Search the archive:
Simviation Main Site
|
Site Search
|
Upload Images
Simviation Forum
›
Design Forums
›
Aircraft & 3D Design
› Merging a exterior model with a VC
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
Pages:
1
Merging a exterior model with a VC (Read 160 times)
Nov 22
nd
, 2009 at 11:08pm
Jeff.Guo
Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Posts: 283
I got the Wilco ERJ v2 pack a few days back, but the POSKY exterior is still much, much better. So if I wanted to combine the Wilco VC, along with all the avionics and stuff, with the POSKY exterior model, how would I go about doing that?
Step by step walk through would be nice, and pretend I'm a complete idiot.
Thanks in advance,
Jeff
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #1 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 7:13am
garryrussell
Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Gender:
Posts: 677
Unless it'd FS.X there is no possiblility of combining existing models.
Garry
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #2 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 8:29am
Jeff.Guo
Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Posts: 283
It is FSX...
...I know its possible, and I seen others do it.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #3 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 8:39am
garryrussell
Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Gender:
Posts: 677
Yep if FS.X you
might
be able to, although some models and VC have stuff added to stop them being used on other models.
So it's a case of finding out and giving it a go
Garry
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #4 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 9:53am
Alrot.
Ex Member
I Love Simviation.
Both have to be FSX ,Posky as far as I know doesn't have FSX true models Yet
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #5 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:18pm
Rich H
Offline
Colonel
Sweden Jamboree 2011!
Solihull, U.K.
Gender:
Posts: 2082
Alejandro Rhodes wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 9:53am:
Both have to be FSX ,Posky as far as I know doesn't have FSX true models Yet
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.
"Politics" is made up of two words, "Poli", which is Greek for "many", and "tics", which are blood sucking insects. - Gore Vidal
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #6 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:21pm
ShaneG
Offline
Colonel
I turned into a Martian!
Posts: 10000
Rich H wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:18pm:
Alejandro Rhodes wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 9:53am:
Both have to be FSX ,Posky as far as I know doesn't have FSX true models Yet
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.
Isn't the Posky 777, and 737 also FS9 SDK? They do VC merges for FSX with those.
♪♫♪‼
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #7 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 4:11pm
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
ShaneG wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:21pm:
Rich H wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:18pm:
Alejandro Rhodes wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 9:53am:
Both have to be FSX ,Posky as far as I know doesn't have FSX true models Yet
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.
Isn't the Posky 777, and 737 also FS9 SDK? They do VC merges for FSX with those.
I suspect the latest versions of those aircraft are true FSX models.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #8 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 4:14pm
Rich H
Offline
Colonel
Sweden Jamboree 2011!
Solihull, U.K.
Gender:
Posts: 2082
ShaneG wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:21pm:
Rich H wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:18pm:
Alejandro Rhodes wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 9:53am:
Both have to be FSX ,Posky as far as I know doesn't have FSX true models Yet
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.
Isn't the Posky 777, and 737 also FS9 SDK? They do VC merges for FSX with those.
Ye, they do both FS9 and FSX models. They might do it; hopefully for their other aircraft in the future.
"Politics" is made up of two words, "Poli", which is Greek for "many", and "tics", which are blood sucking insects. - Gore Vidal
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #9 -
Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 11:40pm
skoker
Offline
Colonel
Jordan never wore his
safety goggles...
1G3
Gender:
Posts: 4611
ShaneG wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 3:21pm:
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...
it's been what? 6-7 months since you posted there!
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #10 -
Nov 24
th
, 2009 at 5:50am
ShaneG
Offline
Colonel
I turned into a Martian!
Posts: 10000
skoker wrote
on Nov 23
rd
, 2009 at 11:40pm:
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!
Since I don't fly jets in FSX, I have no reason to go there.
And I don't know how you've been treated there, but it will be a cold day in hell before I EVER post at their forum again.
My only post there was to encourage them, when they were trying to copy our Xv9 contest. I got a nice PM from them telling me I should go back to my own forum.
Hence, why you'll never find a Posky plane on my hard-drive.
I was at their forum the other day looking for info on this, this is what I found, posted last week, that I made the above statement on:
http://forum.projectopensky.com/index.php?showtopic=38599&view=&hl=FSX%20SDK%20n...
