Conspicuous by Their Absence

Hi Smilo,
Thanks for your comment! In the early times of CFS1 hardware technology limited modelling quite a lot, it seems, so what was achieved was remarkable. Nowadays we have to deal with software limitations, and it is also quite remarkable, that CFS1 can still be used!
So we can continue enjoying ourselves!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
too true.
for me, one of the main issues with cfs models
are the excessive bleeds that "most" have,
some, much more than others.
as i see it, alleviating the bleeds is the real challenge
to building a cfs model.

i should qualify my reply. i'm no expert.
i've only built one model
and have been out of the sim for a while now.

i have the utmost respect for those who use af99.
i tried to use it, but, did not find it user friendly.
matter of fact, i think it just didn't like me.
i started playing around with aircraft designer 2000
and found we got along much better.
as much as i tried, i was unable to hit the parts limit
and was amazed at how much detail could be added.

after finishing my first project,
i started another, but, unfortunately,
got distracted by other things and there it sits.
i may pick it up someday, but for now, have no plan.
 
AF99 and AD2000/2k2

Hi Smilo,

I also tried using AD2k2, and was definitely impressed with its potential for quality and detail. I also liked its similitude to AF99, and of course the low level of bleedthrough problems. However, I found it more time-consuming, because of the seemingly endless room for detail, and I never knew when to stop!
Hence, I paradoxically had the sensation it was a little more difficult than AF99, which, given its limitations, requires a more "minimalistic" approach, thanks to which I find I can finish a model within a more satisfying time limit.

Nevertheless, I still have AD2k2 on my "to do" list. At the moment I´m having serious bleedthgough problems putting in the new CFS1 crew and guns on the Austro-Gotha G.IV Grossflugzeug. I have already eliminated the hollowed out gunner-wells, pilot´s cockpit and connecting corridor, and also the transparent windows, but I´m still fighting with bleedthrough, because I want to at least show the hollow parts with dark surfaces, and it´s not working yet. I even managed a reasonably good .air file for the 230 Hp Hiero-6 engine. This could well be a convenient candidate for an AD2k2 model. I wonder... Also, the pusher props grouped in the Tail left/right with ailerons and wing-trailing edges, give bleedthrough problems with the wings.

Here are some bleedthrough-free shots just for some eye-candy.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Gotha-1.jpg
    Gotha-1.jpg
    42.8 KB · Views: 0
  • Gotha-3.jpg
    Gotha-3.jpg
    42.5 KB · Views: 0
CFS Stock Aircraft

Hello Aleatorylamp, Smilo, et al.

I personally have been more guilty than most in my derogatory comments about the stock aircraft that came with Combat Flight Simulator.
First of all, my belief was that CFS was a hasty assembly that probably attracted much more attention than the designers ever had expected.
My guess is that this was just an introductory game, a market test, that was put together very quickly with not much investment.
It probably surprised everyone with its longevity and dedicated audience.

For me personally, it was the first game that combined everything I was looking for in a flight simulator. The graphics was "Good Enough" for a reasonable "suspension of disbelief" which I thought was a bit lacking in Flight Simulator 98.... AND it had the combat element in it!
I believe it compared well with its contemporaries.
Its basic engine apparently is sufficient for fairly detailed graphics with the models we build today AND for reasonable flight performance simulations which I am still experimenting with well over a decade after I encountered the game.

Aleatorylamp,
I can only partially agree with your assessment of the stock aircraft:
The low polygon count and poor shapes were pretty much the state of the art back in Y2K and pretty fitting with the "Minimum" recommended Pentium 166 MHz Processor, but it would have hurt nothing to have more realistically shaped aircraft.

My current Development Computer dates from that time also (1997). It started life as a 150 MHz Cyrix (Pentium 200+ Equivalent) with a blazing fast Voodoo 3 3000 Graphics Board.
This same computer still has no trouble today with the most complicated Aircraft Factory 99 project that either of us has built. It slows a bit when several aircraft are displayed concurrently and chokes pretty badly with some AD2000 projects.

For the most part, the external models of the stock aircraft don't show anything we can't do as well or better using Aircraft Factory 99 and Aircraft Animator.
Even their propellers can be reproduced in a fairly satisfactory fashion. I choose not to use that style of prop but have seen other AF99 aircraft that do.
The parts that we can NOT do with AF99 and AA are the Virtual Cockpits and especially the animated gauges in the virtual cockpit's panels.

