Gauges for Combat Flight Simulator

[Ivan]

Hello All,

After a couple days of messing around when I could get the time, I am finding that the Microsoft SDK Macros are amazingly in the amount of hidden side effects and code generation.
At this point, I can get a Tachometer working but some very basic stuff still seems to elude me.
I am still making progress but it is slow with lots of trial and error.....

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Just a Little Success

Hello All,

The screenshots show the most recent testing.
After getting pretty well tangled in my edits, I decided to try the same modifications but only one at a time.
The results are quite pleasing thus far.
What isn't visible in the external screenshots that I can see in the simulator is that the two propeller animations are quite different from each other.

(The two small analog gauges at the center of the screen are the new ones.)

The RPM looked as it should during startup.
The values also looked as expected at full throttle.

The fist screenshot shows the results of cutting ignition on Engine 1.
Noted on the lower left corner that both magnetos are off. (I have no controls for Engine 2.)
Engine 1 RPM matches between the
P51D stock Tachometer,
Extra 300 Tachometer,
my two Engine 1 gauges, and
the Beckwith Test Tachometer.

Note that the FS98 Cessna 182 Tachometer at upper right doesn't seem to correspond to anything else.
On the next version of this test panel, I should remove it and the Gauge at upper left that I was using to check token values.

Next step is to add the Engine 3 and Engine 4 Gauges to be useful and complete and to re package a few things that would make it easier for further development. The functioning is there now, but there is still quite a lot of editing needed to make things the way I want them to be.

After that, comes a set of Manifold Pressure Gauges which hopefully will not cause problems.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

this is encouraging...well done.

your comment about "no controls for Engine 2"
got me to thinking about a panel setup
sent to me years ago for the a20.
if you have any interest,
i would be happy to zip it up
and send it to you...gauges included.

 

[Ivan]

Hi Smilo,

Please do email me the panel setup. It is worth looking at to learn even if I want to build my own stuff.
Bottom line is that I still am pretty uneducated as to how to set up a panel.

I finished up Tachometers for Engine 3 and Engine 4 and wanted to test them.
The problem was that I needed a suitable victim for testing, but I wanted to use a CFS Flight Model rather than one from FS98.
I came across the RAAF Avro Lancaster which has a mediocre 3D model and only a FS98 Flight Model, but also has a really excellent Panel arrangement.
I will be looking there also for ideas when I have enough completed in the way of Gauges.

Because I could not find a decent CFS Flight Model for a 4 Engine Aeroplane, I cheated a bit..... (Check Record 311 in the AIR File.)
Did you know that there were 4 Engine B-25 Mitchells???? I didn't either, but here is a screenshot showing the performance to be expected.

FWIW, there actually was a prototype B-25 Mitchell fitted with a pair of Pratt & Whitney R-2800 engine.
It was an amazingly hot ship until it had a structural failure and crashed.

For the 4 Engine Gauges, the startup changes in RPM worked as expected, so I believe this is a workable set of gauges.
Now comes the re-arranging of the code, bitmaps (This bitmap is not really suited for the Mitchell), compile order, etc.
But I think I will go for the Manifold Pressure Gauges to make sure the token variables work as expected.

Note that for the Mitchell and the P-38J Lightning, I actually still need two pointer gauges and I have not figured those out yet.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

the panel has been sent.

of particular interest might be,
gauges 08, 09, 10 and 15
all four are for multi engine.
oddly, they are duplicated in the panel.cfg
which doesn't make sense.
as i said above,
i don't know about their functionality
or historical accuracy.

...and don't forget the throttle quadrant.

post script;
i wouldn't use the panel.cfg
as a panel set up guide.
it's, pretty much, a hack job mess.
as i recall, there was a lot
of experimentation going on with it.

 

[Ivan]

Twin / Dual Needle Tachometer

Once I figured out what I was doing, the Dual Needle Tachometer wasn't all that hard to do.
Most of the issues were related to making a lot of errors because of fatigue.

On other thing I found out is that although the P-38 uses a 3500 RPM Dual Tachometer, the B-25 uses a 4500 RPM version.
It seems like I have yet another gauge face to work on and I HATE doing those.
The Needle also isn't shaped quite like the one I am currently using....

The Manifold Pressure Gauges are probably next.

Without any real experience coding with the SDK Macros, life is getting pretty interesting because I have had to back up a few times to change my coding standards to something that made sense with the environment.
With just one Gauge, it didn't matter, but even with two, it made sense to do things in a consistent fashion.

Still Learning as I go.....

Good Night, All.
- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

post script;
i wouldn't use the panel.cfg
as a panel set up guide.
it's, pretty much, a hack job mess.
as i recall, there was a lot
of experimentation going on with it.

Thanks Smilo,

Package received but not opened yet.
Been kinda busy today with Gauge programming and also with watching my son though not necessarily in that order of priority.

Regarding Hack Jobs, I know so little about Panel setups that all I can do is hack jobs myself.
I don't know my Gauge coding is any better, but I am at least starting to figure out how things work.
We will see what tomorrow brings.

Good Night.
- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Manifold Pressure Multi Gauges

Just finished the first test this evening.
There is still a lot of busy / cleanup work to do, but the basic tests are done.

Next step is the Dual Needle Manifold Pressure Gauge.

As I look at a few things, there are still a LOT of questions I would like to ask the Microsoft Developers who put together the stock gauges.
Not everything I have seen makes sense.... Or perhaps I am not doing things correctly.

One of the things worth knowing is the conversion factor for Manifold Pressure.
With the FS98 SDK, the con version was easy. It was a simple Divide by 1000.
With the FS2000 SDJ, I could not find a conversion value listed anywhere, so I had to try to figure things out via testing.
Note that the Temperature Gauge at the upper right corner isn't really displaying Temperature.
It has been modified to display 10X the Manifold Pressure.
Note that it matches Mr. Becjkwith's Test Gauge or is at least is as close as I can get it.
From this testing, the conversion factor appears to be Divide by 70.74.

If someone knows of a better conversion, please let me know!

Good Night, All.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

when i said, hack job, i was referring
to what i had obviously done in the past.
most likely, i was trying to isolate gauges
or pop up windows for closer inspection.
i frequently use /// in front of a gauge
or a window call to keep it from being viewed.
apparently, i found what i was looking for,
or, got distracted and moved on,
leaving many //// hacks in my wake.
sorry for the mess

 

[Ivan]

Need Some Opinions

Hello All,

I did some poking around this evening with the stock Microsoft Gauge Sets that came with Combat Flight Simulator.
The surprising thing I found was that the actual Bitmaps used within them are surprisingly small.
I don't believe I found a single gauge face that was over about 125 x 125 pixels and many were much much smaller.

The question is this:
I am currently using bitmaps that are around 300 x 300 pixels.
Does such a large bitmap show any improvement over the smaller ones used by Microsoft?

My texturing technique is pretty much non-existent, so I will need to use larger bitmaps, but
does it make sense to use ones that are that much larger? ....and do any of you believe it actually improves the appearance?

There may be other reasons for using larger bitmaps, but does it really improve the appearance?

Thoughts?
- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Need Some Opinions

Hello All,

I did some poking around this evening with the stock Microsoft Gauge Sets that came with Combat Flight Simulator.
The surprising thing I found was that the actual Bitmaps used within them are surprisingly small.
I don't believe I found a single gauge face that was over about 125 x 125 pixels and many were much much smaller.

The question is this:
I am currently using bitmaps that are around 300 x 300 pixels.
Does such a large bitmap show any improvement over the smaller ones used by Microsoft?

My texturing technique is pretty much non-existent, so I will need to use larger bitmaps, but
does it make sense to use ones that are that much larger? ....and do any of you believe it actually improves the appearance?

There may be other reasons for using larger bitmaps, but does it really improve the appearance?
Please note that the SDK sample bitmaps are also around 300 x 300 pixels, so I may just stay with that size.

Thoughts?
- Ivan.

 

[aleatorylamp]

300x300 best and standard size, perhaps?

Hello Ivan,
All the gauge-dial bitmaps I have doctored up, like e.g. the helicopter N2, or the Tank that I used for the Heinkel Jet, were all just over 300x300 pixel bitmaps. Needles, handbrakes and other smaller stuff are of course smaller.

I think it´s the big dials that have the larger 300x300 bitmaps, and maybe it´s the smaller temperature and pressure gauges that have the smaller 125x125 bitmaps.

I´ll try out different things later today with the programme "ResHacker" that I have here, to see what happens if I use a smaller bitmap to substitude a larger 300x300 one. I would expect some interpolation, which could make things more blurred, perhaps.
- I´ll even try and put a 600x600 in, if you like, just to see what happens.

More, later, after doing the shopping...

Update:
---------
OK, I did a few tests with different sized bitmaps.
It appears they are all automatically resized, which will affect the needle sizes if these are not re-sized accordingly as well.

The gauge I played with was the default FS98 Cessna EGT/CHT, that appears to have two dial bitmaps - one of 302x302 pixels for use in full screen view, and one of 152x152 pixels for windowed view.

If you put the big bitmap where the small one should be, then in the windowed mode, the gauge is made smaller to get the correct visual size. It loses clarity, as it loses pixels. The needle section gets smaller, out of proportion for the gauge, so I assume that the needle should also be made bigger.

The opposite also happens: If you put the smaller bitmap where the bigger one should go, the dial is automatically enlarged, and gets pixelized, but the needle will also be enlarged, and is far to big, unless that bitmap has been made smaller first.
If a 600x600 bitmap is used, it is minimized accordingly, and loses pixels and also clarity.

I wonder if these experiments shed any light on the question.
It appears that what is best when editing a gauge bitmap, is to use the same size bitmap as the one that comes with the gauge.

Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[smilo]

captain obvious, here,
which ever size provides best in game clarity
how do they look when reduced to fit in the panel?
it's a waste of your time to make them so accurate,
if they're blurred or pixelated when reduced.

i run my set up a little different.
i don't use Alt+Enter full screen mode.
instead, i use the mouse to pull the edges
to take up the whole screen.
what? why do it that way?
i have a two monitor setup.
by manually enlarging the window,
i'm able to move the mouse out of game
and onto the other monitor.
it's very handy to access other programs
that are running at the same time.

so far, your hard work is paying off.
the gauges look great.
am anxious to see the dual needle units.