Now, you tell me, why I wasn't aware of the two new FSX models that just came out. I'm willing to bet Hiroshi wasn't too thrilled with the idea.
Quote:
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.
♪♫♪‼
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #11 -
Nov 24
th
, 2009 at 7:29am
JakesF14
Offline
Colonel
Blistering Barnacles!
South Africa
Gender:
Posts: 1866
MOTHER EARTH!! I will stick to FS2004 and a cup of coffee!
ok will get FSX when South Africa win the 2010 soccer world cup!
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #12 -
Dec 6
th
, 2009 at 8:43pm
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
meh he just doesnt seem to have the "correct" settings...I got every thing maxed out and my system works ju7st fine...and more and more addons are slowly working for FSX...just need to understand the way the files behave and how to write them if your gonna be making things for FSX...but meh...
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #13 -
Dec 9
th
, 2009 at 11:19pm
Fr. Bill
Offline
Colonel
I used to have a life;
now I have GMax!
Hammond, IN
Gender:
Posts: 962
Hirosi's observations are nothing but ignorant utter misconception, confusion, and outright bologna...
He is a fine pixel-pusher, but is completely clueless otherwise.
Bill
Gauge Programming - 3d Modeling Eaglesoft Development Group
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600-4GB DDR2 Crucial PC6400-800 GB SATA-ATI Radeon HD2400 Pro 256MB DX10
NOTE: Unless explicitly stated in the post, everything written by my hand is
MY
opinion. I do
NOT
speak for any company, real or imagined...
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #14 -
Dec 11
th
, 2009 at 12:01am
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
Fr. Bill wrote
on Dec 9
th
, 2009 at 11:19pm:
Hirosi's observations are nothing but ignorant utter misconception, confusion, and outright bologna...
He is a fine pixel-pusher, but is completely clueless otherwise.
true....and kinda what I was going at with my comment :p...but yea...think I could get some ham and cheese with that bologna? maybe a glass of organic milk while im at it? oh and all meat and food organic too?
oh wait this is SimV forums....burger king is a few blocks away....drat...
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #15 -
Dec 11
th
, 2009 at 11:12am
Alrot.
Ex Member
I Love Simviation.
Fr. Bill wrote
on Dec 9
th
, 2009 at 11:19pm:
Hirosi's observations are nothing but ignorant utter misconception, confusion, and outright bologna...
He is a fine pixel-pusher, but is completely clueless otherwise.
TOTALLY AGREED WITH YOU
Jezz!, maybe we should also all go back to Windows 98 too, what an ignorance for Christ sake
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #16 -
Dec 11
th
, 2009 at 11:57am
Jeff.Guo
Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Posts: 283
Personal inability is usually strongly correlated to their negative attitude.
...I don't think I've ever heard a developer (other than POSKY) complain about the limitations of FSX
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #17 -
Dec 11
th
, 2009 at 1:31pm
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
I just reread the hiroshi igami post and relized somethin...he stated that self shadows are made at the "pixel level"...uhhhhh...NO....WAKE THE <FIRETRUCK> UP...they are induced by how the model (as well as the coding for the model and its properties) are set up...you can have really crappy resolution and still have self shadowing items...I tested FSX in 600x800 and still worked fine...I can take the same plane and either have it self shadow or not....same for the scenery...OYE!!! Heck I even striped off textures to test his "theory" and it didnt hold well...you dont need textures for self shadow (on model) just the model and the model thats set up properly for self shadow...
oh and why not go to windows 3.1.1? I mean that would make him happy no?
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #18 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 1:06pm
microlight
Offline
Colonel
It's a bird...
Southern UK
Gender:
Posts: 2236
Guys, let's calm down a little. Hiroshi Igami is entitled to his opinion in the same way that opinions are being expressed here. What he thinks about FSX doesn't detract from the quality of his FS9 model construction which is generally excellent. I don't normally frequent the Posky forum for the same reasons as many people, but that doesn't stop me using their models!
Reading Hiroshi Igami's posting (quoted by Shane) and other posts on the Posky forum, it seems clear that the Posky models aren't 'true' FSX but the original FS9 models run through the FSX SDK so that they show up in FSX, unless I'm missing something. True enough, the original Posky FS9 models don't show up in FSX (just tried it with my shiny new FSX installation), although the updated versions do, and then you can indeed import the default FSX 737 VC into them - I just did it with the Posky 739 model.
