Bushhawk Xp

[Private-Cowboy 3]

It's in fact good to know that there are happy customers out there.

Now, how about this: I'm gonna make the unhappy part of you happy with your new aircraft, too!

I cancelled the weekend (who needs a free day anyway?) and tried to figure how to best save polys and frames without giving you a model that looks like FS98. And I can happily announce that we could save at least 25% of mdl size and 10% of texture load without losing too many details. Of course there will be some things missing on those low-Poly models, that should be understandable, but for those of you who want the same framerates that the default C172 offers we might have found a way to make you happy.

Stay tuned...

That nearly sound too good to be true. Let's hope for the best. What are the things missing? Can you comment on those yet?

On a personal note I must say I'm very impressed how you handle us ... "of little faith" as it was put or us accused of slagging the addon. It would have been easy to say "it is as it is, have a nice day". Thank you very much for that.

[Finn 873]

Thanks for the update Thorsten !!

As Private-cowboy says:

!It would have been much easier to simply state that the product is as it is"

- those who's system can handle it are lucky, those who can´t should buy better equipment.

Great kudos to You from here !

I have actually flown abit around today with the Bushhawk XP, on my less than capable maschine and still had fun.

Finn

[horst18519 231]

Thank you for your (late ) kind words.

I am not the kind of developer who's just happy to have finished something and let others worry about the rest. After all this time working on that aircraft and all those moments when I thought "wow, if people will see this feature they'll love it" I cannot live with 60% of happy users. What's the point of doing something that should make people happy and make their hobby even more fun - when some of them just can't enjoy it because of framerates or other issues.

I can see - and Mathijs made this point very clear, too - that there are lots of people out there who don't seem to suffer any problems with th BH, but still I won't be happy as long as there are users that wish they hadn't bought the product. That is inacceptable for me.

So there will be an optional patch for all of you, but keep in mind that this does not mean the Bushhawk is a non-finished product or we're betatesting with users.

It's a compromise for those who just want better framerates. I will give you more information about this soon.

...or I'd rather not tell you this, because if I don't tell you what's gonna be missing in the low-poly models you might not even miss it if you're not interested in small details anyway (like some of you stated).

[Finn 873]

Thank you for your (late ) kind words.

I don´t hope You find I´m late giving kind words !

I allready sort of told it here:

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?s=...st&p=126369

FPS is lower than on the default aircraft, but flying near Ketchikan gives ~15-18 FPS with medium FSX display settings on my oldtimer maschine.

FPS will allways be a personal taste, but flying at 17 FPS is good enough for me, even with Track IR..

and her:

http://www.forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?s=...st&p=126649

I actual find the Bushhawk XP very nice. Many fine features indeed, and with a great atmosphere.

If only we could get better performance it would be great..

Finn

[Brian S. 0]

Good to hear that a possible fix is in the works. Thanks, Aerosoft, for listining.

A quick note on setting the FPS to unlimited: You will probably get higher FPS when you are uncapped, but FPS isn't really the issue. If I uncap from 25 to unlimited, I gain about 20 FPS. "Woo-hoo!" I think to myself, "45 FPS is awesome." However, the sim will start degrading elements to try and keep those numbers high. Textures get blurry closer to the aircraft, autogen "popping" increases, mesh doesn't refresh as quickly when turning or panning, and reflections are unreliable. The FPS number isn't the issue at all. The issue is sim performance at a given FPS. I have found (on my fairly adequate rig - see specs below) that if I lock at 25, I get very smooth visuals and excellent sim performance with no blurries. Resource-hungry aircraft don't just lower my FPS, they start to degrade the overall sim experience. A flight at 18 to 20 FPS may still look smooth, but problems crop up in other areas. Capping helps (at least for me), but I don't really fly any aircraft that dip me into performance loss territory.

My system specs:

nVidia nForce 680i SLI DDR2 800 motherboard

CoolerMaster 700W Power Supply

Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Processor

SATA 300 500GB Hard Drive

nVidia GeForce 8800 GTX 768MB GDDR3

2 GB Corsair 1066MHz RAM

Vista Home Premium 32bit

HP 22in widescreen monitor at 1680 X 1050

[Snave 466]

I have stated on numerous occasions that the biggest problem with the frame rate slider is how it is misunderstood and misused, NOT that there is anything wrong with it as a piece of programming. The basic misconception is that it somehow, or in any way, optimises the sim to achieve the desired fps. It does not, It never has, and has never been claimed as such. The correct control of the frame rate remains in the hands of the user, not the software.

