it was noticed what "he said", thank youWhat he said.
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Indiafoxecho TA-4
- Thread starter Aircanuck
- Start date
Dino Cattaneo
Charter Member
@narahYou are perfectly entitled to be sorry 
and completely entitled not to believe to me (I would assume it is a good practice, in this day and age, to doubt of anything) but please allow me to elaborate this a little. True: there are FSX models with both front and backseat cockpits... for example my freeware T-45C and F-14D, which were designed directly for FSX.Believe it or not, FSX compiler has a limitation on the complexity of the visual models on a per-Direct X drawcall basis - so, unless you design the model keeping in mind the constraints of FSX, the model compiler will either refuse to compile the model (and exit with an error) or compile garbage in some cases (with parts of the model invisible or untexturer).If we want to go into technical details, as far as I know there are two ways to circumvent this:- The "Write to File" method (which I never successfully used)- The "multiple materials" method (in which you split the parts of the model that exceed the per-drawingcall limitation into multiple "similar" materials... as result the compiler will assign them to different drawcalls and will work nicely)....this is why you can still use my latest F-35 model on FSX... and partually in the FSX model of the TA-4.So, technically speaking, you could use some of these tricks to bring the full VC to FSX... but then again, the TA-4 cockpit was designed with little concern on polygon count and texture video memory allocation - as these are not problems in P3D v4 (being it a fully 64 application - I am sure you know the story of the 3.3Gb limit of any 32-bit application). As a more general statement, P3D compiler has none of the FSX limitations, and the memory available in the simulation is much larger.Problem is, even if you get the full model to compile (and again...yes, you could with some additional effort), most users may experience performance issues and out-of-memory errors.I hope this clarifies the situation - and again, you are perfectly entitled to be upset when we developers speak of FSX-limitations... but they do exist (and I do not like them either) ;-)
and completely entitled not to believe to me (I would assume it is a good practice, in this day and age, to doubt of anything) but please allow me to elaborate this a little. True: there are FSX models with both front and backseat cockpits... for example my freeware T-45C and F-14D, which were designed directly for FSX.Believe it or not, FSX compiler has a limitation on the complexity of the visual models on a per-Direct X drawcall basis - so, unless you design the model keeping in mind the constraints of FSX, the model compiler will either refuse to compile the model (and exit with an error) or compile garbage in some cases (with parts of the model invisible or untexturer).If we want to go into technical details, as far as I know there are two ways to circumvent this:- The "Write to File" method (which I never successfully used)- The "multiple materials" method (in which you split the parts of the model that exceed the per-drawingcall limitation into multiple "similar" materials... as result the compiler will assign them to different drawcalls and will work nicely)....this is why you can still use my latest F-35 model on FSX... and partually in the FSX model of the TA-4.So, technically speaking, you could use some of these tricks to bring the full VC to FSX... but then again, the TA-4 cockpit was designed with little concern on polygon count and texture video memory allocation - as these are not problems in P3D v4 (being it a fully 64 application - I am sure you know the story of the 3.3Gb limit of any 32-bit application). As a more general statement, P3D compiler has none of the FSX limitations, and the memory available in the simulation is much larger.Problem is, even if you get the full model to compile (and again...yes, you could with some additional effort), most users may experience performance issues and out-of-memory errors.I hope this clarifies the situation - and again, you are perfectly entitled to be upset when we developers speak of FSX-limitations... but they do exist (and I do not like them either) ;-)
Dino Cattaneo
Charter Member
BTW my apologies for the formatting of the post above, and for the one of all of my recent posts... but for some reason this is what I get from the forum post editor (on either Chrome and Edge).
Dino Cattaneo
Charter Member
...and a small note on the "coding". If you code in XML, most of the code works fine in both FSX and P3D. The main difference is that, if you use .dll's to do things like fuel system simulation (as I did) you need to use two different version of the .dll (a 64 bit one for P3Dv4 and above, and a 32 bit one for the rest). The only part of the code which is really "P3D only" is the radar, which uses the P3D radar service (much more realistic than other methods available in FSX). The main reason my the model has to be rebuilt and reworked is the .mdl compiling and memory usage, as explained in the previous posts. Anyway, I am happy to discuss the matter furtherly if needed.... criticism is ALWAYS welcome (and if I am implicitly accused of being lazy...I'll do my best to prove I am not).
...and a small note on the "coding". If you code in XML, most of the code works fine in both FSX and P3D. The main difference is that, if you use .dll's to do things like fuel system simulation (as I did) you need to use two different version of the .dll (a 64 bit one for P3Dv4 and above, and a 32 bit one for the rest). The only part of the code which is really "P3D only" is the radar, which uses the P3D radar service (much more realistic than other methods available in FSX). The main reason my the model has to be rebuilt and reworked is the .mdl compiling and memory usage, as explained in the previous posts. Anyway, I am happy to discuss the matter furtherly if needed.... criticism is ALWAYS welcome (and if I am implicitly accused of being lazy...I'll do my best to prove I am not).
Hi Dino, thank you for your detailed and much appreciated reply. The contributing factors for my comment were, that I like tandem seaters with both positions functional, like the pay ware PC-9/A, T-38, and T-28B and the wish to have a good Skyhawk in FSX (never had one since FS2K). But more the phrase “FSX limitation” which is not addressed to you personally. Most of the so-called limitations, like the proper simulation of Helicopters or a turboprop engine are well solved by some developers. I have considered the A4 as non-complex aircraft in RL, so I was surprised about a possible limitation in FSX. I appreciate your work like the Eurofighter, have no doubt about your skills and I can imagine your efforts. Thank you also for the explanation of the different application. Kind regards, Thomas.
Josh Patterson
SOH-CM-2023
I'm okay with that! I don't fly from the back seat anyway (Except in Captain Sim's TF-104 and that's only because I'm forced to! No panel in front! SO waiting on SSW's TF-104!))
WarHorse47
SOH-CM-2024
Not an issue with me either. The TA-4 is great. Love it.
Only issue I've encountered is the cockpit lighting. For some baffling reason I cannot get the red spot cabin lights to turn on. The scripting looks fine in the [lights] section and the effects file is where it should be. All the other lights work fine. The only red glow I get in the cockpit is from the probe lighting.
Dino Cattaneo
Charter Member
For information, version 1.11.1 was released yesterday night at SimMarket - along with a number of small bug fixes, it introduces the OA-4M model too...
menef
Charter Member
Icing on the cake !!! Thanks a lot
WarHorse47
SOH-CM-2024
Still waiting for this one.
