• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    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 politician 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 among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Alphasim/Virtavia AH-1W freeware (? / !)

"RIFFКi MDLXMDLH @â "

Looks native to me. :wavey:

I guess our definitions of "native" differ. It is a FSX model, not a FS9 model.
 
im 99% sure i have the paintkit for this when i bought this

or does it come with the download
 
Chris H said:
It is FSX native.
Click to expand...
Indeed.

In fact, there are two distinct versions, one is in FS9 format, and the other one is in native FSX SP2 format, with self-shadowing.
The virtual cockpit is extremely limited, though...
 
krazycolin said:
It is not FSX native. I made the model. It was and is designed specifically for FS9. We will be releasing the actual high rez version of this (in conjunction with the nemeths) sometime in 2011.
Click to expand...

It is FSx native, I took that model and made it so :), what you may be refering to is FS9 poly crippled, in which case that is true.

The poly limit was reduced to get it into FS9, that same model was then made FSx compatable in the full sense of the criteria. IIRC it was one of the highest ever poly count models I squeezed through the FS9 compiler, around 72K I think, well over the accepted 62-66K limits normally imposed.

So to define:
Is it FSx native; YES
Was it a high poly model designed for FSx; NO

Best

Michael
 
and again, for me, the very fact it was "taken" into FSX (without my permission BTW) without it being designed for that purpose means it is NOT native. It's a portover.

THis is in my eyes only of course. As a modeler, the idea that something that was/is for FS9 being used and sold as a native FSX product is a bit ... well, unethical.

I will stop now before i get banned. Again.
 
krazycolin said:
and again, for me, the very fact it was "taken" into FSX (without my permission BTW) without it being designed for that purpose means it is NOT native. It's a portover.

THis is in my eyes only of course. As a modeler, the idea that something that was/is for FS9 being used and sold as a native FSX product is a bit ... well, unethical.

I will stop now before i get banned. Again.
Click to expand...

Don't blame me for putting it in FSx, I've enough issues with Alphasim myself with out getting more soil from other parties.

By definition, a port over is a model compiled for FS9 and used directly in FSx, that is the agreed terminology thrashed out in all the boards when this became an issue a few years back, to that extent it is not a port over.

A model compiled with modeldef.xml and not makemdl is FSx native, people can huff and puff and pout all they want but thats an undeniable fact. It makes no difference what the poly count is, do you think the native microlight is a port over ?, because under your criteria of poly limits then it is. Low poly limits do not automatically make a model FS9 native or a port over in FSx.

(generalization)
The bit that really ticks me off is people using port over and non native to often suit their own agendas (and thats not personal Colin), they are using words and terminology incorrectly to ...often...knock down a product or model.
(/generalization)

Once again, the agreed, accepted community phraseology for 'native' is, a model compiled with modeldef.xml

The Alphasim AH-1W fits that criteria, end of debate.

If you want to knock it for its crap poly count or what ever else, please feel free to do so, hell I'll even join in, I've plenty of axes to grind on that score!, but do not, now, or ever call it a port over or non FSx native.

Best

Michael
 
I'm going to stand by my point. You may feel that it is ok to call a model made expressly for FS9 a native FSX model, but I will not. My point here is first and foremost calling the model that I made for AS a "native FSX" product was and is misinformation. It's like taking a baby carriage, painting it red and selling it as a Ferrari. Not native.

The point about them not asking permission is an important point but one I am willing to forgo in the interests of maintaining the so-called peace.

(and it sure "sounds" personal...)

I will never condone the sale of something that was made for FS9 as a native FSX model. It may have all the bells and whistles, but in the end, it's still a model made for FS9. Nothing will change that.

I will stop if you will.
 
krazycolin said:
I'm going to stand by my point. You may feel that it is ok to call a model made expressly for FS9 a native FSX model, but I will not. My point here is first and foremost calling the model that I made for AS a "native FSX" product was and is misinformation. It's like taking a baby carriage, painting it red and selling it as a Ferrari. Not native.

The point about them not asking permission is an important point but one I am willing to forgo in the interests of maintaining the so-called peace.

(and it sure "sounds" personal...)

I will never condone the sale of something that was made for FS9 as a native FSX model. It may have all the bells and whistles, but in the end, it's still a model made for FS9. Nothing will change that.

I will stop if you will.
Click to expand...

Its personal in the context that you raised the original point, its not personal in that I'm not attacking you or criticizing your point of view.

I've no idea what agreement you had with Alphasim, but I suspect its the same as mine and worth the value of the paper its written on (being as everything is e mail then thats a paltry sum at best). It seems that some forms of theft are acceptable these days, torrents and p2p isn't, yet non payment is or reuse of models is?, go figure <SIGH>.

Colin, we may be at opposites of the table on this issue, but 'thankfully' we are at the same end and distinctly polarized from the main protagonist.

Sadly my support and defense of Alphasim ceased when it went under in Sept, if and when they decide to honor their debts I'll return to supporting models consumers purchased before that event.

Best

Michael
 
IMHO you both, Colin and Michael, are right.
Using the FSX compiler on an FS9 model makes it "native" but it's still "poly-crippled", i.e. not all it can be.
To use a more appropriate example: If Ferrari brings out a Testarossa with 100 hp motor, it's still a Ferrari all right, but... :kilroy:
 
I'm playing devil's advocate here...but Bill (Lionheart) has developed a method of creating massively high poly models for FS9. If these are converted to MDLXMDL format are they "native"? :)
 
kilo delta said:
I'm playing devil's advocate here...but Bill (Lionheart) has developed a method of creating massively high poly models for FS9. If these are converted to MDLXMDL format are they "native"? :)
Click to expand...

Difficult to say, I'd say yes if they were compiled with modeldef.xml, I suspect Colin would say no as they are primarily designed for FS9.

For the record and clarity to the debate, its not just the poly count that cripples FS9 models, its makemdls vertex welding, any vertex closer than 3mm to its counterpart will be welded together when passed through makemdl, in modeldef.xml the weld script is null or for real purposes 1mm. This is very important in the VC model and adds that extra fidelity to gauges and cockpit fittings etc.

The materials and specular maps as well as bump maps are FSx only so fall outside of the debate really, you dont need them in FSx, but they are nice, you can compile a FSx model with out these and still fit the 'native' criteria (which ever point of view you subscribe too).

It basically comes down to how you interpritate the 'native' syntax, I choose to use what is commonly touted and thrashed out by the community in the early FSx days, but, a model designed 'specifically' for FSx may use different techniques, not necessary but can be used.

Best

Michael
 
vora said:
Using the FSX compiler on an FS9 model makes it "native" but it's still "poly-crippled", i.e. not all it can be.
Click to expand...
The fact that it's not as complex as it could doesn't change the fact that it's NATIVE.
No transparency issues, no props/rotors behind scenery or clouds, self shadows, etc.... ==> FSX native. The level of complexity is off-topic.
 
Thanks guys for the insights to the developers perspectives.:ernae: As a consumer I regard a native fsx aircraft as one that's been run through the FSX sdk. True FS9 ports are well and good until it comes to props and Helicopters where the cloud/prop/rotor issue rears it's ugly head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top