-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
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 politician 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 among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Hoggggggg
- Thread starter fliger747
- Start date
I know we can't have real bullets and damage in FSX, but what about paintball dogfights that leave marks? If possible it would at least be something and it would be alot of fun.
Ok, I'm dreaming again:focus:
I read a story about an FG-1D that was purchased as surplus, I guess back in the 1950's. It must have been sitting for a while, as the story goes, the pilot was flying it home and decided to do a roll. Dirt, a wrench, and a dead rat all banged around the inside of the canopy.:faint:
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
And the both used the same method , more or less with the f16 using a cone and the p47 a highly elongated pyramid , scale up in sub object mode to prevent the spot view getting skewed as well as the selection window and use the materials editor to allow the alpha channel to be seen only from the right angle , a couple of visibility nodes to control it being on and off in power down situations. I can see the use in the case of a HUD but with the reticule in a fighter i find it distracting , fortunately there is an off switch. Not sure its worth the trouble in this case . <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o><o
></o>I wonder who copied who ? ....
<o
></o> <o
></o>I don't know who copied who, but A2A's Bf-109 i own had this feature long before Aerosoft's F-16 release. I don't care really, both WoP2 planes and Aerosoft's F-16 are stunning.
Personally I don't think it's distracting, even more, I can't look at 'just' textured gunsight glass anymore, fortunately there is an off switch
.
Personally I don't think it's distracting, even more, I can't look at 'just' textured gunsight glass anymore, fortunately there is an off switch
.Need a wingman Marine? Death before dishonor!!
Oh yeah!!! Let's paint the hell outta them:karate:
I can see the use in the case of a HUD but with the reticule in a fighter i find it distracting , fortunately there is an off switch. Not sure its worth the trouble in this case . <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
<o
I wonder who copied who ? ....
<o
<o
You find one of the most important instruments in a fighter plane 'distracting'? Funny.
Surely a matter of taste, but for me a realistic gunsight is worth the trouble, more than removable pilot and all those extra objects around the airplane when it's shut down and parked. At least I can turn the gunsight on during a flight and play it with Track IR, even if I can't shoot from those damn guns.
Another thing worth noticing is that reticle should be alpha blended, it is not 100% opaque.
Changing topic a liitle - the propeller looks a bit weird on these shots. The propeller hub rotates with the same speed as blades - so why blades are blurred and the hub is not? In real world there is no camera with wich you could achieve such effect on a picture.
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
I find day glow colors distracting , personal taste i guess and perhaps the Vuzix 3D glasses render those aggressively, i remember having the prop discussion with you boys once before , same prop hub also, guess you guys do them differently, i had thought that there was a competitive element to this business, does that mean we all need to do everything the same way , or are differences between designers still allowed ?
I don't know why you are upset, Chuck. Both Corsair and Hellcat looks stunning, these planes are almost perfect. I love how night lighting in Hellcat is done.
I've pointed hub in Hellcat and gunsight here because these are two details which looks wrong (in my opinion) in overall perfect planes.
I've pointed hub in Hellcat and gunsight here because these are two details which looks wrong (in my opinion) in overall perfect planes.
Definitely not with me, at least I don't remember any discussion on this topic. Please don't take it personal, you'll do as you want.
BTW, I'm writing not as a designer here, but as a possible customer. A little complaints here and there are allowed, aren't they?
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
Hey Guys , whose upset ? i was enjoying the privilege of expressing an opinion , some technical data and soliciting some feedback at the same time,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
also trying to make a point , that point is that we should embrace the differences between models , not strive to all create the same profile.<o></o>
Good ideas are worth following , we all try to do the best work possible within the constraints we operate under and with the skills at our disposition<o></o>
but absolute repetition in every instance of every part is going to make this work begin to all look the same and that’s a shame, it’s also going to raise<o></o>
polycount’s and draw calls and make freeware production so time consuming as to become prohibitive if the standard expected is raised too high.
