|
Author
|
Topic: Manifest for a better flightsim's posted
|
STef_EAF329
Pilot
|
posted 01-15- 06:45 PM
   
Well, nothing really deep yet, just 3 points that are worth the effort.the link is: http://stephan.bondier.free.fr/manifest.html , or from The Gazette's page. Give me your comments. ------------------
P/O STef, EAF STef_EAF329
stephan.bondier.free.fr/gazette.html
ICQ 52072208
IP: Logged |
Jaguar
Pilot
|
posted 01-16- 01:11 AM
point 3 is possible in FS right now...... just wait for the contest to end  ------------------
Cheers!
Jaguar
www.fshangar.com
IP: Logged |
Zoycite
JAG
|
posted 01-16- 02:03 AM
Number 2 would be nice. But with SDOE Chameleon, there is about as much variety as one could need.Number 3 is already being done.
The DVII,SE5A and DR1 do this right now
And probably more of the new planes too. ------------------
Zoycite {GS}
GUNSLINGERS  visit The War Paint Factory IP: Logged |
STef_EAF329
Pilot
|
posted 01-16- 04:40 AM
1) SDOE Chameleon is a good piece of software, though, every planes build on the same model have the same texture.
My point is to have different textures with one model.2) How many different textures to simulate damages, can we have at the moment? [This message has been edited by STef_EAF329 (edited 01-16-2000).] IP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 01-16- 10:12 AM
Here are my thoughts,
Points 2,3,4,5 are great.
Point one makes no sense. Why have a super definition unless it is a scheme for point 2? other than that, there is no reason that I can see.
Point 8.... oh please, is it that important? is it possible to have something triggered when the engine start button is pressed?
7 is going to hurt FR since there are going to be hundreds of these little sprites falling all the time. they are nice but not worth the balance tot the game. IF you don't believe me, watch your FR when the bomb bug shows itself...
6 isn't too bad an idea, although using RW does seem to fix that problem.Well, just some thoughts, I could be way off... but there ya go,
Mirthain=FC=
IP: Logged |
Whirlwind
Pilot
|
posted 01-16- 12:48 PM
From an expandability point of view, a more direct language is needed. Less of an openplane and more of an OpenWorld. More likely an Object Oriented OpenWorld. OpenPlane has a quasi Object orientation to it, but it is so lost in the implementation. The 2-3 page list of setup (materials, item name/numbers) is usually redundant since who knows or even has needed to change materails? Floating is a propert of an existing material. Groupings are nice, but become like GOTO and GOSUB statements - great way to confuse the obvious.Also, a way of implementing behavior models, very simularly to your formation idea, but more expandable. Words like 'go' or 'wait until loaded'. You know, a triggered based behavior mode. Imagine having a flight of fighters in a finger four but breaking down into two plane grounps when a flight of enemy planes are sighted. What we need is a set of better scripting languages to make puffs of smoke on engine startup a trivial thing to implement as opposed to a search to get around an obtrusive format. It's time to stop staring at a dot on the paper to see what you can make with that dot and start seeing that the rest of the paper is blank. What to draw first? IP: Logged |
Sv
Pilot
|
posted 01-17- 06:39 AM
Planes damage textures [General]
If OPP offers possibility to read a partial part of a texture image, each plane could have 4 sets of paintschemes. Maybe more, regarding previous point.
One scheme for clean plane, lightly damaged, medium damages, heavy damages. Each texture representing various bullet holes and other damages and being loaded when needed.This is done now on the WWI planes, check out the SE5a - you get bullet holes and stuff on parts you hit. You can have as many levels as you want, and not only textures switch out, entire 3D models! So it is possible now (and will be done) to see some bullet holes, hit the part again, and see ribs and torn fabric! Whirlwind, once again: OpenPlane is a standard, not a scripting language. It is not meant to be a scriptiong language. However, it is meant to be a standard that one can write a scripting language off of. That is the intent, imagine OPS taken to the next level: you can define DOF motion in a WYSIWUG way, damage modeling is done in real time, DOF osc scripts are done in a normal scripting langauge kinda way - and in the end this outputs the SM file. Also imagine a custom built aircraft 3D editor embeded in OPS, so you can edit a 3D part with there! Also a wing wizard, and a landing gear creator! It is all possible... only limited by the featurs of SDOE and what OpenPlane exposes to be customized. Its kinda like a photoshop file - by itself its just a binary file with a cumbersome format telling photoshop where the layers are, what color info is there, etc. It takes Photoshop to let you apply filters and otherwise edit the image. ------------------
-Sv =FC=
WWI in SDOE! IP: Logged |
Whirlwind
Pilot
|
posted 01-17- 12:55 PM
SV:You missed the point. Just because something is object oriented, doesn't mean it has to be a scripting language. It would be nice to do the same, if not more stuff with a decriptive language than what you can do with OpenPlane. How long does it take to acertain a part is a wing from looking at the text file? If they included the airfoil data in it and the part isn't cryptically named like "AR342", a few seconds. Unfortunately, some of the shipped planes have wings, and they have airfoils as children so now you are talking about 15 minutes. Wouldn't it be nice to sit down, enter all your information of a plane and its parts in about 20 minutes and then position and tweak them in a really nice program like OPS? I've been looking at OP since Hippie and Pete started spouting out gobs of useful information on how to edit planes in SDOE, and I still find it cryptic to get anything done in OpenPlane. Why confuse the obvious? IP: Logged |
Jaguar
Pilot
|
posted 01-17- 01:25 PM
you hit the nail right on the head whirlwind. Even somthing as simple as a delay before another function is executed isn't supported......... don't mean to sound like an ass, but it's kinda frustrating waisting all your time figuring something out, only to have it not supported.------------------
Cheers!
