Revisiting an old PAD!

[falcon409]

This is an "oldie but goodie" by PAD standards, but I'm flying the current "Rocky Mountain" hops on the SOH server and wanted a different livery from the defaults. Katmai Air is actually an Alaskan based service and the Otter they fly is actually a Float. . . .but what the heck, lol. . .I liked the colors (may do a float version later).:salute:

 

[Railrunner130]

I'm disappointed that the Turbo Beaver and Otters that PAD produced never became popular. There is a ton of untapped repainting and flying potential there.

 

[falcon409]

I have to agree with ya there. PAD does an excellent job of producing aircraft that most everyone would enjoy flying and they're very easy to paint as well. I know on the FSX side I hear a lot of detractors complain that they aren't "native" FSX and so they're not interested and that's fine I guess. I personally find it a little silly, but to each his own. On the other hand, the FS9 crowd (which I am one also) enjoys the heck out of them.

This post shows how little interest there is at time. . .over 100 views and you're the only one to comment. . .seems very typical in here. Thanks for the post.

 

[italoc]

Excuse my ignorance but what's the wording in extended form of PAD ????


Italo

 

[Sieggie]

Premier Aircraft Design

http://www.premaircraft.com/index.html

 

[italoc]

Premier Aircraft Design

http://www.premaircraft.com/index.html

Thanks, Sieggie

Italo

 

[Daube]

I have to agree with ya there. PAD does an excellent job of producing aircraft that most everyone would enjoy flying and they're very easy to paint as well. I know on the FSX side I hear a lot of detractors complain that they aren't "native" FSX and so they're not interested and that's fine I guess. I personally find it a little silly, but to each his own. On the other hand, the FS9 crowd (which I am one also) enjoys the heck out of them.

This post shows how little interest there is at time. . .over 100 views and you're the only one to comment. . .seems very typical in here. Thanks for the post.

Most of the critics are not about the fact that those planes are not FSX natives.
The critics are more about the very low level of details of some planes, especially concerning the vitual cockpits. This is why the PAD planes are usually not so popular in the FSX world.

For example, Milton's planes are not native but are very popular nevertheless, because they are nicely detailled and have very nice VCs.

 

[stansdds]

I have several PAD aircraft and they are "ok". As stated above, the level of detail is often lacking, the VC's are usable, but again, detail is often lacking and the night lighting of the VC is just the cabin light, no back lit gauges.

 

[falcon409]

Most of the critics are not about the fact that those planes are not FSX natives.
. . . . . . . .

Have to disagree on this one Daube. . .every time I've posted a HU in the FSX Forum about a new PAD aircraft release, it is the fact that it isn't FSX native that dominates the replies. Now the lack of highly detailed VC's may be a contributing factor, but in my experience with the posts that I do in the FSX forums about new releases, it has been primarily about them not being native FSX designs.:salute:

I would be interested to see what the proportions are of aircraft downloaded from the PAD site that are FS9 as opposed to the FSX versions though. Maybe Bob May has that info and can make it available.:salute:

 

[falcon409]

Well, lol, this may be of interest to some after my question posted above. . . I looked at the download tallies from flightsim.com for 5 different PAD releases and in every case the FSX downloads topped the FS9 downloads, lol. In some cases by over a thousand. I've never paid much attention to the numbers before, but given that info. . .I'd say Premier Aircraft Design is doing just fine by it's models for both FS9 and FSX.:salute:

 

[Daube]

Have to disagree on this one Daube. . .every time I've posted a HU in the FSX Forum about a new PAD aircraft release, it is the fact that it isn't FSX native that dominates the replies. Now the lack of highly detailed VC's may be a contributing factor, but in my experience with the posts that I do in the FSX forums about new releases, it has been primarily about them not being native FSX designs.:salute:

I would be interested to see what the proportions are of aircraft downloaded from the PAD site that are FS9 as opposed to the FSX versions though. Maybe Bob May has that info and can make it available.:salute:

You are right, most of the "remarks" that are visible in the PAD-related FSX topics are about the "nativity", but those remarks come from the few persons who do not know PAD, really. I think that most of the people who are flying FS9 and FSX aircrafts in FSX are simply ignoring the topics dealing with PAD planes.

