• 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.

Best Hawker Hunter for FSX?

We call "FSX native" all the planes that are compiled with FSX SDK, meaning that the plane usually gets the FSX typical graphic features like self-shadowing for example.

On the opposite side, we have the FS9 "port-overs", which are FS9 planes, compiled with FS9 SDK, that work in FSX with minor graphic issues (transparency, props and canopies behind autogen and clouds, etc...).
 
We call "FSX native" all the planes that are compiled with FSX SDK, meaning that the plane usually gets the FSX typical graphic features like self-shadowing for example.
Click to expand...

Great! Thank you, now I have a better understanding. :)
 
Daube said:
We call "FSX native" all the planes that are compiled with FSX SDK, meaning that the plane usually gets the FSX typical graphic features like self-shadowing for example.

On the opposite side, we have the FS9 "port-overs", which are FS9 planes, compiled with FS9 SDK, that work in FSX with minor graphic issues (transparency, props and canopies behind autogen and clouds, etc...).
Click to expand...

Precisely. Meaning the Alphasim Hunter is FSX native.
 
Back to the question - Dave Garwood's is free, as good and has more variants (including the two-seater) than the excellent Alphasim version. Lots of repaints are available for both. Andy Ford (Airtrooper) in particular has done lots of naval repaints for the two-seater; available at Flightsim.com if not elsewhere.

DaveQ
 
I have got Dave Gs model and it is excellent but seeing the pics of the Alphasim one made me order a copy... very aesthetically pleasing Aeroplane the Hunter.

Matt
 
I've got both Dave G's and Alphasims and like them both. Most of my flying time is in the AS so I guess that makes it my favourite, that said it is payware, and it has self shadowing, so must be 'native'.

If in doubt, get them both !
 
Bjoern said:
Compiled = Native.


The bells and whistles FSX allows and encourages is another story.
Click to expand...

Not neccessarily. The fact that if it is compiled for FSX it is 'native' is only by your own definition.

I could equally say that FSX native planes are those designed for FSX - taking into account the lack of limits imposed by FSX in regards to poly counts etc.

I could design a plane for FS2004 within the limitations of the simulator, then at the very last minute chuck it through the FSX export process. I certainly wouldn't call it FSX native.

It's entirely down to your own definition, but if I downloaded what I was told was an FSX native aircraft then it turned out to be an FS95 aircraft made FSX 'native' I wouldn't be too chuffed.

I've got nothing against alphasim's hunter whatsoever, the above discussion is just in general.
 
Skittles said:
I could design a plane for FS2004 within the limitations of the simulator, then at the very last minute chuck it through the FSX export process. I certainly wouldn't call it FSX native.
Click to expand...

I would.

The "quality" of the model does not matter at all. If you took a FS95 aircraft, animated it, tagged those animations, set up FSX materials for it and exported it to FSX with XToMDL you would have a very low poly, but still FSX native aircraft.
And I'm sure the majority of aircraft designers *will* agree to that!
 
Skittles said:
Not neccessarily. The fact that if it is compiled for FSX it is 'native' is only by your own definition.

I could equally say that FSX native planes are those designed for FSX - taking into account the lack of limits imposed by FSX in regards to poly counts etc.

I could design a plane for FS2004 within the limitations of the simulator, then at the very last minute chuck it through the FSX export process. I certainly wouldn't call it FSX native.

It's entirely down to your own definition, but if I downloaded what I was told was an FSX native aircraft then it turned out to be an FS95 aircraft made FSX 'native' I wouldn't be too chuffed.

I've got nothing against alphasim's hunter whatsoever, the above discussion is just in general.
Click to expand...

No, it's not down to anybody's definition.
A native aircraft is a model compiled with the corresponding SDK. It's not related to the amount of details.

Design a simple sphere, without textures,VC, panels or sounds, and compile it with the FSX SDK => it will be FSX native.

Make your own PMDG-style liner with 100% of the systems simulated and shown in the world-sharpest virtual cockpit, compile it with FS9 SDK => it will be FS9 native, FSX port-over, and not FSX native.

There is no interpretation here. Either it's compiled with the FSX SDK or it's not.
 
Daube said:
No, it's not down to anybody's definition.
A native aircraft is a model compiled with the corresponding SDK. It's not related to the amount of details.

