[jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Official Add-On Acceleration

  • From: Gerry Winskill <gwinsk@xxxxxxx>
  • To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2007 19:33:01 +0000

I agree with your observations on aircraft design. At present the obsession seems to be with repaints. Even some of the complete aircraft turn out to be someone else's with a new livery. In the case of the Posky aircraft I've a feeling the painters have to issue a repaint as a new aircraft.

Of course I can't have it both ways. Despite the number of aircraft in my directory, I now limit myself to a couple for each category. All of them use panels that I've heavilly modified, partly to cope with THTG but also to incorporate my own Can't Do Without gauges. With a smaller number in the fleet it then becomes manageable to flight test them all fairly thoroughly, so that performance comes a lot closer to that claimed in the model's spec. I've spent all of today tuning the Default A321, finishing with an IVAO flight from Aldergrove to Tenerife South, to check the fuel useage accuracy. Although that was satisfactorilly within 5% of my calculated consumption it left me with another job. The A321 is still a bit nose high at the correct, weight related, Vrefs. Worse it becomes too sensitive in pitch at those low speeds, so the drawing board comes out again tomorrow. Another enjoyable facet of the hobby.

Scenery is going to be interesting. I reported my recorded UK2000 Xtreme low framerates on the Horizon Forum, where the GS acolytes dwell. So far none have risen to the bait. The main problem is that GS seems to have become obsessed with including everything technically possible in his designs; hence the low framerates. In practice he's producing accurate diaramas, rather than smoothly useable airfields. I'm more interested in decent performance that in refuelling bowsers, caterting wagons, automatic docking systems etc. What I really want are accurate airfield layouts and lighting systems, with terminal buildings that reflect the real ones, eg yours at Ronaldsway. Where the windows are glazed and grockles wave at you from inside, the framerates plummet.

The airport scenery future is brighter for the work of designers like Tony Meredith. His framerates are very acceptable. I guess he'll come up to the buffers where airfield buildings are very individualistic. There I hope the solution may lie with co-operation with object designers like Ted Andrews, who enjoy building structures but not designing airfields.

Tony's attempts to convince others that there are fairly easy routes to airfield design and Autogen creation are going down like a lead baloon with the acolytes, who prefer to maintain a mistique that will, they hope, preserve their lucrative Payware market.

I'm rooting for Tony!

Gerry Winskill

bones wrote:

I tend to agree.

Flight modelling has been less accurate since FS98 as the drive to eliminate
tables in the .air file increases. FS2002 was OK but when FS2004 came out it
required a distinct performance rewrite for aircraft - even more so in FSX.
My feeling is that MS are turning FS into a game with accent on good visuals
rather than accuracy of fluid dynamics.

When design moved to GMax the integration of the panel into the MDL file saw
a change in design production. It mostly ended the reign of the individual
designer in favour of group co-operation and, to some extent, a swing to
more payware designs over freeware. The increased complexity in aircraft
building has seen a marked decline in the solo builder.

I think the same is now going to happen with scenery design. If a complete
airport rebuild is required my hunch is that teams will do these rather than
individuals. The individual user may end up doing nothing more than plonking
objects into the scenery using EZBuilder because the tools needed to create
something more complex will not be available.

Back in FS98 days there were a huge number of design tools around. There
were still a good number for FS2002 with AFCAD, GMax, LWMDrawer, LandCalc,
Autogen Annotator, Ground2K4 being essential for any serious project. If
such tools don't get developed for FSX then the design base will shrink -
and I see little evidence of this as FSX approaches its first year in

Once design goes from the individual to the payware teams there is a marked
drop in coverage of designs. We saw this with aircraft back in FS2002 as the
design teams mostly concentrated on endless Boeing or Airbus aircraft. If
scenery goes the same way and smaller airports get ignored in favour of the
big international ports then the FS world will truly start to shrink.

I still watch the development forums but I suspect design peaked with
FS2002/4. I doubt we will see such variety of aircraft and scenery again
because it is now too complex (and time consuming) to build the stuff. If a
new release of FS is imminent designers dread the idea that their work
becomes redundant so fewer are committed to start any work.

Time will tell but I suspect MS are no longer wanting the enthusiast user
dabbling in FS design - and I am sure it will be their loss.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter Dodds
Sent: 05 November 2007 14:01
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: pdodds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: FSX Official Add-On Acceleration

I have reached a mental freeze on FS also.  I am not going to proceed with
FSX in any serious way. My next move after FS9, if there is one, will
probably be to change hobby.  It is just getting daft.

There is no improvement in flight models, airport scenery is still mostly a
blank runway in the middle of a desert and third party developers ar not
being ignored they are being shafted - probably deliberately unless they
sign up to the MSFS partnership programme which removes their independence.


Other related posts: