The First Catalina 'Pit Pictures!

[Killbilly]

Any particular reason you have to make a statement like that? To each his own is great, everything past that was uncalled for.

Agreed.

Plus, we do have to remember that "as real as it gets" for a Twotter or a Cat means that you'd have to have a co-pilot sitting next to you and death or serious injury would result from a crash. There is always a little compromise on complete realism. I like systems modeling insofar as it keeps FSX a flight sim and not a switch sim. In other words, I'd rather be flying at 25 FPS in a reasonably realistic model than flipping switches at 12 FPS in three different stations (pilot, copilot, and flight engineer) in a perfectly realistic model. That doesn't mean I earn a "toy" comment like yours any more than anyone else who plays a simulation.

Your opinion about the Twin Otter is valid because it is your opinion. Your attitude toward those who have different opinions is not.

 

[warbird861]

i thought they'd allready done the pit?? I rember seeing pics off it months ago :isadizzy:

There was some hassle and the developer and beta-team changed and we basically started all over again

 

[stiz]

now that sucks

 

[warbird861]

There's some new pics HERE

 

[Anneke]

Agreed.

Your opinion about the Twin Otter is valid because it is your opinion. Your attitude toward those who have different opinions is not.

You are right, I'm apologize. I think I'm too passionate sometimes about (sim) flying...:redf:

Anneke

 

[warbird861]

Four new picture

Had to do some images for the Dutch Catalinha foundation (we support each other in this product). And they looked cool so I decided to post them here. Note that ALL textures are still pre-beta, that's one of the things being worked on this week.

 

[Txmmy83]

hope that this level of details allowing a good frame rate


BR
Tom
Simaerobatic

 

[Big_Stick]

You are right, I'm apologize. I think I'm too passionate sometimes about (sim) flying...:redf:

Anneke

That's what we could use a little more of around here; a reality check. Thanks for that apology, it really was for all of us, given Ickie is so close to just shutting the site down all together.

Not every switch can be duplicated as there are many systems that FSX does not model. Sure, they can be made to click on/off, but that's about it. If a plane does a good job of modeling the key systems and flies well, and looks good, that is an achievement in itself.

The trend now seems to be more towards massive amounts of eye candy (animated pilot figures, smoke, light, effects, gauges showing readings that aren't really derived from the sim but from well-crafted code) because the sim itself is limited on what it can provided.

 

[Lightning]

given Ickie is so close to just shutting the site down all together.

Close to shutting this site down?:faint:
First I've heard of any of this.

PLEASE PLEASE say it ain't so.

 

[some1]

gauges showing readings that aren't really derived from the sim but from well-crafted code

What's eye candy in this?

 

[Kiwikat]

What's eye candy in this?

I tend to agree with your assessment, but it isn't finished yet. I'm sure the final product will have proper weathering etc.

For the final performance hit the F16 gives, it doesn't look that much more detailed than many of my other aircraft. It may have 8 times as many polys, but it doesn't look 8 times better. I wish Aerosoft would go back to performance oriented projects like the Twotter. That looks good but it gives me default plane FPS. The AlphaSim T-34C looks even better, and it still gives me default plane FPS.

More polys isn't the answer... evidently Aerosoft thinks otherwise. If the Catalina ends up having anywhere near the amount of polys the F-16 has, I'll probably be skipping it. It's not worth that sort of performance hit for a SMALL gain in detail. Plus, if the final textures were to be disappointing, more polys won't save the whole thing from being disappointing.

Just my few cents... :mixedsmi:

 

[MCDesigns]

Thanks for the HU on the new images. the detail and Mathijs's comments on detail are making me a little concerned. Sounds like Mathijs is contradicting himself, first saying that framerates are a vital concern and then stating they design for top end systems only as doing it for lower ends systems would be counter productive and that they design for future sales. I would be interested in what % of sales they get at initial release and then a year later, I would think the majority comes at initial release or not long after with residual sales being lower, especially with the lifespan on each FS.

As for comparing this product to the F-16 and the H-1, well they are 2 different products at two different levels of detail, so that doesn't seem valid. I was under the impression the same team that did the H-1 was doing the cat, but the textures in the pit so far don't seem like it, either way, we'll see at release time.

