-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
aeroplane heaven p-38
- Thread starter BigDog
- Start date
If they would just release native FSX models, no one would be having any trouble with them.
My thoughts exactly!
Their web site still has 2008 as the year the full FSX models were to be available. They must have been sidetracked with other projects.
Still missing the Tiger Moth for FSX too.
warchild
Charter Member
Ok.. downloaded and tried the demo// Curly Six i believe is what they call it.. The model doesindeed appear to be an fs9 model. The sounds are very similar to another soundset i have on another P-38 from FS9 as well..
Performance wise.. This thing is struggling to go 300mph with the engines flat out. The real plane can fly level at 429 mph. Christ, it was infamous for killing pilots by nearly breaking the sound barrier during dives and losing controlability through compression..
Handling is fine.. kinda fun..
Twenty dollars maybe.. but not what they're charging..
Thats just my opinion..
Now, the model appeared fine except for being primitive.. I might suggest going into your settings and set the display size to match the resolution of your screen.. If you have a widescreen, then give it a wide aspect ratio. Otherwise, setting it to a normal aspect ratio will make the plane look stubby and fat and all messed up..
by the way, about my comment on price.. i spent 80 dollars on an airplane once. I STILL think i got my moneys worth out of it. If youbought the plane and like it, thats all that counts..
Pam
Performance wise.. This thing is struggling to go 300mph with the engines flat out. The real plane can fly level at 429 mph. Christ, it was infamous for killing pilots by nearly breaking the sound barrier during dives and losing controlability through compression..
Handling is fine.. kinda fun..
Twenty dollars maybe.. but not what they're charging..
Thats just my opinion..
Now, the model appeared fine except for being primitive.. I might suggest going into your settings and set the display size to match the resolution of your screen.. If you have a widescreen, then give it a wide aspect ratio. Otherwise, setting it to a normal aspect ratio will make the plane look stubby and fat and all messed up..
by the way, about my comment on price.. i spent 80 dollars on an airplane once. I STILL think i got my moneys worth out of it. If youbought the plane and like it, thats all that counts..
Pam
IMHO, these are unbeatable in FS9..., but then that is what they were designed for... don't through the baby out with the bathwater.
I spent $30 of the P-38F in FS9, worth the money...
and if the sounds are familiar, well, they should be. David C. Copley, our P-38 guru, did the sounds for the plane.
I don't mean to be too, ummm... can't find the word, you know what I mean...
I just get tired of hearing FS9 planes trashed in this forum... I agree that if it advertised as FSX, it darn well should be FSX, but that fact that it isn't does not automatically mean that the plane is trash!
Just getting it off my chest... been getting to me for a while...
I spent $30 of the P-38F in FS9, worth the money...
and if the sounds are familiar, well, they should be. David C. Copley, our P-38 guru, did the sounds for the plane.
I don't mean to be too, ummm... can't find the word, you know what I mean...
I just get tired of hearing FS9 planes trashed in this forum... I agree that if it advertised as FSX, it darn well should be FSX, but that fact that it isn't does not automatically mean that the plane is trash!
Just getting it off my chest... been getting to me for a while...
I don't mean to be too, ummm... can't find the word, you know what I mean...
I just get tired of hearing FS9 planes trashed in this forum... I agree that if it advertised as FSX, it darn well should be FSX, but that fact that it isn't does not automatically mean that the plane is trash!
Just getting it off my chest... been getting to me for a while...
I'm tired of seeing FS9 planes being labeled as for FSX. Developers made true FSX planes within months of its release. There's no excuse anymore, ESPECIALLY when it comes to payware. FSX RTM even used "true FSX" models. I'm tired of false advertising. If they advertised it as it actually is, I wouldn't complain. I'm tired of poor performance and visual issues with portovers. And I'm really tired that I'm pretty much the only one one online who seems to care enough to bring it up. If one person makes enough noise, they can make a difference though. I kept posting at AVSIM and finally their reviewers decided to add it to their reviews. I know there are others on SOH who feel strongly about this too...
been getting to me for a while...
Reason being that the same person (DCC) did the soundsets for both planes
I wish that same person could update his planes to FSX models (or someone with the know-how/time could do it).
They were gems in FS9. It would be excellent to have them in FSX too.
krazycolin
Banned
i know i've been saying it for a while, but there are FSX p38s in the works
And they are being vetted and approved by DC himself, he is doing the soundset using Glacier Girl sounds recorded by him AND, with any luck at all, also doing the FDE.
