Problem with Alphasim/Virtavia AT-6 in FSX?

[ThinkingManNeil]

Hi All;

I purchased the Alphasim/Virtavia AT-6/Harvard from FSPilot Shop sometime in late 2011 for FS2004, where it worked fine, and then added it to FSX earlier this year where it seemed to work OK with one big exception. After downloading several of what I thought would be FSX compatible T-6/Harvard/SNJ skins from here at SOH, AvSim, and FlightSim I find the majority of them are unuseable as they come out very dark, regardless of the paint scheme - whether it be painted or metal finish - and the view out of the VC is non-existent - completely blacked out. Is this a problem with FSX Acceleration?

View attachment 85581View attachment 85582

Thanks in advance,

N.

 

[Kiwikat]

I would suggest getting the native FSX version of this aircraft, or perhaps just sticking with Wozza's freeware one out there. IMHO it is better than the Alphasim or Skyunlimited offerings...

I still hope A2A (or possibly PMDG... Robert Randazzo has connections to a real one) will someday do a Texan. It is my all-time favorite plane.

 

[ThinkingManNeil]

Yeah, it's a fave of mine, too. I flew both T-6's and Harvards at the Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum several times years ago and always found them to be a solid ball of fun. I'd be sorely tempted to get one if I ever won the lottery.

I have Wozza's T-6 (prefer his Mustang more) and the Sky Unlimited T-6 offering for FS2004, but was disappointed by the lack skins for it. I like the Alpha T-6 a lot with my only gripe with it is the canopy framing looking forward is as thick as a 2 x 4. When I bought it initially from FSPS it did indicate that it would be compatible with FSX, but I don't know if it was just a portover then and they then re-did it as a native FSX model since Virtavia took over, or if it's an Acceleration issue or what.

You've got my vote for an A2A Accu-Sim T-6. I remember folks begging for a T-6 in the original WOP P-51D forum. A T-6 would be marvelous!

N.

 

[Kiwikat]

Alphasim put out a native FSX version of the Texan well before they changed to Virtavia. I don't know if they have a special upgrade price anymore like they used to.

Hopefully someone who knows better will chime in!

 

[Bomber_12th]

The things you mention and illustrate confirm that the model you have is FSX native already, as an FS9 model will never do those things. Black objects are the sign that a texture is missing. When the shading appears reversed, as it is shown, it indicates that the bump maps (and perhaps even spec maps) are missing. If you look in one of the default texture folders (for one of the individual paints) that comes with the product, there is likely a 'Texture.cfg' file that needs to be copied and added to the repaint folder(s), and/or some textures that those default paint folders have that is missing from the folder(s) of the repaint(s).

 

[fsafranek]

The things you mention and illustrate confirm that the model you have is FSX native already, as an FS9 model will never do those things. Black objects are the sign that a texture is missing. When the shading appears reversed, as it is shown, it indicates that the bump maps (and perhaps even spec maps) are missing. If you look in one of the default texture folders (for one of the individual paints) that comes with the product, there is likely a 'Texture.cfg' file that needs to be copied and added to the repaint folder(s), and/or some textures that those default paint folders have that is missing from the folder(s) of the repaint(s).

I would say John has hit the nail on the head. It all points to a missing texture.cfg file. Just copy one over from one of the default texture folders, reload the aircraft, and you should be fine.

I like the Alphasim T-6 because I was the painter but I always thought the SkyUnlimited interiors were more accurate. I only loaded up Wozza's T-6 once because I couldn't believe how much begger the T-6 was than the default Cessna and wanted a second opinion. The Alphasim version started out headed toward being accurate but got sidetracked when it was decided that we were making a weekend warrier version. Nobody bothered to tell the painter though.
:ernae:

Speaking of SkyUnlimited, looks like they are having a sale.

http://www.skyunlimited.net/

 

[mgr]

Hello Frank,

I only loaded up Wozza's T-6 once because I couldn't believe how much begger the T-6 was than the default Cessna and wanted a second opinion. The Alphasim version started out headed toward being accurate but got sidetracked when it was decided that we were making a weekend warrier version. Nobody bothered to tell the painter though.

Don't know if i understand you correctly yet the T-6 is sightly larger then the cessna 172. (12,8 versus 11,0 meters) in real life.
And inside FSX the (small) difference so exactly that with Wozza's version.

What i however did notice is that you get the bigger impression after selection the plane, this has maybe something to do with default reference and zoom-point of the model.

[Sorry for high-jacking the subject, but had to put in some word in "defence" of the Wozza model ]

Marcel

 

[fsafranek]

Hello Frank,



Don't know if i understand you correctly yet the T-6 is sightly larger then the cessna 172. (12,8 versus 11,0 meters) in real life.
And inside FSX the (small) difference so exactly that with Wozza's version.

What i however did notice is that you get the bigger impression after selection the plane, this has maybe something to do with default reference and zoom-point of the model.

[Sorry for high-jacking the subject, but had to put in some word in "defence" of the Wozza model ]

Marcel

From the side view the T-6 profile consumed the Cessna. That's what I was talking about.

 

[mgr]

From the side view the T-6 profile consumed the Cessna. That's what I was talking about.

Okay, that is understandable the T-6 is big and fat. The cessna a bit larger then the pilot sitting, in the T-6 there is a lot space below the pilot.

Marcel