1826 replies to this topic

[cosnowboarder_777]

Is Aerosoft doing repaints for this the same way as the airbus project? Sorry if this has already been asked and answered.

[cosnowboarder_777]

How about a Global Express after this is finished

The Global Express is actually quite a bit different from the CRJs. I would think that they would have to do a whole new project for that since the systems and the aircraft itself are different. Although it would be great if they did!

[martyglider]

Hello,

I saw a freeware "First person simulation" from FTX (ORBX) called "BOB", made for walking around airpports and other scenery,
another one is Ezdok camera to move around in a VC or cabin or outside the aircraft.

Is it possible to "walk" from the airport platform into the CRJ aircraft and into the VC or cabin
when main door/stairs is opened?


Maarten

[Chris_327]

For everyone who has been asking about the VC for the Fokker, I found this on the new Fokker Support forum:

Hi!

Well since the closure of the Digital Aviation Design Group, we continue new support for the Flight 1 Fokker 70/100 here.

First of all I ask you for some patience until we have set up all needed sticky posts including FAQ, beta download and update posts. Should be done within the next few days.

My main target is to try ways to give best support and bug fixing in respect to my very reduced and highly volatile amount of time.

I will give you also a detailed overview about the future of the Fokker soon, in a rough approach I plan:

• To continue the beta update concept, small minor bugfixes as beta uploads to fix problems for some customers that found some issues. They assure fast and immediate problem solving without the workload of releasing a Service Pack. In regular time intervals the beta updates are then included into self installing service packs for all customers.

But overall I try to increase the quality of the beta releases and the support for it.

• To have much more strict moderation of the forum. I will try to stop all off topic and emotional discussions. It will be plain technical and operations product support and discussions.

• To release a VCP for the FSX Version of the Fokker. VCP is now getting a complex story. Now after long long long time the graphical part of the VCP is finished, but now running into troubles with model compatibility. Well the main problem is I have to rely on the responsible designer to sort that out and fix that. I can, similar to you, just sit here and wait. But overall we are getting closer, slowly. If a conversion for FS9 still is realistic can not be answered by now. There is just one thing on the VCP, nobody who already owns a Fokker product has paid for a VCP. The Fokker Box and the download clearly say that there is no VCP included. If it is ever finsihed you get it for free.

*EDIT*

I just want to confrim, we have not cancled the VCP for FS9 at all, i just said we (especially our designer) can not tell how long in takes. Well the same as everyday....

Additioanlly we plan to give you a FSX VCP preview version. The VCP is fully working now, our designers problem is that FSX has some troubles with our aircraft model together with VCP. He is sorting out. But you will get a version without model to get a preview of VCP in FSX and you can use the aircraft in full functionality with VCP and 2D Panel.

• I have developed a new weather radar for FSX, finding out now storm cells a correct positions and now enables you correct real world operation and flight manoeuvre in respect to thunderstorm avoiding. I plan to update the Fokker WXR with the new algorithm.

For the time being, all news I have for you.

So expect full support in the next days here.

regards

Florian Praxmarer

[Mathijs Kok]

Hello,

Can you tell us if we'll be able to see through the cabin windows from the outside like on the Airbus ? I find it brings a lot of reality to the outside visual model...

Greg

Certainly!

[Mathijs Kok]

Is Aerosoft doing repaints for this the same way as the airbus project? Sorry if this has already been asked and answered.

I hope a bit better organized (I messed up there for sure), but yes.

[Mathijs Kok]

Yesterday the CRJ was exported to FSX for the first time. Always a big moment for us as it is the first flight, first tests of animations etc.

[EmiloZ]

Yesterday the CRJ was exported to FSX for the first time. Always a big moment for us as it is the first flight, first tests of animations etc.

Looks awesome Mathijs.
What is scheduled release?

[driver101]

Yesterday the CRJ was exported to FSX for the first time. Always a big moment for us as it is the first flight, first tests of animations etc.

Hi Mathijs,

If you need a testpilot just drop me a line... ;-)

Cheers Jan

[Mathijs Kok]

Looks awesome Mathijs.
What is scheduled release?

Depending on a few factors, but late August is more or less our idea now.

[curt1]

Will you be in charge of developing the virtual cockpit also? If you develop it with the same quality as the Airbus X, then this will be another "must buy".

Curt

[112.3 MUN]

Can you already say something about the framerates?
It looks good already!

[Designer Paule]

Looking GOOD Mathjis !

[Mathijs Kok]

The progress of this week...

[duval]

Very nice work ! Don't forget the RAM air turbine on the nose !

[Popcorn]

Mathijs,

Congrats on the first export to FSX! This is looking just as good as the bus. I was wondering if you'll be modelling/animating the APU ram door for the APU start up proceedure.

Chad

[Designer Paule]

Great Modelling job!

[cbd80]

Looking very good!

[signmanbob]

Your CRJ is looking great. Will this be a more complex version system-wise?

[jordancollins]

Your CRJ is looking great. Will this be a more complex version system-wise?

Sure will, PMDGish. CANNOT WAIT to fly those Air Canada Jazz Routes!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jordancollins]

Mathijes,
Are we going to get a CRJ with Airbus X quality in terms of VC Textures and good FPS? Thanks

[Mathijs Kok]

Mathijes,
Are we going to get a CRJ with Airbus X quality in terms of VC Textures and good FPS? Thanks

Yes, but the complex systems can be hard on the fps. We got to see how that pans out.

[Diesel10]

Hello Mathijs, looking at these wonderful in progress images, I was wondering which software is used for developing the model. Is it 3DS Max or a different one? I am just curious, I believe in the end it all comes down to the knowledge, experience and talent of the modeler, no matter which 3d program is utilized.