What it does do is precisely what Brian says - it leaves in or out certain features - and according to where the slider is set it will allow more time for the Thread- or Fiber as ACES call it - that generates `frames per second`, as opposed to a different Fiber that populates that frame, provides the background computing process to generate the flight or weather model, or any of the many other processes that collectively compile to be the physical, on-screen, representation of an aircraft, flying.

The problem is that every developer - whether they be aircraft, scenery, texture, mesh or other all want to screw the last few points out of the performance of the sim for THEIR particular product, because they believe that it should be the best it can be. But in so doing they upset the delicate and fine balance of a sim that is teetering in the edge of acceptable performance on most peoples rigs, most of the time.

I don't have this addon - it is utterly pointless to have it on my computer - but surely the essence of a bush plane is that it should run at acceptable frame rates when used in the bush? If you have to start cutting back on scenery, frames or in-game complexity then the product is a failure, not a success, no matter how pretty it looks?

One could point to the almost insane choice of texture sizes and formats to indicate that it is patently obvious that loading this aircraft is going to upset the applecart - that delicate balance - if the Fiber that displays the aircraft in virtual space now needs to deal with a texture size ten times what it should be and in a non-optimised format (see SDK) for the package. Unless you can increase the GPU speed, its I/O capability, or the rate at which the sim can process the information, then is it not obvious that what is the problem here is simply time, not texturing. The FIBER is running out of time to display the aircraft. And this can have a variety of impacts on the users system.

There appears to have been little contemplation of integration in this aircraft, so as part of the re-development and refinement process, might I suggest looking at re-thinking how you achieve many of the `features`. There is actually no reason to incorporate them into the.mdl if in so doing you increase the size of the model to proportions that can no longer be managed within the existing and finite limits of the Fiber. Compile a master file 2048x2048 texture as a 1024x1024 textures results in a drastic proportion in file size, for little or no loss in quality, thanks to the limits of the sims display qualities, not the difference you see as apparently `obvious` in the design package.

If you don't, then the only solution is to allow that Fiber to have more resources, or provide more resources. And I don't know how to achieve that, short of buying more computing power. There is no facility in SP2/Acc to define which Fiber receives the bulk of the cpu time. EXCEPT FOR THE FRAME RATE SLIDER. You can use the

FIBER_FRAME_TIME_FRACTION=0.33 is default

adjustment - use larger to remove blurries, smaller to enhance fps adjustment in the FSX.cfg to make sweeping alterations, but these are not Fiber-specific. Unless you have a magic wand which can tell the sim: "OK, this is a much larger model than you are used to, so I'd like you to spend more time on it" you are completely and utterly stuffed

Clearly what we are seeing with this package is that on some computers, the excessive demands placed on the Fiber are pulling resources from other areas in the sim - some of which are resulting in a drastic fps shortfall. This is entirely logical, and not confusing at all:

There is a finite level to the complexity that can be pulled from `aircraft generation and display` Fiber, and you should instead rethink where those resources are drawn from - perhaps by relocating some of the complex functions to a module so they are pulled from the `addon systems` Fiber, which can run concurrently with the AGAD, but in a way that shares resources, not swamps them.

BTW there is previous history for doing just such a thing - some of the more complex aircraft in the earlier iterations of the sim actually included parts of the aircraft displayed as scenery, with appropriate entries in the scenery .cfg. While I do not suggest this as a solution to this issue, I do recommend you take more time to learn and understand the nature of the Fiber construct in the sim, and how it impacts on the choices you have made in the aircraft model... you may find a way to offset the excessive load.

The only other solution is the obvious one: You have designed an aircraft that is right on the limit of the Fiber capability. Redesign it so it isn't.

Good luck!

[Private-Cowboy 3]

One more thing towards the devs...

I came to the conclusion that FSX handles models better that use less but higher res textures. When using four 1024 size textures the framerate generally seems to suffer more as when a single 2048 size texture is used - there is no loss in detail since the total amount is still 2048*2048 (same as 1024*1024*4). The Bushhawk uses quite a few textures (I counted 97-100) so maybe reducing this amount by putting some smaller textures in to larger ones and bringing to total amount down might help too. I'm not sure how problematic it is to achieve that though.

Best regards.

[horst18519 231]

Problem with that is that a lot of systems (? graphic chips? or whatever does this - nobody can really tell) seems to recalculate textures that are bigger than 1024 down to 1024. That means if using 2048 sheets with 4 1024 sections those textures would actually have 512x512 resolution on a lot of PCs. So that is not anoption - unless I don't need more than 512.

Oh, btw: I think we now have read enough arguments on fps capping. Those are convinced they're right, others are convinced those were wrong - most of us don't know what to think. So let's concentrate on your reports on this aircraft and our reports on an upcoming patch, because that is what this topic is about.

