Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Root Admin
15 minutes ago, OlRo said:

Mathijs, I was wondering if there is something like a roadmap for this project. If so, can you please give us a brief outlook on the further intermediate steps?

 

No, as said we are moving along very nicely but are depending a bit on Asobo for completion.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Dear friends, we are really sorry this message is released later then we hoped.   We are excited to announce that the Aerosoft CRJ 550/700 for the Microsoft Flight Simulator will be released

I will add my support to Mathijs sentiment here.  One of the things we constantly try to snuff out is this popular meme that developers are all in competition with one another like newspaper barkers o

My sincerest apologies for this situation - it was a couple members of our team who exercised rather poor judgement, and they have been spoken to. I assure you this won't happen again. We have the hig

Posted Images

I have a short question. My intention is not to insult anybody nor dor I to badmouth your work.. But in the follwoing picture you can see very detailed bar codes besides washed-out headlights. I mean the bar codes are so sharp that you might scan them and the headlights look like beeing imported as a whole from a low-resolution picture. Will it stay like thjs? If so, what is the reason?

 

Please do not get me wrong, the pictures look awesome and I cant wait to get my hands on the CRJ. But what described above literally jumped into my eyes and now I cant unsee it.

 

lights.PNG

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Deputy Sheriffs
10 minutes ago, OlRo said:

...I mean the bar codes are so sharp that you might scan them and the headlights look like beeing imported as a whole from a low-resolution picture. Will it stay like thjs? If so, what is the reason?

 

14 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

...Note that many of the objects here do not yet have the (bump)mapping that makes them 3d in the sim.  And of course this is all from 3D Max and will look way better inside the sim. 

It's a work in progress 😉

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

Just wondering how will this decals work with painting colourfull liveries, which would imply you have to have lots of different decals-textures for all the rivets.

Rivets are usually painted in the livery colours.

 

Marcel

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 8:13 PM, vladimir72 said:

Hi, thank you very much for your work. I loved the CRJ for FSX and can't wait to fly this one. I have one question on the autopilot, will it be custom or based on the MSFS one? One of the weakest points for me in MSFS2020 is that the autopilot is extremely buggy and totally unreliable. I am really hoping that the CRJ will solve this problem. I am sorry to say that Asobo doesn't seem able to address this. It gets worse at every release

I completely agree with yoiu; the AP in MSFS is a total mess; it's a real pity.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
2 hours ago, amanlulo said:

I completely agree with yoiu; the AP in MSFS is a total mess; it's a real pity.

 

Not in this one. Though the CRJ does not have a very complex AP but it is near perfectly modeled.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
3 hours ago, mgr said:

Hi,

 

Just wondering how will this decals work with painting colourfull liveries, which would imply you have to have lots of different decals-textures for all the rivets.

Rivets are usually painted in the livery colours.

 

Marcel

 

 

 

Should not be an issue. But repainting high end  MFS aircraft will not be easy.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mathijs Kok said:

 

Should not be an issue. But repainting high end  MFS aircraft will not be easy.

 

I actually have been thinking about this. I imagine it will require actual 3D work on the model (with something like 3D Studio Max) to add the relevant decals instead of just using photoshop as we did in previous sims? 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it looks great! Considering some developers have stated it would be a year or so before they will have their products ready for MFS I am looking forward to this aircraft. The sim desperately needs high quality 3rd party addons and when the CRJ is released I will start using the sim. (I’ve decided to shelve MSFS 2020 as it is a mess in my opinion). 
 

Looking forward to this aircraft. Keep up the good work and thanks for letting us know. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
3 hours ago, VAFPilot said:

I think it looks great! Considering some developers have stated it would be a year or so before they will have their products ready for MFS I am looking forward to this aircraft. The sim desperately needs high quality 3rd party addons and when the CRJ is released I will start using the sim. (I’ve decided to shelve MSFS 2020 as it is a mess in my opinion). 

 

 

Well to be honest, not every developers has invested in MFS as we have. Not only have we sold a sh*tload of boxed copies but we have also asked our developers to focus on MFS and work with Asobo. That is expensive (very expensive) but we can afford that.  The CRJ we are now testing is more or less the same as the one in P3D V4.5, there are a few parts we are unable to use because the SDK is not there yet, but as said we are working every day with Asobo to fix that. But these are 'luxury' parts. Not really needed for standard flight. The issue we are most worried about right now are graphical as I have shown before in this topic. No show stoppers but we really would like to see them solved.