Discovered other fascinating things too, which I confess I don't pretend to understand (Alex, can you help as you've actually made 'true' FSX models?). Such as the fact that the venerable 737 Experience will import directly from FS9 to FSX, with model and VC all visible and working. Strangely, the equally venerable Kittyhawk 737-800 will import directly and the exterior model will appear normally - but as soon as you try to import the default FSX VC, not only does the VC not appear, but the plane itself disappears!
BAe ATP for FS9 now available!
www.enigmasim.com
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #19 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 2:50pm
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
true and as I like to say "every one is entitled to there own opinion and it is full of $h17"
but indeed we all are allowed to voice out opinions
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #20 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 3:14pm
N2056
Offline
Colonel
I roll my own!
San Diego, CA, USA
Gender:
Posts: 62
While I have absolutely no interest in Posky as I like to fly GA, I am aware of how he "plays the game". Even though some here make valid points I find it disappointing that this has apparently turned into a bash of a guy that actually has contributed a h@ll of a lot of free stuff to the hobby.
If you don't like a freeware offering then delete it & move on. That's not hard to do...I've been doing it for years!
Remember...This is Fun!
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #21 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 4:06pm
Jeff.Guo
Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Posts: 283
N2056 wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 3:14pm:
...a guy that actually has contributed a h@ll of a lot of free stuff to the hobby.
Very true.
N2056 wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 3:14pm:
If you don't like a freeware offering then delete it & move on. That's not hard to do...I've been doing it for years!
I like his models, but I want a answer that consists more than a "NO"...
Unless he's releasing models just for the hell of it, he should probably offer a little support/explanation.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #22 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 4:15pm
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
my personial view is that if your not willing to support your models (freeware or pay) and you release them you should at least be some what ready for people to say "it broke" or "it don't work" what my issue is is the fact that he goes off on a rant about how it seems compatibility is completely lost between FS9 and FSX planes, not entirely true, some maybe, others no.
Least thats what Im understanding from his rant, and No im not bashing the guy personally, im going after his argument of "you loose complete compatibility for planes from FS9 going into FSX and that FSX has bad quality" Thats what I am getting out of that entire quoted post by the way...and so people know, FS9 planes work fine in FSX, just have to work a bit to get them there but still...the Jbiz plane works fine in FSX and FS9 and it was intended for FS9...so thats why Im a bit...nit picky of the guys statement about Compatibility...
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #23 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 5:17pm
Brett_Henderson
Offline
Colonel
EVERY OUTER MARKER SHOULD
BE AN NDB
Gender:
Posts: 3593
As someone who's had to listen to both praise and complaints (
still blows my mind that people complain about freeware
).. I can put myself in his shoes, to a point. However.. he loses the high-ground when
HE
complains about issues that are no doubt stemming from the fact that he doesn't WANT to model for FSX... or maybe can't model for it, out of inadequate hardware.
FSX has been out for over THREE years now. A modeling group can't hold claim to a cetain level prestige, while not taking the FSX baton and running with it by now. And if their stand for not doing it goes past a simple, "
no, it doesn't interest us
", into an explanation like that bunch of gobbly-goop.. they're pretty much asking for negative feed-back.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #24 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 6:07pm
N2056
Offline
Colonel
I roll my own!
San Diego, CA, USA
Gender:
Posts: 62
From what I can figure out he really does not like the new rules in the FSX SDK. Anyone here that has worked with both completely can relate to the fact that there are a lot of changes in how things are done.
Each developer has to decide what version he wants to work in. I actually get his point...He can start converting all his work to be true FSX (not as easy as you think), he can opt to build for FSX only from now on (meaning no more new Posky FS9 stuff), he could model for both (twice the work), or he can stay in his comfort zone and make FS9 planes that might be useable in FSX.
@Jamie: I think he's saying that an FSX compiled model will not work in FS9, which is correct. Remember...English might not be his native language
Remember...This is Fun!
