Legacy Aircraft

[GO_Navy]

I got the Buchon working today. As others have noted, it converted fine but most of the gauges were blank. The problem was the glass texture over the gauges, which was not rendering transparent.

I never had used ModelConverterX before, but yesterday I downloaded it and taught myself enough about it to start working with materials.

I played around with the materials and their textures trying to get them to be transparent, but I couldn't figure it out, so I just ended up deleting them. Not the most elegant solution, but it works. Now there is no glass over my instruments but they look and work fine. The plane flies nice. I am using the legacy flight model, and it seems even a bit less squirrelly than it is in P3D. As in P3D, the safest method of takeoff is to hold the stick back and fly off in the 3-point attitude. I am still tweaking the handling and performance.

If you want to do what I did, here's how.

- Get ModelConverterX and make sure it knows where to find the MDL writer exe in your FSX SDK.
- Convert the models using Legacy Importer in the usual way. Do the following operations on your new FS2020 folders, NOT your original FSX/P3D install!
- Load each model. If you bought the full Buchon package, there are two different versions (original panel and modern with GPS), and there are three different model folders in the original one and two more in the modern, and each has an internal and an external model. That's 10 models to edit in all.
- When the model is loaded, click on the Material Editor button. For me that's the seventh button on the upper of the two toolbars.
- In the list that comes up, highlight glass_t, p40_reflections and sc_reflections_t, then click the Remove button at the top of that window. The models in the original cockpit version will only have the glass_t and not the other two.
- Export as an FSX MDL with the same filename, replacing the original file.

You're done, the plane should work now.

August

Thanks for this August. I'll give it a go this weekend. Great shots of the Corsair.

 

[GO_Navy]

Has anyone figured out how to assign/change aircraft class within MSFS. Currently my WWII aircraft fall under "propeller" or "other" class. For instance, If I wanted to create a new category called vintage, where would I go to do that? aircraft.cfg?

 

[SeeRyFly]

Brother, I really appreciate your tip on the new installer. Got this beauty flying thanks to you.

https://i.imgur.com/vMMxtgg.jpg

Happy to help! My friends and I have had some fun with that one. This is a flyover of Vimy Ridge we did for Remembrance Day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4h2JQcD8KY

 

[GO_Navy]

Happy to help! My friends and I have had some fun with that one. This is a flyover of Vimy Ridge we did for Remembrance Day.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4h2JQcD8KY

Man, beautiful form flying there. I would like to find a group to fly with too.

 

[FlyingsCool]

Has anyone figured out how to assign/change aircraft class within MSFS. Currently my WWII aircraft fall under "propeller" or "other" class. For instance, If I wanted to create a new category called vintage, where would I go to do that? aircraft.cfg?

That's where I used to do it, so I'd start there.

ui_type I believe it's called.

 

[Tom Clayton]

ui_type I believe it's called.

I think that's where the model (C172, etc.) is shown. I would try the "ui_typerole" line and see if that works.

 

[SeeRyFly]

Man, beautiful form flying there. I would like to find a group to fly with too.

Thanks! You can certainly join in with the group (FlyFS) sometime if you want; it's a casual, loose group focused on formation and airshow-type flying. There's a Facebook group that is the main hub for it. Unfortunately some of my friends have gotten so frustrated with the shortcomings of MSFS that things have gotten a bit quiet lately. We do have a Super Bowl flyover event each year which will hopefully reignite some interest in the next few weeks.

More on topic: I've put a ton of time into importing a number of planes from my FSX collection, mostly warbirds and military jets. Many of us are also aviation photographers so we have great fun taking screenshots with the new graphics! I'll post more as we fly.

 

[GO_Navy]

I think that's where the model (C172, etc.) is shown. I would try the "ui_typerole" line and see if that works.

Thanks...Tried adding that line/modifying the line but no change.

I am referring to this category up top. I will keep digging and report back.

 

[GO_Navy]

Thanks! You can certainly join in with the group (FlyFS) sometime if you want; it's a casual, loose group focused on formation and airshow-type flying. There's a Facebook group that is the main hub for it. Unfortunately some of my friends have gotten so frustrated with the shortcomings of MSFS that things have gotten a bit quiet lately. We do have a Super Bowl flyover event each year which will hopefully reignite some interest in the next few weeks.

More on topic: I've put a ton of time into importing a number of planes from my FSX collection, mostly warbirds and military jets. Many of us are also aviation photographers so we have great fun taking screenshots with the new graphics! I'll post more as we fly.

Man, those are some nice shots. Is that an Iris A-10 I see. I tried importing that but the pilot is missing and the engine doesn't start.

Man you should've been with us on our last deployment. Tons of opportunities to take some great aviation shots.

 

[FlyingsCool]

I think that's where the model (C172, etc.) is shown. I would try the "ui_typerole" line and see if that works.

Sorry, you're right, I should have taken the time to open a file

 

[GO_Navy]

So my Iris A-10 decides to show up without a pilot ... all the time. Plus there is that missing texture problem on the panel.

 

[SeeRyFly]

So my Iris A-10 decides to show up without a pilot ... all the time. Plus there is that missing texture problem on the panel.

I doubt you'll get anywhere with the panel texture, and it probably isn't worth it with gauges not working.

The pilot visibility is usually controlled by a weight condition or another local variable. Either way you could fix it by removing the visibility condition for the pilot parts in MCX

 

[Navy Chief]

There has been a fair amount of activity on this thread, but has the great freeware Mallard been successfully imported? I attempted to do so, but there are no gauges, plus other animation problems. NC

 

[Navy Chief]

I have not found any reference to this particular problem I have with VR compatibility of imported "Legacy" aircraft. As in VR doesn't work with any of them (that I have, at any rate). Every time I select VR for those aircraft, it causes MSFS to crash to desktop. It does NOT do this with the stock aircraft, or for payware types like Dino's great creations. Any help? Thanks, NC

 

[SeeRyFly]

I have not found any reference to this particular problem I have with VR compatibility of imported "Legacy" aircraft. As in VR doesn't work with any of them (that I have, at any rate). Every time I select VR for those aircraft, it causes MSFS to crash to desktop. It does NOT do this with the stock aircraft, or for payware types like Dino's great creations. Any help? Thanks, NC

It's up to Asobo to fix, but they probably won't bother. The critical part is having a .gtlf model for the interior instead of a .mdl. Someone was able to work around this by having the exterior model be a .mdl with all of the cockpit details and then using an empty .gltf as the interior model, but that really isn't practical for most aircraft.

The author of ModelConverterX has written code that would enable a .mdl to .gltf conversion, but he will not release it because he feels it would enable piracy more than be a legitimate tool (which I strongly disagree with). Unless someone comes up with alternative code to handle the conversion, there isn't much hope.

 

[Navy Chief]

It's up to Asobo to fix, but they probably won't bother. The critical part is having a .gtlf model for the interior instead of a .mdl. Someone was able to work around this by having the exterior model be a .mdl with all of the cockpit details and then using an empty .gltf as the interior model, but that really isn't practical for most aircraft.

The author of ModelConverterX has written code that would enable a .mdl to .gltf conversion, but he will not release it because he feels it would enable piracy more than be a legitimate tool (which I strongly disagree with). Unless someone comes up with alternative code to handle the conversion, there isn't much hope.

Maybe if enough people complain about it to Asobo, they might fix it. Hope so. It would be SO much cooler to be able to use VR with the Navy jets I am importing. NC

 

[FlyingsCool]

It won't be too long before we're flooded with native aircraft and you won't need to convert any more.

And, yeah, as someone pointed out, Milton never got around to 3D gauges, so, none of his planes will convert cleanly.

 

[Cirrus N210MS]

lets fly some time

https://discord.gg/s9NMkUy

Thanks! You can certainly join in with the group (FlyFS) sometime if you want; it's a casual, loose group focused on formation and airshow-type flying. There's a Facebook group that is the main hub for it. Unfortunately some of my friends have gotten so frustrated with the shortcomings of MSFS that things have gotten a bit quiet lately. We do have a Super Bowl flyover event each year which will hopefully reignite some interest in the next few weeks.

More on topic: I've put a ton of time into importing a number of planes from my FSX collection, mostly warbirds and military jets. Many of us are also aviation photographers so we have great fun taking screenshots with the new graphics! I'll post more as we fly.

 

[K5083]

Weight and Balance Limits

If you have been converting planes with Legacy Importer, you may have noticed that your CG limits graph on the right-hand side of the w&b screen is all out of whack. The calculation of the CG as a % of mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) may be fine, but the fore and aft limits are set to crazy values so the graph is useless for knowing where the limits are.  Here is the reason, and a fix.

In the aircraft.cfg of FSX models there are two optional lines in the [WEIGHT AND BALANCE] section, setting cg_forward_limit and cg_aft_limit. The values are expressed as a proportion of MAC, so cg_forward_limit = 0.15 means the forward CG limit is at 15% of MAC. For some reason, a lot of designers set these at excessively generous values of cg_forward_limit = 0.0 and cg_aft_limit = 1.0, so that the CG was allowed to be anywhere within the mean chord of the wing. These values don't effect aircraft performance at all, but such values made them pretty useless for setting your CG within limits.

In Prepar3d, the units of these values changed, and were now expressed in feet fore and aft of the airplane's arbitrary reference point (0,0,0), which the designer could place anywhere he wanted. It tended to be near the optimal CG or near the pilot's head, but didn't have to be. So a typical set of values might be cg_forward_limit = 2.5 and cg_aft_limit = -3.5. The forward limit was always a higher number than the aft limit since positive is toward the front. If you imported a plane that was set up for Prepar3d, this completely screws up MSFS because it wants the CG to be higher than the forward limit and lower than the aft limit, which is impossible. There is no CG position that will be within these limits, and the limit lines will be at absurd places on your cg limit graph. Since I convert most of my planes from P3D rather than FSX, I get this a lot.