 

If other developers say it can't be done it makes sense to ask yourself why.  Are the developers locked on P3D because they done a lot outside the sim engine (which is hard in MFS right now), are there commercial problems that make it hard to release because low cost upgrades are promised? Could it be the modelers are not professional enough to be able to use the MFS tools?  It is really a completely new platform and the modelers you want are professionally trained to use tools like Surface Painter. The complete set of tools a MFS modeler needs these days easily runs into 5000 euro a year and not every add-on developer can afford that. We just bought a small bit of software that makes it possible to offload rendering task to other systems that will increase the productivity of the modeler. But again, that is a very expensive bit of code.

 

It really is  a complex topic. But in the end you need a big bag of money to set up a MFS aircraft development. Many aircraft developments for P3D costs between 1/4 to 1/2 of a million (dollar or euro, take your pick). You can easily add 25% to that for MFS. If you been doing real professional development in the last few years it's not so bad. But the standards set by Asobo are what a modern games studio uses. So the best tools, the best training and the best hardware. And again, that us very costly. 

 

I (we) have hired two new 3d artists, Anne and Jae Eon because the modeling part of an aircraft project in MFS simply takes way more time than in P3D.  But again, finding good people costs a lot of time and money.  Getting them up to fully up to speed with the projects takes a few months before they are fully productive. 

 

------

 

In the end, as so often, it is a question of money. We have handled 8 changes to new flight sims. We know your sales drop when a new sim is announced and we know it takes serious money to get good stuff for a new platform. We also know doing simple ports make money in the first months but are a deathtrap. You need content that is fully up to spec. You need projects that the majority of customers will buy. So not the super complex, expensive stuff, but the projects you sell thousands of copies of. Those make the money. 

  • Can we release the CRJ like it is for P3D v5 right now? No. But very close. we are happy to release with the features we have. As the SDL is updated we'll adapt. The aircraft is 100% flyable.
  • Can we release the Airbusses as they are for P3D v5 right now? No. We need some help on some parts but we are very sure Asobo will deliver that when we need it (so spring next year)
  • Can we deliver the Twin Otter as we plan it right now? Hell yes... We got all parts working, the project is just not done.  Of course we love to get the rain on the windshield to work as we think it should, but that goes for all the aircraft that have windshields that are 2D and not 3D (so with a thickness) and are inserted in the window frame as they should. We can do the same as the default aircraft but we very much want to do it better. So where you see a 3d windshield inside a frame and not a 2d polygon next to another 2d polygon.
  • Like 6
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 51 Minuten, Mathijs Kok sagte:

 

 

Well to be honest, not every developers has invested in MFS as we have. Not only have we sold a sh*tload of boxed copies but we have also asked our developers to focus on MFS and work with Asobo. That is expensive (very expensive) but we can afford that.  The CRJ we are now testing is more or less the same as the one in P3D V4.5, there are a few parts we are unable to use because the SDK is not there yet, but as said we are working every day with Asobo to fix that. But these are 'luxury' parts. Not really needed for standard flight. The issue we are most worried about right now are graphical as I have shown before in this topic. No show stoppers but we really would like to see them solved.

 

If other developers say it can't be done it makes sense to ask yourself why.  Are the developers locked on P3D because they done a lot outside the sim engine (which is hard in MFS right now), are there commercial problems that make it hard to release because low cost upgrades are promised? Could it be the modelers are not professional enough to be able to use the MFS tools?  It is really a completely new platform and the modelers you want are professionally trained to use tools like Surface Painter. The complete set of tools a MFS modeler needs these days easily runs into 5000 euro a year and not every add-on developer can afford that. We just bought a small bit of software that makes it possible to offload rendering task to other systems that will increase the productivity of the modeler. But again, that is a very expensive bit of code.

 

It really is  a complex topic. But in the end you need a big bag of money to set up a MFS aircraft development. Many aircraft developments for P3D costs between 1/4 to 1/2 of a million (dollar or euro, take your pick). You can easily add 25% to that for MFS. If you been doing real professional development in the last few years it's not so bad. But the standards set by Asobo are what a modern games studio uses. So the best tools, the best training and the best hardware. And again, that us very costly. 

 

I (we) have hired two new 3d artists, Anne and Jae Eon because the modeling part of an aircraft project in MFS simply takes way more time than in P3D.  But again, finding good people costs a lot of time and money.  Getting them up to fully up to speed with the projects takes a few months before they are fully productive. 