Within the payware community there is already a tendency to emulate the latest trend , to some degree the market demands it and those who <o></o>
build models are then tasked to include the latest craze , the gigantic textures , those cool features into the releases and we call it progress , <o></o>
but i really do think that we all need to be a leader in our own way and seek our own initiatives to the extent possible.
For what its worth i fully agree that when seen from the side that style of prop hub looks " simulated " , but when it comes to framerates the fewer poly's
being moved frame to frame the faster the animation is calculated by the computer , as mentioned last time the subject was raised i have used
solid propellers in the SR22 G2/G3 turbo models for still and slow rotation but found the animations for full speed props much smoother using a disk.
fficeffice" /><o></o>also trying to make a point , that point is that we should embrace the differences between models , not strive to all create the same profile.<o
></o>Good ideas are worth following , we all try to do the best work possible within the constraints we operate under and with the skills at our disposition<o
></o>but absolute repetition in every instance of every part is going to make this work begin to all look the same and that’s a shame, it’s also going to raise<o
></o>polycount’s and draw calls and make freeware production so time consuming as to become prohibitive if the standard expected is raised too high.
Within the payware community there is already a tendency to emulate the latest trend , to some degree the market demands it and those who <o
></o>build models are then tasked to include the latest craze , the gigantic textures , those cool features into the releases and we call it progress , <o
></o>but i really do think that we all need to be a leader in our own way and seek our own initiatives to the extent possible.
For what its worth i fully agree that when seen from the side that style of prop hub looks " simulated " , but when it comes to framerates the fewer poly's
being moved frame to frame the faster the animation is calculated by the computer , as mentioned last time the subject was raised i have used
solid propellers in the SR22 G2/G3 turbo models for still and slow rotation but found the animations for full speed props much smoother using a disk.
The production of a sim object is a story of many compromises. Features vrs. file size and frame rates is only one of the targets that must be properly located. There has been a tendency for this thread to turn into a "My dog is better than your dog" distraction. The pre release forum discussions over at Ubi for their Pacific Fighters was marked by some rather anoying "Fanboys". Hopefully we can avoid this here.
Each submission has it's own flavor. Not my position as just the guy who makes it fly to make the executive decisions, but my sense of this evolving and building projects is that it will be a pilots plane, one you fly and revel in those skills. It IS (Clintonian emphasis) a fighter and begs to be flown as a fighter, not micro-managed. the Navy (and MARINE) philosophy is KISS. Were here to destroy things.....
Progress is made in a curve derived as a best fit from a rather scattered set of points.
I think you will enjoy flying this bird, especially bringing it aboard ship. I fly with a bunch of Navy pilots and have a pretty good idea of what their skill level is now, and also back then. I believe we have come pretty close to the mark with this one. Not impossible or even that difficult, just unforgiving..... Any day of the week I can go see R2800's flying. Good friends and collegues have thousands of hours driving these around. It's still a pretty reliable powerplant, even if over 60 years of age! Again the Navy's philosophy, even for a single engine fighter operated over water was KISS, just don't do anything stupid and she'll bring you home!
Cheers: Tom
Each submission has it's own flavor. Not my position as just the guy who makes it fly to make the executive decisions, but my sense of this evolving and building projects is that it will be a pilots plane, one you fly and revel in those skills. It IS (Clintonian emphasis) a fighter and begs to be flown as a fighter, not micro-managed. the Navy (and MARINE) philosophy is KISS. Were here to destroy things.....
Progress is made in a curve derived as a best fit from a rather scattered set of points.
I think you will enjoy flying this bird, especially bringing it aboard ship. I fly with a bunch of Navy pilots and have a pretty good idea of what their skill level is now, and also back then. I believe we have come pretty close to the mark with this one. Not impossible or even that difficult, just unforgiving..... Any day of the week I can go see R2800's flying. Good friends and collegues have thousands of hours driving these around. It's still a pretty reliable powerplant, even if over 60 years of age! Again the Navy's philosophy, even for a single engine fighter operated over water was KISS, just don't do anything stupid and she'll bring you home!
Cheers: Tom