Smilo,
I agree that AF99 is not a great tool, but it happens to be one that I have worked with long enough to know how to do things. Sooner or later, I hope to get a project into AD2000 to see how it can be improved.
I can see how bleeds are incredibly distracting, but from a designer's point of view, I would much rather inherit a project with good shapes and bleeds than one that had no bleeds but not a very good shape
I am sure you have seen the AD2000 projects that produce a nice bleed free aeroplane but with shapes that are not so good.

My daughter insists on a smiley for this message
:wiggle:
- Ivan.
 
Tools

Hi Ivan, Hi Smilo,

Yes, it is interesting to see how some software products like CFS1 endure the wear of time more than others, and retain their attractiveness, and their shortcomings are more than balanced out by their virtues. Only a year after FS98, the improvements supplied are quite striking. I remember reading that the developers were testing the market for some of the .air file and scenery improvements they were planning for a later edition, FS2000 and/or 2002, and they decided to put them in for their combat-game FS version.

I suppose in 1999 most people were using Pentium 150 or 166MMX computers with 2 or 4 Mb Graphic cards, so the stock models must have been geared towards this, much to the frustration of the lucky ones with 16 or 32Mb, or even 64Mb accellerator cards. But that´s where the world opened for aircraft developers!

In my case I would say that despite its shortcomings, AF99 is a great programme after one knows these and how to squeeze the maximum out of it. What I like about it is the logical way it works for building a plane. It also allows one to concentrate on the field one chooses - either moving parts in my case or more exact detail like in Ivan´s case.

For my brain geometry, AF99 and even AD2000/2k2, seem to be more practical than other building programmes where I get lost with the endless possibilities, even though the advantages that AD2000/2k2 offers over AF99 also require more building time, that I haven´t got yet.

Must rush off to buy some biological food at the farmer´s market - I can´t eat other stuff because of migraines... Not one body is perfect!

I think I´ll build the Pensuti Triplane to cheer me up while I battle the Gotha Bleedthrough!

Edited update: I finally managed to fix the AF99 texturing problem caused by the punctuation-mark conflict between AF99 and WinXP: Other than the WinXP region/language change option with its consequent keyboard-entry confusion and the fact that it kept reverting back to default, I discovered that puntuation options can be edited within an individual language/region, so now AF99 texturing works perfectly! It´s nice to have one more thing solved.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Tools?

Hello Aleatorylamp,

I find again that I must respectfully disagree with you on the quality of Aircraft Factory 99 as a tool.
I believe it has many limitations that are the result of a very basic fault in design.

To illustrate, I will make the assumption that much of the audience for this post has had at least a minor familiarity with AF99.
The way AF99 assembly sequences work is pretty much a straight line:
The designer first adds a piece to the assembly.
Each additional piece is then either glued to the wad of pieces already in place OR
is added without Glue which then creates a new sub assembly to which pieces may also be glued.
The BIG problem is that with all the subassemblies, There is no way to control the order or direction they will be put together.
The result may be predictable, but is hardly controllable.

If it were possible to specify how these subassemblies fit together, many problems would be solved.

The AF99 assembly sequence may be considered a computer language.
Unfortunately, this language executes in a straight line with no hierarchy.
This is the same as a computer language that has no branches or subroutine calls.
The end result is that although the language can be used for some tasks, there are many things it simply cannot do.

The recent P-38 Lightning is a great example of why this is needed:
The inner wing section needed to be glued to the nacelle in a well determined fashion.
The inner wing section itself needed its own sequence to fit together flaps, fillets and the wing section itself.
In a real language such as SCASM, this is trivial to do.
In AF99, we cannot do it without special exceptional rules (Templates) which unfortunately had a bug I could not work around. In other words, the inner wing needs to be its own subroutine.

Another obvious issue is the Component versus Structure item count.
There is almost nothing that a Structure can do that a Component cannot do better.

Even on your aeroplanes from the Great War, the biggest reason for the high resource usage is because of the need to use many Structures for lack of Components.
From a SCASM coding perspective, a Component is typically no more complicated and in many cases LESS complicated than a Component.
Two serious limitations with wing Structures are the inability to taper them or build in dihedral.

This argument may sound strange coming from me because I have spent a lot of years trying to prove that nice looking aeroplanes CAN be built with AF99.
Consider this to be a case of a man trying to demonstrate that a Hatchet can be used to turn screws, drive nails and spread plaster even if it is not the best tool for the job.

Good Evening.
:banghead:
- Ivan.
 
Last edited:
not so good a tool after all...

Hi Ivan,

Ha ha! I agree with you! I meant something else which I´ll explain further down...

I realize AF99 often gets very frustrating, but why are we using it then? Good question. A potentially good tool was messed up from the start (AF5) with an inconvenient programming style, containing simplifications most probably to speed things for the slow computers of the time. Later, these simplifications were not corrected when AF5 was upgraded to AF99 by the time computers had got a little faster.

Later still, unfortunately, instead of updating and correcting AF99, it was discarded altogether and FSDS1 came out for 55$, I think. That was about the same time as I bought AF99 for 25$. Do I like AF99 because I paid for it? Why do I insist on using it, if AD2k2 is better? I suppose I have got used to it and it´s difficult to tear away from a familiar tool even if it is far from perfect. A voice in my head keeps telling "use AD2k2!!, use AD2k2!!"

When I said AF99 building style was logical, I really only meant the X-Y-S viewing axes and how it is quite straight forward for the builder to place a piece in its position, as opposed to the more complicated way in which more modern 3D programmes extrude shapes from a wire mesh.

I should have clarified what I meant, but I couldn´t edit the post anymore when I realized my comment was ambiguous and could refer to how AF99 puts things together, and that is often NOT logical! Its limited grouping possibilities and incongruent display sequence DON´T logically always "show what´s furthest last".

Moreover, what you say about components and structures is too true! If the AI contained in the programme were to put together structures like we put together components, things would be much better.

Well, now what...? After this, I can either continue using AF99 or switch over to AD2k2 - it´s a free world and we are only limited by our own fears or laziness, or even stubborness I suppose. It´s easier to say..."when in doubt, don´t do anything!!", than "when in doubt, throw it out!", or even "mit dem Kopf durch die Wand" (German for "through the wall with your head").

Have a nice Sunday!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
ad2000

Hi Ivan, Hi Smilo,

I have just noticed that for CFS1, it´s not AD2k2 but AD2000! When I built the Tutorial Rubbish Flying Object with AD2k2 it was so long ago, I´d forgotten that I´d built it for FS2002. I also started the Gotha G.IV with it, but chickened out when things got tedious, and went back to my usual AF99...

Well, out of curiosity, I´ve just downloaded AD2000 and I think I´ll do the RFO tutorial again, just to see how it goes - no harm in learning something new. It looks deceptively similar to AF99 but in reality it´s very different. I must get my old brain oiled again - that will be good exercise against Alzeimer.

Nevertheles, I´m also making good progress with the AF99 Gotha G.IV bleedthrough battle wherever possible, and I will definitely not waste all my work there, so hopefully I will be able to upload it soon!

Edited update: I looked into the AD2000 RFO tutorial to see how things work, and it is rather a lot more than I can chew at the moment, I´m afraid, so it will have to wait until the summer holidays when I have more time on my hands. It looks very powerful though: It it lets you attack the display priorities directly by programming routines and subroutines into the model itself. Quite amazing! Over the years I´d completely forgotten how it was.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Last edited:
Hello Aleatorylamp,

Yes, we knew about the AD2000 versus AD2002. AD2002 was free for a very long time and I tried it out but was unable to build working models for CFS because of the different way that viewing planes were handled.

Smilo for certain knows about the difference because he has already built something (Arado 196) with AD2000 and for other not so obvious reasons.

I downloaded AD2000 a while back but don't remember where it is now.

By the way, I am finding that my free time is pretty limited these days.
Anna Honey just got back from Paris almost two weeks ago and now she is on the big jet out to China....
Sheesh!

- Ivan.
 
i think it would be best for all concerned
if i withold any ad2k comments at this time.
i'm currently in the western montana woods
on an extended road trip vacation.
any comments would be from distant memory.
(a very bad idea)
it's been a long time since i've used the program
and it would not be a good thing
if i went on about an ad2k feature,
only to find out, my memory was playing tricks.
 