[Popcorn]

I use 3ds max myself (and yes I own a legit copy of it) for a roller coaster simulation. I will say that it is very easy to make a great model (assuming you know how to use the 3d program) that has high poly counts, but it is very difficult to make outstanding models such as this CRJ that are optimized and have low poly counts while not sacrificing details. I've been using 3ds max for probably 10 years now and I sure as shit know I couldn't do half as good a job the guys at Aerosoft do. So I stand by Diesel10's comment that it comes down to the talent of the modeller. However, I can say that the program used is probably either 3ds max or Gmax (which is a watered down version of max for free) but you won't get better models using one program over the other.

[Siggy]

Yes, but the complex systems can be hard on the fps. We got to see how that pans out.

Haven't done any gauges for a long time, so I am not sure what the state of the art is these days. I assume that some of the processing for those complex systems could be pushed to other threads. With frame rates of 20+ a minor lag of 50ms should not matter or be noticed. Are complex systems implemented using multi-threading these days, especially now that pretty much every machine bought is a multi-core machine ?

[Pi@no]

It really looks good.

Stefan seems to work really fast !

[Shane]

I 100% agree that Aerosoft should only focus on FSX!

Also I will NEVER buy a "combined" FS9/FSX product because as you say it just "dumbs down" the FSX version.

I think you are misunderstanding....

Having to design an FS9 AND FSX version would mean that Aerosoft would have to "dumb down the graphics" for the FS9 version, not that the graphics for the FSX version would also be "dumbed down".

If I am reading correctly, what Mathijs is saying is that Aerosoft would basically have to create two separate products, and the development time involved in doing so is not profitable from a monetary standpoint, i.e., the cost outweighs the return.

[Brian Kircher]

Hi there

I was just wondering if there will be wingflex on this plane once it gets to that phase in the design process.

[Shane]

The Model looks really good!

Don't forget the lights in the nose though, or are they only on the -700? (if they are modeled, my apologies. I am unable to see any screenshots after page 6 due to my work network).

[ESzczesniak]

I don't think you are misunderstanding....

Having to design an FS9 AND FSX version would mean that Aerosoft would have to "dumb down the graphics" for the FS9 version, not that the graphics for the FSX version would also be "dumbed down".

If I am reading correctly, what Mathijs is saying is that Aerosoft would basically have to create two separate products, and the development time involved in doing so is not profitable from a monetary standpoint, i.e., the cost outweighs the return.

I'm not sure he was referring to Aerosoft on this one. Other producers have at times made a habit of producing either an FSX model with lower poly counts and texture resolutions they could readily put in to FS9 or using an FS9 model (which has lower poly counts and texture resolutions) and porting it directly in to FSX. In other words, the FSX version is "dumbed down" from what it could be so that there is minimal work to also get the model in FS9.


Aerosoft has been good to us and developed things for FSX, and then reducing poly counts and resolutions as necessary if they choose to release an FS9 version (come to think of it, not sure this has ever been an issue, but they have implied that would be the development philosophy).

[Shane]

I'm not sure he was referring to Aerosoft on this one. Other producers have at times made a habit of producing either an FSX model with lower poly counts and texture resolutions they could readily put in to FS9 or using an FS9 model (which has lower poly counts and texture resolutions) and porting it directly in to FSX. In other words, the FSX version is "dumbed down" from what it could be so that there is minimal work to also get the model in FS9.


Aerosoft has been good to us and developed things for FSX, and then reducing poly counts and resolutions as necessary if they choose to release an FS9 version (come to think of it, not sure this has ever been an issue, but they have implied that would be the development philosophy).

Ah, ok. I see what you are saying. I guess it depends on what he means.

Having to create two separate models, I imagine, is what Mathijs is referring too since I don't see Aerosoft sacrificing quality.

[Designer Paule]

LOOKING GOODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD!

[Lex Lee]

LOOKS GREAT !

[Mathijs Kok]

Hello Mathijs, looking at these wonderful in progress images, I was wondering which software is used for developing the model. Is it 3DS Max or a different one? I am just curious, I believe in the end it all comes down to the knowledge, experience and talent of the modeler, no matter which 3d program is utilized.

Mostly 3DS Max and Photoshop. But we got a lot of other tools, some of them created internally. And you are right, tools mean nothing without skills and having fun in what you do.

[Mathijs Kok]

Haven't done any gauges for a long time, so I am not sure what the state of the art is these days. I assume that some of the processing for those complex systems could be pushed to other threads. With frame rates of 20+ a minor lag of 50ms should not matter or be noticed. Are complex systems implemented using multi-threading these days, especially now that pretty much every machine bought is a multi-core machine ?

Unfortunately you get very little control over what CPU is used, but everything made with FSX in mind will automatically scale up to use as many CPU's as possible.

[Mathijs Kok]

I think you are misunderstanding....

Having to design an FS9 AND FSX version would mean that Aerosoft would have to "dumb down the graphics" for the FS9 version, not that the graphics for the FSX version would also be "dumbed down".

If I am reading correctly, what Mathijs is saying is that Aerosoft would basically have to create two separate products, and the development time involved in doing so is not profitable from a monetary standpoint, i.e., the cost outweighs the return.

Correct in both points.

[Mathijs Kok]

Hi there

I was just wondering if there will be wingflex on this plane once it gets to that phase in the design process.

I doubt that. You see these are short stiff wings with a high wingloading, not like a big widebody or glider. We'll get the info on how much they move but I would be highly surprised if the wing would flex so much as being visible.

[Brian Kircher]

If you look at pictures on a.net you can see that they flex quite a bit for it being a small aircraft. Ive got tons of pictures of the 700 and 900 on take off with the wingflex clearly visible. If I were a developer on this project I would strongly consider adding wingflex to go along with the very good model that you have already.