MSFS, which has these lines in the flight_model.cfg file, reverts to the FSX proportion-of-MAC values for the parameters. So if you have converted an FSX model that had proper values for these statements, you might be fine. Otherwise, you should add statements with realistic values to your aircraft.cfg after you do your MSFS conversion. You may be able to look up what the values are. For example, I learned from the A2A Simulations forum that the limits for the P-51D are 21% to 31.5%, so your lines would be:

cg_forward_limit = 0.21
cg_aft_limit = - 0.315

That's an unusually tight range. If you can't find published figures for the aircraft in question, you could start with something like:

cg_forward_limit = 0.15
cg_aft_limit = 0.35

That will at least give you plausible limits around the sweet spot for most conventional aircraft, which is 25% MAC. And your CG limits graph will at least look sensible, and might even be of some use.

In fact, this can expose some real problems in the flight models of the planes we import. I found some payware airplanes where either the wing location (given by wing_apex_pos_lon in the [AIRPLANE GEOMETRY] section or the empty_weight_cg_position were located in physically impossible places and/or were in such a relationship that it was impossible to balance the plane with any loadout. I hesitate to "fix" these values because they affect the flight model and most likely the developer compensated for them through some artificial parameter when tuning the flight model that would now throw things off if the basic physics were corrected. However, I think all of these values would be overridden if the designer entered their equivalents directly in the .air file, in which case, changing them in aircraft.cfg would make little difference. But I have been cautiously adjusting some of the more egregiously wrong ones to see what effect they have.

Anyway, hope this helps some of you to at least get your weight and balance screens looking a little nicer.

August

 

[GO_Navy]

If you have been converting planes with Legacy Importer, you may have noticed that your CG limits graph on the right-hand side of the w&b screen is all out of whack. The calculation of the CG as a % of mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) may be fine, but the fore and aft limits are set to crazy values so the graph is useless for knowing where the limits are.  Here is the reason, and a fix.

In the aircraft.cfg of FSX models there are two optional lines in the [WEIGHT AND BALANCE] section, setting cg_forward_limit and cg_aft_limit. The values are expressed as a proportion of MAC, so cg_forward_limit = 0.15 means the forward CG limit is at 15% of MAC. For some reason, a lot of designers set these at excessively generous values of cg_forward_limit = 0.0 and cg_aft_limit = 1.0, so that the CG was allowed to be anywhere within the mean chord of the wing. These values don't effect aircraft performance at all, but such values made them pretty useless for setting your CG within limits.

In Prepar3d, the units of these values changed, and were now expressed in feet fore and aft of the airplane's arbitrary reference point (0,0,0), which the designer could place anywhere he wanted. It tended to be near the optimal CG or near the pilot's head, but didn't have to be. So a typical set of values might be cg_forward_limit = 2.5 and cg_aft_limit = -3.5. The forward limit was always a higher number than the aft limit since positive is toward the front. If you imported a plane that was set up for Prepar3d, this completely screws up MSFS because it wants the CG to be higher than the forward limit and lower than the aft limit, which is impossible. There is no CG position that will be within these limits, and the limit lines will be at absurd places on your cg limit graph. Since I convert most of my planes from P3D rather than FSX, I get this a lot.

MSFS, which has these lines in the flight_model.cfg file, reverts to the FSX proportion-of-MAC values for the parameters. So if you have converted an FSX model that had proper values for these statements, you might be fine. Otherwise, you should add statements with realistic values to your aircraft.cfg after you do your MSFS conversion. You may be able to look up what the values are. For example, I learned from the A2A Simulations forum that the limits for the P-51D are 21% to 31.5%, so your lines would be:

cg_forward_limit = 0.21
cg_aft_limit = - 0.315

That's an unusually tight range. If you can't find published figures for the aircraft in question, you could start with something like:

cg_forward_limit = 0.15
cg_aft_limit = 0.35

That will at least give you plausible limits around the sweet spot for most conventional aircraft, which is 25% MAC. And your CG limits graph will at least look sensible, and might even be of some use.

In fact, this can expose some real problems in the flight models of the planes we import. I found some payware airplanes where either the wing location (given by wing_apex_pos_lon in the [AIRPLANE GEOMETRY] section or the empty_weight_cg_position were located in physically impossible places and/or were in such a relationship that it was impossible to balance the plane with any loadout. I hesitate to "fix" these values because they affect the flight model and most likely the developer compensated for them through some artificial parameter when tuning the flight model that would now throw things off if the basic physics were corrected. However, I think all of these values would be overridden if the designer entered their equivalents directly in the .air file, in which case, changing them in aircraft.cfg would make little difference. But I have been cautiously adjusting some of the more egregiously wrong ones to see what effect they have.

Anyway, hope this helps some of you to at least get your weight and balance screens looking a little nicer.

August

Thank you very much for the great suggestions, August.