[Private-Cowboy 3]

Really? I haven't heard of that. But if that is the case why use 2048 at all???

[Cub Pilot 0]

Heh Thanks Thorsten I'm one of the people who noticed a bit of a hit but nothing to make me unhappy. I enjoy seeing a next generation aircraft, something "outside the box". After 5 minutes of flying I don't notice the difference anyway.

I have another question. I use the aircraft on FSEconomy and on some of my longer routes it's nice to relax my hands so I added an autopilot. I just used your settings that were in there but just enabled it. After about 1-2 hours of flying I lose all electrical. I'm thinking it's maybe because the autopilot is using power that hasn't been given to it? Any ideas?

[Finn 873]

Does it happen each time or just once ?

Remember that by default - faults are set at norm, meaning that You might encounter failures here and then.

Finn

[horst18519 231]

Travis, I like the idea of adding an autopilot. We didn't do it because most real world Bushhawks don't have it, but I think there might be one in the future.

Finn might be right with his idea. I cannot believe the autopilot took too much power - unless you forgot to switch on the alternator of course.

Finn, by the way: no, I didn't mean you with what I wrote above.

[Pidder 7]

But if that is the case why use 2048 at all???

Because some GPU's handle this easy with higher resolution than 1024 - like mine .

[Private-Cowboy 3]

My question was more headed towards the statement that some GPUs would downsample 2048 textures and therefor the 2048 "container" of 4 1024 textures (to reduce the texture count) would suffer a quality loss because every texture in there would not be 1024 but 512. But if that is indeed a problem - I've never heard of such - then this would also apply to the 2048 fuse and dash textures. They would also be downsized by those GPUs and with it you'd get a small quality loss.

[Cub Pilot 0]

Travis, I like the idea of adding an autopilot. We didn't do it because most real world Bushhawks don't have it, but I think there might be one in the future.

Finn might be right with his idea. I cannot believe the autopilot took too much power - unless you forgot to switch on the alternator of course.

Finn, by the way: no, I didn't mean you with what I wrote above.

To Finn and Thorsten,

Yeah I think you guys are on to something I turned off failures thinking it was staying off but I just saw they were on. I typically don't run with failures on when there are thousands of dollars in virtual money on the line But it does happen consistently so next time it happens I'll try hitting reset failures then we'll know if thats it. Thank you

[ross1562 0]

Bushawk with an autopilot?????????

I think people may be missing the point of this aircraft!

[RobdeVries 2]

Bushawk with an autopilot?????????

I think people may be missing the point of this aircraft!

Yeah we might miss the point but a less than the default GPS functional 430 in the VC (without binding with the 420 in the 2D) is ridiculous. Even more ridiculous...no equipment except your keyboard to operate the water rudder...

I respect everything but the more I fly this bird the more I think it's a waste of money. So I really hope these 'features' are added instead of rolling Starbuck cups and reminders of calling my (deceased) mother.

Rob

[horst18519 231]

If you respect everything, why not respect that others may have other opinions, so it might not be so respectful to call them "ridiculous".

@Ross: Good point!

@Private cowboy: That is the exact reason why I don't like the idea of placing 4 1024 textures on 1 2048 sheet. But let's not talk about this anymore, just wait and see if the solution we offer might be sufficient to finally fall in love.

[Jurdoc 0]

Whereabouts are you in Alaska Dan? I was stationed in Fairbanks for 4 years at Eielson AFB and lived in North Pole. Nice to see another Alaskan around here!

i live in anchorage, born and raised here. i've spent all my life watching aircraft at merrill and panc do their thing....i cant fly due to health issues, so aerosoft really helps me work my flying jones out.

[ChrisB 11]

............

Ah, but it's not the default Garmin... Not all 430s have the map active. Not all buyers buy the GPS map option. If I understand Found Aircraft right, the map is inactive on the 430 they install. The GPS options given in the Bushhawk are accurate in their function.

I will let Thorsten argue the water rudder, but as someone who would have to us an animated model lever in the place where it is in the real aircraft, I am thankful that he didn't model it. It would have been a total waste of time. For instance - can you SEE the seat slide release lever in your car? No! Buy you know where it is by feel, don't you?

FSX doesn't have a "FEEL" function yet!

The Starbucks cup annoys you? RTFM, Fly the introduction mission and LEARN! On click and the mug is gone. Slightly unnecessary postit? Click - gone! But the ones with the radio frequencies... hold on, radio frequencies... OK, it's only a minor goodie and only useful occasionally. It is a mere "Divertissement". To create a little more atmosphere. Just because you don't like it doesn't make you a "Mary Whitehouse" of what is right or not in an addon.