Ad2000

Hi Smilo, Hi Ivan,

I´d mistakenly mentioned AD2k2 at first because I hadn´t realized the latter was not for CFS1, so I was correcting myself - I know you know, but I didn´t know... Ha ha!

In the North of England there´s a Geordie story that goes:

When the ship "Anna" sailed into Newcastle on a misty morning on the Tyne,
the port authorities shouted "What´s ye name?",
and the answer was shouted back: "Anna!",
and the port official shouted again "What?"
The answer came shouted back: "Anna!",
so the port official shouted "A na ye na, but I divn´t na!".

Anyway, not to worry, dear fellows, I was not asking for or about anything, only musing about my possibly delving into AD2000. This is however, unfortunately rather debatable, and not only for lack of time - which all of us seem to have! I think I need a somewhat more graphic tool to build aircraft, but no mesh extrusion either... I suppose my limitation here is that I tend to get lost in abstraction.

Smilo´s not the only one with memory problems: I´d completely forgotten about how difficult AD2k2 was after the RFO tutorial. I quite enjoyed it, but when I started on the Gotha, the enjoyment slowly waned, and I was not even using seals (equivalent of AF99 glue templates), because at that moment I was building for FS2002. For CFS1, AD2000 looks even more difficult because it involves the viewing plane handling issue that Ivan has just mentioned.

Anyway, Cheers!
Aleatorylamp
 
And Another Song....

My Analyze over the Ocean,
My Analyze over the Sea,
My Analyze over the Ocean,
Oh Bring Back My Anatomy.

I figure I should always try to address the biggest current limitation to development first.
At the moment the Propeller "thing" is being addressed if I can get off my lazy behind to actually work on it.
This would make it possible to finish up a couple projects.
There is also an aircraft longitudinal trim issue that I ran into with the FW 190A which prevents its re-release.
After that, there is the need for some multi-engine gauges and some gauges for testing.

I tend to procrastinate on those things for which the technique is known but just require the execution.
From the standpoint of accomplishing things, this is bad because I only work on a project long enough to resolve all the difficulties which may not be enough time to actually finish the project when the remaining tasks seem too much lie drudgery....

- Ivan.
 
Ha ha!

Hi Ivan,
I had to laugh out loud! Great!
With aircraft experiments I used to do before virtual aircraft existed I found that as soon as I could see how it would work, and that indeed it would, I´d leave it and never finish it up!
Anyway, musing about other "tools" does no harm, especially when they are more difficult that what one is used to... the enjoyment factor being crucial, without which it would be "toil" and not "hobby".

So, I´m sticking to AF99, which is just as well because I like it. I think that the only other tool that would come into question would be FSDS1, that came out when I bought AF99 in the year 2000, I think, but I know of nobody who has used it and have found nothing on it on the web. Incidentally, I made a mistake about the price though, it cost me the equivalent of 100 bucks back then, and FSDS1 was about 175.

Anyway, I have made tremendous progress with the Gotha G.IV. I thought more in depth about glue-sequencing on the different fuselage sections containing gunners and guns, and your comments to that respect, and managed to solve 90% of the problems. Now I´m ironing out little hairline splits here and there on the wings.

Textures on the fuselage are now also better - I´ve repeated the elevator textures for the top and bottom horizontal surfaces of the fore and aft fuselage, and have discovered that they don´t wash out so much because they spread out beyond the fuselage side-limits - i.e. the pattern isn´t crushed to the narrowness. Nice to discover how to get something better!

OK, then. Have to cook lunch!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 

Attachments

  • Gotha1.jpg
    Gotha1.jpg
    62.8 KB · Views: 1
OTHER Development Tools

Hello No Dice,

Thanks for the reminder, but I have already downloaded it from your site twice.
I think Smilo also sent me a copy before that.
The issue is one of organization and getting a few things finished before jumping into an entirely new thing.
As I commented earlier, a new 3D design tool is not my greatest block right now.
The biggest is probably the inability to program my own gauges because all the AIR file stuff can be worked put with a bit of time and dedication.

Hello Aleatorylamp,
FSDS is what I originally bought as a design tool and it does not work for CFS1.
The Abacus folks were kind enough to send me a copy of AF99 as a replacement.

- Ivan.
 
