Stefan Hoffmann

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Stefan Hoffmann

  1. That mainpanel texture (a new one will be provided soon) exists in any case. If we add there pixel patterns that read like the registration, this is not creating more work for the computer which is busied with hundreds of parallel tasks already. Anything beside will and when your wish is to create an optimal running model, the credo is LessIsBetterThanMore, which is of course counterweighted with the aesthetical demands of the costumers. This is a delicate balance...
  2. That decision is not as trivial as one might think. To read out that ATC-ID you actually need some active running code lines, that we call gauges. After that you need then a transparent texture on a polygon which needs to be masked, so rendered double. Additionally you next prepared fonts which are not flexible once set. Also 3D effects in the text are not possible, but only plain color, which also can hinder the demand to let all look as one piece in the pit. Surely i could add even more cons beside all those stylistic and computational needs. The only pro would be a tat more convinience. But in our view, the painter should have all the freedom that is possible AND of course included in larger freedom is larger responsibility. The paintkit comes with prepared Alphabet set consisting of all needed symbols. The rest is just copy and paste. And what is a minute more after sitting quite some hours on a repaint?
  3. If you can buy an A321 the basic outer shape of course remains the same. But what comes inside you decide as the costumer. Some put in more seat rows, other larger galleys or toilets. This different distribution of the interior mirrors also in the outside window placement. When there is a closed room inside, the window gets removed and only a pure blind surface remains. So the current configuration of LH´s D-AISP is so replicated in detail.
  4. Hi Darryl! I created both paintkits. And in both kits the dirt layer is an extra section, which means it can be deactivated in a split second by a click or faded in fine steps after pleasure by the opacity settings also within a second?! Would it be a good idea to use this option?
  5. Don´t blame trueglass too much for that lol. What is needed that it rains? Clouds probably? And those have transparent material values means, their computation is much harder than with solid objects. Then you get much of them on overcast skies.... You can witness that frame loss also without any trueglass active btw....
  6. Cockpit Lighting

    Hi Caribpilot! Thanks for your input. Can you make a screenshot from what you see and think is wrong?
  7. Time for a small friday update: The last VISUAL model elements were put into the cockpit this week including even seatbelts and especially for CheapCharlie: A flashflight security band ;-) And for those guys who starved for an exterior view, this time also you get something the view!
  8. Nyxx: To underfeed your arguments you used an image with the minimum zoom / wides angle. Of course the displays are MUCH LARGER in the default zoom view you get on startup. Thats like you should an image of the sky around sunset, and claim that the sky would be golden all over the day! There are a lot of images around with larger displays AND the same distance of the observer from the displays.... ;-) Check some pages back....
  9. Time for the small friday update! Enjoy the pictures...
  10. Correct. It was sold as FSX model, being P3DV3 compatible. And P3DV3 was much nearer to FSX, than V4.1 is now. Thats two worlds of its own and with future additions the distance will become only larger.
  11. Hi RALF9636! The old bus was made for FSX. In that sim there was no cockpitshadow beside that experimental DX10 feature. The shadows from the aircraft projected to the ground were rendered only and alone by the exterior aircraft. Prepar3D V3 and higher changed this situation totally. For optimization reasons exterior and interior models are now fully separated when it comes to shadow generation. So we developers are forced to replicate all essential details of the fuselage now also for the VC view. The aircraft shadow silhuette visible from the VC is now actually a component of the VC itself. So in the end you should see wingtips from now on for any aircraft, if the viewing angle gives a solution for this situation. When there is no wing in the VC model, you get no wing shadows on the ground....
  12. The wing is just the wing like in the exterior model, with slats, flaps and ailerons fully working. Liveries of course appear too as in the external model.
  13. Time for a small friday update, this time with pictures again. Wingtips are now also visible from the VC! Detailing still in progress...
  14. I remember a case many years ago, when i got the same issue with Battlefield2 lol. It think the cause was insufficient power delivery by the PC power adapter. I had to put in a 700W piece and all did run fine again... As modern graphic cards will also be extremly power thirsty maybe you give that a try! Which WATT numbers does your piece deliver?
  15. Crj900 and Aaron1: What changed with the 64bit simulator is the memory space available. It not changes demand for CPU and GPU cycles. And with the competitor product you pay a heavy price in that regard, in double sense. We like your input and make our decissions on a broad range of facts. But also respect the way we go. It is an open world and free market and if another product meets you desires more you are free to purchase those.
  16. Hi Aaron1: To keep things in a linear logic: 1. What you write about is about a comparision of states. But you fail to deliver an explanation for the other states you want to compare, aka image of other wingslopes from the same aircraft, under same conditions (G-Force applied, AOA, weight...and that will be hard). So only showing a single image and telling it would be wrong compared to other examples not works! Imagine you would do that in could be anything! 2. "...but having looked at other developers models that don't incorporate wing-flex..." Which are those developers and products and do they feature the same plane? Please show images from a similar angle and lets compare them. 3. You are asking for dynamic state, where we told you, for certain reasons we dont simulate it due the performance costs and very limited to none use. 4. "... so they don't look so flat and lifeless?" They are not flat, as the are modeled in 3D and aircraft aren´t lifeless, but they also do not flap wings like birds!
  17. Of course! When its ready... ;-) But you dont have to wait for ages, thats sure....
  18. Today a very small friday update (but behind the curtains big work): The last major task visually is to create the huge rear wall that contains the main amount of the circuit breakers. So its a lot of details and any small of the hundreds of labels there has to be replicated. Preparations are now done and final shading starts next week, which is sadly a short week in germany! We got two days off...but neverthelesse i hope to get that done. We will see...
  19. Small friday update: Work continues, Cockpit detailing underway so there will be place which are not final yet (f.ex. slidewindows)! This is for Prepar3D HDR mode; if you turn your head down the exposure gets adapated to the darker space and lightens up that one. So you have to get used to more dynamic brightness still now.
  20. PaintKit downloads

