OUR CLASSIC SIM WORLD

[jacklyon]

I am user of CC scenerys from more than 10 years. I am developer of CC scenerys there are 2 years and a half. LFLY 1960 was my first official
scenery for our CC World, soon, LFBD 1961, will be released also. Both of this projects, was made it with passionate people, that together we
join our strength.

I saw our CC world, grow ups, and incorporate more and more airports. And it's magic... this start slowly, with only Tom and Mike,
and became huge!.


Some people, when they see a thread in a french forum, about Lyon 1960 they said "i am desesperate that CC people produce great scenery but not
for FSX"... i can understand them, the aircrafts, can be better on FSX/P3D, the scenerys can be better on FSX/P3D.

FS 91 is a great great simulator, but it's old; really old, got 11 years old, it's and old engine, that work fine for our CC World. But compared
with modern simulators, look old.

Even if i am working right now in a project 100% FSX/P3D, i am asking me, if it's interesting for us, really, to move on another simulator
more modern... we can use almost directly CC scenerys on FSX (with some little problems), this is not the case on P3D, we must converted
and it's not a quick thing.

I like FSX, i love P3D, i love X-Plane 10.30, but the true, is that, make one only airport, with good quality, take time, and all the huge
work already done for FS91 for our CC World, librarys, etcetera, , will be a shame to loose it

and some of our things, of our librarys, of our works, from the CC airports collection, look less better on FSX than on FS91.


OK, i will try to be more clear: i try to say:

We really need to move to another simulator?

Our historic CC World, are fine on FS91, work OK, work nice, look nice.

I know, that some scenery could look better on modern simulators, but We really need to move to a modern simulator for our historic flights?

The only problem, are the great freeware/payware historic airplanes that we can't use on FS91. There are a lot, more and more, less and less
people produce for FS91, i bought Justflight DC-8, and others historic aircrafts from them, there are really nice, and well done. It's not a
problem for me, because i can flight "historic" on my current work in progress ( FSX/P3D Rhone Alpes 1960), but, i can't use it on our CC World.

But again?

Wich is better?

With this logic, we can continue to work for FS98... and never take FS91

But before FS91, CC world was not so huge... now we got a HUGE HISTORIC ALREADY DONE WORLD

Start to work on modern simulators, and stop to produce for FS91, and in a way, loose all that,
or, continue to grow up our CC World, even if that means that we need to keep FS91 running until i don't know, 2020, 2025?

For modern scenery (with maybe old new aircrafts), we keep the more recent simulators, but for our "historical scenery", we keep
all running on FS91, and we continue to populate the world with more and more airports.

I discover for accident yesterday, that FS91 run well, on Linux Ubuntu, with PlayonLinux application!. That is... WE CAN USE FS91
without problems on Linux in 2014... maybe because it's enough old, i not tested yet, but i not think so, that we can do the same
with more modern simulators.


Some people, simulators users, that abandon FS91 long time ago, look me strange, when i told them "i work for FS91", they not understand,
but the true is in this forum, and with members of my team, i found a lot of crazy people like me that love to work in 2014 for FS91, to
use it, even if (as me), a lot of them, use others simulators also.


That is the question?

I think, that the answers for me is:

Show must go on!
It's is better creating new airports for our CC FS91 World to make it grow more and more
that converting CC scenerys to others simulators


But well, it's true that we loose talented people that not interested to work for an old simulator.

I not think that the answers is easy,


For the moment i chose to do both,
work on my (huge) "Rhone Alpes 1960" project,
and continue to work also on others CC FS91 airports, to make grow up our CC World


And you? What do you think about?


Cheers
Alejandro

[Tom/CalClassic]

I will move to FSX the day that all the scenery here at CC is available for that sim, all the effects and other special things we do in FS9 are available for FSX, I can get over 25 fps with my CC AI traffic at 100% at KJFK and KLAX on my reasonably powerful computer (but not a monster), and it loads as fast as FS9. Not yet...

[FSMuseum]

I agree wholeheartedly with Tom.

