Quote:


I couldn't aggree more.

Quote:



Ah.... I'm afraid this is where we disagree Bird. It's likely in many ways to make things a lot easier I think. At present the tools are still being developed and are in their infancy. But let me just highlight one or two things.

Can you or many other people program scenery in SCASM? Errr....no. For the very great majority of people it's a closed book. But you use FSSC and Airport that do it for you.

Can you or many other people program in XML? The answer is YES. We've all downloaded the Scenery SDK, plugged stuff into the formula that was given to us and beamed when our first object appeared in the scenery after annoyingly seeing the BglComp screen just keep flickering because we had errors (and I still get emails every week even now asking why people can't make BglComp work - so there's lots of people out there doing it).

So zillions more people have already got going with the fundamentals of basic XML scenery programming than ever did with SCASM.

But whereas we all came in after the bright people like Tom Hiscox and the Airport team and Derek Leung with FSSC had got their design tools that use SCASM pretty much worked out, we're now all just seeing the creation and development of the new ones. And I mean SceneGenX, which is the most complete one so far, AFCAD2 and Rwy12 that each do part of the job and others that I've not yet got around to trying.

But it's early days. No, they are far from perfect and they have a few bugs. Remember the problems we had because of the altitude bug in AFCAD and yes, SceneGenX is a bit tricky until you get used to it. But these are cosmetic problems that can be solved by cleaning up the coding and GUI and when they're done they'll eat Airport and FSSC for breakfast. And don't forget they had their own problems too - many of which are (or were) still being sorted with 'updates' to this day.

OK but now we come to the price that will have to be paid.

We'll either have to use default library objects, objects created by people 'cleverer than us' who have made them and put them into libraries or....and here's the crunch....we have to learn to use GMax - and only GMax - ourselves if we want to make our own custom objects.

Well isn't that tough - but what kind of scenery designers are we? Sorry - but let's face it, there's an awful lot of rubbish being created out there in FSSC etc that should never see the light of day beyond it's 'proud' creator's PC - let alone be uploaded. So maybe now the bar will be raised a little bit. The guys who have taken the trouble to learn GMax are hardly likely to create dross I reckon. And BTW - I'm one of the many who still has to make the effort with GMax. But boy, I know what it's capable of compared to 'easy' programs like EOD, and when I do I know I'll be creating stuff I'll be proud of.

And one last thing. We see constant moans and groans about program performance and FR and the need for more scenery 'realism'. The fact is you can't deal with these issues using SCASM based scenery. It's gone as far as it can go  - the more realistic you make it, the more demands you make on the CPU and the bigger the FR hit. Look at KBOS and even my Kai Tak.

XML is how these things will be tackled. So, let's put our luddite instincts away, be prepared to throw away the old (because of the way it will hold us back more and more) and embrace the new with all its potential and possibilities.

After all, that's the way life is. Why should it be any different here?

Anyway, I'm now off to send a message to America using morse code and then I've got to nip down the shops on my penny-farthing. No, it's a bit chilly, I'll maybe take the Ford Pop.  Wait a minute - the telex is just going - says something about buying a fax machine, although last week had a message saying don't do that because of some new-fangled idea called email whatever that may be

Quote:

I think we're in danger of taking things too seriously. Most people (including me) start out by doing this for their own satisfaction. If it turns out OK they upload it for others to share. What's so wrong with that? This is how it all started in the first place the very basis of the freeware community & this site. People now are far more discriminating & demand more & more goodies every day from the freeware "designers". It's got to the stage with aircraft design that unless you're part of a group there's not much chance of being taken seriously. There's so many fantastic files to choose from & some are as good if not better than payware. This is all very well for those with the experience (& the time) but how does one get that experience? I believe there's still room for everyone, beginner & "expert" alike. Every file posted here is the very best the author was capable of at the time it was uploaded. I don't think the same can said for the average commercial addon. Freeware costs nothing & you're not forced to download it. If you don't like it you simply delete it.

It all depends what you want. If it satifies you then that's fine. As I remarked in my first reply, use whatever suits you best but don't be afraid to try new things as they're discovered. Nothing will be wasted & you will gain valuable experience. That's the way I see it.

Also bear in mind that many of these new features are only possible in FS9. If you're designing for one of the earlier sims, as many still are, they're no use at all.

PS. In the end this is supposed to be fun. If you don't enjoy doing it then there's no point.

I respect yor advice as always Roger. I intended no offence & quite frankly I didn't expect your response either. If I caused you any offence by saying what I think I apologise unreservedly.

