Posts by Trespassers

  • Robin DR400

    Then there's obviously a bug in the latest SDK, while it's downloaded from yesterday and the Robin converted in the row.

    In the Dev forum Spit40 suggests the SDK to only work when installed in default folder, which I'll try out...

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Robin DR400

    A very good one indeed, despite of a bug preventing ground steering.
    Comparing with the C172 I tried increasing the preload to 2000, it slightly improved, but I still cannot steer properly the aircraft on ground...

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Lausanne LSGL cheap slope fix

    Actually Lausanne is a pretty busy GA airport IRL. Of course it will be too short for the 747, but it is well suited for many AFS2 aircraft: C172, Robin, Baron, King Air, Corsair, P38...

    Unfortunately, like most AD in the Switzerland DLC, only a blank, flat runway is featured, not mentioning the many GA AD that are not even featured...

    It was already the case in AFS 1 and the AFS 2 DLC wasn't improved in this direction...

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Lausanne LSGL cheap slope fix

    Quote from HiFlyer

    Makes me wonder about the granularity of the default geometry. Can higher resolution ground geometry (around an airport, for instance) be mixed easily with lower resolution?


    According to the SDK one can add locally a mesh. IPACS mentions the best results are usually obtained by giving the local mesh a rounded island shape around the AD.
    To my understanding it should mean that this local mesh can be of higher resolution compared to the global scenery.

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Flight of Pitts and Extra (of FS-2), in acrobatics.

    Hi Delfin,

    What you describe could read like induced yaw, but it's difficult to make a statement without seeing.

    FRAPS is a very useful utility (search for FRAPS in Google, you can download it for free). Among others it allows to display FPS, save snapshots and take video shootings of any game.

    The free (unregistred) version of FRAPS is limited to 30 seconds video per shooting, but that's well enough to show your effect.

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Lausanne LSGL cheap slope fix

    Dear IPACS Team and Aerofly FS2 users,

    I've been pretty much sorry that the LSGL Lausanne Airport in Aerofly FS (both versions) only consists of a desperately ugly flat runway, nothing near the characteristic slopy real thing.

    Runway's real profile:
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/AeroflyFS/LSGL/Profil_LSGL.JPG]

    I just found a "cheap" and reversible workaround to remove the flatten effect in Lausanne, by editing the lausanne.tsc file in the scenery\places\ch\lausanne folder of your AFS2 installation.

    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/AeroflyFS/LSGL/Correction_LSGL.JPG]

    The trick consists of editing autoheight from FALSE to TRUE, which removes the flatten effect.

    Runway 36 uphill autoheight set to TRUE (fix):
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/AeroflyFS/LSGL/aerofly_fs_2%202017-03-25%2013-26-00-02.jpg]

    Runway 36 uphill autoheight set to FALSE (default):
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/AeroflyFS/LSGL/aerofly_fs_2%202017-03-25%2013-34-31-23.jpg]


    Runway 18 downhill autoheight set to TRUE (fix):
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/AeroflyFS/LSGL/aerofly_fs_2%202017-03-25%2013-38-00-88.jpg]

    Runway 18 downhill autoheight set to FALSE (default):
    [Blocked Image: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/93773613/AeroflyFS/LSGL/aerofly_fs_2%202017-03-25%2013-36-01-14.jpg]

    It's not perfect, the slope is only partially featured (approx 1.3% slope in AFS2 instead of 2.5%, probably due to the lack of accuracy of the original mesh), but it's definitely better than the flattop by default.

    There are side effects on the parking, PAPI and neighbouring woods, if someone wants to improve this airport it might probably be better to start from scratch...

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Adding Scenery simplistic question

    Dear IPACS team,
    Thank you for your detailed reply. I'm afraid there's a misunderstanding.

    Yes you can place an airport where there was none, but that doesn't make a scenery, it's only a local feature in the scenery.

    Yes, the ground photo texture compilation tool is not yet available and it will come in the future.

    But there's no tools yet to :
    - generate a replacement mesh
    - define exclude zones and scenery clear priorities.
    - edit existing autogen or generate replacement vegetation + buildings autogen
    - place 3D objects from existing librairies (landmarks, bridges, powerlines, etc.)
    -...

    All basic tools to start building or improving sceneries for AeroflyFS 2.

    It's clear to me that it takes time, my only concern is there's unfortunately no hint that such tools will ever come in the future.

    No talk about vectors, traffic, water, procedural 3D, etc.

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Adding Scenery simplistic question

    Thank you IPACS Support for your reply.

    I still tend to understand from your answer that to IPACS scenery making mostly means adding an airport here there and locally featuring a more or less dense city center as an eye-candy.

