Alejandro Rhodes wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 9:53am:

Alex is absolutely right, the Posky ERJs and FS9 SDK models, so you won't be able to simply swap them around I'm afraid.

Rich H wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 3:18pm:



Isn't the Posky 777, and 737 also FS9 SDK?  They do VC merges for FSX with those. 

they actually just released their updated true FSX models within the week.  You should go there more often Shane...
  6-7 months since you posted there!

 
      Hiroshi Igami
    * POSKY Member
    * Group: Admin
    * Posts: 5938
    * Joined: 31-July 02

Posted 16 November 2009 - 12:11 AM


I think you are new at here so didn't read anything about FSX and FS2004.
Also proberly you don't know FS2004 or earlier.

FSX uses more resource and much CPU power compared to FS2004.
And thinking from the modeling side , FS2004 and FSX is fully a different Sim.
And a quite odd version at the MS flightsim history.
At MSFS , usally compatibility is kept.
But at FSX , no , even it doesn't have a upper compatibility between Service packs.
It's more like XBOX or like some game machines , not a PC software.
And some add-on builders left this world due of those.
So bad even the market shrinked.

Why making things for FS2004 is it has much better performance then FSX.
Ofcourse advantage of FSX is not zero but cost overs what you can get more.

And for Virtual cockpits , I don't like it.
Why? simply may feel better but there is no meaning of having a unclear guages showed up.
It's much better using 2D cockpits with more then 2 monitors.(I usally use 2 )
Then can see the guages correct and clear.
Have a try using the 2D cockpit at those way , and feel how easy to see.

Also at FSX , if you make a VC part can use at a aircraft made at FSX SDK.
For example our 737NG FSX model and 777-200V2 FSX model.
Then whats the problem?
If you are a VC lover , just make a VC and build in to your PC , it's possible and thats FSX.

Another reason why don't make a pure FSX model.

1.About the Bump mapping.
At a huge jetliner , bump mapping (one of the advantage at FSX) is not must since 1 pixel will be too large.
I don't want to see a 5inch diameter rivet on a fuselage ... if thinking of having those at jetliner will mean needs a ultra huge bitmap texture files.
And that means just chew up memory and performace will be terrible.

2.There is already a bunch of FS2004 painted aircrafts .. it's better to have a FSX model which can use those.
Our semi FSX model is for those use.

3.Bone animation
This is the another point.
May feel simple but for making a smooth curving wing , has to put a bone in the parts.
If only 1 parts , I don't matter but it's not that easy , one parts curves , has to curve others and in the end , almost all parts needs a bone.
And has to set animation settings.
See PMDG's 747-400 , they didn't do for free.
And as a freeware builder , it's not so fun to build up those too ... the things can get is not much as time to use.

4.FSX SDK is not upper compatible from existing FS series.
It's like they are saying "Hey we made a new Windows , and all the tools are new and great , you guys should remake!"
Convert is not easy , specially if there is bunch of animation and parts like a huge jetliner.

5.Self Shadow
Self Shadow is even a crap .. if you closely see , shadow is made at pixel level.
This means if you want a smooth Self shadow , it needs a higher texture resolution at this approch.
And that will use bunch of memory too.

What I feel about FSX is FSX has putted in many things without a vision and long term plan.
If thinking about total performance , should thought about will exceed 2GB memory use and go to swap area.(32bit Windows Apprication software memory is limited to 2GB )
And if really thought of those , should have thinked about making a 64bit version.

FSX was not good enough to jump to.

Hirosi's observations are nothing but ignorant utter misconception, confusion, and outright bologna...

He is a fine pixel-pusher, but is completely clueless otherwise.