|
Post by connieguy on Oct 25, 2017 8:43:42 GMT -5
'So with the CalClassic scenery and AI working fine in FSX and now the venerable DC-4 the combination [i.e. of FSX and payware aircraft] is unbeatable' mikeh
I think it would be helpful if we could have a little more balance in some of these statements. MikeH has himself provided detailed lists which show that Cal Classic scenery does not work 'fine' in FSX; some of it does, some of it doesn't, but one can certainly not install the whole lot and have no problem. Otherwise Tom would not have provided a very detailed tutorial explaining how to convert from FS9 to FSX. Also, while some excellent payware propliners have been produced, even there the picture is not entirely rosy. I have looked at the FlightSim Replicas Argonaut because if I transferred to FSX I would almost certainly buy that. It does look impressive in many respects, but that makes it all the more surprising that they use a default Bendix King radio panel rather than a period one and that the aircraft's fuel crossfeed system is not replicated. Moreover there is a payware Stratocruiser, DC4, DC6 and L049, but there is no L749 or L1049 or DC7 or DC7C. The payware people may get round to these eventually, but equally they may not. I don't deny that I am tempted by FSX and these payware aircraft, especially after (briefly) installing FSX and finding that it runs much more smoothly on my system than I expected. However, for me the real problem is the scenery. I have seen videos on You Tube of people using the propliners in modern airport scenery with jetways and it looks bizarre. Clearly there are some who have no problem with this and I am not telling them they should have, but I am saying that for others this matter is not yet cut and dried and that in an FS9 forum there are (probably) still quite a lot of us.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Oct 25, 2017 9:12:14 GMT -5
I think it is a matter of opinion how well the classic airport's, planes, etc. work in FSX. For some any glitches are not that bothersome and others will tweak them until acceptable to them. Therefore, there is no one objective standard to judge this, which means we will see many different opinions posted here of the same situation.
My advice to all is to find someone posting opinions that match their own and follow those, and to just try them out yourself. They are easily reversible and don't take that long. To install/uninstall.
Hope this helps,
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2017 17:58:32 GMT -5
Just to talk about this aspect, it really is about scenery but! I would agree Tom. If you want a 100% back to the past view in FSX you will not get it no matter what because of LC. The world is a considerably different place in every place around the globe you care to imagine from the CALCLASSIC period, towns roads etc have expanded enormously. Your going to get a modern geography no matter what sim version you have because that is the period in which they were built and the underlying satellite and photographic imagery data used was made. You can get past snapshots via Google Earth but only some. Similar issue with city scapes, every city in the world has changed enormously since the 1960's with high rise, skyscrapers etc. You cannot edit this stuff out of FSX. So what we see in the sim is already a compromise.
The thing I appreciate most about the CalClassic scenery and it is often overlooked by us passive consumers, is the sheer amount of hard work and dedication it took to produce and that it has been made available to those of us with an interest in that period and the aircraft, airlines and transport companies of the time. The hiccup is simply the change in software as a result of changing simulators which did mean that it became difficult to port this stuff over from system to system. Again a lot of selfless and hard work went into developing libraries etc to allow a port over to FSX and I want to acknowledge that as well. I can understand easily why many are not interested in redoing that work over again. That said, I found most probably more than about 90% of the older scenery worked fine for me in FSX but I use a different method to store and allocate scenery files in FSX to the standard model which means I can identify scenery conflicts or issues quickly and easily. Sure there are some little glitches here and there but just as I accept the FSX and sim world is already a compromise I accept that some scenery may not be exactly perfect but overall it fits, it looks great and is reasonably faithful to the period. I do not expect perfection. I might add that I am in the process of creating my own sceneries of the period for flying boat bases and ports, so I understand it is a time consuming process and the outcome is not entirely 100% but nevertheless the final scenery is as close as one can get it and that is good enough.
With respect to aircraft, I have used and extensively flown all the models features at CalClassic because that is the period of aviation I am interested in as well. But I acknowledge good as they are they were they were port overs or rebuilds for FSX so when a developer or builder takes the time and effort to produce a high quality aeroplane of the period for FSX, why would I not use it? I also understand that some may never get done, I use the JBK flying boats and others and even though FSX has been out for nearly 10 years nobody has shown any inclination to do them. Likewise the L1049G which was done by JF but frankly is not a patch on the Manfred Jahn version and the Jahn and teams C-47 is best C-47 ever.
