and label it as such.

:):applause:

[deathfromafar]

Seems some have made a mountain out of a molehill here when only simple clarification was needed.

Likewise I have Manfred's Starliner running in FS9 & FSX Gold and it runs just fine in FSX. I have no issue with it not being native FSX as I am getting excellent performance with it. I liked the Starliner's performance in FSX so well that I opted out of buying the A2A Stratocruiser. That's not to say the Starliner is superior, but it does fine for me and others using it in FSX. Downloading it is optional.

[Panther_99FS]

Let's not forget that quite a few (and I'd debate MOST by the sheer number of freeware FS2004 products still being made) freeware designers either;

1) Don't have the hardware to run FSX
2) Have no desire to make freeware FSX products

[n4gix]

This discussion/arguement can be solved quite easily, use the FSX compiler which creates 2 MDLs and it IS an FSX (SP1, SP2, doesn't matter) aircraft and can labeled such. Don't use the FSX compiler and it is NOT an FSX aircraft and shouldn't be labeled such, not hard to figure out.

I wish it were just as simple as using the FSX XtoMDL.exe compiler...

...but it's not. No longer are there automatic animations based only on the specific name of a part, but every animated part requires keyframe animation tracks (pretty simple), but then also must be tweaked with the FS Animation Tool, and possibly the Attachpoint Tool.

...there are now three to four times the number of bitmaps required (diffuse, specular, bump, lightmap), and new FSX Material properties to be mastered.

...then there's a completely new XML syntax for the Modeldef.xml animation scripts, and the requirement of a unique GUID for every new Animation definition.

Understand that none of this is particularly harder than using the FS9 SDK tools, it just takes two to three times longer... :gossip:

[barryward12345]

Bill has hit the nail on the head, in my opinion.

I am not a FS developer - just a user. But I have noticed that, even though there has always been a "learning curve" in all things relating to computers, that learning curve never seems to flatten out - the angle of it keeps on rising.

So, it seems to me that there have been MANY FS hobbyist developers who have achieved terrific things in recent years - but who have finally "dropped out" . I won't attempt to name these people - but most of them are not teens, nor 20 somethings - nor are they mere children of 30's or even 40's . I won't go any further - perhaps you can get my drift. But for various reasons, in spite of their enthusiasm, FSx has become just "a Bridge too Far" !

Maybe a younger crowd will indeed pick up what is required to master FSX development - but, who knows, - it is now a defunct programme. Still alive theoretically - but with a very definite future lifespan. Then again - there are many who still maintain enthusiasm for CFS2, and good wishes to them.

Barry

[Ian Warren]

and here is a photo of a Super Connie at the Avalon International Airshow in Melbourne, Australia yesterday.
Lovely Photo Murray , I got few myself last show , think the aircrew thought i was a bit of a spy , they could,nt kick me out :whistle:

[Milton Shupe]

Bill has hit the nail on the head, in my opinion.

I am not a FS developer - just a user. But I have noticed that, even though there has always been a "learning curve" in all things relating to computers, that learning curve never seems to flatten out - the angle of it keeps on rising.

So, it seems to me that there have been MANY FS hobbyist developers who have achieved terrific things in recent years - but who have finally "dropped out" . I won't attempt to name these people - but most of them are not teens, nor 20 somethings - nor are they mere children of 30's or even 40's . I won't go any further - perhaps you can get my drift. But for various reasons, in spite of their enthusiasm, FSx has become just "a Bridge too Far" !

Maybe a younger crowd will indeed pick up what is required to master FSX development - but, who knows, - it is now a defunct programme. Still alive theoretically - but with a very definite future lifespan. Then again - there are many who still maintain enthusiasm for CFS2, and good wishes to them.

Barry

Barry,

Were you talking about me? LOL I know not but the points you raise are valid for me. That and the fact that my poor ole computer barely runs FS9 and gmax struggles when the model is nearly complete. LOL

We will release 3-4 aircraft this year, FS9 only. Sorry. :-)

:focus:

[dharris]

Barry,

Were you talking about me? LOL I know not but the points you raise are valid for me. That and the fact that my poor ole computer barely runs FS9 and gmax struggles when the model is nearly complete. LOL

We will release 3-4 aircraft this year, FS9 only. Sorry. :-)

:focus:

No need to apologize, your work is beautiful, always enjoyed your aircraft, still use them portovers included.:friday:

[mustang51]

Milton....your Howard 500 is still the one I fly most. She is my default aircraft. When I go sight seeing she's the one I use. Set the autopilot at about 4500 AGL, throttle back to about 200 knots, and check out the scenery.
Thanks for them all.
Bob