|
|
Post by james on Aug 15, 2007 14:05:23 GMT -5
I enjoy flying this one but getting a bit bored with Patty's paint job. I private/non sponsorship/warbird scheme would be nice. Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 15, 2007 21:31:47 GMT -5
Vincent Coratello has a few repaints at Avsim
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 16, 2007 7:32:26 GMT -5
They are not just repaints Tom he has changed the flight dynamics as well as packaging them up as individual planes. I took a look at the textures and its not what I'm looking for. Cheers
|
|
|
|
Post by windrunner on Aug 16, 2007 13:00:57 GMT -5
I'm sure someone will step ahead and do something for you; I am not "default planes" friendly, and I am out of business until September...don't loose your hope, people here is full of surprises!
|
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 16, 2007 13:26:38 GMT -5
Rgr Windrunner- there are not many fans of the older default planes but they run so well on my little laptop. I think the Wright Flyer has more repaints than the Extra lol. Cheers James
|
|
|
|
Post by felixffds on Aug 16, 2007 18:08:40 GMT -5
Rgr Windrunner- there are not many fans of the older default planes but they run so well on my little laptop. I think the Wright Flyer has more repaints than the Extra lol. Cheers James Pllliiiiiizzzzz! can you make me a WRight Flyer in Transcontinental and Western Air for my VA! It would look so kewl!!!! <snork> |
|
|
|
Post by Chris B on Sept 1, 2007 7:50:53 GMT -5
I enjoy flying this one but getting a bit bored with Patty's paint job. I private/non sponsorship/warbird scheme would be nice. Cheers Hi James, if you are looking for an FSX default Extra re-skin, I put one up at Avsim: library.avsim.net/download.php?DLID=96954 |
|
|
|
Post by windrunner on Sept 2, 2007 3:17:29 GMT -5
Thanks you Chris, does it works in the FS9 model?
And, now that you are here, what is it like to paint for FSX? is it possible from an "skinner" point ot view, to take advantage of the new goodies, or is it the same recip than with ol' FS9? just curious to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris B on Sept 2, 2007 9:32:53 GMT -5
Well, there aren't that many "full FSX compatible" models around yet. Most are still FS9 models ported over - the makers seem too scared to approach the FSX modelling methods. Yes, that my be harsh, but there does appear to be a lack of willing or knowledge or skill for the devs to create and model to FSX standards.
Having said that, those that do, make great lookers.
Problems with paints? Not really. The bump map is simply a grey scale of the "bumpy bits" from the main textures. Red channel is extracted to act as alpha channel and the blue channel is "flood filled" white while the green channel is "flood filled" black (or was it the other way round?) But once one bumpmap has been made, you don't really need to touch them as a painter anymore.
The speculars can be fun to play with, as these affect the colour of the reflected light - you can do some "interesting" effects, although I don't see the need for two-tone metallics (as per Mercedes cars). Besides - it's not that easy yet to find a happy medium. My efforts to date have been pretty bad, except where I have gone for a 180 rotation on the colour wheel.
The standard textures work the same way as for normal FS9. Texture plus alpha. Exept that if it is an FSX model, the textures are dds format - which means you have to flip vertically before saving as dds - if you are using dxtbmp to convert that is. If you use imagetool, then that flips everything for you, so there's one thing to watch.
Which alsoe means that dds skins won#t work in FS9 I don't think. But any 32 bit, dxt 5 and so on will port back to FSX
But basically any technique for FS9 works in FSX. You just need to watch for "proper" FSX skins, which need dds format and have bumpmaps and speculars. Some speculars use a single colour skin by the way - that means you don't need to work these either. But you can - it's just another choice for you.
Chrome is a lot more difficult to fix in X - I haven't yet found a nice one, but I am getting there.