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #25 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 6:16pm
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
correct, going from FSX to FS9 wont happen any time soon (although I did port the Default FSX bell into FS9 for kicks and giggles and it kinda worked but not very well)
as for what his arguement is about FSX being a bit more complicated, yes thats true it is more complicated in some ways then FS9 was (ive done modeling for FS9 a bit my self too so I do know where hes comming on that end) however porting from FS9 to FSX is possible, his point was more or less that it was impossible, which its not...
Improbible maybe for now but not impossible...people will find ways (and are) to get things going for FSX as they did with 9...
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #26 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 6:34pm
ShaneG
Offline
Colonel
I turned into a Martian!
Posts: 10000
jaime wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 6:16pm:
his point was more or less that it was impossible, which its not...
I think his point was more that, due to certain issues that just can't be overcome when re-compiling an FS9 SDK plane with the FSX SDK makes the procedure not worth the intense amount of time and effort it would take.
Posky makes a top notch freeware product, possibly the finest in their category. To do anything that knowingly would compromise that quality is more than likely an unacceptable option for them.
Because of the fact that people are inevitably going to want to use them in FSX, because there is no current native offerings as nice, they have chosen to do some converting, but still as many still use FS9, they will continue to have that as their native format. And offer little or no FSX support, as they went into it knowing there would be issues, and they let it be known up front. Take them for what they are in FSX.
To have an argument over which Sim is the better is silly.
The one that makes you happy is the best one.
♪♫♪‼
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #27 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 6:48pm
N2056
Offline
Colonel
I roll my own!
San Diego, CA, USA
Gender:
Posts: 62
ShaneG wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 6:34pm:
The one that makes you happy is the best one.
We have a winner!
Remember...This is Fun!
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #28 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 8:16pm
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
indeed, the which sim is better argurment is kinda silly, I use what I like and I like POSY planes and use them in FS9...I just have FSX installed at this time (need to find my disks for FS9 lol) but they are both good and have there strong points and weak points...just like any thing else will...
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #29 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 9:08pm
Jeff.Guo
Offline
Colonel
Hello!
Posts: 283
jaime wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 8:16pm:
indeed, the which sim is better argurment is kinda silly, I use what I like and I like POSY planes and use them in FS9...I just have FSX installed at this time (need to find my disks for FS9 lol) but they are both good and have there strong points and weak points...just like any thing else will...
The only person that has done that in this thread is Mr. Igami
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #30 -
Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 9:42pm
ShaneG
Offline
Colonel
I turned into a Martian!
Posts: 10000
Jeff.Guo wrote
on Nov 22
nd
, 2009 at 11:08pm:
I got the Wilco ERJ v2 pack a few days back, but the POSKY exterior is still much, much better. So if I wanted to combine the Wilco VC, along with all the avionics and stuff, with the POSKY exterior model, how would I go about doing that?
After re-reading your original post, I'm willing to bet that Wilco would have locked their VC .mdl file to prevent such a thing. I'm pretty sure Alex & Brett do the same with their VC's for the same reason.
VCs are supposed to be the hardest part of a model to do, and if they spend that much time and effort on one, they probably don't want others taking the shortcut and using their work in such a way.
On that point, I'm surprised no one has thought to model only VCs that can be downloaded and used as a replacement.
They do it with 2d panels, so why not VCs?
I bet that was the original intention of the ACEs team for the feature.
«
Last Edit: Dec 13
th
, 2009 at 8:42am by ShaneG
»
♪♫♪‼
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #31 -
Dec 13
th
, 2009 at 12:14pm
Fr. Bill
Offline
Colonel
I used to have a life;
now I have GMax!
Hammond, IN
Gender:
Posts: 962
N2056 wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 3:14pm:
Even though some here make valid points I find it disappointing that this has apparently turned into a bash of a guy that actually has contributed a h@ll of a lot of free stuff to the hobby.
My comment may have seemed a bit harsh, but the reality is that Hiroshi is an excellent 3d modeler with a very well-deserved reputation for high quality FS9 work.
As a result, he is perceived by some Padawans as an "Authority." But, just like Yoda, he too has his blindsides and prejudices. Hiroshi's apparent monomania with FS9 modeling has led him to
not
invest the time to actually understand the very real differences and advantages of the FSX modeling paradigm.
Whenever any "Authority" speaks or writes outside his/her area of competency, one must be very careful to not simply accept such commentary as "gospel..."
