Preview : The Fighting Falcon

[Kofi 0]

If you like simple models there are loads of others around. Not as great looking, but a lot faster. We are not apologizing for killing your frames, as long as we deliver well optimized code...

I hate to compare things but in this case, I feel the need to. The Cloud 9 Phantom has one of the most crisp, smooth flowing, virtual cockpits out.....There are few to zero aircraft out now that are in the same league with their v/c. And yet with all that crispness and clarity, the impact on framerates in the V/C is slim to none......

[MCDesigns 2]

Exactly Dan and Kofi! :x

Yes, this one will be hard on hardware, just like Manhattan used to be (I think it was the hardest framerate hitter when it was released), but nobody seems to have low frames there now. Just like the Seaqhawk & Boxer of 8 months ago, clearly 8 months of new hardware solved that problem. FSx will be hard on frames for mnany people, just like us, MS builds it with hardware of 2007 in mind, dual core CPU's and DX10 GPU's.

So yes, this one will be hard on frames and it certainly will need a good graphics system. If you like simple models there are loads of others around. Not as great looking, but a lot faster. We are not apologizing for killing your frames, as long as we deliver well optimized code...

Manhatten and the Seahawk worked fine for me on release. (Boxer is still unusable )

With this reasoning, then the product will be obsolete by the time we can all get a system that will run it. If the addon creates a slideshow, then it won't matter if the code is optimized.

Start with 3 times the polygons of the commercial one and 5 times the polygons of the freeware one.

NOT a key selling point IMO

Seeing what Digital Aviation can do with the Cheyenne (a work of art!) I'll hold judgement till it's released.

Lawman, I'd love a Mirage as well!

[MeatWater 0]

Do we *really* need guns and missiles in FS?

[Kofi 0]

Exactly Dan and Kofi! :x

With this reasoning, then the product will be obsolete by the time we can all get a system that will run it. If the addon creates a slideshow, then it won't matter if the code is optimized.

Good point. Because by the time everyone has a good enough system to run the F-16 well, there'll be other aircraft out utilizing better understanding of technology and will perform with better framerates.

[MCDesigns 2]

Do we *really* need guns and missiles in FS?

YES!

[Guest Dag]

I hate to compare things but in this case, I feel the need to. The Cloud 9 Phantom has one of the most crisp, smooth flowing, virtual cockpits out.....There are few to zero aircraft out now that are in the same league with their v/c. And yet with all that crispness and clarity, the impact on framerates in the V/C is slim to none......

And I believe the F-16 will be the same, it's way to early to say anything as of yet. Polygon rich ..... yes indeed, as is the F-4 and IRIS F-14, I still have 99.9% of what I've locked the FPS to be.

Polygons is not everything, remember there are great advances in programming these days, gauges for instance.

Just my 5 cents worth :shock:

[vati1werner 0]

I'm with Lawman, he hit the nail on the head!

[DanielBu 0]

I want that cockpit designer to over-haul my YF-23

[Kofi 0]

And I believe the F-16 will be the same, it's way to early to say anything as of yet. Polygon rich ..... yes indeed, as is the F-4 and IRIS F-14, I still have 99.9% of what I've locked the FPS to be.

Polygons is not everything, remember there are great advances in programming these days, gauges for instance.

Just my 5 cents worth :shock:

Dag, with all due respect I think I have to disagree with you because of this simple statement by Mathijs;

Yes, this one will be hard on hardware,

Kofi

[CWD 0]

Lawman, as I said on SOH, the fact that there are some good aircraft which will never get the attention they "deserve" (which we agree about) is no reason to ignore great aircraft that will be far more popular. That would be as big a "crime" or a greater one. One wrong will not cure another.

I am confident I am correct when I assert that far more people will be interested in a new rendition of the F-16 than would be interested in a Mirage III, as you yourself have acknowledged. And there is nothing wrong with that at all. The F-16 is one of the most recognizable, successful combat aircraft of all time. All currently available models of it for FS are obselete. It is only "right" there should be a new, high-quality one created for the new sim.

Dismissing those who want a new F-16 as "the uneducated masses" is arrogant and inflammatory, as is implying those people are somehow lesser aviation lovers than you. As I do not think it was your intent to come across that way, perhaps a qualification of your remarks would be in order?

