• There seems to be an up tick in Political commentary in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site we know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religiours commentary out of the fourms.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politicion will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment amoung members. It is a poison to the community. We apprciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Wanna make some Muuula!!!!

G

gera

Members +
Those of you "aircraft modelers" with good ideas and "go get them!!!" attitude how about--- Developing a way to make "Universal VC panels"...and make a "general one for tube jets, one for fighters, and one for GA aircraft"/////.....Impossible!!!!!! Impossible!!!!!!....I remember back in 1953 some saying it would be impossible for man to discover other solar systems, or get rid of Polio or..or..or....----nothing is impossible except kicking the bucket!!!!!!!!......I take one of each!!!!!!:blind::blind:
 
I always thought that would be an interesting idea. I kinda took that liberty with the DC3 VC for my CV240 BUT I used Gmax to heavily customize it (the FSX SDK comes with the DC3 Gmax source-files).

..The reasons I didn't get excited.. was that it wouldn't work for most of aircraft that need them (you can't add an interior model to an FS9 airplane).. and.. unless they're models with very similar size and orientation, the VC wouldn't be in the proper place... and, I've yet to come across an FSX model that didn't already have a VC.

But it IS a good theory... If you have my Saab 340, you can use the VC if you make the default, AI, Dash-8 flyable.. however.. that interior model also includes the passneger cabin,, so the view from a passenger seat would be of a low-wing, twin, turbo-prop. Is that the kinda thing you had in mind ?
 
Generic virtual cockpits ? That would be pretty useless.
Generic 2D panels were already quite useless, but their impact on the immersion (which was alread quite low) was not too high.
A generic virtual cockpit would be like being in the wrong plane. The whole purpose of the virtual cockpit is to show you how the plane looks like from the inside.
Why not generic exterior models then ? One model for tubes, one for fighters etc... it's just the same, and it would be ridiculous don't you think ?
 
Daube said:
Generic virtual cockpits ? That would be pretty useless.
Generic 2D panels were already quite useless, but their impact on the immersion (which was alread quite low) was not too high.
A generic virtual cockpit would be like being in the wrong plane. The whole purpose of the virtual cockpit is to show you how the plane looks like from the inside.
Why not generic exterior models then ? One model for tubes, one for fighters etc... it's just the same, and it would be ridiculous don't you think ?
Click to expand...


I wouldn't go that far.. I mean.. why even have an exterior model.. you can't really float around outside the plane in flight.. and even for multi-player, what you'd see of each other from a cockpit seat, would be distant views. Make detailed exterior models for the walk-around and that rare time you'll be parked near another player on the ground ?

To me.. the whole thing is creating the illusion, and giving you the proper "feel". And really.. accurate instruments and accurate flight-dynamics are the trump cards. The quality and accuracy of the visiual models are just eye-candy. That's why I had no problem with modifying the DC3 cockpit for the Convair. The layout is similar.. even the windows.. and they're both big, twin radial-engine airplanes. Some visual changes.. some different gauges.. a little change in the animations (and even a few bug-fixes).. and I think it worked quite well. It not only saved me a few months of work.. the whole thinng "looks" better than I could have done.

Now.. for the Convair 580, I came real close to scratch-building a VC.. but I decided to just FURTHER modify the CV240 interior model. It will end up being just as much work as scratch-building, but i'll still retain that better foundation than I could have done (in a reasonable amount of time).

Now of course this is a poor comparison, because it's not like a generic VC.. I have access to the Gmax source-files.. Adding stuff, eliminating stuff.. changing stuff.. and retexturing is possible. On that note.. a workable, generic VC would have to be in the form of a source-file. You'd have to do SOME modeling/texturing, and at least be able to move the whole thing for proper positioning.

Of the few, freeware business jets I sim.. I've swapped the interior models with the default Lear..:wiggle:
 
Daube said:
Generic virtual cockpits ? That would be pretty useless.
Generic 2D panels were already quite useless, but their impact on the immersion (which was alread quite low) was not too high.
A generic virtual cockpit would be like being in the wrong plane. The whole purpose of the virtual cockpit is to show you how the plane looks like from the inside.
Why not generic exterior models then ? One model for tubes, one for fighters etc... it's just the same, and it would be ridiculous don't you think ?
Click to expand...

Ridiculous???....thanks for the pun or insult amigo. I remember individual like you in all history saying that then having to eat their words in shame....specially in technical fields where I have worked for 37 years.....you don´t need to answer this.
 
FSX already has Generic Virtual Cockpits, A true FSX craft can swap in and out any VC that is FSX, you want a Bell 206 pit, in your Eh101, no problemos..

I actually have already retro fitted the Stock DC-3 with a VC that has Both engines, and Both wings!! WOW! something they did not do, and the VC even is a full plane also so you can pan in and out... But I have to do some editing of the animations, and I made the whole thing CHrome... pretty swank..


