What makes a "Portover" a portover?

[falcon409]

I guess the more we move beyond the FS9 era and wonder what's ahead (if anything) for future Flight sims, I continue to be drawn back to this word "portover" and the fear and disgust it seems to raise for a lot of folks. Many, many of us had to come to grips with the fact that if we wanted to fly solely in FSX, some of our most revered aircraft would have to go to the boneyard because they weren't "native" FSX aircraft. Then some of us discovered that low and behold, if you simply moved those planes over to the FSX installation, they actually flew quite nicely. . .problem solved. . . .and a new word in our vocabulary surfaced. . ."portover".

I always used that to refer to any airplane that was originally built for FS9, but that I installed in FSX. I had purchased FSPanel Studio some years ago and so correcting a few bad gauges was simple work and I was off and flying my favorite airplanes over an entirely new world. It wasn't until I exchanged a few posts in another thread with someone about the T-33 from Tim Conrad that I realized that there was apparently more to it than that.

In my simplistic view of Flightsim aircraft design there are 4 major parts to an aircraft. . . .
The exterior design itself (minus the textures)
The VC (to include the gauges)
The Flight Dynamics
The final textures
There's not much that can be done (without the source code) to change anything about the exterior model, so that's a wash. If it didn't look good in FS9, FSX isn't gonna help it any, lol.
The VC textures in some of the more recent FS9 aircraft can be manipulated as long as they aren't part of the mdl file and I've updated or spruced up my fair share of these. The gauges are another animal altogether, but with FSPanel Studio, a lot of that is easily corrected in a few minutes time. I also know that this area is also one area that can cause some real problems with fps.
The flight dynamics is an area I have little understanding of and don't even go near, but if it flew perfectly in FS9, shouldn't that be unchanged in FSX?
Finally, the textures. . . . .who came up with the brilliant idea to have to flip a texture in order to do repaints? lol, lol. I do think that the bump mapping looks pretty cool and I'm gonna get some comments on this I know, so bring em' on. . .I think the whole bump mapping, specular lighting, special effects thing with the textures is highly overrated. I don't fly from the exterior, so aside from a brief "hmm, that looks cool" thought before going into the VC or the screens I shoot from the exterior, I don't spend any time at all admiring how the rivets look real or the mirror image on the fuselage has some really cool reflections. But that just me.

So, weigh in on this if you want and give your perspective on the portover. Is it harmful to the FSX installation to move FS9 aircraft over to FSX? Is there some major overhaul that an FS9 aircraft needs to go through to be considered a true "portover" and if so what? I'd like to know because aside from Installing them, correcting the gauges that are a problem and maybe updating the VC textures if they're accessible, I don't do anything else and I consider those to be portovers.

 

[stansdds]

Some FS9 aircraft port over better than others for reasons I do not fully understand. For me, proper aircraft operation and virtual cockpits are a must. I agree, bump mapping is nice, but I don't spend hours gazing at such things. I have a number of FS9 aircraft now residing comfortably in FSX.

 

[falcon409]

Some FS9 aircraft port over better than others for reasons I do not fully understand. For me, proper aircraft operation and virtual cockpits are a must. I agree, bump mapping is nice, but I don't spend hours gazing at such things. I have a number of FS9 aircraft now residing comfortably in FSX.

Yep, pretty much how I've looked at it too. Thanks for your input.:ernae:

 

[DennyA]

I just think we need clear terminology, and need everyone to get on the same boat and use the same terms.

There are true ports: An FS9 plane is recompiled with the FSX SDK. This gets you dramatically better performance, DX10 compatibility, and can be essentially considered a true FSX plane just lacking some features (such as bump mapping or other enhancements, if the author didn't work those in during the port). These are awesome - I don't mind losing a few bells and whistles.

Then there are the half-ports, which maybe we should use the portover term for. These are FS9 planes not recompiled, but tweaked to fix FSX issues. These must be run in DX9 mode, and they generally cause FSX's frame rate to slow unless they're very simple.

I don't think anyone begrudges the existence of the latter portovers, they just get annoyed when planes aren't clearly labeled as such, as people who want to run FSX in DX10 mode go to the trouble to install the plane and then discover missing textures, etc. I keep a copy of FS9 installed for FS9 SDK planes. Then each sim can run at its best.

 

[Kiwikat]

A portover is simply a model not compiled with the FSX compiler.

I do not think ANY aircraft should have FSX written ANYWHERE on it unless it is a NATIVE FSX model.

 

[IanP]

There's an issue with that, though, Kiwikat, because if you do as much as possible to make an FS9 model work smoothly in FSX, it will no longer work in FS9. Therefore it is no longer an FS9 aircraft. It's sort of stuck in no man's land.

However, the terminology is already out there:

1) Native FSX - what it says on the can.
2) FSX Compatible - works in FSX without major problems, but not FSX native.
3) Not FSX Compatible - has major problems or does not work at all in FSX.

It's not hard. However, a marketing department will sell more FS9 models if they say they work in FSX, even when there are major problems. As the marketing department couldn't give a stuff about the users, they don't care how they describe it and probably don't even know.