[jacklyon]

yes but if we not begin to work for fsx/p3d our cc world will never be available for fsx/p3d



but if we start to work for fsx/p3d
our cc world will stop growing
because there are hundred of already made airports and library for fs91 to convert

that is a long and not so funny task

solution is maybe a group of people that work exclusively on conversion of other people airports
and the others continue to make new old airports

or that each fs scenery cc developer, take the task of convert his own scenery to P3D/FSX after release it to FS91


but again this its not so funny or interesting

our cc library its not yet 100% compatible with P3D 2.x
most of objects (cars for example) not display

Afcad are not 100% compatible

etcetera


big question

and fsx its very old also we must focus to convert all to P3D 2.4 one day

but its boring

to be or not to be
that is the question


i will try to do my little part, i will convert my scenery to P3D after release it for FS91.
(even if it's not the more funny of task)

i hope some others will do the same.

But again, the central question is

to achieve to keep live our CC world in next simulators without stop his expansion.

Cheers

[FSMuseum]

If we could get everything to work in a way that Tom describes, which given newer hardware standards is now a possibility, then I would be absolutely happy to commit to making conversions of my sceneries to FSX, and help with others.

[jacklyon]

Yep, i think even if we love to use FS91, we must think about conversion, with the idea of extend life time of our CC world.

FSX it's not very optimized, but P3D is it. We can't (yet), have the same high perfomances even in high end computers, if we

activate all the features of P3D 2.x, but, with normal setting (that is better than default FS91), we can get acceptable frame rate

in most of computers.

I not want to "move" really from one to another, it's not a problem for me, i have both on my computer ! and both run well.

But i really would like, to extend at maximum lifetime of our CC World.

So the question is?

if we continue to make FS91 scenerys, will be a good idea, to make conversion after release it, to P3D 2.X (FSX), just in case.

But again

It's not the more funny of tasks, and i can understand that most of fs designers, not want to...

Same thing for aircraft, and for AI Traffic,

Maybe the first thing it's to make next version of CC Library (V4.0?), 100% compatible with P3D 2.X

(that's mean, bgl compilation with at minimum FSX compiler, and DDS not BMP)

ModelconverterX and ADEX could help us to do that,

but take it time to do it.


Cheers

[Bjoern]

Don't worry, FS9 won't die for another decade.

[jacklyon]

I think also to be honest.


The true, is that is not and easy question...

why spend my time converting if i am happy with FS91,
and i pass half of my time on simulators on FS91

i really need a conversion?

why not separate things?

if one day i want to make one particular CC airport for P3D to enjoy it on P3D
i not "convert", the one from FS91 if exist, i do a new one from scratch,
100% native P3D, with all the eye candy that SDK P3D allow me.

i can or not, with permission of authors, use some material
from the FS91 version, but just as library, as starting block,

i don't like the idea of "convert" only... it's not fun for me.


Maybe the best for me, is to continue to make our FS91 CC world bigger, working on FS91 projects,
and at same time or time to time, work in another projects, 100% P3D/FSX projects for a small region of the world,
where we can do all (photoreal backdated ground, traffic, autogen, citys, airports) and take advantage of features
not availables in the FS91 engine, i am working in a project like that right now, is my "Rhone Alpes 1960" project (a region in France),

Yep, that's it,

it's probably will not the answer for all people,
but is my answer.

i will do like that.

Cheers



Alejandro

[deltalima]

Well, being one of the few FSX minority here at CC, I "know my place" and am happy to enjoy whatever FS9 crumbs fall off the table and happen to work well in FSX.

Would I like FSX conversions of everything? Yes, of course, but if that would forestall development of new sceneries, then indeed the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", to borrow that old expression. Indeed, there may be some wisdom to saying that conversion alone is still not ideal in FSX - I find the FSX conversion of Honolulu just as crazy an FPS eater on my new, fairly hotrod FSX rig as the FS9 Honolulu was on the old FSX rig. Conversely, Chris' Philadelphia, and Juan's Texas run silky smooth ... Alex's Lyon is excellent too - and I haven't even tried to optimize it further by removing fences, etc. bgls.

For my part, I'll try every scenery, optimize as best I know how, and look at it as a glass half full scenario on the few that mightn't work. Indeed, with my success rate of over 90% of the scenery packs working to at least a decent standard (some perfectly), the glass is more than half full.

