BudSpencer
-
Posts
162 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by BudSpencer
-
-
Am 18.3.2023 um 10:12 schrieb Ha_Ma:
If you are told where not to buy the addon if you want to edit the sound files, that will mean that you can buy it anywhere else.
OK, that wasn't self-explainatory to me, but fine, if it is the case.
-
It was only said, where I should NOT buy it. I can't automatically conclude which other vendors may encrypt these files too, and which don't.
vor 5 Stunden schrieb Ha_Ma:Something like this was told one page before. You disagreed and keep your point that there is an issue...
Well, that "something" sounded to me more like: "How can you even think of judging about an issue before you even have bought the addon?". It's my logical action to show exactly what I mean by exactly describing the issue. And that is what I would describe as constructive criticism.
But if that is the case that nobody sees and really understands the problem, then it's the wrong plane for me - even if I saw a lot of potential in all other aspects and even if I like the real concept. To me, such sounds are very important, and this is a fundamental sound error to me, that does not exist in the vast majority of many other professional addons.
-
I'm sorry, that was a language issue, as I'm not a native English speaker: I should have written: "I almost bought it because of the sale, but decided against it because I wasn't sure if I could solve the sound issue."
I've now been discussing for days and weeks about a pretty obvious sound issue. And all replies are about showing my thoughts as anyhow ....ridiculous. Is it so hard to reply something like: "OK, we simply don't hear the sound problem, we can't fix it."?? Is it so hard to just tell someone: "You can do it yourself if you buy it here or there."?? Is it so hard to imagine that users can see or hear problems from review videos after decades of FS experience and well trained ears?? Obviously yes. So I'm done with Aerosoft aircraft now!
-
1
-
-
Yes, I have heard it in the videos, as described very detailed above.
-
So I should ask it the other way: Where should I buy it, so that I can access the config file? I didn't buy it so far, not until I can make sure I can fix the sounds for myself.
-
So, it it possible at the new sound set to edit the values of the sound configuration file as a customer? Or is it coded in a way that customers can't access any configuration files?
-
vor 35 Minuten schrieb MarkHurst:
Well okay, I can hear small differences in the examples you give, but I can't say if it's right or wrong. I can see that the change of tone in the first vid is a bit faster
It isn't faster, but abrupt. The tone hardly changes, but a new tone begins. That's the point.
vor 35 Minuten schrieb MarkHurst:but it matches the rate at which the prop RPM spins up.
Sorry, but simply no!
vor 36 Minuten schrieb MarkHurst:And it's not that dissimilar to what you see in this real world video at 1:26. Maybe it's just a reflection of how fast you add the power.
Yes, it is dissimilar by sounding "unnatural", because it doesn't spool up, but it just fades in. And no, it does not depend on how fast you add power.
It's just like trying to slide up or down a staircase instead of a slide.
-
Well, I mean the transition from idle to full thrust...
...which is audible in the following video from 1:50 (inside) and from 2:23 (outside):
And here is the same situation with the mod by a flightsim.to member for the old sound set: Outside from 2:26 and inside from 3:34
And the latter one spools up the sound by transitioning the sound file in a way that the following file corresponds with the tone pitch of the previous one, so that they seem to melt into each other - like they do in reality. At the same time, also the volume of such 2 files crossfade into each other.
At your sound, ONLY the volumes fade into each other, the tone pitch slightly changes, but is nowhere near transitioning into each other. That makes the impression that several sound files are just "played" after each other, instead of creating a smooth spool up sound. The consequences are also, that there are rpm ranges where two sounds with two tone pitches (instead of one) sound together. Judging from the videos, this happens at rpm ranges shortly above idle. That mainly counts for the prop sounds. The turbine sounds are less of a problem, as they seem to run smooth.
In FSX/P3d, this could be solved by clever seettings of the "rparams" in the sound.cfg. Here's en example:
[PROP.1.04]
filename=XXX
flags=4
viewpoint=1
rparams=0.070650, 0.425500, 1.000000, 1.212700(...)
...which would translate like this:
At 7.0650% of the prop rpm, the sound file "XXX" is played at 42.5500% of its original pitch.
And at 100.0000% of the prop rpm, the file "XXX" is played at 121.2700% of its original pitch.