Some features simply work so good that many detractors don't even know what they are getting. As always it is a case of "None so blind as those who won't see" - and now I take off my team hat to say this...

"There's an awful lot of blind people here shouting "black is white"

Sorry Mathijs, I am trying to encourage people to think beyond the width and feel the quality.

And of course anyone younger than me will not necessarily understand. There was a TV catchphrase many years ago that went "Never mind the quality, feel the width" - in the days before the meaning of "politically correct" was forced on us. And in the vein of that phrase, I am saying people should do the opposite and feel not just the width, but look at the qualities in this plane.

The GEM alone is an amazing piece of work. ACCURATE engine management is now possible. If anyone cares to visit the Found site, you can download the REAL pilots operating handbook and fly by the numbers. Not any old handbook, but the most up to date version used by real world Bushhawk owners. Fly by the book and you will see just what has gone into this plane. It's a hell of a lot more than the detractors can see.

You don't know how the GEM works? RTFM and you'll find the link to the real GEM manufacturer's site and handbooks.

The Fuel management display. Amazing. What it can do for you is more than just say how much fuel is left...

The aircraft balance... that is not a fault. As you use fuel the lighter wing lifts more and more, reminding you very gently to swap tanks. If you're solo, you may even notice that it takes longer before the left tank drains enough to force a right turn.

Has anyone used the clocks yet?

All that and more uses the spare frames that other planes don't. Why waste "loose frames" when you can give functionality?

Why am I wasting my breath?

Maybe in a couple of weeks you'll have explored her enough to see and appreciate the reasoning and work that is inside this plane. Until then...

(ah yes, that politically correct moment has come to "not say what's on my mind")

[Snave 466]

All that and more uses the spare frames that other planes don't. Why waste "loose frames" when you can give functionality?

So that when you combine it with all the other addons that utilise those `spare` frames to the point where the spare frames are not just not spare any more, they are sucking the lifeblood out of your sim experience...?

Using fps is a poor excuse for poor programming. ANY FSX addon should be designed to optimise the fps, seeing as how there are so few `spare` to start with! And Aerosoft know this, as the H-1 and Twotter prove. Sure there are things you have to leave out, and one can argue the relative merits or demerits of the Bush Hawk choices, (although quite how one can justify massive texture sizes on the one hand as having detail, then on the other leaving out a major lever assembly or correlation of avionics between 2d and VC as `unseen` is a strange position to adopt....) but one cannot sustain the argument that you can use spare frames when there aren't any, and you have no control over what addon gets to utilise that capacity.

[FSXaddict 18]

I just couldn't help getting on here and commenting again about this plane. I love this plane. I've flown it non-stop since purchasing it. I'm EXTREMELY picky with my planes too, and I just have nothing to say negatively about this one. Excellent job all around. I hate that others are having difficulty with it. Nice tutorial by the way, and I totally agree that the auto-pilot NOT being integrated was a GOOD idea. This is a bush plane all-around, and I love the realism. It makes the BeaverX look like a welfare project IMO . I couldn't be more excited about flying this plane, other than getting my new hardware installed. Great job guys!

[Cody Bergland 4]

I just couldn't help getting on here and commenting again about this plane. I love this plane. I've flown it non-stop since purchasing it. I'm EXTREMELY picky with my planes too, and I just have nothing to say negatively about this one. Excellent job all around. I hate that others are having difficulty with it. Nice tutorial by the way, and I totally agree that the auto-pilot NOT being integrated was a GOOD idea. This is a bush plane all-around, and I love the realism. It makes the BeaverX look like a welfare project IMO . I couldn't be more excited about flying this plane, other than getting my new hardware installed. Great job guys!

I'm so glad that you are enjoying it. I'm finishing up the video right now, so hopefully it will go on the product page in the next day or so. Took some nice flights around the Swiss Alps and Ayers Rock in Aussieland.

Here is a good one for you guys... Take off from Juneau (there are options for floats, wheeled or skis here). Turn north towards Mendehall Glacier and check out the ice fields. If you head east to the water, you are pretty close to Canada. The whole area is stunningly beautiful.

[JamesChams 108]

I'm so glad that you are enjoying it. I'm finishing up the video right now, so hopefully it will go on the product page in the next day or so. Took some nice flights around the Swiss Alps and Ayers Rock in Aussieland....

Mr. Cody Bergland,

Yes!!! I'm looking forward to more of your great video's - I'm much better now so, I'll be back to work in the morning but, thank you in advance for entertaining me to health.

Cheers!

[Cody Bergland 4]

Hey, no worries mate. I'm also working on the Viper video, which is coming together nicely. Of course, the Viper video will require a bit more time...

Anyways, I'll put more videos up soon. Glad the vids helped you through being sick!