• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Meteor shower

There are many other considerations that need to be taken into account. Such as budget and timing. Licencing has to be paid for, SDKs studied and then approvals processed. It is not as simple as putting it into a freeware aircraft. Aside from my personal opinions, these other issues decide the final outcome. Besides, this is not strictly our baby anymore. It will be Just Flight's call. You could try lobbying them if you wish of course.

By the way, I meant "better" as in more appropriately.:engel016:
 
YoYo said:
...or like Milviz , two version, tackpacked and without TP. :wavey:
Click to expand...

Developers don't have to offer two versions, since even if an aircraft is made Tacpack capable (which is apparently license and royalty free to developers), the features wont work unless the end user has purchased & installed Tacpack on their system.

It would really be a challenge to use a Tacpacked Meteor to attempt an intercept of a V-1 as it races toward London.
 
Weapons offered by TacPack currently do not include the Hispano Mk.V cannon used by the Meteor. TacPack afaik don't want you to roll your own but use only what they supply with the pack
 
hairyspin said:
Weapons offered by TacPack currently do not include the Hispano Mk.V cannon used by the Meteor. TacPack afaik don't want you to roll your own but use only what they supply with the pack
Click to expand...

From what I'm given to understand this is a "chicken and egg" situation. It seems aircraft developers might stay away from TacPack if the weapons for their era of aircraft aren't modelled, but VRS will only model the weapons if there is the demand for them. IMO if enough users (and therefore in turn developers) create the demand then the development will probably be taken on by VRS. The aircraft developer gets more sales, VRS becomes more widely used (and therefore more sales) and the users gets what they want. Surely everyone is a winner?!

The other caveat is there must be good documentation for the weapons, in order to model their behaviour accurately. Without such VRS are reluctant to take on the development of said weapons. It seems they may be willing to use mesh and textures for weapons developed by others, so long as a) they can then be released as part of the commercial TacPack package; and b) VRS does the modelling of the weapon behavior (as this is coded into TacPack itself, which is their product).

These are just my opinions and observations, nothing official and I'm not the voice of VRS by any means!

I imagine for the most part commercial developers are unwilling to provide mesh and textures which will end up in a package (TacPack) which could also be used by rival's products (e.g. the mesh are then provided to other developers free of charge, such that the static weapons can then appear on the airframe before release). Therefore IMO the community of users and freeware developers is best placed to create mesh and textures for weapons (esp. the more niche and obscure weapons) for VRS to use (This doesn't apply to many guns/cannon however, as mesh and textures are rarely needed for these). This community may also be best placed to have a large number of "eyes peeled" and "ears to the ground" for finding original, legitimate documentation for these weapons, such that VRS can accurately model their behavior. This may help to ease the "chicken and egg" situation.

Getting back to the Meteor, I'd like the choice. If there is no choice of TacPack for the Meteor then my cash will stay in my wallet, simply because I want to have the ability to fire weapons from this aircraft in this sim. That may not bother the developer, publisher or other stakeholders, which is also fine. No worries. It is what it is. Others will happily buy it. The world will keep on turning and the sky won't fall. I'm merely expressing myself.
 
Tacpack, no Tacpack...... don't care. It's flyable, and will no doubt be a beaut.

Can't wait for the Meteor's release!! :jump:
 
I always groan when people come up with extra ideas for a developer to put into their planes because it inevitably delays the release.
 
There is also a case for developers being a little bloody-minded sometimes, although this is best kept to freeware. "This is what has been built, hope you like it."
 
Whatever happened to this one?

It looked pretty complete to me when it was being developed by Aeroplane Heaven, but since it went to JustFlight there has been no update on its release. :mixed-smiley-027:

And please don't use that "S___" word. :biggrin-new:
 
When a project is "complete" as it can be, it still has to be beta tested to iron out any bugs and faults and give the developers chance to upgrade the original ideas. All of this takes some weeks as testers are not available 24/7 and the process takes a long time. It is not unusual for a a product like Meteor to take 6 months or more to reach the market place. There are developments out there in their fourth and fifth years. It does not mean that they will not appear. 1 - 2,000 hours of work time to make these things - remember. :engel016:
 
bazzar said:
When a project is "complete" as it can be, it still has to be beta tested to iron out any bugs and faults and give the developers chance to upgrade the original ideas. All of this takes some weeks as testers are not available 24/7 and the process takes a long time. It is not unusual for a a product like Meteor to take 6 months or more to reach the market place. There are developments out there in their fourth and fifth years. It does not mean that they will not appear. 1 - 2,000 hours of work time to make these things - remember. :engel016:
Click to expand...
Hmm.. Interesting.

Thanks for the explanation, Baz.

In my defense when I see images like the ones you posted, I can only assume it was getting close. And I had assumed you already did the beta testing before it went to JF. How the production system works for addons is still a mystery to me - totally different than the manufacturing processes or software implementation that I'm familiar with.

Cheers. :very_drunk:
 
To drive Baz' point home: Systems modeling and flight dynamics development is one of the more time intensive and ungrateful jobs as there is little to show for it to the common folk. Visuals can easily be presented and drooled over, but systems and flight dynamics have to be experienced to be appreciated. Not to mention the dreaded manuals...
 
"common folk?" Are you referring to us paying customers? Us loyal and true enthusiasts? Well, shucks. I guess that's me... :biggrin-new:

So much for "Let Being Helpful Be More Important Than Being Right!"
 
WarHorse47 said:
"common folk?" Are you referring to us paying customers? Us loyal and true enthusiasts? Well, shucks. I guess that's me... :biggrin-new:

So much for "Let Being Helpful Be More Important Than Being Right!"
Click to expand...

I just wanted to make a case for the less visible aspects of add-on development and make sure that it hit home, nothing more.

AH and JF will (hopefully) very much reward your monetary investment and loyalty with a top notch product, once the beta testers are done finding the tiniest speck on textures, the slightest inefficient bit of code, inadvertent, ever so slight wind noise in the soundset, that 0.0000001% deviation from published performance figures and the hardest to find typo in the manual.
 
We all see what happens with an early release - this is wrong, flys like a pig, how can they release it with all those bugs, frame rate hog, I'll never by another thing from that company, I want my money back, etc. Instead of asking how soon, let them finish. I would love to have this on my flight line but can wait until most, if not all bugs are found and exterminated.

Looking forward to this release when finished. Just my two pence worth.
 
Seems we're all trying to make different points in this discussion.

I recognize the complexity of what goes on behind the scenes, so there is no bashing of the less visible aspects of development. Nor am I asking for any early release of the product or questioning the quality of the product when its released.

My inquiry was with regards to status. Like I said I had the impression it was nearing release, in fact I thought I had read somewhere there was a possible August release. Again, it was my perception and I was just wondering what happened. The core issue to me is communication, not knowing what the proposed timeline is for product release.

Speaking only for myself, when I see great screenshots of a new product I get excited and continually check on the various websites to see if and when its released. When there is no date set, no discussions in the forums, and no release after a couple weeks, then I get curious. I've always felt it never hurts to ask. That's all. No more, no less.
 
Settle petals, it's not far away, the rocket packs and starter trolley arrived at the hangar this week.:engel016:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top