So, you had 2 defined points to tell the sim the ratio on how fast or how slow to increase or decrease the tone pitch of the corresponding file, depending on the defined rpm setting. If you ignore the fact that the "heard" and the "measured" tone pitches are logarithmic (which doesen't matter at all here), there was a simple linear function between rpm and tone pitch. Now since FS2000 or so, I believe, you don't have only one file that can be changed in pitch, but usually 4 or 5 files, which are the recordings of the real engine at different stages of thrust / rpm. And to make it sound like one engine spooling up and down, and not like 4 or 5 engine records, it's vital to get the sim merge them together again. And this is done by setting the second and the fourth value of the rparams in a way that the pitch of the tones of one single file exactly match to the one of the next sound file. It might be possible that there are programs for that, but it can be made by simply trying out again and again, and always analyse the interval between the two files that should merge into each other, until there is no more interval. So, quite a bit of patience is needed, but I don't have to tell that to a software developer
That's at least what I found out this logic to be, and it has worked so far in all cases.
The only problem now is, that I don't know the exact structure of those configuration files in MSFS. And I've seen that in many cases of aircraft addons, that there is no "editible" sound folder or sound.cfg at all. But it would make me wonder if the principle would be much different in MSFS. At least the developer of the sound mod must have done something exactly like this.
I and also some other users have already commented this problem shortly after release in these forums. But as none of our comments have been picked up, I didn't follow the threads any further, but hoped that this problem would have been solved with the sound update. And that was not the case.
Best regards,
Dominik
-
Now that the new sound set is availible, I could hear in some youtube videos, that (for me) the main problem still exists: The pitches of the sound files STILL don't blend into each other at all, not even nearly!! I hardly bought it now on sale in a confidence that it must have been fixed with the long awaited and needed sound update. But then I resisted after learning that all turbine and rpm chances sound so bad. But how can it be that such simple things still don't work? And is that please being fixed anytime?
In the FSX and P3d versions, this DID work with the sound of the Twin Otter. There was even a person who fixed that at flightsim.to, but for the "old" sound version. He said he won't upgrade it anymore because it's the job of those who earn the money with the sales. And I can really understand him. So, I can't even be sure that it works with the new sound set.
-
First I got it from the navdatabase. When I noticed that it didn't work, I put it in manually again, with the same result. I'm gonna try it with some other aircraft and report back. So far, the FSL Airbus had been very reliable with these things.
-
109.90 (GAA)
-
Hello!
I just tried an ILS approach at Malaga's Rwy 31, but didn't get an ILS signal. Simulator is P3d v4.5 and the aircraft (which shouldn't matter) was the FSL A320. Is there a fix for that? I found none so far. The hotfix list does adress some SODE/VDGS problems obviously, but not the ILS.
Thanks in advance.
Regards, Dominik
-
I would love to see the ATR-72-500 redone for P3d.
And I still hope for the PW and GE variants of the A330, even if it would only be visual and sounds.
Concerning scenery, I would look forward for a Saarbrücken (EDDR) scenery for P3d.
-
1
-
-
On 24.07.2018 at 18:14, PatrickZ sagte:
Then there's good news because FSDG is working on Cape Town. Allright, it'll be a lite airport so nothing outside the airport is modeled, but that's fine. Release is scheduled for next month, but you can never say that for sure.
And Panama was released lately by FSimStudios. I don't have it, but from the pictures it looks good and it's P3D V4 compatible.
Oh, that's indeed good news! I hope for some more African airports in the sim in future. Africa is also the next continent to be covered by ORBX' OpenLC. So, there would still be some nice approach views then.
-
Now that a lot of the wishes from 2016 or so has been made by someone, here a few further suggestions by be:
- Marrakesh (GMMX): ...could be something for FSDG??
- Addis Ababa (HAAB) => FSDG Lite a là Dakar?
- Colombo (VCBI) => FSDG Lite a là Bangalore?
- Bogota (SKBO)
- Panama (MPTO)
I would also appreciate a P3D v4 version of the existing Dublin Intl a lot!! I think it's not useful to suggest any more South African scenery after we saw why Johannesburg couldn't be made… which is sad because I would love to see something from there in the sim.
-
1
-
1
-
Aerosoft Airport: Frankfurt
in Product Previews
Posted
Very good news!! And the best is the info that Jo Erlend is one of the directors of the project, and of course that this will be a new build. I was never convinced of the FSX and P3d versions of EDDF. But Jo Erlend's sceneries (at least the ones I've bought) have been among the best sceneries Aerosoft ever had to offer so far, in my opinion.