 

------

 

In the end, as so often, it is a question of money. We have handled 8 changes to new flight sims. We know your sales drop when a new sim is announced and we know it takes serious money to get good stuff for a new platform. We also know doing simple ports make money in the first months but are a deathtrap. You need content that is fully up to spec. You need projects that the majority of customers will buy. So not the super complex, expensive stuff, but the projects you sell thousands of copies of. Those make the money. 

  • Can we release the CRJ like it is for P3D v5 right now? No. But very close. we are happy to release with the features we have. As the SDL is updated we'll adapt. The aircraft is 100% flyable.
  • Can we release the Airbusses as they are for P3D v5 right now? No. We need some help on some parts but we are very sure Asobo will deliver that when we need it (so spring next year)
  • Can we deliver the Twin Otter as we plan it right now? Hell yes... We got all parts working, the project is just not done.  Of course we love to get the rain on the windshield to work as we think it should, but that goes for all the aircraft that have windshields that are 2D and not 3D (so with a thickness) and are inserted in the window frame as they should. We can do the same as the default aircraft but we very much want to do it better. So where you see a 3d windshield inside a frame and not a 2d polygon next to another 2d polygon.

Thanks for the detailed and interesting insight and explanation. I have bought a lot of stuff from you, scenery and aircraft. Now what stops me from buying P3D stuff from you is - as you stated yourself - sales drop as a new platform is announced. So in expectation of your products for MSFS2020 which probably is the future, I don't want to spend too much money on P3D anymore. FSDT made a smart choice giving people a free upgrade on products when they buy P3D products today (as they did with LFSB) or discounts for other scenery. I have been thinking to buy the A330 but considering the partially negative reviews on the documentation and exactly the same cockpit crew voices as in the A318-321; I will probably also wait for an MSFS2020 version. Again, I love like Aerosoft and your products, just wanted to share with you why I have stopped buying lately, .... maybe there will be some nice deals for black week. ... cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mathijs Kok said:

there are a few parts we are unable to use because the SDK is not there yet,

Out of curiosity, do you have an idea which part of the SDK that are still missing? Is this something related to WASM for missing some APIs perhaps? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Omar Al-Safi said:

Out of curiosity, do you have an idea which part of the SDK that are still missing? Is this something related to WASM for missing some APIs perhaps? 

In relation to this question, is there any timeline for when these SDK features will be implemented so you can finish development? Also, once you have these features, how close to a release would the team be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, if the MFS 2020 could handle decals it is an awesome news (it is a XXI century standard in modern games), because there is a fun fact that 3ds max cannot and don't know how to operate with decals, it all depends on the rendering engine in the final so here it is a MFS game rendering engine.

 

I have just one question, why to use so many poly on that spoilers back side instead of making it with less poly and some normal maps ? That huge amount of poly could be transferred for the other aircraft parts which could me more rounded by adding more edges. 

Btw. that is a very nice update for the CRJ familly.

spoiler_.thumb.jpg.b105b238e12e940731bd2a32a671d911.jpg

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xaos said:

(...)

 

I have just one question, why to use so many poly on that spoilers back side instead of making it with less poly and some normal maps ? That huge amount of poly could be transferred for the other aircraft parts which could me more rounded by adding more edges. 

(...)

spoiler_.thumb.jpg.b105b238e12e940731bd2a32a671d911.jpg

 


I didn’t even notice that the back of the spoiler was a 3D model until you mentioned it just now!

 

To be honest, I think Aerosoft should keep it that way; it’s that level of subtle modelling detail that I think really makes the aircraft stand out in quality. Plus, I think aircraft models in MSFS are far more capable in terms of rendering more polygons than older sims? Though I could be wrong, someone might correct me on that...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.11.2020 at 17:48, Mathijs Kok sagte:

Not in this one. Though the CRJ does not have a very complex AP but it is near perfectly modeled.

Any third party aircraft is currently limited by the systems depth of the MSFS in my opinion. Is your aircraft more than a nice looking model or a simulation of the CRJ700? In my sight it is really annoying to have a good quality of graphics and then..........comes a lot of lack in simulation!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cpschulz said:

Any third party aircraft is currently limited by the systems depth of the MSFS in my opinion. Is your aircraft more than a nice looking model or a simulation of the CRJ700? In my sight it is really annoying to have a good quality of graphics and then..........comes a lot of lack in simulation!

