1. English

    1. 95820
      posts
    2. 310443
      posts
    3. 1804
      posts
    4. 144
      posts
    5. 1450
      posts
    6. 327
      posts
  2. Deutsch

    1. 54914
      posts
    2. 156213
      posts
    3. 1347
      posts
    4. 478
      posts
    5. 237
      posts
  3. Francais

    1. Discussion générale

      Discussion générale (pas de support)

      1708
      posts
    2. 2180
      posts
    3. 149
      posts
    4. 22
      posts
  4. Español

    1. 854
      posts
    2. 593
      posts
    3. 1479
      posts
    4. 118
      posts
    5. 120
      posts
    6. FAQ

      9
      posts
  5. Italian, Portugues

    1. PORTUGUES

      O fórum para todos os nossos amigos Portugueses e Brasileiros, organizado por J.Pinto & Alejandro Diaz

      730
      posts
    2. MS FS - ITALIAN DISCUSSION AND SUPPORT

      Il forum per tutti i nostri amici di lingua italiana, ospitato da Augusto Morosini

      1206
      posts
  6. Aerosoft Friends

    1. 9794
      posts
    2. 3880
      posts
    3. Events - VFR Day (English/German)

      All about the VFR day event. In English and German.

      93
      posts
    4. 6
      posts
  7. Round The World with Aerosoft

    1. Round The World: General Discussion, Suggestions

      What's this flight around the world? How can I join?

      308
      posts
    2. 4329
      posts
  • Posts

    • Now you understand why modeling an aircraft has become so complex? And time consuming?    Stefan made the images below for a professional client interested in a A320 model, this afternoon. These are images from 3d Max, so not exported to the platform (that could be P3D, X-Plane, AFS2 etc). If you look at them you see they have all the details, but none of the smoothness and the lighting is 'raw'. What makes a modeler a seriously good modeler these day is to understand the whole pipeline between the model and the sim. You need to be able to anticipate how what you are modeling will look in the compiled version. What you have to model and what you can do with bitmaps (bump maps, reflections etc etc). And try to keep in mind that with every new generation of hardware things change. Sometimes display of vertices (the 'model') becomes faster, sometimes the bitmap pipeline becomes faster.        Compare those images to this:   or this... ...where the sim display engine has done its work. See how things smooth out? How the lighting is many times more complex? That's what Stefan does in his mind the whole time. And because he can he is effective and productive. Because between the model in the tool and the model in the sim are many steps of compiling, copying etc etc. If you need to compile every 10 minutes you will never get a project done. You need to work for a few hours and compile in your mind, then test and fix.    P3D is not even close to what a real modern display engine can do. And that makes things even harder because we have to learn, adapt and above everything else experiment. If you would work for the big game engines like Unity, Frostbite etc you can use the experience of thousands of people. Here it is a very tiny group of people, supported in a brilliant way by Lockheed, that do all the work. We lose days, often weeks experimenting to get something done. Sometimes without results, that's when a project manager like me needs to take a long walk with the dogs followed by a glass of wine.    But as I said before, I honestly believe Stefan is the most experienced and the best aircraft modeler for our platform. More than a decade of 50 to 60 hours a week experience is hard to beat. 
    • Still sounds like wingflex...   A better place for this is the Previews of Unreleased Products forum. I might be wrong, but I believe this section is for that kind of question after release. Otherwise, questions and answers are scattered in two places.
    • Will it be movment in the wings? I don’t mean wing flex, but will the wings lift a little bit when  taking off, or will they be flat like the current models?
    • 1. This workflow is a projection from geometry space to pixel space. So the result is a texture. 2. As there is texture space reserverd in the bay already, the later performance not changes in any way. 3. Traditional painting is compared to this method in a higher grade unflexible for high precission work. There are paint tools out there where you directly paint onto the model, however that makes more sense for dirt, scratches and other organic and local things. Also painting directly into a pixel canvas gives out pixel level results, whereas rendering gives sub pixel precision which gets the most out of a texture.
    • Hallo @flight_4ever,   Herzlich willkommen im Forum und viel Spaß mit dem XP11.   Als Ursache können verschiedene Effekte ausschlaggebend sein: - nachladen vom Echtzeitwetter - nachladen von Szenerien - im Hintergrund laufende Prozesse - lagert das System Speicherdaten vom PC-RAM oder GPU-RAM in den virtuellen Speicher aus   Vielleicht kannst du etwas besser beschreiben, wobei die FPS-Einbrüche entstehen. Hier kann natürlich auch die Gerätekonfiguration (Notebook) ebenfalls eine Rolle spielen.
      Vielleicht kannst du auch eine Optimierung mit diesem Beitrag erhalten, hat bei mir auch Wunder gebracht. Hier bitte den 2. Artikel lesen.   Grüße Horst
    • So, excuse the total ignorant question: if what you say is that you have to wait until it renders wouldn’t that cause stutters I don’t know if frame losses but stutters in slower computers while you wait for it to render and leave an unsmooth/jerky visual representation? Would it be that the traditional painting mode consumes more memory but is faster? Again, a question from a completely ignorant person in this process… 
    • Hi Mace,   thx for jumping in here. Yes I have it always when I am using the DC8. Curious. No other a/c has this problem.. Using NvidiaInspector for driving the Fan of my GPU. Latest driver for Nvidia is installed..   So. I have no idea..   Best Steff
    • Of course Mathijs. There were times in past when devs used realworld imagery or handpained assets in their models. Nowadays with helps from mathematics we got stochastic light solutions which simulate the way billions of photons take their through a virtual space and interact with surfaces. So when you build a 3d representation, setup the materials correctly and run the calculations you get the visual footprint of the solution. When you look straight onto it, you will see no difference to a photorealistic 3dmodel rendered in cinema quality. And also at 45 degs viewing angle you get very good result without actually adding a single polygon to the realtime 3d model. The only downside is that you have to wait some time for the presentation, as the first step is the creation of complete model. So in opposite to a pixel for pixel advance of traditinal pixeling you sit a longer time on the 3d model, but the final actual generation of the pixel takes then only a fraction of the time. And yes, at that degree of detail the modern way is still much faster...
    • It's officially summer now and the last post in this "club" was on 19 May.  I voted in December.  As I understood it,  Has anyone else voted at all?