All in all though, much the same with scope for a lot more fun...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 2, 2007 10:41:00 GMT -5
Well, there aren't that many "full FSX compatible" models around yet. Most are still FS9 models ported over - the makers seem too scared to approach the FSX modelling methods. Yes, that my be harsh, but there does appear to be a lack of willing or knowledge or skill for the devs to create and model to FSX standards. Yes, it is a bit harsh. What the developers can't and won't keep repeating over and over is that FSX is still unfinished. The SDK has changed twice already and there is more coming with SP2, the Acceleration Pack and DX-10. When all this shakes out and the FSX compiler is actually finished and working to it's full potential, you will see pure FSX development from the usual suspects, but they are not going to stretch the envelope now and have the product be useless in 6 months. Believe me, developing for FSX is exponentially more difficult and more time consuming than any previous version. All of your favorite developers are working hard to learn a whole new way of doing things and when all is ready, the product will begin to arrive. I suspect in the lifetime of FSX, the number of new products will be much smaller than FS8 or FS9. I don't think the renaissance will come until FS11 when all the new stuff matures. But what do I know? |
|
|
|
Post by Chris B on Sept 2, 2007 13:51:59 GMT -5
Of course, you are right Tom. I have had bitter debates with some developers, even to the point of doing some bumpmaps and specs just to resolve the point. There is indeed a time factor involved at first. I have worked (with a now defunct) modelling team on a project of theirs - the paints I did are up to 800 pixels per metre in detail without using the "decal technique". I even did these for free. Painting isn't so much the problem, although quite a few devs I have dealt with have called it a major issue.
The biggest red rag I get is when a dev tells me that x is impossible. That word in itself is impossible. If it's a bit and it is transmitting data to a monitor then it CAN be manipulated. OK, maybe not now, but with some logical thinking, then soon.
I started with punch cards (by hand) and saw some impressive graphics just created by ASCII characters. Colour was "impossible" in those days. Pocket calculators with LED digital displays - hundreds of dollars. When Pacman came out, asteroids would have seemed impossible.
Sorry - I rant. It's our own fault perhaps. We have seen a lot of "magic" being done and we expect it to be like that all the time. We need to remember that today's developers need to learn tomorrow's techniques.
When it really comes down to it, FSX is amazing. Low level, more trees up the valley than I can shake a stick at. Sweating palms as I follow a river valley through the British Columbia backwoods... For me, FSX is a clear hands down winner. I fear it may spoil the freeware market because of the requirements on development software, but there's still a lot of mileage in many FS9 developements.
If I thought I could do better, I would. Oh, and if I could afford 3DS Max and the time... ;D
My thanks and respect to those developers who do make some interesting addons for FSX - just take a look at how fast Alphasim are now building planes for FSX. They have learnt.
Look at RAS - great stuff! Great use of FSX techniques.
Aerosoft? Wonderful new scenery development in progress.
I think it's wonderful new world...
|
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Sept 2, 2007 18:35:17 GMT -5
I'll make you a prediction Chris. 6 weeks after DX-10 is a reality (assuming SP2/Acceleration is released) you will have plenty to paint. Of course the market may not be what is expected since only 3 of 10 addon buyers have moved to FSX and only 1 of 10 of those have Vista. Those numbers will go up as time goes on, of course, but at the moment the market for true FSX products is pretty small. Sure, they had record sales, but all those new 13 year old buyers have already "beaten the game" and moved on.
|
|
|
|
Post by windrunner on Sept 3, 2007 7:35:28 GMT -5
Thanks you Chris, I had my suspicion fsx goodies cannot be of use by the medium simmer. Anyway, it can be a wonderfull world for you and an awful trash for others; it all depends on the effort, time, and of course money you invest in a hobby. About fsx future, well, I don't share your Optimism, though. I can give you at least ten reasons why but, Tom already hitted the spot.
At this point, and enlarging a little our discussion, I seriously doubt fsx will evolve in the way fs9 did, because fs9 was done a great piece of software by the free-ware modellers and painters, scenery designers and so on. The payware market did its part, but I prefer stay on the "sports side" of life that involves 90% of the simmers. And if fsx will only include those pay for soft companies, well, not sure it was a big success...but I am not in the software business.
( My hopes were with FSXI.Not anymore... be aware of this: "I've heard" things are changing in some clever masterminds in MKSFT. The great success and gold the new xbox has brought in their pockets, is changing many points of view...so, be aware people, the future may bring big surprises ;D ;D ;D)
( Edit: I've added some jokers to my last comment...just in case someone thinks I'm too damn serìous about that damned gossip. lol. Have fun while you can guys! Carpe Diem! )
|
|
|
|
Post by Chris B on Sept 3, 2007 14:27:05 GMT -5
Yep... evolution... and survival of the profit makers...
|
|
|
|
Post by Kofi on Sept 3, 2007 19:01:18 GMT -5
[When all this shakes out and the FSX compiler is actually finished and working to it's full potential, you will see pure FSX development from the usual suspects, but they are not going to stretch the envelope now and have the product be useless in 6 months. Believe me, developing for FSX is exponentially more difficult and more time consuming than any previous version. |
|