 

[Ivan]

Hello Aleatorylamp,

At the moment, I am not swapping out bitmaps in existing gauges; I am coding for new gauges so the rules may be a bit different.
What I am noticing from using GAUBMP2.EXE to look at the bitmaps of the stock multi-gauges is that the actual bitmaps within are amazingly small.
For each of the large dial gauges such as a Tachometer or Air Speed Indicator, there is a small BMP of about 70 x 70 and a "Large" one at about 125 x 125. The small sizes surprised me.
GAUBMP2.EXE finds between 100 and 200 distinct BMPs per multi-gauge, so unless I believe I am seeing everything that is there..... Unless the program is not detecting something. (Pretty obvious statement, huh?)
Their default sizes are about 58 or so while the SDK samples default to 100 but would need to get sized down for a real panel.
.....So, on a gauge that is only perhaps 60 pixels wide on a panel that is 1024 pixels wide, does it make sense to use a much larger bitmap???


Hello Smilo, Captain Obvious,

The problem here is that I am using relatively small screens on my gaming machines and don't really use the instruments much other than to set an "Atmosphere" for suspension of disbelief.
I have never really used the gauges much during the entire time I have played CFS and my eyesight is pretty mediocre at this point, so unless things are big, I sometimes miss the detail.
I know I have seen some really bad gauges, but have not found any really great looking ones so I don't know that I can tell if things are looking as they should or not

Regarding dual pointer gauges, please check the last screenshot I posted.
The tachometer on the top row, second from right has two pointers.... ;-)

This evening I have a mess of re-organizing to do in the code so that the next gauge will be easier.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

it's funny to hear, you don't pay close attention
to the gauges when flying.
admittedly, neither do i, although,
when in hud mode, more so.
of main concern are heading and altitude,
followed by airspeed.
okay, okay, flaps and gear, too
i also like a trim indicator.
of course, things change when on a bomb run.

and yes, i finally saw the dual needle tach.
thanks for pointing it out.
i can barely see the needle difference on this screen.
it would probably be much better
on my 48" sim monitor.

 

[aleatorylamp]

Hello Ivan,
I know you are creating gauges, not just swapping bitmaps, but you do have to define a size. I had understood the question as wondering whether a larger bitmap would be more convenient than a smaller one. As sizes are automatically regulated, any changes involving automatic re-sizing in any direction would be lossy, so I thought standard sizes would give better results.
If I didn´t understand the question correctly, just forget about my answer! No harm done.
Cheers,
Aleatorylamp

 

[Ivan]

Hello Smilo,

Up until the last few years, I really didn't bother with the panel gauges.
The HUD was what I used because I liked the digital readout.
With the current Gauge Project, I have no choice but to observe gauges.
It is pretty hard to program something if you don't know what it is supposed to do.
With the FS98 SDK, there was only Elevator Trim. I need to see if there is other Trim in FS2000 SDK.
Attached is the same panel arrangement but with the Ignition on Engine 1 switched off so the pointers are separated.
Did you know that the B-17 used TWO Dual Tachometers? I thought that was odd looking.
My current bitmaps are not optimal for small versions of the gauges, so it looks like yet more editing.


Hello Aleatorylamp,

I am not sure if your understanding is correct or not.
I am still trying to figure out what looks best myself.
My guess is that at the typical sizes on a panel, 125 x 125 versus 303 x 303 makes no visible difference.
My original question was to see if anyone here had experience and could tell me for sure that one was better than the other.
I am not good at drawing bitmaps, so keeping them large makes things easier because then the computer does the blending.
Seems like I need to go back and edit them again anyway.

- Ivan.

 

[Ivan]

Messerschmitt 109 Tachometers

Hello All,

This is a test of creating multi-engine gauges using bitmaps from the stock Bf 109E multi-gauge.
Please note that the bitmaps are very small but don't seem to appear any worse.
The background is only about 125 x 125 or perhaps smaller.
Small bitmaps DO give a few problems in centering things when one pixel either way is too much but you can't choose a half pixel.

In these screenshots, the stock Bf109E Tachometer is at center of the top row.
My version of the Engine1 Gauge is the same size and immediately below it.
The others are in their expected locations below their corresponding Manifold Pressure Gauges.

Note that there appears to be a slight problem with the stock gauge at around 1500 RPM.
Note that the indicators on the stock gauge do not agree with the digital tachometers.
The second screenshot shows Engine1 with ignition off.

Seems like a pretty successful test.

- Ivan.

 

[smilo]

you've been busy, well done.
i'm anxious to check it out myself.

hey, aren't you sick?
thank you for your efforts,
but, you should be resting.
get well soon.

 

[Ivan]

German Manifold Pressure Gauges

....Based as before on Bitmaps from stock Bf109E multi-gauge.

NOW, it is time for bed.

Good Night All,
- Ivan.