I wish that same person could update his planes to FSX models (or someone with the know-how/time could do it).
They were gems in FS9. It would be excellent to have them in FSX too.
Do you actually know anything about modeling in 3d? Coding in XML? The reason I ask is that it would be a lot harder than you think to make it as nice as an actual FSX model rather just recompile it for FSX after redoing the textures. It can't really be done. Look at some of the planes that have been done that way. Most of the models I did for AS for FS9 are or have been, released in this manner. Though the the model IS actually FSX compiled, the quality of it leaves a lot to be desired both in terms of poly count and of texture quantity and quality. FS9 planes are, on average, half that of FSX planes in both areas. They are designed with a P4 system as being the top end. That, obviously, isn't the case anymore. I personally believe, and this is, again, only my opinion, that a model from FS9 should never be described as being built for FSX even if it does go through the actual process. It doesn't have and cannot have the same quality.
So, you will get what you wish for, a FSX P-38, in a way... However, I am still not sure I will let you buy it....
So now you are telling people who can and can't buy your planes? Kiwi is just asking that if it isn't an FSX plane, then don't advertise it as one. I could care less how tough it is to make an FSX model. If it's too hard for you then don't take your FS9 models and advertise them for FSX.
krazycolin
Banned
Er... that is an inside joke.
However, just so you know, as a vendor, I do indeed have the right to decide who can buy and who cannot buy my stuff... You think it's a one way street? You can decide to buy or not but we HAVE to take your money and let you have our stuff? It's a free country as far as I know... Unless something changed somewhere without my knowing about it...
As well, it would appear to me that a lot of vendors take their FS9 models, put them through the FSX "process" and call them FSX models. That is what I am talking about and is something I disagree with.
No need to get angry... In essence, I'm agreeing with him...
kc.
One other note, I see your signature and I would add one more thing to it: A FSX model is one that was designed from the outset to be in FSX and not in FS9.
warchild
Charter Member
Please, dont misunderstand me. I'm probably one of the most intentionally fair people you'll ever encounter.. I agree, in fs9 these were unbeatable planes. Mind you, in my opinion, it still does not justify a nearly 50 dollar price tag. However, it's advertised as an FSX model, and from my perspecive, that has to become the qualifier..
Except for the apparent fact that the FM Engineer got the wrong propeller on there ( which is a lot easier to do than you would believe) the FM is excellent. My guess is that the correct propeller is buried someplace in history and it's details are not so easily unearthed or the Engineer would have put it on there and we'd have a plane that woulld be the first ever P-38 for FS that actually flew at the correct speeds.. But with advancements in graphics, light mapping,shadowing and all kinds of other stuff, it's like someone got lazy.. The appearance is drab for fsx. It's great for fs9 but drab for fsx.
Like i told the gentleman with the initial query. The bottom line is: if you enjoy the plane, thats all that counts. I also said, it's a fun little plane.. These arent cutdowns or put downs, but personally, i would have a much greater level of respect for it and aeroplane heaven, if they said that it was an fs9 model made to work in fsx. Anyone can lie and misrepresent their product, but it takes one hell of a big person to say "we did our very best and here it is" and mean it.
Yes. When they actually take their FS9 model and make it for FSX the way it is supposed to be done that is ok. For an example, a lot of the old Alphasim models that were originally for FSX were recompiled the correct way for FSX so although they lack some features, they are still an FSX model. I (and i'm sure Kiwi is the same way) am talking about when a dev takes a complete FS9 model that hasn't even been recompiled using the FSX SDK, and they market it for FSX. It's bad enough when freeware developers do it but for a payware dev to dpo it is just wrong imo. Your "inside joke" was not really funny the first time and now it is starting to grind my gears. You are acting as if he is not entitled to his own opinion and I don't see how you can tell somebody what he can and can't buy.
Trust me Colin, I have zero interest in buying your P-38 anymore (or any of your products for that matter). Absolutely none. You needn't worry about me buying it. I happily help developers with my wallet (and time as a beta tester), but you've gone too far.
WRONG! As a modeler yourself, you should know better! A FSX native model is simply one compiled with the FSX compiler (though the process to allow this may not be simple). It doesn't have to have all the fancy FSX stuff to benefit from better FPS and correct glass and prop textures. The DA Cheyenne is a good example of this. It is indeed a true FSX model, but does not have bump mapping.
I don't care if companies release portovers. I don't care if freeware authors release portovers. Just don't advertise them as being FSX planes!
