Carenado Fokker F50 Released

[mgr]

Hiya,

Sorry if we run too much off topic.

This is how i see it, there are different types of developers, some make the same kind of detail with less MB's (this is called optimal design), there are developers which make the same kind of detail with (a lot) more MB's. The latter is called not so optimal design yet "quick" design...

So this is not about how much detail you see, yet how the amount of detail was produced.

Regards,

Marcel

 

[mgr]

On topic :
Current operators: http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/f50fleet.htm
Past operators: http://www.fokker-aircraft.info/f50fleet-previous.htm

Marcel

 

[Bjoern]

I'm really not sure what all the fuss is about. Are we seriously suggesting that the average customer has to concern themselves with drawcalls and model sizes?
Developers these days have been brow-beaten into providing more and more fidelity, detail and authenticity- but wait- not at the expense of framerates please and keep the cost down and keep the texture sizes down and don't use too many polygons whatever you do...

It is all very simple. If you want these levels of detail, it is going to take polygons and PBR style materials and textures to achieve them. If you have a computer that cannot handle that then maybe that product is not for you. You can't ask a developer to dumb down a project to suit lower end computers any more than you can ask that developer to produce all this candy for a small price.

Models are going to get larger and larger, trust me. There are export engines capable of allowing that even for 10 year old sim engines like FSX. PBR can be adapted to suit 32 bit operating systems. That is excellent for compatibility using the same models across different simulators. The price? More memory, better cards. That's the price of progress.

The cars are getting heavier, the engines are more powerful, yet the drivetrain to bring and keep it all in motion stays the same (at least as far as FSX is concerned).


More demo versions of new products would be nice, but unless publishers play along, hard data on the models is the only way to gauge the risk of having to run the refund gauntlet.

Intriguing as this is, what is the correlation between a model file size and what it displays?
Out of curiosity, I looked at the:

PMDG DC 6 and its model files are 16.4 mb and 21.3mb.
The Majestic Dash, 4.52 mb and 6.15 mb
The Just Flight Fokker F 27, 10.8 mb and 14.8 mb.

I don't have any of these models, but from the filesize and what I know about two thirds of them (Dash and F-27), I'd rank them Dash, F-27 and DC-6 in terms of rendering performance.

 

[bazzar]

Most publishers have a minimum and recommended system advice on the sales sheet. Quite simply, if your rig is not up to the specs then leave the product be. If there is a demo, then download that and try before you buy. De-compiling, reverse engineering and just "fiddling" is not the answer. A newer, more powerful simulator engine is.Or upgrade your rig. 1 million polygon models are here and so is PBR.

I think this thread needs to return to its original purpose, a release announcement.

 

[StormILM]

Most publishers have a minimum and recommended system advice on the sales sheet. Quite simply, if your rig is not up to the specs then leave the product be. If there is a demo, then download that and try before you buy. De-compiling, reverse engineering and just "fiddling" is not the answer. A newer, more powerful simulator engine is.Or upgrade your rig. 1 million polygon models are here and so is PBR.

I think this thread needs to return to its original purpose, a release announcement.

With all due respect, systems specs are one thing, model size and the latter factoring into VAS consumption are another and it is very relevant to those who are considering purchasing a model like this one. It is a perfectly logical and ethical side discussion here which to be vert frank isn't hurting anyone or anything. Most of these high end models run fine on my aging system in terms of FPS but in terms of VAS, there are ones like the Carenado Cheyenne and this release which have massive models which are digging into the VAS allotment. Fact is, regardless of how much tweaking one does, you can't fly some models (with their large MDL files and 4096 textures) in between high end scenery. At some point you're going to use up all the available VAS (usually at the end of the flight with the destination scenery finishes eating what's left of the VAS). The boundaries are being pushed to create better products which is perfectly fine but it is a fact such advances are outgrowing FSX's known limitations and from an ethics standpoint, it makes sense to expect these limitations and design the product according for one sim platform or another. Carenado did take care of my issue with the Cheyenne III. They offered me a different model (I could pick any from their hangar) and they admitted to me that the MDL size was very possibly the cause of my issues. Truth is, most of their models are being used in either version of P3D now as well as X-Plane and those platforms handle bigger more detail models a lot better. I ended up going with the Turbo Commander as my model replacement. Unlike the full version of the Cheyenne III, I can get out of the traffic pattern with the Turbo Commander without a VAS OOM but when flying between two high end scenery locations, I start running out of VAS with the Lite model the Turbo Commander. With my PMDG 737NGX and Aerosoft Airbus, no such issues.