    Ok this is part of scenery making, but featuring an airfield or a city skyline in a flight simulator only makes sense if they are integrated to a regional scenery forming a flyable zone. An airfield is only a start point or a destination for a flight. But 95% of the flight time is to be spent flying above the ground. Otherwise we're not talking about a flight simulator...

    To speak with an image, it's like if you want to build a garden but currently you only have tools to place paveways and benches. It's cool to have a paveway to reach the bench, and a bench to sit and watch your garden, but as long as you have no tool to place grass, trees flowers, etc. you cannot build much of a garden.

    Don't take it the wrong way, I fully understand that the SDK is under development. It'll take time and I'm very patient. I'm sure more tools will come.

    Quote

    (...) the SDK allows you to model a complex airport (...)


    Well, one thing which is great in AeroflyFS is that runways don't have to be flat, unlike MS FS. In some cases like LSZH Zürich, for instance, you modelled a very nice curvy runway, featuring a very realistic feel.

    In some other cases like LSGL Lausanne, you totally flattened out the ground, probably due to an inaccurate mesh. As a result, the typical and somewhat challenging slopy runway in Lausanne is totally flat in Aerofly FS (both versions), beside the fact that the airport is totally naked in the sim.
    Looking at the architecture and the available tools, I see no technical possibility to deactivate the current runway and flatten, locally correct the mesh, place higher resolution texture, model a new, more accurate runway, in other words create an airfield, not even complex.
    The SDK only allows me to purchase a yearly licence for a 3D software nobody else uses to model buildings and static aricraft from scratch and compile and place them onto the existing ground, that's not what I would call scenery making.
    Or I missed something.

    Beside that, I fear that you somewhat misunderstand the needs of 3rd party editors. Everybody is overjoyed (and me in first position) that a new and very powerful flight simulator comes. I was very excited by AeroflFS 1 and the 2 is already definitely better.
    Everybody is aware that add-on making will necessitate new tools and new compilation formats, there's no question regarding this.

    But editors have been working hard for years investing in tools and DATA (mesh, aerial photographs, cadastral data, librairies of objects, lightweight-optimized airframes, buildings, etc.) and the base condition for them to potentially step in Aerofly FS is they must be able to generate add-ons based on their existing sources, without having to redo everything from scratch. Otherwise, it'll be a no go. Even for OrbX.

    Going in Rogwen's direction, we cannot ask the tools to convert MS FS bgl files into an AeroflyFS format, but the raw material Rogwen used to compile FS bgl and texture files should be usable with a reasonable amount of work to generate material for Aerofly FS 2.

    I really don't want to sound negative or to spread false information - please correct me if I'm wrong. I just take the opportunity of the current development phase to try drawing your attention to the 3rd party editors needs (either free or payware, it's the same).
    Once again, successful simulators like MS FS and XPlane only live from their community. Without 3rd party add-ons (both free and payware9, they would be history just like the brilliant but unfortunate Flight Unlimited, or Aerofly FS 1...

    Keep up the good work !
    Cheers

    Antoine

  • Adding Scenery simplistic question

    Well currently the Aerofly FS 2 SDK doesn't allow for scenery making in the sense we know from FS world, there's not even a clear structure to prioritise layers in the architecture.
    The current tools hardly allows to place a runway and a few bits of an AD in an existing scenery.
    IPACS is developing the SDK and we must be somewhat patient, it is currently light years away from a standard level like we've been used to in MS FS world.

    However, from what I read in the few available information they currently sort of compile mesh, photo base and 3D objects together, which if true would be pretty bad news for 3rd party scenery integration. Let's hope I'm wrong.

    Cheers
    Antoine

  • Anyone have thoughts or information on these before I buy

    Well, then you're corresponding to the last paragraph of my initial reply.and the question is rather to know if these axis can be assigned properly in AeroflyFS 2.
    I would think so but I don't have the answer.

    I've been simming for 10+years with sturdy, reasonably expensive, plastic-built CH Products yokes and pedals and, provided that I vacuum cleaner them every 4-5 years they're as good as new.
    Of course there's some stick-slip effect, but as long as the neutral centering is spring-loaded and fix it will never feel realistic. I don't think a metal-built yoke would feel much more true...

    The only alternative would be to invest in a Force Feedback yoke but good ones are rather expensive (1'500 €) and AeroflyFS 2 doesn't support them. Moreover, reading posts on this forum it seems very unlikely to be ever considered.
    With some tuning it seems one can get a pretty realistic FF in FSX/P3D, though.

    Cheers
    Antoine