[hals1010]

Brian Kircher, on 20 May 2010 - 07:13 PM, said:

If you look at pictures on a.net you can see that they flex quite a bit for it being a small aircraft. Ive got tons of pictures of the 700 and 900 on take off with the wingflex clearly visible. If I were a developer on this project I would strongly consider adding wingflex to go along with the very good model that you have already.

Well, I watched some CRJ7 takeoffs on youtube, and found the wingflex effect rather small, e.g. here.
Although it would be nice to have, I wouldn't implement it if the impact on frames is too large.

[Brian Kircher]

It would be rather small.

[MatthewS]

ESzczesniak, on 20 May 2010 - 08:43 AM, said:

I'm not sure he was referring to Aerosoft on this one. Other producers have at times made a habit of producing either an FSX model with lower poly counts and texture resolutions they could readily put in to FS9 or using an FS9 model (which has lower poly counts and texture resolutions) and porting it directly in to FSX. In other words, the FSX version is "dumbed down" from what it could be so that there is minimal work to also get the model in FS9.

Aerosoft has been good to us and developed things for FSX, and then reducing poly counts and resolutions as necessary if they choose to release an FS9 version (come to think of it, not sure this has ever been an issue, but they have implied that would be the development philosophy).

Yes, I meant that if the same aircraft file works in both FSX and FS9 then it must be "dumbed down" because FS9 is the lowest common denominator.

If there are 2 separate files, one for FSX only and one for FS9 only then of course the FSX only version does not have to be "dumbed down".

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

The result of this weeks work:

Attached thumbnail(s)

• 

[Kristian Nørregaard]

Uh can't wait to buy this one!





Kristian

[Emi]

hi mathijs,
when can we expect some vc images?
soon i hope!

regards
Emi

[jordancollins]

Mathijs, next time I'm Europe can I take you and the dev's out for some cold beers? This is awesome. O ya are we goning to have a HUD in the VC?

[Ayster]

Ooo... nice!

[aerlingus231]

What is the little door under the plane?

[cosnowboarder_777]

aerlingus231, on 21 May 2010 - 09:03 AM, said:

What is the little door under the plane?

It is the forward cargo bin. The 700s have one door up front and the 900s have two. theres not enough room for a person to fit in there so they have a system of rollers and a rolling rack to move the luggage back and forth. ( I used to work for Mesa Airlines and we had 700s and 900s)

[aerlingus231]

thanks

[MatthewS]

Wow! Another Aerosoft classic in the making!

[cparrott73]

Wow, where have I been?

I just found out about the demise of Digital Aviation and the rescue of the CRJ project by Aerosoft. Looks like there are some very exciting developments with the CRJ recently -- keep up the excellent work! If Aerosoft delivers a highly-detailed CRJ as promised, you will certainly count on me to enthusiastically purchase and add the CRJ series to my virtual fleet. Thanks so much for all the excellent previews of the CRJ.

I own the Fokker 70/100 series from DA, and generally like it, although I am disappointed that they never got around to finishing the VC for it. I hope one day someone will find a way to get that one done, too.

[Waleed]

cparrott73, on 23 May 2010 - 04:32 AM, said:

Wow, where have I been?

I just found out about the demise of Digital Aviation and the rescue of the CRJ project by Aerosoft. Looks like there are some very exciting developments with the CRJ recently -- keep up the excellent work! If Aerosoft delivers a highly-detailed CRJ as promised, you will certainly count on me to enthusiastically purchase and add the CRJ series to my virtual fleet. Thanks so much for all the excellent previews of the CRJ.

I own the Fokker 70/100 series from DA, and generally like it, although I am disappointed that they never got around to finishing the VC for it. I hope one day someone will find a way to get that one done, too.

Chris, if you go to their new forum, you will find that they are trying to finish the vc.

[aerlingus231]

Waleed, on 23 May 2010 - 04:27 AM, said:

Chris, if you go to their new forum, you will find that they are trying to finish the vc.

Where is the new forum?

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

Emi, on 21 May 2010 - 04:52 PM, said:

hi mathijs,
when can we expect some vc images?
soon i hope!

regards
Emi

I think there is another 15 days on the external, then we'll start on the VC. So say 5 weeks at least before you can see anything. Will be very very cool though, believe me.

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

hals1010, on 20 May 2010 - 11:43 PM, said:

Well, I watched some CRJ7 takeoffs on youtube, and found the wingflex effect rather small, e.g. here.
Although it would be nice to have, I wouldn't implement it if the impact on frames is too large.

I have honestly never seen any youtube video that's a good source for these kinds of things. What most people forget is that a the same forces the push a wingtip down push the camera up and that without a steady fixed camera position it is near impossible to see what's going on. A still image is worse most of the time as you obviously do not see movement. That said, it's a fine example why realism is not always good as humans see things a lot like video camera's. To make the wingflex on a aircraft like a 747 realistic for FSX means most of the time making the wing flex bigger then it really is. I hessitate going that route and happy we are doing aircraft that do not flex a lot (or when we do (like with the glider) we can make it a special attention point). For now I will wait until I get some data from the real aircraft. If I get some data on the max movement, frequency of movement (that wing tip tremor we can do and that's what I personally would see as most realistic) and G-loads I'll decide. If not having wing flex means you do not want it, so be it.

And I said it before, with all the HUGE (how about that empty seat next to you?) other issues that are not realistic in FS, wingflex seems so minor. It eats up development time like you would not believe, it can take up to 20% of FPS, it always looks unrealistic because FSX does not offer any serious vertical G parameter (mainly because turbulence is a joke in FSX) and to top it all off it is something you only see as a passenger!

[Mathijs Kok (Aerosoft)]

MatthewS, on 21 May 2010 - 12:39 AM, said:

Yes, I meant that if the same aircraft file works in both FSX and FS9 then it must be "dumbed down" because FS9 is the lowest common denominator.

If there are 2 separate files, one for FSX only and one for FS9 only then of course the FSX only version does not have to be "dumbed down".

To avoid any misunderstanding, we are ONLY working on a FSX version right now. There is no way that we could compile something shown in this forum for FS2004, it just is not build to handle this level of detail.

[cparrott73]

Waleed, on 22 May 2010 - 10:27 PM, said:

Chris, if you go to their new forum, you will find that they are trying to finish the vc.

I just found that -- thanks for the info! More great news!

Sad to see DA go, but am glad that their projects will live on elsewhere. Hope for many happy returns.

[cparrott73]

aerlingus231, on 23 May 2010 - 10:41 AM, said:

Where is the new forum?

Right here:

http://www.simforums...pics.asp?FID=41