View Full Version : Santa Lou, Please make the A340 a smooth ride...
01-05-2002, 09:25 AM
With the arrival of FS2002, I've noticed a trend in the payware aircraft available (from several different companies) so far that is disconcerting. I won't list the products, but most simmers are aware that if these airplanes feature a virtual cockpit, some degree of visual fluidity is lost in that mode relative to the Microsoft default aircraft VCs.
Has Microsoft so "balanced" the default aircraft such that any extra minor degree of visual detail enhancement or functionality throws everything into "stutterville?" I hope this situation is not the case as I am tired of flying a goofy looking default 737 and a nice Baron.
DreamFleet to their credit managed to make, in an FS2002 upgrade, a complex, standard 2D cockpit in their 737 fly fluidly from the captain's seat on an aggressive, healthy computer system, but as has been noted here, the spot view on that aircraft eats frames. Perhaps a GMAX model would help the exterior in that situation in FS2002.
Being basically a FS2000 design, no VC has been yet contemplated for this 737, but I wonder if a VC could be accomplished in FS2002 at that level of sophistication without significantly damaging visual smoothness.
It is so thrilling to to watch the world go by from a smoothly running VC. This is definitely part of the magic of the evolution of flight simming, but I'm afraid that Microsoft has made the add on developer's job very tricky in this release. I hope I'm wrong "Santa Lou;" I hope that fluidity with some degree of enhancement of detail and function is indeed possible with enough cleverness and head scratching.
Is it possible to model the upcoming A340 with the smoothness found in the default heavies - even close - I'm mainly talking about a subjective sense? Forget frames and system specs for the moment, will a purchaser of your following releases get the feeling of really flying found in the default aircraft or has Microsoft made life difficult for both users and developers in this regard?
Don G. :-wave
01-06-2002, 11:31 AM
Any comments or observations would be appreciated. :-) :-) :-)
01-06-2002, 12:37 PM
Are you asking DF make a package that runs as smooth as the default aircraft?
01-06-2002, 12:49 PM
Indeed, Liam, that can be done. We'll just make it as complex as the default aircraft! ;-)
01-06-2002, 02:56 PM
Yup, I've managed to count the number of polygons the default 747-400 has and I'll match the A340 exactly }>.
01-06-2002, 03:26 PM
LAST EDITED ON Jan-06-02 AT 03:29PM (EDT)[p]My thoughts exactly :-lol
This "dongokce" really needs to screw his head on. If you want a visual model that looks half like a real plane your gonna overshoot the MS Values, and the cockpit! Jeez, dongokce - Lemme say to you I bet DF will do there best to keep FPS high while increasing quality! If you want a Default FPS then you would need to ask DF NOT to include have a FMC, TCAS working EICAS, overhead LOL... and of course Lou's wondefull photo real images :)
01-06-2002, 09:27 PM
Actually there is nothing wrong with what Don is asking for, but ultimately, if you want complexity and realism there is a price to pay, and that price is in FPS.
Folks keep asking for "more, more, more". Well, more, more, more = less, less, less fps. We can only optimize code so much.
Like it or not, the DF737 is the MOST complex product if its type out there. No product offers the extent that the 737 does. Sure, some offer things ours does not, but overall, nothing is at that level of complexity, and there is a price to pay for it.
The good news is we're not doing the 3D interior for the A340 model, so that will help. However we are adding some other details. In the end, you get what you ask for.
You cannot have it "all" and still get the same fps as the defaults. It is as simple as that.
01-06-2002, 09:50 PM
Ill steal a government super-duper computer if I have to :D
"Ladies and Gentlemen, we just discovered an exception to the rule that what goes up must come down, the landing gear"
01-07-2002, 11:15 AM
Thanks to all who have contributed a post to this thread. :D My main motivation was to get from a top notch development team some feedback on FS2002 from the developer's standpoint. In other words, has Microsoft given you sufficient "room" to work and continue to deliver outstanding products?
Liam, of course "extras" cost in performance :-roll , but the overriding question is at what point do accuracy both in functionality and visual modeling begin to impair the basic sensation of flight. I'm all for as much realism as possible being a pilot and former senior aircraft structural design engineer for both the late McDonnell Douglas and still existing Lockheed/Martin Corporations specializing in military airplanes. I can assure you that our products are as "real" as it gets... just witness the air action in Afganistan. I'm well aware of the art of compromise required to make a finished product.
Lou, did Microsoft really take any advice from developers before the release of FS2002 :-hmmm ? If I were in your business, I'd want to make them understand that they must give developers in the basic platform (core software) sufficient room for improvement in at least aircraft (I hope they have done so with FS2002.). It would seem that Microsoft is inviting developers to work with them given the usually less than stellar :-sleepy default aircraft they manage to pack with every release of FS.