Designer: "You put FSX on the box, but it's an FS9 add-on."
Marketer: "But there are more people to sell it to if it works in both FSX and FS9."
Designer: "But it's not an FSX add-on."
Marketer: "Can you install it to FSX?"
Designer: "Yes, but it won't work properly."
(Marketer thinks: 'He said yes. I'll put FSX on the box as well. Then we can sell it to users of both sims...')
Marketer: "Okay. Thanks. We don't need to change the packaging then."
(Marketer walks away thinking currency symbols...)
Designer: "But..."

 

[Kiwikat]

There's an issue with that, though, Kiwikat, because if you do as much as possible to make an FS9 model work smoothly in FSX, it will no longer work in FS9. Therefore it is no longer an FS9 aircraft. It's sort of stuck in no man's land.

That's why developers should sell specific FS9 and FSX versions. IMHO, people shouldn't even bother trying to make FS9 planes "work" in FSX.

Just make it native! Payware developers have absolutely NO excuse for calling FS9 planes that "work" in FSX as being "for FSX". They KNOW it is false advertising. I won't name any names here, but there are definitely companies that have been called out on this but still won't change their shady ways. :mixedsmi:

 

[falcon409]

. . . . .I don't think anyone begrudges the existence of the latter portovers, they just get annoyed when planes aren't clearly labeled as such, as people who want to run FSX in DX10 mode go to the trouble to install the plane and then discover missing textures, etc. I keep a copy of FS9 installed for FS9 SDK planes. Then each sim can run at its best.

I agree Denny. Everyone who was running FS9 and had favorites that they flew consistently were worried at first that those great aircraft were lost if they wanted to make the switch to FSX. Once they discovered that wasn't necessarily the case, a lot of great airplanes have made the move over to FSX even without being recompiled.

You guys are right though, the ones who are errant in their desire to sell or pass off FS9 aircraft as FSX are the ones that need to be looked at. As we get farther away from FS9 I don't know if that's as big a problem as it used to be though. I think most folks are pretty savvy now when looking at what's really native FSX or something that's disguised as native but isn't.

Denny, is "recompiling" using the FSX SDK a process that anyone can do, or is it a complex procedure that should be left to the experts (which I am not, lol).

 

[IanP]

Not intended to be rude, Kiwikat, but that's why you're not a marketer or a developer.

Finances and timescales sometimes dictate less than perfect solutions, be it in freeware or payware. There is a considerable market out there of people who are more than happy to use FS9 models in FSX, as this thread proves. What you are saying is that they shouldn't be allowed to use FS9 models which have been made as compatible with FSX as possible without a vastly expensive and time consuming rebuild process (you cannot, contrary to some peoples' thoughts, simply recompile using the FSX SDK - you won't see a model at all unless it uses FSX materials).

So while, in an ideal world, you would be quite correct, this is far from an ideal world. A lot of people are quite happy using FS9 SDK models with compatibility changes to make them work acceptably to, from what I've seen, the majority of people using FSX. What you seem to be saying is that those changes to make them FSX compatible shouldn't be done, because they should be "pure FS9" or "pure FSX", with no middle ground.

So Henry can forget his Mossie and anyone who likes B-25s has two choices of nothing in FSX... Is that really what you want, because that's what it reads as to me...

 

[SkippyBing]

Denny, is "recompiling" using the FSX SDK a process that anyone can do, or is it a complex procedure that should be left to the experts (which I am not, lol).

You need the original model file in gMax or 3D Studio to then compile it as an FSX model. You also have to redo some of the animations, it's not difficult although slightly time consuming but you do need the model files which is something only the developer would normally have.

 

[falcon409]

You need the original model file in gMax or 3D Studio to then compile it as an FSX model. You also have to redo some of the animations, it's not difficult although slightly time consuming but you do need the model files which is something only the developer would normally have.

That makes perfect sense, thanks.

 

[dhazelgrove]

Getting back to the technicalities, before someone has a flameout, you should remember that port-overs need their smoke system entries modified. It's not hard - just reverse the first two numbers on the line.

Regarding the 'politics'? My view is that it's up to the individual concerned. If you want to, why not?
If you don't, also fine. There are no laws against it, and to get a port-over to work successfully can take real work. It also aids the learning process.

To those who get heated about it all, I have one (graphical) word of advice:

Dave

 

[IanP]

From my limited experience, you have to change all the materials, change all animations that are not already done in a way that the FSX SDK recognises, if you are using XML scripts, you will often have to alter them - as Dave says above - there's often a significant learning curve in working out exactly why what you've done doesn't work. Then people also expect all the FSX niceties on top, if it is FSX native, so you may well need to remodel parts to make shadows work properly if they weren't perfect before, create and add bump maps, etc.

For a very simple model with no complexity at all (a basic scenery object building, say...) then it would take a few minutes to a couple of hours. For a complex model like an airliner with a VC, it's not that simple. If it was, we'd have a lot more FSX native models to play with.

 

[Kiwikat]

Not intended to be rude, Kiwikat, but that's why you're not a marketer or a developer.