I try very hard to not write about things about which I have no personal competence, such as flight dynamics...
...yet I still occasionally manage to make a fool of myself anyway.
Bill
Gauge Programming - 3d Modeling Eaglesoft Development Group
Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600-4GB DDR2 Crucial PC6400-800 GB SATA-ATI Radeon HD2400 Pro 256MB DX10
NOTE: Unless explicitly stated in the post, everything written by my hand is
MY
opinion. I do
NOT
speak for any company, real or imagined...
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #32 -
Dec 13
th
, 2009 at 12:34pm
N2056
Offline
Colonel
I roll my own!
San Diego, CA, USA
Gender:
Posts: 62
Bill, I most certainly was not trying to single anyone out. It just seemed to be the way the thread was going. I agree with you on your assessment of Hiroshi, and I also agree with your feelings about following what someone says when they are outside of their area of expertise.
Remember...This is Fun!
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #33 -
Dec 13
th
, 2009 at 5:31pm
Felix/FFDS
Offline
Admin
FINALLY an official Granddad!
Orlando, FL
Gender:
Posts: 1000000627
N2056 wrote
on Dec 13
th
, 2009 at 12:34pm:
I also agree with your feelings about following what someone says when they are outside of their area of expertise.
and let's all remember that the only two people that are unquestionable allowed to speak authoritatively outside the bounds of their areas of expertise are Inspector Poly and myself...
(of course, if and when anyone figures out what our respective areas of expertise is/are, kindly drop us note?)
Felix/
FFDS
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #34 -
Dec 13
th
, 2009 at 6:09pm
jaime
Offline
Colonel
I can haz fail now?
Posts: 248
Jeff.Guo wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 9:08pm:
jaime wrote
on Dec 12
th
, 2009 at 8:16pm:
indeed, the which sim is better argurment is kinda silly, I use what I like and I like POSY planes and use them in FS9...I just have FSX installed at this time (need to find my disks for FS9 lol) but they are both good and have there strong points and weak points...just like any thing else will...
The only person that has done that in this thread is Mr. Igami
lol, true, but we still should keep open minds, as the few posts before also state, I do agree with the fact that he may not have taken the proper time frame to explore the differences in FSX verses FS9...but one should NOT take his word as the authority...though most who are "padwans" do see to do that it seems, but they should be willing to keep an open ear and thoughts on the issues...thats all I ask of them...
one of the starters of the burner pandemic
Back to top
IP Logged
Pages:
1
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
« Home
‹ Board
Top of this page
Forum Jump »
Home
» 10 most recent Posts
» 10 most recent Topics
Current Flight Simulator Series
- Flight Simulator X
- FS 2004 - A Century of Flight
- Adding Aircraft Traffic (AI) & Gates
- Flight School
- Flightgear
- MS Flight
Graphic Gallery
- Simviation Screenshots Showcase
- Screenshot Contest
- Edited Screenshots
- Photos & Cameras
- Payware Screenshot Showcase
- Studio V Screenshot Workshop
- Video
- The Cage
Design Forums
- Aircraft & 3D Design ««
- Scenery & Panel Design
- Aircraft Repainting
- Designer Feedback
General
- General Discussion
- Humour
- Music, Arts & Entertainment
- Sport
Computer Hardware & Software Forum
- Hardware
- Tweaking & Overclocking
- Computer Games & Software
- HomeBuild Cockpits
Addons Most Wanted
- Aircraft Wanted
- Other Add-ons Wanted
Real World
- Real Aviation
- Specific Aircraft Types
- Autos
- History
On-line Interactive Flying
- Virtual Airlines Events & Messages
- Multiplayer
Simviation Site
- Simviation News & Info
- Suggestions for these forums
- Site Questions & Feedback
- Site Problems & Broken Links
Combat Flight Simulators
- Combat Flight Simulator 3
- Combat Flight Simulator 2
- Combat Flight Simulator
- CFS Development
- IL-2 Sturmovik
Other Websites
- Your Site
- Other Sites
Payware
- Payware
Old Flight Simulator Series
- FS 2002
- FS 2000
- Flight Simulator 98
Simviation Forum
» Powered by
YaBB 2.5 AE
!
YaBB Forum Software
© 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.