Now I'm not qualified to comment on the latest developments in scenery design as I haven't tried them. I've never considered myself a serious designer & only got involved in it to help people get started with their first faltering steps. Then it's down to them with help from people like you. All I can do is to show them the design tools available & the methods I use. I realise that I'm out of date now & don't usually visit this forum. In this case I thought my contribution might be helpful.

PS. Along with 13 million others I listen to Radio 2 which has just won an an award for the most successful radio station in the UK. I'm listening to it now.

<edit typos>

Quote:


Thanks for your input Bird - very perceptive as usual.

I have to say --- YES. That's where a beginner now has to start. If they learn EOD it will be wasted time, effort and knowledge unless they see it just as an exercise in learning the basics of what model building is all about before going onto the real thing.

Put it this way - your son or daughter wants to learn to play the piano. Do you get them to learn how to play a toy piano first? Some people might - I'm not sure I would.

Equally there are others who will be happy just playing their toy piano for the rest of their lives - but I guess they won't ever want to create great symphonies for others to hear.    Tell that to people like Mel Rafi.

Tell you what - in a couple of years time people will be asking what EOD was and what it was used for - remember DOD? And there will still be a constant influx of new scenery designers into the field.

PS

What is it about this place that as soon as you use a 'harsh' word about anything there's a sharp intake of breath and you get stupid comments about not being 'constructive'. Sometimes you have to point out the glaringly obvious to be constructive.

The sim has moved on a long long way since even FS98 and the demands of simmers (yes, even for freeware) have rightly increased accordingly. Just take a look at the Robin DR221 in the screenie forum and the same applies for scenery. More so in some respects because as I've pointed out on many occasions, when you're 'flying' an aircraft you don't see the model. But you see scenery all of the time and it's that that makes your overall simming experience 'real' or not for most of the time.

Programs like FSSC and EOD were OK for FS98 - the graphics engine then couldn't cope with anything other than angular cylinders rather than smooth round ones and simple textures.

Now it can - it's exactly what people have paid the extra for. And frankly if you think that sceneries created in FSSC (and I include my Kai Tak in this) with flashing textures (look round the bases of the radio masts and radar towers) and FSSC 'default' objects like hangars with their simplistic shapes and even more simplistic textures (at least I've never used any of them), have merit for the latest version of the sim (let alone future ones) then I'm afraid I have to disagree.

And sorry, I will go on saying so as it's only by being critical that you generate improvements in any area. If you don't want to listen, that's OK. But if it upsets anyone's sensibilities, tough. I'm entitled to my opinion and I have the right to voice it just as others have.

But do please tell me if I've been critical of any individual or their efforts ...... 

Doug - hopefully you've seen your PMs by now

Roger

Looks like quite a discussion. I would like to add this. Back in the days of FS4,5,6 things weren't too user friendly. You could do certain things. And if you were any programer, you could do more. After 1995, it picked up a pace. One big reason was Falcon3.0 and 4.0 by Spectrum Holobyte. It trounced Microsoft with market share and high fidelity. It came from the program we used in the air force. That is because Spectrum Holobyte was a spinoff of Sphere. They did the airforce contract. The good part was the tremendous scenery detail and the excitement. The bad part was the lack of customer support. Gilman Louie made his money, purchased Microprose, and failed to support those who purchased his products. Bill Gates saw the problem for himself and "Microprose" and decided to change the world. That is when the combat sims started arriving. Bill's products drowned Gilman Louie.

Part of that customer support is the encouragement for 3rd party developers. Quite frankly, the boys at MS may be good; but they can't think of everything. They get ideas from 3rd party stuff. The popularity of MS has been in the subjects offerred and the 3rd party user friendliness. If that is interrupted, Bill once again chances losing that market share that keeps him in flight sim business. He knows that many people will change to X plane or something else that isn't there yet.

The point is:  3rd party developers are a huge cheap way of advertising. If these forums suddenly said MS is giving them the shaft, people read it and buy another brand. Whatever happens in the future, there will be a way of backwards compatibility enabled. Or,  Bill will start losing again. And, his stockholders won't like that.

Quote:


I have no problem with your view thats what is great about this forum.  I was merely trying point that beginners, (and I include me in this) just need to get some feedback like Birdman did for my RAF Leeming so I could learn and get better.  Please keep on giving your frank views as they help others to look at things differently.  Sorry if you thought I was having a dig.  Brittair