• 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.

Update on Aerosoft's Big Cat

Basicaly, without getting geeky or techy, it's contact shadows. These are the type of shadows you would see on a cloudy day, at noon under a toy under, say... a car... they make things look... more real. Another term is baked textures...
 
So what you are suggesting is not getting the material, specular, diffuse and shape of the model correct but adding detail and shadow with textures that are not dynamic and cast a shadow under a wing root say even when flying inverted or directly facing the sun or any other light source?
Will that not appear a bit odd to the more educated eye?
Maybe it is a good cheat and I will try it.
It always seems strange to me why every single gauge glass in a VC has the same reflection although at a different height, angle and size from each other and view point. Canopy internal reflections that shows pilots and cockpit embedded in the reflection when it is open and the external view point is 20 foot or so above so should not been seen at all or at least react to the light source. Maybe a new technique but if I had a monitor that has that - back in the day we would call in "screen burn" and junk it.
Also why do VC reflective textures never change shape and size as the aircraft changes direction and aspect in the sim - also not tone down or disappear with the ambient light?
Why does every rear view mirror in the cockpit reflect the pilots face? Has he adjusted it to apply sun screen or lipstick?
Some of the personal choices that we all subscribe or disagree with I guess but again it is down to choice - no right - no wrong Just what we prefer I guess.<o:p></o:p>
OK Who wants to paint a Tonka or Victor?
 
FSDSMAN said:
So what you are suggesting is not getting the material, specular, diffuse and shape of the model correct but adding detail and shadow with textures that are not dynamic and cast a shadow under a wing root say even when flying inverted or directly facing the sun or any other light source?
Will that not appear a bit odd to the more educated eye?
Maybe it is a good cheat and I will try it.
It always seems strange to me why every single gauge glass in a VC has the same reflection although at a different height, angle and size from each other and view point. Canopy internal reflections that shows pilots and cockpit embedded in the reflection when it is open and the external view point is 20 foot or so above so should not been seen at all or at least react to the light source. Maybe a new technique but if I had a monitor that has that - back in the day we would call in "screen burn" and junk it.
Also why do VC reflective textures never change shape and size as the aircraft changes direction and aspect in the sim - also not tone down or disappear with the ambient light?
Why does every rear view mirror in the cockpit reflect the pilots face? Has he adjusted it to apply sun screen or lipstick?
Some of the personal choices that we all subscribe or disagree with I guess but again it is down to choice - no right - no wrong Just what we prefer I guess.<o:p></o:p>
OK Who wants to paint a Tonka or Victor?
Click to expand...

Ambient Occlusion baked into the textures is a very good approximation of real-world lighting conditions, even if the sun is hitting the affected surface(s). AO is an integral part of Global Illumination which affects the lighting of everything, bouncing, refractive, colour bleed, etc. Ambient Occlusion happens to be a part we are able to simulate without significant drawbacks. While yes, it is static, and is not 100% realistic in all lighting situations; it works well for the vast majority of them.

Newer engines use a realtime adaptation of this usually denoted SSAO (Screen-Space Ambient Occlusion), negating the need for the artist(s) to bake them into the textures.

I cannot speak for other developers, but from what I've seen and I've done; your statement does not hold true regarding gauge reflections. Alas, due to the nature of them being essentially a flat plane, oriented at mostly the same angle, it may seem that they are the same.

Canopy reflections are static because.. well; they're just that; static. No current-gen engine has the functionality to render realtime ray-traced reflections, due to performance reasons. Reflections are handled just like in FSX; a cube-map. Whether it is better to omit them due to their static nature? I think the overwhelming public opinion so far sways towards including them.
 
The Tomcat was known for having issues with directional stability at higher angles of attack. Without corrective action, or if you did something stupid (as I do below), a spin will set in fast and could be impossible to recover. Fortunately, the sim doesn't replicate the 'eyeball out' 2g's associated with a 90deg/s flat spin. Fully developed, the vertical speed dropped to about -19,000ft/min.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=93W52zzjS4E&feature=g-crec
 
Agree with Whitehawk, I have all the rest of the 'cats so one more just makes it that much better.
 
JohnC said:
The Tomcat was known for having issues with directional stability at higher angles of attack. Without corrective action, or if you did something stupid (as I do below), a spin will set in fast and could be impossible to recover. Fortunately, the sim doesn't replicate the 'eyeball out' 2g's associated with a 90deg/s flat spin. Fully developed, the vertical speed dropped to about -19,000ft/min.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=93W52zzjS4E&feature=g-crec
Click to expand...

Must've flew right through his jet wash! ;)
 
GOOSE EJECT!!! EJECT!!!!!!

Man this is going to be a stellar flyer. I cannot wait! Between this and the An-2 there is a lot of good coming from Aerosoft over the next few months... Can't wait to see what the next in the US Cities series is either. The only thing I am not a fan of is that this is not a B model. However Dino is filling that gap nicely with his F-14D. Will be a must have.
 
There will definitely be a B model. Idea is that you can see what it was like to fly the original (personal favorite), and then really have an appreciation for the F-110's, Modern HUD, ARI, and a few other perks of the B.
 
neutrino said:
We are happy to announce an update on the development of the Aerosoft F-14A Tomcat for FSX. The project has been in full development for about a year and is currently entering a limited beta test. We had to set our bar very high for this project because there are already several solid renditions of this legendary aircraft. But the Big Cat is seated at the top of the 'Aircraft to model before I quit' bucket list for two of us, and our Flight Modeler/Project lead finally feels he has the knowledge-base to give this aircraft a proper rendition.

NATOPS data was combined with 5 NASA technical publications and refined by the insights of a software engineer who helped program the Military Simulator of the F-14, the chart at the bottom of the post represents the sum of the current efforts. Former fleet Tomcat pilots and other Naval aviators will be helping us refine the control response and stability from here on out.

The images below show a work in progress, we'll be posting more screenshots as the project advances.

www.facebook.com/AerosoftF14
http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php?/topic/59569-f-14-tomcat-x/



AerosoftF-14A-101.jpg


AerosoftF-14A-102.jpg


AerosoftF-14A-103.jpg


(click to zoom)
Click to expand...

Thats a superb paint job. However, I made 2 cruises with the aardvarks and they were VF-114, not VF-84. This will be a must buy for me as well..
 
Warhawk1130 said:
Thats a superb paint job. However, I made 2 cruises with the aardvarks and they were VF-114, not VF-84. This will be a must buy for me as well..
Click to expand...

Where do you see VF-84 ?? In the sceenshots, it clearly shows VF-114 on the ventral fins :isadizzy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top