 

I will actually contend with this from my own observations, though I would rather let the experts here (Aerosoft) step in if they see anything I'm writing is wrong. The system depth is dependent only on the depth that the developers put in. I've been passively engaged with FlyByWire watching them develop the A320, and there are systems they've integrated themselves which are mind-blowing (things I personally haven't seen to that level of detail in previous simulators). Not only that, but they're designing their own Autopilot and FADEC from scratch to entirely replace the default A320's systems (which have glaring flaws that they need to sidestep entirely).

 

I'm not here to toot any other developer's horn; I realize which forum I'm on. Nonetheless, the reason I bring them up is because I see what they're capable of, and the fact that they have a way forward shows one of MSFS's strengths, which is that there's no "default" FADEC that they're forced to use. There's no "default" autopilot that they're forced to use. All of these systems are custom built for every aircraft, so the only "lack of simulation" when it comes to aircraft systems is what the aircraft developers decide is the limit, or any errors the 3PD's make in simulating these systems.

 

That being said, I do realize there are limitations of the simulator, but they're fairly high-level from what I've seen, and they get resolved fairly quickly by Asobo. Some good examples:

  • Negative altitudes caused weird collisions with nothing. These crashes were resolved by Asobo by the following patch.
  • Canard wings weren't possible because of the way the sim was coded. One developer released a canard aircraft (EZ?), and by the next patch Asobo fixed the SDK limitation to allow developers to have a canard wing position.

So is any third party aircraft limited by the system depths of the aircraft? Yes and no: Internal systems (hydraulics, flight planning, etc.) can be entirely modelled as needed. Interactions of the aircraft with the environment (e.g., aerodynamics or ground mechanics) can have minor limitations, but they seem to be addressed as soon as they're brought up.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
On 11/13/2020 at 10:30 PM, mikeys222 said:

just wanted to share with you why I have stopped buying lately, .... maybe there will be some nice deals for black week. ... cheers

 

Oh but we fully understand, we see exactly the same from may other customers. As we have been through this 6 times it is something we know happens and we know how to plan for it.

 

We are not fans of free updates (or discounts) if you buy P3D stuff right now. I can understand companies doing it if they need the cashflow however. But look at how that packs out for my friends at PMDG. They made an offer like that to keep sales of the 737 going at a moment they did not know how different working complex aircraft in MFS would be. Now they know they have to invest a lot of money with limited payback and it is not surprising they are not jumping up and down with joy at this moment.   You see the same with companies who invested a lot inf moving stuff from inside the sim to external modules or who spend a lot on hacking into sim. Most of that work simply does not run in MFS (because the code is totally different and because it is at this moment very much a closed box, without networking etc.

 

And we are also not big on sales. We do them reluctantly because customers expect them these days. But we feel making sure the price you offer is as good as possible all the time is far more important then selling products for next to no profit in one specific week.

  • Like 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
On 11/14/2020 at 7:06 AM, Jaden Cuffy said:

In relation to this question, is there any timeline for when these SDK features will be implemented so you can finish development? Also, once you have these features, how close to a release would the team be?

 

Answering two questions...

 

At this moment the WASM parts are pretty solid for the options the sim has. Not really something that bothers us a lot. As you probably know we have given Asobo most of our code so they knew what was needed and we did as much as we could to assist and test while they worked on it. At this moment there are more graphical issues that bother us as they spoil some of the work we like to do (like real 3d glass etc). There are some other aspect like the DRM we like to see different, but things do not always work out as you want. Testing is also very hard for a reason I can't disclose.

 

I would say there very little that would actually stop a release at this moment, the aircraft flies great, systems all work, very much on the same state as in P3D.  We just need some more modeling completed and if that means Asobo can offer us some more bits to work with so much the better.  We release when Hans, Stefan and I feel happy that we deliver a solid product. As Asobo adds more options we'll update the aircraft with it.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
On 11/14/2020 at 1:20 PM, xaos said:

I have just one question, why to use so many poly on that spoilers back side instead of making it with less poly and some normal maps ? That huge amount of poly could be transferred for the other aircraft parts which could me more rounded by adding more edges. 

 

Mainly because there are area's that are not seen all the time it makes sense to use modeling and not textures that would always use memory. 3D is very memory efficient. I will ask Stefanb to correct me if I am talking out of my arse here.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...