Anyhow, we've covered very good ground here over the course of this thread.

 

[Bjoern]

Carenado did take care of my issue with the Cheyenne III. They offered me a different model (I could pick any from their hangar) and they admitted to me that the MDL size was very possibly the cause of my issues.

Fortunately, publishers are quite liberal about refunds or offering alternatives if you just can't make a model perform better.

Most publishers have a minimum and recommended system advice on the sales sheet. Quite simply, if your rig is not up to the specs then leave the product be. If there is a demo, then download that and try before you buy. De-compiling, reverse engineering and just "fiddling" is not the answer. A newer, more powerful simulator engine is.Or upgrade your rig. 1 million polygon models are here and so is PBR.

Hardware requirements mean little to nothing. I could have a 6 GHz i7 with the fastest RAM, video card and SSD out there and still would suffer performance penalties by million poly models, no matter the sim platform. Bottlenecks are everywhere.

 

[jeansy]

Noting there are no US registered F50s, what do people want, a private livery or a Airliner livery, Im not doing both as I dont have the time

for the airliner which one?

@waka172rg JKB told me the Air NZ scheme is on his list

 

[waka172rg]

Looks a lot like a F50 to me though..

But I may do some F27 schemes, not sure yet...

My apologies thanks Jan looks as crisp as your paint lol

Yep Ansett used the F50, I remember hitching a ride on FND from Canberra to Sydney. While I liked the F27 (Mate of mine flew them with East West, said the checklists [106 items] were horrendous to remember and do) the F50 with its tiny windows, baggage in the back, uncomfortable seats and squeezy interior and it was noisy. I did not like it at all, peformance wise it seemed fine but the Fokker style was gone it seemed. They were desperate days for Fokker and they went to the wall not long after Will I get it? No, happy with the JF F27. One day somebody might do the F28 1000 or 4000, it was a gem!

Thanks that's great info

Noting there are no US registered F50s, what do people want, a private livery or a Airliner livery, Im not doing both as I dont have the time

for the airliner which one?

@waka172rg JKB told me the Air NZ scheme is on his list

Mat thanks for that it would be greatly appreciated Jan

 

[jeansy]

3x F50s uploaded> http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/profile/11700-jeansy/content/&type=downloads_file

Mine and JKB's fokker list http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/tags/f50/

 

[kalong]

Hardware requirements mean little to nothing. I could have a 6 GHz i7 with the fastest RAM, video card and SSD out there and still would suffer performance penalties by million poly models, no matter the sim platform. Bottlenecks are everywhere.

I agreed and just to remember, we try to draw the world guys.

 

[jankees]

this will be my next one:

 

[jankees]

and one more in the pipeline

 

[Fireball6]

they look promising and will be added to the fleet ......

Thanks for doeing all the artwork

All the Best

Dirk

 

[jeansy]

Another F50 repaint done

 

[jankees]

and I uploaded Braathens, AirNostrum, and adapted the Alliance paint for our kiwi friends:

since VH-FKO regularly flies in New Zealand

 

[jeansy]

all of JKB's and my F50s can be found via this link> http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/tags/f50/

 

[Fireball6]

For all Owners of the F50 with "Performance-Trouble" - I did the hard way and reworked all the original textures which were necessary for better performance. The Outside-textures, VC-Textures and Cabin-Textures and their relevant bump's and spec's. They are now 2048x2048 pixel-size.

If someone want to give it a try on his system, please send me a pm. The Package contains a simple repaint as well.

All the Best

Dirk

 

[jeansy]