[ChrisB 11]

Isn't the F16 one of the most flown military fighter plane types now? Oh, and getting a bit long in the tooth, too - how many years has this plane been around now? 32 since maiden flight? In service since the late 70's?

That makes the F16 most certainly not a "niche" market.

Very pretty looking one, but probably won't land on my PC - not really my niche. But I'll be following this debate for sure. Too fast, too noisy for me - give me a P&W Wasp any day, or a RR Merlin or two (or four - that Lanc might get a chance)

...and when is that Catalina coming? Or will we wait for the FSX version now. Now that is my niche.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

And I believe the F-16 will be the same, it's way to early to say anything as of yet. Polygon rich ..... yes indeed, as is the F-4 and IRIS F-14, I still have 99.9% of what I've locked the FPS to be.

Polygons is not everything, remember there are great advances in programming these days, gauges for instance.

Just my 5 cents worth :shock:

5 cent from somebody who sees the builds on a day to day base...

[Guest Dag]

Indeed I do Mathijs and most of the external modelling, save for the external stores is done, VC is coming together better and better. But still, that is far from done and will be rich on details so we'll see.

Tim does his very best and expect a superbly done model and VC. The smoothness of the external modelling is something to behold even now, the blending is awsome. I'm particulary impressed with the canopy to fuselage blending and the slight "shoulders" of the upper fuselage, starting behind the canopy. I believe none has done that area particulary well. The canopy glass material is tinted gold/green/metallic with differences on the rear/fwd part. I realize there are many variations to an F-16 canopy but I tend to spend time looking at the one on being done here just because it looks soo damn good.

Now, can I convince him to get an animated working JFS (Jet Fuel Starter) and a working drag chute for the AM/BMs?

On the texture stuff, Tim is doing the ground work so it's just for me to paint away, I will paint! What I plan here is to learn the proper FSX format .dds textures and try to capture certain fuselage features like strengthening doublers (the Falcon Star reinforcements on the spine for instance) with bump-mapping and stuff. I suppose Vin needs to do that to but he's a graphics guru so he'll get a hang of it 200% faster than me. 15 years youger also makes a difference.

Anyway, I hope this is going to be a killer aircraft and by that I do not mean a FPS-killer. Another 10 cents worth

Best

[Lawman 14]

Dismissing those who want a new F-16 as "the uneducated masses" is arrogant and inflammatory, as is implying those people are somehow lesser aviation lovers than you. As I do not think it was your intent to come across that way, perhaps a qualification of your remarks would be in order?

Hi CWD,

My remark regarding the "uneducated masses" was not directed against you or any other forum member. But Mathijs has often stated that we "forum dwellers" are a minority and most of the sales go to the occasional buyer who just happens to see it on a shelf at his favourite reseller. It was those people I was referring to with my remark. And I never denied that from a business standpoint the F-16 is an excellent choice.

My guess is that the reason the F-16 is so popular is because it is the most "visual" aircraft out there. With that I mean that the general public has had the most exposure to it (Gulf War- and 9/11-footage on TV). That sort of exposure was (almost) non-existing in the time frame my favourite aircraft flew (the Cold War was very much hush-hush), so these aircraft are largely unknown to the public. Standardization amongst NATO air forces is also a big factor. When I was growing up, there were a lot more different aircraft types flying around than nowadays.

Now, Aerosoft is not gonna stop producing this F-16 just because I disagree with their choice of aircraft . As you say, the F-16 is indeed a very popular aircraft. Personally, I've seen too many of them (both in RL, in books and in other "games"), so I've lost my interest in the Falcon. Why not "break new ground" and do something different? To me, it would be like Ferrari saying: "Oh, more people are buying the Opel (Vauxhall) Corsa, so lets stop making beautiful sports cars".

In any market there is someone catering for the extraordinary, usually with a higher price tag. FS is no different in that aspect. However, there are just a few developers who have the resources/knack to do an aircraft with all the bells and whistles (both exterior and interior).

Now as an obvious Falcon-lover you won't see it my way and that's okay; I hope you'll enjoy it when it's released. This is just a subject I feel very strongly about (almost "phanatical", just ask Dag :wink: ).

[Guest Dag]

I agree with you Lawman, to a certain extent, actually to a huge extent. However, given the fact that we this time around will have a state of the art, high res aircraft to paint and have, for one, plenty of opportunity to research it (a BM coming here today), I feel it's a good choice to do it.