OTHER Development Tools

Hi Ivan,
Well... I never knew FSDS1 was only for "more advanced" FS´s - then it´s just as well I didn´t buy it!
It was nice though, of the folks at Abacus to send you AF99! I wish they could get hold of the source files so somebody wise could fix the glitches.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
FSDS to AF99

Hello No Dice,

If this requires a working copy of FSDS, then we are out of luck. If not, then I will take a look at it but as I commented earlier, Anna Honey is doing another World Tour at the moment (Shanghai as of last night), so my free time is VERY limited. 5 or 10 minutes to type a response here isn't hard, but downloading, setup and test needs a bit more than that.
I also don't need to be really awake to type a response here, but real testing requires a bit more care.

I am sure there is probably a copy of FSDS floating around my house, but I also know I have not done anything with it since I first got it which I am guessing was around 2002. I would not even know where to begin looking.


Hello Aleatorylamp,

I have never tried to contact Abacus with this proposal. Perhaps they would agree, perhaps not.
If the application source is C code it would be almost ideal.
Keep in mind though that there is still a very VERY major logistical problem:
At the moment, I am not programming gauges that I need not because I do not understand what to do. I even have reworked a very basic gauge.
I am certain I don't really understand the workings yet, but I also have no means of really experimenting further.
That is because I do NOT have a working MS Windows C Compiler that will generate an executable that will run on a Windows 98 machine.
With the way AF99 works, it is absolutely certain to use Windows library functions and my current C compiler for W98 can not handle that situation.
The most it will handle is non graphical ANSI C.

The likelihood of all this lining up in a workable fashion is about the same as me becoming a billionaire by next week.
When it happens, I will do the planning on how to best spend all that money.
At the moment, I believe time s better spent on more practical things.

- Ivan.
 
Last edited:
Abacus Software Co. and AF99

Hello Ivan,

I contacted Abacus in 2010 to ask a few technical questions about AF99 workings, and I got a very amiable response expressing a) surprise that someone was still using this programme, and b) that unfortunately nobody on the staff knew anything whatsoever about AF99 as the person/people responsible for it had long ago left the company and the product was no longer carried, so I did not pursue the issue - i.e. ask them if they knew the programmer´s whereabouts.

In answer to their surprise, I sent them a few screenshots of a couple of my models, to illustrate what could be done with AF99 and AA despite their age. I had just completed a nice-looking, accurately shaped Boeing Dreamliner, so I included a screenshot of that too, to push my point.

So then, it looks like as things are, I (or rather we) will have make do with these tools and their accessories (and their "little" shortcomings), which is not too bad either... and the Hiero-Gotha G.IV is progressing nicely too!

There are a few contradictions in the available Hiero-6 engine specs, which I´ll have to "adjust" (manipulate!) to get the desired engine performance, so I will probably be posting one or two technical questions to see where would be best place to make the necessary alterations.

Incidentally, you mentioned (already twice) that you were programming, or had to programme, some multi-engined gauges. Very interesting, as these are very much lacking! I managed to get some really nice vintage authentic looking Gotha and Staaken gauges done for FS2002 by one Claudio Mussner in Brazil who used Easygauge, but they won´t work for CFS1, unfortunately. There was a very interesting inclinometer and a dual-engine RPM gauge - as well as a dangling pencil...!!

OK, then! Hopefully you will get a bit of free time these days to do some enjoyable and practical things!
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp
 
Hello Aleatorylamp,

No Dice seems to have been convincing enough so that Abacus is making AF99 available on special order.
Perhaps I should send them some screenshots of my recent projects also?
I believe good work can be done within the limitations of AF99.
I have already said it many times, but trying to prove that a nice looking aeroplane could be built entirely within AF99 is why I started building to begin with.
It is similar to a rather attractive girl my son and I keep running into. She has a beautiful fact but with one exception: She has huge hairy mole on her cheek. I forgot who asked her why she doesn't just get it removed.
Her comment was that she had gotten very used to it because she has had it all her life.
My comment to you all is whether she would be the same girl without the mole?
Kind of philosophical and silly, huh?

In the case of AF99. I suppose I would fix it if I could but would probably change things so that it would build a CFS MDL instead of a FS98 MDL.
The question here is how deep would a redesign go? I can see this getting into a very very long project.

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