I think that Microsoft is aware that much of the sales of their flight simulator depends on the qualilty offerings from DreamFleet and your competition ;-). I'll be happy to lobby Microsoft on your behalf on this issue for future FS releases if necessary. :-jumpy
Fraser, if you are creating the visual model for the A340, glad to meet you! :-wave The A340 is a beautiful ship with classic lines. I'm sure you'll polygon her well! :-cool
01-08-2002, 11:29 AM
:-) Bump :-)
01-08-2002, 12:39 PM
MS did take our advice in quite a few areas, and yes, they do greatly support the work of 3rd party developers, both payware and freeware. They were a wonderful team to work with.
Ultimately, the big problem developers face is unrealistic expectations from users; the idea that we can do "anything". This is not always possible or practical in FS.
In the end, it is our hope to satisfy the majority of users, with the understanding that we will turn off some at one end (too complex for them), and turn off some hardcore users who expect "747 PS1.3" for $29.95!
The vast majority of FS users do NOT desire super high end add-ons, they just want a certain degree of realism, and to have some fun. It is a very fine line that we walk when it comes to designing these products, and we know that we will not please everyone. ;-)
Let me also add, contrary to popular belief, the majority of FS users are not on the internet that much, nor are they visiting forums. This is why we use the forums only for very limited market research, such as whether we produce the 727 before or after the 707!
The mistake some make (and I am thinking of one "reviewer" in particular) is to base their judgement of the FS market on what they read at forums and the internet. Do this, and you'll think everyone wants a 747 PS1! This is a common mistake folks make, and as such, mis-judge the FS market, thinking that it is far more high end than it really is.
Anyway, Don, I digress, and we'll try to make the A340 as smooth as "practical", not as "possible". ;-)
01-08-2002, 01:06 PM
Thanks for your response, and I can't wait for that A340. :9
01-08-2002, 01:27 PM
Thanx Lou, i had guessed you would have made it like this :-lol
Yup, its a shame reviewrs go down a little to far and just nit-pick to fill out the page, and to be honest the only thing i look at the reviews in the pictures :-lol . Well, i suppose i do look at the content a little, but its all too much personal opinion
Cant wait for the 340 :)
Im pleased your making the A340 next :-)
Try destroy my frames if you can >:
01-08-2002, 03:09 PM
Hmmmmm a challenge..............
Hey Lou, how about we make the A340 so realistic with millions of polygons, that you'd swear you where standing next to the real thing.......and the VC will be so realistic that you would actually be sitting in the real cockpit..........
01-08-2002, 03:17 PM
Go on, :-lol would love to see the FPS... have a high and low version :-lol
01-08-2002, 04:49 PM
There's things that Mr. Turner can do that would make your head spin in amazement, while also bringing your computer to a screaching halt! ;-)
Hey, aint there a new motherboard with a duel athlon slot or something now. Make it a little more demanding than the 737.
01-08-2002, 09:40 PM
I'm not being funny, but is there really any necessity to jump so ferociously onto someone's back because they've asked a question that perhaps you don't see any sense in? There was a time ago in this forum that a minority of individuals seemed to be stamping on anyone who asked a question that was asked before or who didn't appear to have the indepth avionics knowledge of a Honeywell technician.
Live and let live I say and let people ask their questions - you can always choose not to answer and let someone else answer the question - I'm sure that if the developers of DF737 and the Moderators of this forum are in need of any henchmen - they'll ask for them.
01-08-2002, 10:20 PM
Frankly, I don't think anyone stomped on anyone's back "ferociously". ;-) We're all just chatting along here.
01-08-2002, 11:24 PM
That's okay then - really sorry if I got the wrong end of the stick! :D
Incidentally, on a different note - how did you get the pictures for the inside of the BMI737 in Dreamfleet. I've worked for British Midland for a very long time now and have walked up and down that cabin on countless occasions as well as sat at the flightdeck windows you have recreated!! Just curious.
Am very much looking forward to your 727 project.
Happy New Year.
01-09-2002, 12:06 AM
Don't worry about it! :-)
As to the photos, I got them all on a BMI flight between LHR and MXP in June of 2000. A rather empty flight, and an accomodating cabin staff and captain rolled out the red carpet for me, both during and after the flight. Sadly, most unlikely that would take place today.
Yes, a real nice crew on that flight! :-)
We usually try to connect via BMI between London and the continent when we can, as they are partners with VS, who we usually hop the pond on.
I am also looking forward to the 727; a plane that MUST be flown by those who know how to fly a plane. ;-)
01-09-2002, 12:18 PM
Stop going OT Lou with the 727 LOL it will definatly seperate the men from the boys LOL
Airbus is basically all computer... The pilot only needs to engauge the autothrottle and autpilot and she'll do the entire flight LOL _ Oh and the gear and flaps i think
01-09-2002, 12:52 PM
I really can't wait for the 727 either, i guess it's a good thing i'm taking my nav exam soon for my PPL, maybe it'll help with the 727 navigation.
Cheers, keep up the fantastic work Lou and team,
EGNX - The home of BMI hehehehe :-)
01-09-2002, 01:15 PM
Mabye! Hey, i didn't knon you need IFR for a PPL :-hmm
01-09-2002, 03:48 PM
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.