 

[stiz]

its still in early beta guys, so of course its not going to look as good as the final one

They also said from the start that the F16 was gonna be a computer eater and that they try to do one every couple of yours (computer eater not f16) that pushes the limits

 

[CodyValkyrie]

The Cat is coming along nicely. If one of the Aerosoft guys wants to chime in and say more, that would be cool. I "believe" that it will be more systems intensive. I'm looking forward to filming this.

 

[warbird861]

Yup Stefan, the modeller of H-1 is also making the Cat. And this is also more performance orinted product so this something completely different than F-16. Also like Mathijs states that textures are pre beta, they do not reflect the quality of the final product, actually the beta-testers don't even have any cockpit textures.

 

[Kiwikat]

And this is also more performance orinted product so this something completely different than F-16.

I really hope that is the case. :rollerskater:

 

[Warrant]

This bird is gonna be another attack against my bank account :faint:

What a great looking Catatina. No doubt there will be a Dutch Navy livery :ernae:

 

[JorisVandenBerghe]

I hope it's not that intensive. A fluent sim means a lot to me (ok, the Falcon is a serious frame-eater, but I've noticed that the sim runs very smoothly at even barely 15 FPS with it, I don't have any stuttering with it!)...:ernae:

But I recall Mathijs saying it's important that people don't have to upgrade their hardware all the time...but they said too the F-16 was one of their 'push-the-limit' projects which are rather seldom in their catalogue (can't remember any other title of them that could bear this name, actually).

My opinion: just keep an eye on the respective WIP topic of a particular plane, like the Cat. If you know it's going to be a tough one to run and you don't like that, don't buy it. But most of the time it's frame-rate friendly design from Aerosoft, as far as I know...

Edit; Warbird861 (which name do you use again at the Aerosoft forum ? I know you have a Tahiti X beta member signature...) was faster...:typing:

 

[some1]

I tend to agree with your assessment, but it isn't finished yet. I'm sure the final product will have proper weathering etc.

I didn't make myself clear sorry. What I meant is that I don't see anything 'eyecandy' in doing gauges controlled by custom code, and I was referring strictly to Big_Stick's statement. But now I see that he was talking rather about doing fancy dummy gauges that don't have any systems behind them.

The truth is, developers are still mostly limited by sim 'eye candiness' rather than systems modelling. There are only few things that can't be custom coded, this way or another. There are much more visual effects that simply cannot be made because we have very little abilities to affect how the FSX looks (things like lights, particles or shaders)

For the final performance hit the F16 gives, it doesn't look that much more detailed than many of my other aircraft. It may have 8 times as many polys, but it doesn't look 8 times better. I wish Aerosoft would go back to performance oriented projects like the Twotter. That looks good but it gives me default plane FPS. The AlphaSim T-34C looks even better, and it still gives me default plane FPS.

More polys isn't the answer... evidently Aerosoft thinks otherwise. If the Catalina ends up having anywhere near the amount of polys the F-16 has, I'll probably be skipping it. It's not worth that sort of performance hit for a SMALL gain in detail. Plus, if the final textures were to be disappointing, more polys won't save the whole thing from being disappointing.

Just my few cents... :mixedsmi:

That's what I can agree 100%. To me F-16 model is not well designed: it is several times heavier than ordinary aircraft, while it doesn't look even twice better. The geometry is heavily concentrated in some 'cool' places, like landing gear, nozzles or HUD frame and ICP, while other areas like air intake still are no better than in default aircraft. The textures are good, but not spectacular, so my overall impression is "nice looking, but too slow".

My computer is quite fast, but I set FSX to achieve smooth fps with "normal" aircraft. Which means I still have to reduce details to fly F-16.

Ah well, I just hope they won't develop Catalina this way.

 

[warbird861]

...but they said too the F-16 was one of their 'push-the-limit' projects which are rather seldom in their catalogue (can't remember any other title of them that could bear this name, actually).
...

The old Aerosoft Manhattan scenery for FS9 and the Seahawk & Jayhawk were supposed to be these 'limit pushers', but I don't know how demanding they were as I never had Manhattan and I got the Seahawk so late that I already had proper hardware to run it. I just realize that I haven't flown it for ages, I'm off to do some chopper flying