MORE bad news...this time from ALphasim...

[txnetcop]

Perhaps this will help also in understand the differences:

http://www.fsinsider.com/developers/Pages/FSXEmissiveTextures.aspx
Ted

 

[stiz]

When you build your plane in the design program of your choice you must run it thru a "compiler" program that takes the model you have made and turns it into a 'mdl' file used by the sim. The problem is that in FS9 you are limited by the compiler in terms of model complexity, which is typically determined by how many polygons a model uses. The "compiler" for FSX does not really have a limit like that, which allows a modeler to create a much more detailed model, especially in the vc.

Just to expand on this a little, the FS9 compiler has a poly limit of 65,000, with up to 67,000 possible at an extreme push, FSX on the other hand doesnt have this limit at all, you could create a plane with 1 million polys and it would still work and wouldnt affect frame rates at all! (with fsx its the textures which do that) now if you had to get said plane into FS9 as well, you'd have to trim off half of the polys, and still make it look the same otherwise you'd get complaints that the 2 versions are different! :isadizzy:

 

[Felixthreeone]

Just to expand on this a little, the FS9 compiler has a poly limit of 65,000, with up to 67,000 possible at an extreme push, FSX on the other hand doesnt have this limit at all, you could create a plane with 1 million polys and it would still work and wouldnt affect frame rates at all! (with fsx its the textures which do that) now if you had to get said plane into FS9 as well, you'd have to trim off half of the polys, and still make it look the same otherwise you'd get complaints that the 2 versions are different! :isadizzy:

The more educated simmers most probably would not complain, as they already understand that these differences exist, and are willing to live with the compromises accompanying these design challenges. You are correct, but they have done it before...

 

[MudMarine]

Time to shoot the old mule in the head and buy a newer version mule!!:d

 

[michael davies]

Just to expand on this a little, the FS9 compiler has a poly limit of 65,000, with up to 67,000 possible at an extreme push, FSX on the other hand doesn't have this limit at all, you could create a plane with 1 million polys and it would still work and wouldn't affect frame rates at all! (with fsx its the textures which do that) now if you had to get said plane into FS9 as well, you'd have to trim off half of the polys, and still make it look the same otherwise you'd get complaints that the 2 versions are different! :isadizzy:

To clarify a little 67,ooo is possible but I've pushed through 72,000 before moving to the limitless FSx compiler, having said that, its hard to wipe out ten years of limited poly budget compilers, so I still always watch that poly count rise with trepidation LOL.

Best

Michael

 

[Sundog]

It should also be noted that FSX has more systems variables we can program than FS9. In FS9, there were certain engine parameters we had to make offer the appearance of working, that would affect the aircrafts performance, but we couldn't model them properly due to limits in FS9. Many of the powerplant variables and those of other systems have been added in FSX, allowing us to more accurately model the aircraft's actual systems. If we were to then try and remodel those systems to work in FS9, we would be re-working them in much the same sense you would have to rework the 3D model to work in FS9. The only way to really get a model to work in both is to model it for FS9 and then add features for FSX, but you would end up with a much lower "detail quality' aircraft than if you had just designed it for FSX from the beginning.

Having said that, I have FSX but can't run it due to my limited PC. However, I know one day I will have a rig capable of running it, so I have a list of both freeware and payware FSX add-ons to get as soon as I'm ready with a new rig.:d

 

[Francois]

....that dilemma has GOT to suck for developers!

Kent

It did and DOES tremendously so, indeed. We all love to support our existing customer base and build new products for them.

The trouble is that the customer base all of a sudden was split in TWO..... and so is development for all intents and purposes. As was mentioned before, it requires two FULLY separate development routes to build models for either system.

So the dilemma was that doing BOTH basically development time was tripled (because of two systems of which one got much more complex AND needed new skills!), and consumer base remained the same (adding the FS9 and FSX customers up).

Sticking with FS9 meant losing about half of the market AND lagging behind in future for not building the required skills for FSX and beyond.

Going FSX meant double the development time (complexity) and half the market as before, missing the FS9 crowd.

In the end we all had to make a choice... there is hardly a commercially viable way of pleasing everybody.

 

[Richard Westcott]

I was not going to convert to FSX as I would loose too many add-ons to make it worth while, but this news has me thinking again about changing......I hate making tough decisions:isadizzy:

I just hope when FSII is released (whenever that may be) I hope it is backward compatable with FSX add-ons.