With the prospect of a Classic Cape Canaveral and Classic Canada, those alone are reasons to get excited. If they work as well as the aforementioned, my scenery bucket list is more complete than empty, that's for sure.

thanks to all CC devs,

dl

[FSMuseum]

Oct 14, 2014 17:11:49 GMT -5 deltalima said:

...Conversely, Chris' Philadelphia...run silky smooth ... Classic Canada, those alone are reasons to get excited. If they work as well as the aforementioned...

Since I first found out some of the performance issues that came with my old Newark release (which is being updated to V2, from the ground up and with tons of performance and bug fixes), I've designed every scenery with performance in mind, trying to make sure that those even on the lowest end systems or on FSX rigs could enjoy classic scenery whilst maintaining usable performance. I plan on making every scenery as detailed as I can while also making sure that anyone is capable of using it.

Oct 14, 2014 17:11:49 GMT -5 deltalima said:

thanks to all CC devs,

I think I speak for the majority when I say that there is no need for thanks. We (or at least, I) enjoy what we do and do it because of you, because you simmers want it and we want you to be happy, because we like to see simmers get a satisfying experience from our work. We work hard for that gratifying feeling that we get when we know someone enjoys our scenery. I just recently saw my Boston scenery in a video somewhere here on the forum (can't remember who posted it or when, sorry) and I was more than overjoyed that someone felt like it was good enough to include in a video, even if it was more a background detail than anything.

[leutnantwerner]

Oct 14, 2014 17:11:49 GMT -5 deltalima said:

Well, being one of the few FSX minority here at CC, I "know my place" and am happy to enjoy whatever FS9 crumbs fall off the table and happen to work well in FSX.

Hi,

I totaly aggree with the previous writer. I wouln't force anybody to see the flight simulation world through my FSX glasses.
I enjoy the FSX eye candies and before somebody else *maybe* convert CalClassic Fs9 stuff I'll do it by my own, little by little.

I followed so many changes of Microsoft, that results in throwing away the previously bought sceneries and planes. FSX, for me, is the end of the line.

Here at CalClassic the developers are really kind enought and helpful to allow modifications of their work.

KLAX 1959 with some original landclass files:


Catalina Airport:


Avalon with a new landclass and ai traffic:


Just a few samples of *MY* little California Classic World in FSX, thank you guys!

Cheers
Bernie

[deltalima]

Hello Bernie,

How did you get KLAX to work so well? Looks superb.

Yes, for me, the overarching reason for the FSX migration was the moving carriers. Being a fan of naval, particularly carrier, aviation, the additional realism was just too compelling. Needless to say, the related visual enhancements were the bonus elements, but not the key in themselves. And I'm very happy performance wise - even on my old pc, I ran FSX at comparable frame rates as my FS9 used to.

That said, the genius of Golden/Silverwings, and having a "period" autogen is something I miss dearly, and thus I appreciate why folks stick to FS9. Thankfully (thus far, at least), CC has not had "haters" from either camp, which makes this the enjoyable hobby environment that it should be.

Anyway - choice is a good thing, and thus far, the "ports" work well enough, often enough, that the FS9-prime development stream makes folks like me happy. If a dedicated FSX stream materializes, then it'll just be a bonus to an already great thing.

cheers,

dl

[Bjoern]

Bernward's pictures really make me want to set up a CC-edition of FSX. If only my SSD wasn't so crowded...

[Dennis the menace]

You're missing some ground textures or something else is wrong.

The ground texture at LAX looks more like a Kansas wheat field than it does grass. I grew up in Southern California and the only places I saw terrain that looked like that were in the far distant hills. Is that a stock FSX texture for grass?

Also, it appears you are missing a ground texture that I created for Avalon. If I recall correctly, it is called asphalt_lot. The area near the terminal and the old Wrigley hangar is supposed to be degraded asphalt, not bare dirt.  That same texture is also used in other sceneries, so if its not showing up at Avalon, it will be missing at other places, also.


I've seen FSX and at this point in time I'm not impressed with it. When Microsoft or somebody else comes up with a solution that will produce the same equal framerates in FSX as it does in FS2004, and can allow all of the AI, scenery, and other addons to just transfer right over into FSX, then I will make the switch. Until that, I will continue to create addons for FS2004.

[Deleted]

Mike, you brought it to the point!

Bernard