After all I would have liked an F-5A/Mirage III/V/F-100D/F-86D/K long before the F-16 but I don't see this team doing them, not by far.

There are others, rest assured.

Best and have a nice weekend

PS: Phanatisism is good for you :shock:

[Lawman 14]

There are others, rest assured.

That's what I'm clinging to at the moment .

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

I agree with you Lawman, to a certain extent, actually to a huge extent. However, given the fact that we this time around will have a state of the art, high res aircraft to paint and have, for one, plenty of opportunity to research it (a BM coming here today), I feel it's a good choice to do it.

After all I would have liked an F-5A/Mirage III/V/F-100D/F-86D/K long before the F-16 but I don't see this team doing them, not by far.

There are others, rest assured.

Best and have a nice weekend

PS: Phanatisism is good for you :shock:

I agree as well, with one remark. There is a market for a car that is 6 times more expensive then standard cars. I doubt we'll sell a lot of Falcons at 100 Euro plus. Aerosoft likes to go all out once in a while, without a lot of regards for what the effects on framerates. We need to see what is possbile.

[Kofi 0]

5 cent from somebody who sees the builds on a day to day base...

Mathijs,

I love you folks here at Aerosoft you know that.....

However, my past experiences with the Seahawk, A-10, and Boxer tell my instincts to be cautious (as these were all framerate hogs on their initial release to all but the top 15% or so of systems out at the time)

[Lawman 14]

Of course all my remarks are nothing more than my personal opinion (I'm glad it is supported by at least a few people), influenced by my love for history (not just aviation related). Take a look at the F-104 and the F-106 (contemporary aircraft) and you'll see two very different solutions to basically the same requirement. I find that much more fascinating than the CAD aircraft of today which generally have the same basic configuration (delta with canards).

[Kofi 0]

I should add on a positive side (to not be entirely negative) is that Aerosoft scenery is amongst the best and from what I have, definitely NOT framerate sappers... 8)

[F16Viperdriver 0]

Hey Everybody,

The F-16 will not kill your FPS.

Reason the F-16 is getting done.

1.) Favorite Plane

2.) Want to improve my work from the "L" bird, alot of issue need to be fixed.

3.) Everybody at Aerosoft just love raw power and agility.

The reason it is being done has no marketing value, it has a sentimentle value, besides I have to keep a promise... Certain people were promised for me to redo the F-16 in the manor I did the A-10 and Seahawk, with a smooth body and alot of detail. That is what I am doing.

I will give you reports on the progress, and I personally can not afford a new PC, so FPS will be important to you and me.

Thank You,

F-16 Viperdriver.

[CMP 0]

First of all please accept my congratulations for your choice! I believe that an F-16 developed by using today's desing tools and further more to be created for FSX considering the timing, is from every point of view something that FS community missed for so long and will defenetly respect.

I'm feeling that this project is coming to close a gap, and I feel that I'm not the only one..

Now, please permit me to express my excpectations for this project by describing some details - things that I would like to see - and again I feel that I'm not the only one.

1. I Believe that it would very important for many of us to have a true representation of as many of the variants as you are able to offer. Don't for example stay only on the different textures using the same model. Where I'm using the word "true" I mean to see at least the true external differences between, for example an aircraft that is equipped with GE F110 engine and an aircraft equipped with the PW F100. That off course includes the intakes... Also the different Drag chute that a Belgium F-16 is equipped compared to a Hellenic or a Holand plane. I just mentioned two examples, off course there are more differences and it is not so difficult to be found.

I understand off course that for example the cockpit is a different issue so I would not ensist so much on this.

In any case, believe me that it would be very important for someone for example who is Norvegian to see a Norvegian configuration and so on...

2. My understanding from the message by F16Viperdriver is that he was involved in "L" bird developement. Well, I would like to say something, that, for somebody could be just a detail, the "L" design was having it, and I believe that is also very important. A second lower LOD model, so we can use the same aircraft that we fly as an AI also! It was working fine in FS9 and I'm sure that it will also fine in FSX.

My point to this is that if possible I would prefer, when I'm taxiing for example to the ramp to park my aircraft, I will be able to see my aircraft visually to be the same as the AI traffic aircraft - in LOD 1 off course and externally. I think this is adding to much to realism, and the frame rates will not drop vertically. Considering the power of the GPUs and DX10 which are coming into the next months it might be piece of cake...