 

[Warhawk1130]

And, to top Mike just a bit....our Pendercrafts Goddard edition Jupiter-2 tops in at almost 84,000 polys....yes, its FS9

 

[Lionheart]

And, to top Mike just a bit....our Pendercrafts Goddard edition Jupiter-2 tops in at almost 84,000 polys....yes, its FS9

Man... I wish there was a way to outwardly boost/maximise/spike/push the limit for Polygons in FS9 Compilers..... arrghhh!!!

Originally Posted by ColoKent
....that dilemma has GOT to suck for developers!

Kent

It really does... Like you cant believe... The Epic LT has a female passenger in FSX, but not in FS9 as she brought the model over the limit. I would love to make the same models (mesh structures) that are in my FSX birds for FS9 also. This means, having closer Vertices then the limit of 4MM (FS9 limitation also). This Vertice proximity limit can be gone around by making the model bigger, then resizing it in the ASM file later, a neat trick Wozza discovered. But the Polygon limit is still there...

Once you have a nice model you that made for FS9, you simply bring it into the 'FSX' version of Gmax and create the FSX materials, then attach all the new animations and effects, key frame everthing, and Voila, you have a FSX model. (The part animation/effect code though for the XML compiler list is challenging in FSX though, getting through all of that is time consuming).

So... The issue is, making a mesh that can run in both sims with minimal work, which comes down to the compiler. (I have been asking for a new compiler for FS9 for years now. I still think we need one, one that could squeeze the vertices closer together, make models quicker, and with a higher number of polygons... There must be a way).


I would say that the hardest hit on learning Gmax FSX Edition was Materials and gauge code. I was watching people have issues learning plexi for 2 weeks.... 2 Weeks.... (two weeeeeeeeeeeeeeks). And the gauge code! I cant talk about it.. It makes my gray eyebrows writhe in pain...... arrghh..

But...! When its all working, its a beauty! :d



Bill

 

[Ferry_vO]

Once you have a nice model you that made for FS9, you simply bring it into the 'FSX' version of Gmax and create the FSX materials, then attach all the new animations and effects, key frame everthing, and Voila, you have a FSX model. (The part animation/effect code though for the XML compiler list is challenging in FSX though, getting through all of that is time consuming).

You make it sound so simple! :d

To make a full FsX model of the DC-2 Rob will need to redo no less than 115 animations... And all new textures with bumpmaps..

:isadizzy:

I can understand why developers that try to make a living developing Fs models are slowly turning towards one sim to develop for; the extra amount of hours required to make another model cannot be covered with additional sales. The Fs market is not as big as people seem to think it is.

 

[fsafranek]

Up to about a week ago I was hard code FS9 myself. I already had a good CPU (3GHz) and had increased the RAM from 1.5G to 3G earlier which resulted in quicker loading times of graphics in FSX but flight was still a slideshow. So I replaced the video card last week from an old Radeon 9800 Pro with 128MB to an inexpensive (and I know it will never run DirectX-10) Nvidea GeForce 7600 with 512MB. Wow! Similar to KentColo I'm now running in the 20-30FPS range and Flightsim is now fun again. It's kind of like those commercials late at night, "no one would believe that a simple pill could do so much to increase ... ". Simply replacing the video card to take the extra work load off the CPU made an incredible difference.

FengZ and several others hit it spot on as far as commercial software development goes. Onward and upward always. Kindof like combat on the ground or in the sky. You stand still or fly straight and level, you die.

I still have FS9 on my PC. I do all my painting in FS9 because the sim launches SO MUCH QUICKER than FSX . Also, if it looks good in FS9 it's going to look kick ass in FSX.

In the case of the T-34 I had a basic shell with a simplified cockpit that I used for making the paintkit and painting. But after a couple weeks of development and beta builds it became quite clear that the level of detail and functionality going into the cockpit (stuff FS9 just can't do for reasons described above) would not allow it to be adapted to FS9 without starting all over. A freeware guy can entertain that notion and I have been really grateful in the past when they do. It is a reluctant decision to make sometimes but in this case it had to be.
:ernae:

 

[Felixthreeone]

In the case of the T-34 I had a basic shell with a simplified cockpit that I used for making the paintkit and painting. But after a couple weeks of development and beta builds it became quite clear that the level of detail and functionality going into the cockpit (stuff FS9 just can't do for reasons described above) would not allow it to be adapted to FS9 without starting all over. A freeware guy can entertain that notion and I have been really grateful in the past when they do. It is a reluctant decision to make sometimes but in this case it had to be.

Gotcha. That was really the most basic information I think I needed to appease me; It's just a shame it had to be with the T-34C Turbo Mentor, as I have a bit of special history with the type and was REALLY looking forward to someone doing a detailed rendition. I guess I must shelve my T-34C and E-2C expectations for another couple of years. Thanks for the info, though! Much appreciated.