    Hello Bert! Attached you get the paint manual which should have been available since some time. In case it got lost, it is attached here again. It comes also with some illustrating pictures which show the texture distribution over the aircraft. Important in the textures _C.PSD (C stands for color data), is also the alpha layer, which stores the information for the environmental reflections. You stored in the wrong format (DXT1=wrong, DXT5 with alpha=correct). This explains the different overall look of the fuselage within your screenshot. DXT1 uses also a worse compression (to minimize memory footprint) than DXT5, so you loose a lot of detail. So rate DXT1 as not suitable for the job at all. Also to get a good look for any color in the ancient phong shaders, you have to address the reflective components individually, aka each major color. Your work area is ONLY the green LIVERY SPECIFIC CONTENT layer (i thought the text was self explaining), which is the last one at the layer list. There maybe a lot of other layers, but you not have to touch them. They are a give away to hardcore painters which want to change any tiny bit of the kit. For the fast goers there comes the green layer. That color extends also to the other parts like night texture _L.PSD and specular textures _S.PSD for the glossy highlights.CRJ_Painkit_Manual_FEB2015.docx The highlight effect of each color needs also to be adressed inside the specular maps which contain the same name header but end on _S.PSD. Unrealisticly the old FSX heritage shaders pull down the glossy channel when they are darker themselfes. To get them back to natural state, you have to take the darker elements and bring them to a high gloss to compensate that. Painting is not button pressing and go, it is also artistically balancing out the constraints of the shader engine, to come still to realistic results. When you get used to it, you will pre-imagine the right values, and you work is faster done. Also the compression algorithm inside GIMP maybe (i dont use that at all) worse than the ever updated Nvidia Tools DXT exporter for Photoshop. Also the antialiasing algorithm of rasterized vector elements maybe worse in GIMP giving you unclearer edge situations. Work in photoshop is much more convinient and you get faster good quality. Thats the reason still the majority uses PS today. You paint your stuff, keep the PSD structure and simply export directly into the texture folders of the sim. And a small warning: Painting not suits all people who thought before they could manage that easily. Its a subkind of art and needs enduring practising to reach good results. We had several people complaining about the paintkits, but either they seek becoming a pro or it gets too frustrating for them and they should let the fingers of it. Complaining would be similar to a young pianist who tells bad things about his piano and one would wish that he could hear Lang Lang playing a piece on the same instrument....
  21. And a fresh place for the small friday update: Same procedure as every WIP friday: There is still left to do in texturing, especially in the rearward sector. So please not comment: "He, there is missing something...". Thats is known :-) So please enjoy the pictures for now!
  22. Has been fixed and update will be send out soon!
  23. Right. You did hit the jackpot. The questions of EP-IJB show that he not thought about the opposite of the coin: What costs all those small things? In a pure still rendering which not costs realtime computation effort you can go for the last small details. But when there are 30, 50, 70 Frames to do per second in realistic looking graphics you exist in tight constraints, not to forget the demands for environment, airports, photo scenery, aircraft systems and on. And those you cannot easily calculate as other developers work on them with more or less technical know how. So we realtime 3d guys are constantly (at least should be) on the lookout for techniques, were we dont loose too much visual details but can ease on computational needs. The simulated aircraft get also continually complexer and with higher resoluted displays etc... All this take a certain amount of time per unit to render. And even smaller percentages of higher demand per frame can significantly down the frames per second. And i guess the simmer likes to have eyecandy, and will get it with the new busses, but at the same time wants the same frames per second at more system complexity or even better: MORE FRAMES. And it not looks bad for that even! So before any judgement done wait til you see the outcome of this! We are in moving pictures, not still photography....