3. What ever variants you are having in mind to include, please please please, consider to have also a model that nobody has done so far - a single seat F-16 Block 52+ with conformal fuel tanks..he he

Well, to finish with, I trully believe that even a 5% of the above can be achieved, people will recognise!

Thank you for your time spent to read this message

Best Regards

Chris

P.S.: Please forgive my english which are suffering many times..

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

First of all please accept my congratulations for your choice! I believe that an F-16 developed by using today's desing tools and further more to be created for FSX considering the timing, is from every point of view something that FS community missed for so long and will defenetly respect.

I'm feeling that this project is coming to close a gap, and I feel that I'm not the only one..

Now, please permit me to express my excpectations for this project by describing some details - things that I would like to see - and again I feel that I'm not the only one.

1. I Believe that it would very important for many of us to have a true representation of as many of the variants as you are able to offer. Don't for example stay only on the different textures using the same model. Where I'm using the word "true" I mean to see at least the true external differences between, for example an aircraft that is equipped with GE F110 engine and an aircraft equipped with the PW F100. That off course includes the intakes... Also the different Drag chute that a Belgium F-16 is equipped compared to a Hellenic or a Holand plane. I just mentioned two examples, off course there are more differences and it is not so difficult to be found.

I understand off course that for example the cockpit is a different issue so I would not ensist so much on this.

In any case, believe me that it would be very important for someone for example who is Norvegian to see a Norvegian configuration and so on...

2. My understanding from the message by F16Viperdriver is that he was involved in "L" bird developement. Well, I would like to say something, that, for somebody could be just a detail, the "L" design was having it, and I believe that is also very important. A second lower LOD model, so we can use the same aircraft that we fly as an AI also! It was working fine in FS9 and I'm sure that it will also fine in FSX.

My point to this is that if possible I would prefer, when I'm taxiing for example to the ramp to park my aircraft, I will be able to see my aircraft visually to be the same as the AI traffic aircraft - in LOD 1 off course and externally. I think this is adding to much to realism, and the frame rates will not drop vertically. Considering the power of the GPUs and DX10 which are coming into the next months it might be piece of cake...

3. What ever variants you are having in mind to include, please please please, consider to have also a model that nobody has done so far - a single seat F-16 Block 52+ with conformal fuel tanks..he he

Well, to finish with, I trully believe that even a 5% of the above can be achieved, people will recognise!

Thank you for your time spent to read this message

Best Regards

Chris

P.S.: Please forgive my english which are suffering many times..

For sure I can tell you both engines are modeled, we'll be back with more info later.

This morning somebody asked me if this was a gmax or a 3dsmax development. Well clearly gmax is not enough for a project of this size. As he challenged me, let me add a rendering that everybody who knows his tools will be able to indentify as full blood 3ds. The fact the canopy has a few knicks is done to keep fps up, as it is a transparent/reflective element, the lower poly count of that part is not seen in FSx. But depending on the rendering of FSx (and a lot on your graphics system), this is EXACTLY how FSx 'could' show it. And all without being slow as (again depending on your graphics card) polygons are the cheap/fast way to show element. The bits of the skin that need structure will be done in bumpmaps of course. That can increase 'visible' 3d structure a lot without causing the model to become slow (again, assuming you got a good DirectX 9 graphics card). FSx will not be CPU bound like FS9.1 was. FSx will really ask a lot of the graphics pipeline in your system.

[CMP 0]

Speechless! I'm dreaming now right?... :shock:

Honestly, it's fantastic! I believe that's what we want!

Keep up the good work! I'm sure that the result will be excellent for all of us!

Thank you Mathjis

Chris

[F16Viperdriver 0]

CMP,

Thanks for the comments.

Yes the F-16 will be various blocks. Also the diferent engines will be modeled along with the intake as well... For instance, the GE has the big mouth and the PW has the smaller one. So far the GE has been modeled, and personally the PW is my favorite.

AS for the AM/BM there will drag chutes and Identification lights located on the front nose side, such as the Noregians have.

Believe me when I say this Dag is one of my close friends, and he will give me hell if things aren't done right this time like the 'L' one was.

As for the conformal tanks it shouldn't be a problem to have them on a Block 52, now with the time schedule and the lack of info on the new cockpit, I can't gaurantee a Block 60.

F-16 Viperdriver.