Anywayz.... Interchangable cockpits work, but most of the time you just swap out some gauges, so if you could make some interchangeable VC's with the ability to run Glasspanel or regular with easy fixs, and the ability to move stuff around easy that would be great...

I don't have the time, but some one does, some nice Updated VC's for the Boeings with Really nice Textures and added details would be great.
 
It's no insult to say that something would be ridiculous.
And I didn't mean to insult you at all, I'm just expressing my opinion about common virtual cockpits, saying that it would be the same as common exterior models (that is: showing something wrong), which would be ridiculous.
 
Brett_Henderson said:
I wouldn't go that far.. I mean.. why even have an exterior model.. you can't really float around outside the plane in flight.. and even for multi-player, what you'd see of each other from a cockpit seat, would be distant views. Make detailed exterior models for the walk-around and that rare time you'll be parked near another player on the ground ?

To me.. the whole thing is creating the illusion, and giving you the proper "feel". And really.. accurate instruments and accurate flight-dynamics are the trump cards. The quality and accuracy of the visiual models are just eye-candy. That's why I had no problem with modifying the DC3 cockpit for the Convair. The layout is similar.. even the windows.. and they're both big, twin radial-engine airplanes. Some visual changes.. some different gauges.. a little change in the animations (and even a few bug-fixes).. and I think it worked quite well. It not only saved me a few months of work.. the whole thinng "looks" better than I could have done.
Click to expand...

Yes, the actual simulation of the plane behavior and its instrumentation are very important when you want to know how this or this plane actually flies.

But the modelisation of the virtual cockpit is also very important for those who also want to know how does it feel (well, let's say: how does it look like) to be in the cockpit of this or this plane. Examples are a Vulcan, or a Concorde, or a F-117, or a F-16: they all have very typical cockpits and canopies which offer a very unique view on the outside, and being able to get this view (and all of the constraints and advantages) on a simulation is just as important as getting the appropriate flight model and instruments.
 
Daube said:
It's no insult to say that something would be ridiculous.
And I didn't mean to insult you at all, I'm just expressing my opinion about common virtual cockpits, saying that it would be the same as common exterior models (that is: showing something wrong), which would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Like we say in Spanish amigo " you insist in sticking it dude"!!!!:isadizzy::isadizzy:
 
Yeah right, sorry if you can't understand my sentences correctly.
Remember english is not my native language. Bottom line is: I was NOT insulting you.
 
OK gents we have a language barrier here
what is typed may not be what is meant
so please think carefully before responding
H
 
Henry said:
OK gents we have a language barrier here
what is typed may not be what is meant
so please think carefully before responding
H
Click to expand...

Better kill this topic otherwise I will have to take a "new" course of the English Language..or American, whatever.......:isadizzy::isadizzy::gameoff:
right now am shaping up my Italian which needs better juice for my next trip......
 
Daube said:
Yeah right, sorry if you can't understand my sentences correctly.
Remember english is not my native language. Bottom line is: I was NOT insulting you.
Click to expand...

Don't worry Daube, I understood you. I think your English is excellent. I admire and somewhat envy people who can speak multiple languages. Teaching me a new language is like teach a dog to fly airplanes.

Tim, this VC swapping. is it something a normal human can do or, do you need to be an expert in GMax or modeling? I wouldn't mind retrofitting a few VCs to better suit my tastes.
 
Tim_Horton said:
I don't have the time, but some one does, some nice Updated VC's for the Boeings with Really nice Textures and added details would be great.
Click to expand...

Eh?

The 737's VC is already great looking, it lacks a lot of functionality though and/or contains a brazillion of bugs.
That's the kind of moments in which I wish for editable .mdls...just to fix a broken XML code instead of having to remodel the entire darn thing. :kilroy:
 
jmig said:
Tim, this VC swapping. is it something a normal human can do or, do you need to be an expert in GMax or modeling? I wouldn't mind retrofitting a few VCs to better suit my tastes.
Click to expand...


For "generic VC", they're doable SO LONG as the models (interior and exterior) have been compiled with the FS-X SDK.

So, for starters, one has to create the generic VC (gVC) with, gmax or FSDS. As with any compiled exterior model, you just can't "retrofit" existing interior models.

One important consideration to keep in mind is that the interior model's "eyepoint" you may have a skewed pilot's seating if the gVC's "Seat" doesn't match that in the aircraft.cfg

ALso, there are some developer that have customized their models to use only their VCs - try to use a different VC and you get a "You're naughty" sign. (done with XML gauge hocus pocus).
 
Sometime a generic vc would be better then what is offered - nothing! I've stuck FSX default VC into aircraft that would otherwise be so bad I would uninstall the craft completely. I would give examples but don't want to insult anyone - mostly payware stuff too.

David
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top