In fact the proportion of people here that fly ONLY native FSX planes is quite small compared to those who fly FS9 and FSX planes in DirectX9 mode.

 

[falcon409]

. . . . . .I think that most of the people who are flying FS9 and FSX aircraft in FSX are simply ignoring the topics dealing with PAD planes.

In fact the proportion of people here that fly ONLY native FSX planes is quite small compared to those who fly FS9 and FSX planes in DirectX9 mode.

I agree on both counts.

 

[Stan V.]

I agree on both counts.

For me it is the lack of detail in the VC that is the limiting factor, not the model nativity. I think they fly okay and I certainly have no fps problems, but the immersion factor is missing for me. I have more than one PAD fs9 and fsx aircraft installed but rarely fly them in fsx for that reason.

 

[falcon409]

For me it is the lack of detail in the VC that is the limiting factor, not the model nativity. I think they fly okay and I certainly have no fps problems, but the immersion factor is missing for me. I have more than one PAD fs9 and fsx aircraft installed but rarely fly them in fsx for that reason.

Thanks Stan, so is it the level of texture detailing (floors, overhead, door panels seats, etc) or is it more the lack of 3D gauges and bezels and other panel details? Or, is it a little of both?

 

[Stan V.]

Thanks Stan, so is it the level of texture detailing (floors, overhead, door panels seats, etc) or is it more the lack of 3D gauges and bezels and other panel details? Or, is it a little of both?

I guess I would say mostly the former but, of course, all affect the immersion factor to one degree or another. The 3D gauges and bezels are all very nice and look good (a big+) but I am not so into them that I reject interiors that don't have them. It's not been THAT long that we routinely had 3D gauges, and I have been at this hobby a long time. I remember getting PAD's Twin Otter (fs9) and being disappointed that the panel looked so cartoonish to me. The texturing just did not look "real".

 

[Daube]

is it the level of texture detailing (floors, overhead, door panels seats, etc) or is it more the lack of 3D gauges and bezels and other panel details? Or, is it a little of both?

To me I would say that the main problem is the textures. Some are too blurry, not detailled at all. Very often, a lot of cockpit parts are simply not textured at all.
The 2D gauges are not a real problem, at least for me. Sure 3D gauges look better, but a 2D gauge with a good resolution can still look good enough.
The PAD Socata Tobago for example has a very acceptable virtual cockpit. Textures are ok, and the cockpit is totally textured. The level of detail is more or less the same as an FS9 default plane, which is quite good for me (I still fly the FS9 default C-182 in my FSX and I love it).

 

[expat]

Glad to see this discussion about PAD. Whatever one's views we should all be grateful that they continue to produce - for free - and share such a wide and popular range of aircraft for FS. They are a commited bunch and certainly have earned my respect and they deserve to be supported.

I concur with the comments above which I believe are being made with only the most constructive intentions. What is apparent is that these are very good models overall but perhaps with suggestions and a little help from others could be better still.

I have few "native" FSX aircraft and often don't pay attention to that (the execption is when I want to swap or merge a VC) or even realised what 3D gauges were or that I owned planes that had these until recently. It is easy to swap out gauges with others to your liking - that is one very fun part of the modding & tinkering aspect of this hobby.

To me, like others commenting here, if there was just one thing to possibly improve it would be not the gauges but specifically the resolution and appearance - including lighting and reflection - of the VC instrument panel textures themselves. They are not bad, they are OK, but perhaps they could be better without too much hassle.

Now off to get that Otter - or Beaver - also like that Caribou, out of the hangar!

 

[expat]

also like that Caribou

Sorry, I meant BUFFALO ! :salute:

 

[falcon409]

Sorry, I meant BUFFALO ! :salute:

lol, easy mistake, that's what I thought it was at first, lol
Thanks for the input everyone. . .in general, I think Bob, Jean-Pierre and the rest of the PAD staff do an excellent job of supplying us with some great aircraft to fly and I agree that the interior textures are a little too fuzzy. . . .one of the first things I do when I download a new aircraft from the site is to redo the VC panel textures. The interior textures (door panels, overhead, seats and floor) are a bit tougher because there isn't much reference material to pull from. It would be great to have ready access to some of those airplanes and get some good interior shots to work from.:salute: