Posts by Fabs79

    To be fair the cloud behavior in VR is exactly the same in P3D and I'd reckon Xplane 11 probably Is not better in that regard. As Jeff stated as long as 2D images are used to depict clouds you'll always have those rotating clouds trying to keep a direct view axis to your face. It's even more obvious in Simulators that have cloud shadows where the shadow on the ground also rotates wildly while you look around. I guess the only solution would be true volumetric clouds like I saw on some tech demos for the Unity engine on YouTube. But I could imagine that this would be a huge performance killer.

    Sounds interesting, I guess I'll have to check this out. Now if someone could create high quality Airports for the Canary Islands that would be great.

    simple test , real R22 and previous flight model, when you lift off in the real R22 and the previous flight model you need to apply a little bit of left pedal in anticipation of the rotor torque that will catch you when you pull collective , once you apply left pedal and catch the spin you need to stabelize all other movement with the pedals and cyclic before gently raising the collective to lift off into the air. this model requires almost zero left pedal and zero stabelization, you can just pop in to the air without hardly any correction. the previous model was spot on in this regard.

    how real pilots are saying that it is more accurate now is beyond me!

    There must be something seriously wrong with your setup, the new flight model still needs massive left pedal input to counter the torque induced yaw during takeoff and still a whole lot of cyclic corrections to counter the roll tendencies, it just doesn't bounce from full left to full right within a fraction of a second or by moving the pedals or cyclic by the a millimeter anymore like it did before. Are you sure you checked the professional mode checkbox?

    As per my understanding, there is no such easy way to do, like with XP or FSX. The only way appear to me to use the 3D Tools like 3DMax or AC3D

    Another possible solution could be to create an geotiff with QGIS or ArcGIS from a 3D elevation data source where each Grey scale value is assigned to a certain height. Theoretically it should be possible to manually edit this tiff file with Photoshop or GIMP or whatever and then draw a polygon around an area with exactly the grayscale value that equals to the height you'd like to set, but I guess this would mean an awful lot of guesswork and trial and error.

    How do you flatten terrain in Aerofly? In FSX it was very easy, you could use SBuilder X to draw a Flatten polygon around the area that you'd need and assign a height to that polygon. The mesh in within the polygon was replaced by the fixed height you set, so you had a complete flat area to work with. IIRC you could even setup sloped polygons. I'd love to have a tool like that for Aerofly.

    I'd guess it's an extension of the southern Florida coverage area up to cape canaveral, which would be a nice idea in the year of the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission.

    It all depends on what blows your skirt up. Us Floridians think of Switzerland as a place for expensive vacations, and New York City as a place for changing planes. :S8o

    Of course someone who actually lives in the area will get his enjoyment out of the scenery, and I'm not saying it's bad, actually it is very detailed and well made. But I still believe some regions of the world will appeal to more people than others, and for flying I personally find mountainous terrain more interesting and varied.

    NorthEastern USA/New York is also amazingly discounted and is to me TEN times more interesting than Florida, I very rarely use Florida, it is flat and monotonous, New York is crammed full of good stuff. It will cost you the price of a big bar of chocolate, hint ..... go for it!

    I feel the same about Florida, it's not the developers fault I guess, it's just that a completely flat landscape always falls short compared to breathtaking mountain sceneries like Switzerland or Lukla or the iconic New York area. It's a similar problem with ORBX Netherlands. I'd also wish for a more interesting region as the next IPACS DLC., and I'd even rather pay for a increased detail default area (like complete cultivation and landmarks for the western US) than a Central Arkansas DLC or something like that.

    Thank you for that great freeware, Sylvain! You're one of the few developers who supported Aerofly from very early on and I hope we'll see more from you in the future.

    No, the default scenery does look like this.

    I can confirm the default scenery looks bad in yosemite. I'm guessing it's the usual 1m per pixel free USGS imagery used everywhere else in the default Aerofly. In yosemite it may be aggravated by the steep slopes of the mountains which are makes the pixels get stretched vertically even more. Your scenery is ZL 17 which means 0.5 m per pixel if I'm not mistaken. That means four times better resolution which of course will look better.

    Thanks to all of you for your help. I'll try your suggestions next time I get to work on my model. One of the reasons Aerofly has become my favorite simulator is the extremely helpful and welcoming community it has. No arrogance or my-sim-is-better-than-yours attitude like sadly often found on other forums.


    Best regards, Fabian

    Hi Fabian,

    The night textures should only contain the additional light, not the color of the wall.

    It is not a replacement texture that gets loaded in, it is a light map that is always loaded but has greater effects in dark areas. When they are too bright reduce the strength of the light in the texture. White is like the brightest window that you can imaging I think, so it would be visible at day.

    So you mean the texture should be completely black except for the small areas around the lit windows? Should it be a grayscale texture like a normal or specular map or may it contain colors, too?

    Add Night Texture option in MCX is not the correct way to create night textures. Simply rename desired daytime textures in MCX with '_color', right click 'remove alpha' , export model in obj format. Once exported to folder, edit desired '_color' texture into night texture, when finished create a copy and rename it with '_light'. You should now have two BMP texture files. 'Example_color' and 'Example_light'. Hope this helps.

    I understand what you mean, but the problem is how do I convert the textures to ttx format without MCX? In your tutorial video you just pulled the texture to the content converter executable, but when I do that I just get an error message that some config file couldn't be loaded.


    Thanks for your help, guys!

    I´m just beginning to learn how to create 3D models and add them to Aerofly. I´m still an absolute newbie and have to learn everything from scratch, so progress is very slow. At least I managed to create a model in Blender, texture it and export it as a collada file, which I then converted and placed with Model Converter X and exported it to the aerofly format. After some trial and error it finally showed up correctly in the simulator. Now I wanted to add a night texture to the model, whuch I made with Photoshop using a similar method as shown in ZoSoChile´s tutorial video. Then I added it with MCX "add night texture" option in the material editor and exported it again. Unfortunately, the night texture doesn´t work as expected. Here are some pictures to illustrate the problem:


    This is the "day texture" I´m using:


    Hi.


    and this is the night texture:


    In the game it looks like this (please don´t judge the model, it´s my first try and I know it doesn´t look that great, also the screenshot is taken from pretty far away):


    And at night like this:



    As you can see, the night texture shows up much brighter than it should (the upper floor part which doesn´t have a night texture shows up dark as expected), and the night texture also shows up during daytime (the windows shouldn´t be white in daytime). It seems like the two textures are just projected over each other all the time instead of fading into each other at night. Does anybody know how I can resolve this? I have the feeling that maybe MCX doesn´t convert the night texture correctly, but when I try to convert it with the aerofly content converter I only get an error message.


    Cheers and Best regards,


    Fabian


    This very much sums up the way I see it too. Funny you mentioned that real life heli pilots sometimes find simulators more difficult than the real thing because of the lack of physical feedback from gravity and the forces on the Cyclic, one guy once told me that he flies a helicopter "with his a**" and being limited to visual cues of where the aircraft is moving makes simulators more difficult to him than real flying, maybe also because he spends a lot more time on real aviation than on simulation. So as you said, harder doesn't always mean better, and in the end it all comes down to how much you enjoy what you get. I'm very happy with what IPACS provided.