Design a simple sphere, without textures,VC, panels or sounds, and compile it with the FSX SDK => it will be FSX native.

Make your own PMDG-style liner with 100% of the systems simulated and shown in the world-sharpest virtual cockpit, compile it with FS9 SDK => it will be FS9 native, FSX port-over, and not FSX native.

There is no interpretation here. Either it's compiled with the FSX SDK or it's not.
Click to expand...

If we must get technical;

Definitions of 'native;'

characteristic of or existing by virtue of geographic origin
Click to expand...
nativeness - the quality of belonging to or being connected with a certain place or region by virtue of birth or origin
Click to expand...
being the place or environment in which a person was born or a thing came into being
Click to expand...
remaining or growing in a natural state; unadorned or unchanged
Click to expand...
If you intentionally design an aircraft within the limitations of FS2004, i.e. applying characteristics applicable to its original platform, then convert it into FSX with the FSX SDK, it is no longer native.

I assume that KrazyKolin thinks/knows that the Alphasim Hunter was originally built for FS2004 and as such has the characteristics reminiscent of such. Regardless of the fact that it could be recompiled as an FSX aircraft, it would not be native. Hell, it could be the best model ever created, with the best VC ever created, with the best FDE ever created, but as long as it was intentionally conceived and designed in line with FS2004's characteristics it can never be FSX native.

I decided to say 'it's entirely down to your definition' to avoid this kind of discussion. Since you brought it up though, you are right - the definition is solid, it's just contrary to your description.
 
Daube said:
There is no interpretation here. Either it's compiled with the FSX SDK or it's not.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The term 'FSX native' was come up with to describe models that have gone through the FSX compilation process. 'FSX compatible' is the opposite - FS9 models that work in FSX, but haven't been recompiled with the FSX SDK. Bringing up dictionary definitions means nothing, as they're arbitrary terms. They were just adopted by the community to describe the two types of model.

For the record, both DG's and Alphasim's Hunters ARE native models. FS9 models are also available.
 
In my very simple world, if it has self shadowing, it's an FSX model and it'll do me :salute:

I'm sure someone is going to prove me wrong now and leave me very confused !!!!!
 
to break this native non native discussion a bit , does any one still have the rhodesian repaints of daves hunter ? i cant seem to find them anywhere
 
They were just adopted by the community to describe the two types of model.
Click to expand...

So this "Native" thing is then down to interpretation according to the above quote.

At the risk of being a fly in the ointment I have to agree with Skittles based upon my own assumption that an FSX "native" model would have originated from the creators mind as a pure FSX product from concept to incept.

Ah... My brain hurts with all this back n forth; hey, if it looks good to the individual (non photoshopped) and it flies good who cares if its native or no... Personally I like Dave G's renditions just fine, a lot of character and they fly very well indeed.

P.S. Didn't Jens Ole do the Rhodesian paints?
 
I persoanlly couldn't give a toss if it is native or not, Alpha's model looks great, fly's great and has excellent frame rates, as does Dave's though I do prefer Alphasims model!
 
The question was the best for FSX right? The question wasn't for a FS9 portover correct?

If the Alpha model doesn't say "MDLXMDLH" when you open the .MDL file with notepad, then it doesn't fit into the category of FSX.

It doesn't matter how good it looks or how good it flies, it still isn't going to have self shadowing, bump maps or any of the things that make FSX FSX.

Terminology is important especially if somebody incorrectly advertises for a payware plane that is going to be deleted because it isn't for FSX.

I have cursed people in the past for wasted money due to the exact circumstances that are shown in this thread.

Please don't say something is FSX native if it is in fact, JUST a portover.
 
Marlin said:
Please don't say something is FSX native if it is in fact, JUST a portover.
Click to expand...

3 and a half years after FSX's release, there are still some developers who use false advertising. Not going to name any names. Though in the last year there seems to have been a decrease in the amount of false advertising, so it seems more devs are being honest about it now.
 
Kiwikat said:
3 and a half years after FSX's release, there are still some developers who use false advertising. Not going to name any names. Though in the last year there seems to have been a decrease in the amount of false advertising, so it seems more devs are being honest about it now.
Click to expand...


I've noticed that as well, and it used to drive me nuts. Tigisfat has laid a lot of his angers with the dev community down on account of less BS these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top