Time for vacation... be back in a week or so.
krazycolin
Banned
Actually, I was commenting on the NATIVE aspect of it. Not only the FSX model aspect. Native would imply that it was built to the FSX specification and not merely compiled. By your lights, any model that was compiled by Xtomdl would be considered an FSX native model. With or without any of the doodads and specs that actually make an FSX model cooler than an FS9 model.
When we build an FSX NATIVE model, it starts its life with the full intention to use the poly counts, the texture counts, the texture quality and all the doodads and specifics that make a REAL FSX model. Taking a F-86F-30 Sabre that was dumbed down to FS9 standards, applying normal maps to it and compiling it to FSX doesn't make it native in any way. In fact, there should be three standards and not two: Made for FSX, Ported to FSX and Enhanced and ported for FSX.
As a modeler, I've built over 25 planes for FS9 and FSX payware. That's more than any other dev anywhere in the world to date that I can think of offhand. Some were considered great and some not so much. I have learned how to make them and paint them from some of the best in the world and I know exactly what goes into making a plane native to FSX, FS9, TV or film.
We sold around 15 planes to AS. Most of those have been recompiled and "enhanced" for FSX. They weren't designed for it. I know. I had to dumb them down from the FSX standard (around 300K polys and 12 2K maps) that they are to get them into FS9 (under 90K polys and 12 1K maps). A real pain in the a$$, believe me.
As an aside, I have every intention of putting those models into FSX as actual FSX models and then you will see the difference... or not, if you decide not to part with your cash.
As far as buying or not, what you, or anyone else, does with your cash is your affair, and the proof is in the pudding. In other words, you get what you pay for. Most of the time.
I meant no insult or injury and if I did, then, once again, I apologize. Unlike you, I actually do care about how I say and do things and am willing to apologize if I have offended... whether I did or not. And I mean that apology. You and, I'm sorry to say, some others, feel that they are justified in saying and doing whatever they feel but are taken aback and get pi$$ed when the attack is reversed.
I may be direct and opinionated but I am always willing to listen and to change my point of view. And, I am, or try to be, as polite and honest as I can be.
Like it or not, Milviz is here to stay and if you don't like it, well, you better change hobbies cause our planes and models are everywhere. Some, you won't even know that are Milviz models, but we can't say so because of NDA's... Our client list includes AS, A2A, FSaddon, Iris and others... (coming soon, at least three more devs!)
KC.
When we build an FSX NATIVE model, it starts its life with the full intention to use the poly counts, the texture counts, the texture quality and all the doodads and specifics that make a REAL FSX model. Taking a F-86F-30 Sabre that was dumbed down to FS9 standards, applying normal maps to it and compiling it to FSX doesn't make it native in any way. In fact, there should be three standards and not two: Made for FSX, Ported to FSX and Enhanced and ported for FSX.
As a modeler, I've built over 25 planes for FS9 and FSX payware. That's more than any other dev anywhere in the world to date that I can think of offhand. Some were considered great and some not so much. I have learned how to make them and paint them from some of the best in the world and I know exactly what goes into making a plane native to FSX, FS9, TV or film.
We sold around 15 planes to AS. Most of those have been recompiled and "enhanced" for FSX. They weren't designed for it. I know. I had to dumb them down from the FSX standard (around 300K polys and 12 2K maps) that they are to get them into FS9 (under 90K polys and 12 1K maps). A real pain in the a$$, believe me.
As an aside, I have every intention of putting those models into FSX as actual FSX models and then you will see the difference... or not, if you decide not to part with your cash.
As far as buying or not, what you, or anyone else, does with your cash is your affair, and the proof is in the pudding. In other words, you get what you pay for. Most of the time.
I meant no insult or injury and if I did, then, once again, I apologize. Unlike you, I actually do care about how I say and do things and am willing to apologize if I have offended... whether I did or not. And I mean that apology. You and, I'm sorry to say, some others, feel that they are justified in saying and doing whatever they feel but are taken aback and get pi$$ed when the attack is reversed.
I may be direct and opinionated but I am always willing to listen and to change my point of view. And, I am, or try to be, as polite and honest as I can be.
Like it or not, Milviz is here to stay and if you don't like it, well, you better change hobbies cause our planes and models are everywhere. Some, you won't even know that are Milviz models, but we can't say so because of NDA's... Our client list includes AS, A2A, FSaddon, Iris and others... (coming soon, at least three more devs!)
KC.