So we all have a lot in common it just so happens I have to live with FSX and others other. But to everybody who contributes and makes the effort to share this great pastime - THANKS.
|
|
|
Post by Bjoern on Oct 30, 2017 10:33:53 GMT -5
You cannot edit this stuff out of FSX. Heck yes you can! Edit the autogen definitions for the city textures to delete highrises and add custom period buildings, replace all landclass with data from 1950/40/10/1876, generate a new road and train track layer from historic data, historic waterclass to feature much more prominent canals and less cityscaping and replace autogen car and boat traffic with period accurate vehicles. This is all perfectly possible and only depends on availability of digital source data. How do you think Aces got the modern day stuff into the FSX engine in the first place? With enough time and effort, FSX can be customized to any extent possible, both on the ground and in the air. (Minus the FSX-specific features such as autogen traffic, this also applies to FS9.)
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Oct 30, 2017 14:26:43 GMT -5
Hi,
Bjoern is right, most of these things can be modified. That's what they did with the Golden and Silver Wings project. It is a huge undertaking though. But even now we try to change the more obvious parts of things like editing the landclass to make the cities smaller and without high rise buildings, and the land to more accurately reflect the real land use in the classic era. We also exclude a lot of high rise buildings. A lot of that goes unnoticed by the average user, though.
Take care,
|
|
|
Post by Stromer on Nov 3, 2017 3:52:24 GMT -5
Hi all!
Yesterday I bought this amazing airplane and tested the С-54B USAF and I had a couple of questions - On the captain's side, if you look out the window, you can not see the engine, only the empty space where it should be (from the co-pilot's side everything is fine); - Do not hear the sound of the wheels of the chassis, especially unpleasant when touching the runway. Also, there are no sounds during braking.
Is this a known problem, or is this the only problem I have?
Everything else I really liked, especially the sound of engines! It was a song!
I use FSX, Win7.
|
|
|
Post by paulopp on Nov 3, 2017 4:46:56 GMT -5
Hi, the answer is given in the official and freely downloadable manual: "The polygon limit has necessitated that, in the VC model only, there are no engines on the left-hand wing (which would not be seen from the standard pilot position in FSX in any case). There are engines on the right-hand wing due to visibility from the open crew door. The Carvair VC is slightly different. (This info is important to some users.)" (General Notes, p. 4) But even in the manual I cannot find information on what engine variants are used. So, is it comparable with the procedures pack here on CC? Best regards, Christian
|
|
|
Post by Stromer on Nov 3, 2017 6:32:12 GMT -5
Christian, thank you very much for your answer!
Regards,
Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Bjoern on Nov 3, 2017 7:07:21 GMT -5
Weird that the polygon limit is stated as a reason when FSX (unlike FS9) simply does not have one. Tons of models out there with much more than 100000 polys.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Nov 3, 2017 9:33:09 GMT -5
Hi,
The braking sound was developed here at CalClassics, but many planes do not squeal when braking. I guess this plane's author decided the DC-4 didn't squeal. As for the touchdown sound, some feel it can't be heard from the cockpit, I guess?
|
|
|
Post by Maarten on Nov 3, 2017 11:41:45 GMT -5
Hi,
I split up the JBK C-54's and DC-4's in a folder aircraft with unspoked main wheels (no squealing brakes) and a folder aircraft with spoked main wheels and DC-6 brakes (with squealing brakes). Carvairs were equipped with spoked main wheels and DC-6 brakes too and also squealed when braking.
Cheers, Maarten
|
|
|
Post by Stromer on Nov 4, 2017 12:35:22 GMT -5
I put in the C-54B sounds from DС-4. Now everything is fine ...)
|
|
|
Post by capflyer on Nov 4, 2017 21:55:46 GMT -5
Weird that the polygon limit is stated as a reason when FSX (unlike FS9) simply does not have one. Tons of models out there with much more than 100000 polys. When most developers talk about "polygon limit" it has to do with whatever performance goal they've set. You're absolutely correct that there are many planes out there with many more than 100,000 polys, however the more polys, the harder on the computer the model is. A2A does the same thing, which is why they choose not to internally model the cabins on the COTS aircraft. That leaves more performance available for things like the COTS system itself.
|
|
|
Post by Bjoern on Nov 5, 2017 9:18:48 GMT -5
When most developers talk about "polygon limit" it has to do with whatever performance goal they've set. You're absolutely correct that there are many planes out there with many more than 100,000 polys, however the more polys, the harder on the computer the model is. A2A does the same thing, which is why they choose not to internally model the cabins on the COTS aircraft. That leaves more performance available for things like the COTS system itself. Well, not modeling the cabin is quite understandable (it's Flight Simulator, not Passenger Simulator), but not including something as simple as a clone of the engine models from the exterior in the VC is not. Especially since a lot of simmers use TrackIR to leave the confines of a fixed viewpoint to get a better look around.
|
|
|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Nov 5, 2017 10:12:21 GMT -5
Hi,
I agree that is an odd thing to omit, since pilots would often turn around and look at the engines.
|
|