So Henry can forget his Mossie and anyone who likes B-25s has two choices of nothing in FSX... Is that really what you want, because that's what it reads as to me...

Nor do I have the desire to be either of those things.

No, its not what I want. What I want is a native mossie and B-25. People can "portover" and indeed "do" whatever they want. I'm even guilty from time to time. However, I shy away from it unless I absolutely want the aircraft. Right now, the only "portover" on my system is the B-25 (ironic, lol). I previously had the Aerosoft A-10 on here, but I got rid of it after I heard they were working on a full FSX version.

No flaming here guys, just someone with a different opinion from your own! That IS ok! (believe me, it is!)

 

[stansdds]

One of the big problems with some port overs is that they are done by a person or group who takes the credit for making the aircraft. I think that is what spurred the bulk of the controversy. I think it is appropriate to contact the aircraft designer and ask permission before releasing such work for download. There is one group in particular that made a habit of modifying and porting other people's work and sticking their name on it.

 

[IanP]

And as I said, Kiwi, it's not a perfect world. We can't always have that. Indeed for the vast majority of FS9 models, we will never get it because the step up in complexity from developing for FS9 to developing for FSX is so great.

I'm not going to keep hammering on at that, so my only other real input on this thread at the moment is that I agree entirely with those that say the biggest problem is labelling rather than the SDK compiler used. Whether that labelling is claiming a product to be just "FSX", implying native when it is not, or claiming that a package has been "converted" when they've done a few textfile tweaks and added a thumbnail.

But the only way we'll stop either is by refusing to use the software and complaining about it - which I doubt many people will do, for a number of reasons.

In the meantime? I'm off to fly something. :d

 

[kilo delta]

One of the biggest gripes that I personally have with portover props and helos...is the cloud bleed though on the discs. FDE's can suffer too. With the advent of FSX, poly limits are more or less gone....leading to much more detailed aircraft than were possible in FS9.

 

[cheezyflier]

i have no idea how these things do what they do, i just know when they work, and when they don't. my computer is pretty low-end, but somehow still manages to run fsx to a level i can accept. i have had to make some compromises to be sure. that preface out of the way, i don'r like to port stuff because on my box, when i fly a port, the menus are often blacked out and i cant see them. the atc is blacked out so i can't use that either.
the props and clouds won't play nice with each other. sometimes you can't see out the windows, or see in. there are some of my fav planes which seem to be only available to fs9. i don't try to put them in fsx. i don't want to use ports, because my performance isn't all that great to begin with.

***edit: i mostly agree with kiwi on this one. a model is fsx or it ain't. if i am to pay for it, i want what i want, and not something "close enough".

also, speaking on the exterior textures. i like them because i spend a fair amount of time being outside the plane. if i had to spend 2 hours doing nothing but watching those guages i wouldn't bother to fly at all.
for me, i can't think of anything more boring. ymmv

 

[falcon409]

Lots of opinions and all good ones given the diversity of flyers we have from all over the country and all over the world. A few things from my original post to clarify:
If I were going to purchase an aircraft for FSX, it would have to be a native FSX model, otherwise why would you bother spending the money?
If I download an aircraft from one of the major download sites (and it has to be one I'm really wanting to fly and can't find anywhere else) and it says it's "compatible" or "made to work" in FSX, then I'll try it. If it works with no obvious flaws I keep it. . .if it has a solid disc for a prop and the canopy/windows are opaque, I rarely keep it and it finds it's way to the trash. On those rare occasions when I find one that I know will never be done in my lifetime for FSX and it's one I've always wanted to have in my collection and there are problems with it (like the prop and windows) I'll search out the remedies or experiment myself until I get it fixed.
In FSX, if it doesn't have a VC it isn't worth having (IMHO), so those non-VC aircraft are never even considered.

So to summarize: If I buy for FSX it's a native FSX model or nothing
If I download on my own and really want to keep it, I'll work it myself or search out updates until I have it where I want it. . .if not I trash it. As already mentioned here, there are FS9 aircraft that fly perfectly in FSX, some even in DXT10. There are also a fair amount that just won't work, no matter how much love and affection you pile on em', lol. It comes down to the individual, how much expertise they have beyond simply downloading and installing and how much time you want to spend getting it close to perfect.

 

[Henry]

So to summarize: If I buy for FSX it's a native FSX model or nothing
If I download on my own and really want to keep it, I'll work it myself or search out updates until I have it where I want it. . .if not I trash it. As already mentioned here, there are FS9 aircraft that fly perfectly in FSX, some even in DXT10. There are also a fair amount that just won't work, no matter how much love and affection you pile on em', lol. It comes down to the individual, how much expertise they have beyond simply downloading and installing and how much time you want to spend getting it close to perfect.

Thats a good statement!
but i also have fs9 and would still get payware for that
if it imports over then fine if not thats what i paid for the fs9 version
seems to me there are purists out here who want nothing but fsx models
myself i like to play and if the only mossie is a port
then thats what i have
its like life you get what you can when you can
and live in hope that tomorrow is a different day
H