Jaguar
www.fshangar.com
IP: Logged |
Sv
Pilot
|
posted 01-17- 02:04 PM
How long does it take to acertain a part is a wing from looking at the text file? What text file? Hippie's text file? That is not an OpenPlane file - it is an extracted text representation. If evey imaginable feature was added to OpenPlane we would still be waiting for SDOE LOL. It seems that what was added to OpenPlane wa stuff needed for SDOE. I'm just glad it is an open architecture. You can try making planes for B-17 II - now that would be a challenge! Once you understand the basics of OpenPlane (made one plane) then it is fairly easy to know off the top of your head what you can/can't do. Some things require clever experimentation - that can be the funnest part of all! I love OpenPlane, but I do wish every feature I wanted wa included. I only hope that in the future more feautures will be added to OpenPane. This seems to be the case... take sky color for example. Also I bet that the next OpenPlane sims will add new features to Openlane for sure! Give it some time, please! It has only been a year you know... and look at the planes! I am a complete newbie to this kinda stuff - never did any 3D editing or any sim customizing - not even that Quake stuff. I am very impressed with how easy it is! Look at my Albatros. That represnts one weekend's work (about 8 hours). Show me any other sim I can do that in? There is plenty of room for improvement though, I ust wouldn't aurgue that it doesn't kick total ass. -Sv IP: Logged |
Whirlwind
Pilot
|
posted 01-17- 02:44 PM
I'd have to agree that it is a good start. Just remember though, that is just that, a good start. Now let's take it to the next level and make it an OpenWorld, where a plane is just as easy to make as a moving and sailing aircraft carrier. OpenPlane needs OpenAI (OpenBehavior???) and OpenUniverse (I want no gravity. I want an underwater world, ect). It also needs OpenSimplification. What does the [xxxx:xxxx] after most section headers mean? There has to be a better way to represent things other than groups and parts.IP: Logged |
Sv
Pilot
|
posted 01-17- 05:36 PM
I'm with ya Whirlwind, onward and upward!-Sv IP: Logged |
Jerry
Pilot
|
posted 01-17- 08:41 PM
I hope MH is reading this thread. His comments would be very interesting.IP: Logged |
STef_EAF329
Pilot
|
posted 01-19- 06:10 AM
I'm glad to see this thread is coming along with a very interesting debate. It's what I intended to...I too hope MH will take a look at it. I should update the Manifest page this evening, check it later in the day. ------------------
P/O STef, EAF STef_EAF329
stephan.bondier.free.fr/gazette.html
ICQ 52072208
IP: Logged |
Whirlwind
Pilot
|
posted 01-19- 07:19 AM
He can look all he wants, but if he can't find OpenWallet and OpenResources to work on it plus OpenBuyer and OpenPublisher to buy and sell it, there isn't a lot he can do since it would be quite an effort for him to be able to feed his family and do his day job. I am thinking at first we could OpenSource a front end to translate an OpenWorld standard into OpenPlane ala Hippie's tools, then onwards and upwards..IP: Logged |
Poodle EAF322
Pilot
|
posted 01-19- 01:44 PM
What's SDOE Chameleon. Is it better than Ground Crew?IP: Logged |
Jeeves
Pilot
|
posted 01-19- 03:31 PM
It allows you at the touch of a button- to automatically load in skins for different theaters (BoB, Africa, D-Day, Dover,...) instead of dragging and clicking. So- say you have a different Spit skin in every theater and you're online- and you ask someone where the mission is. They say it's in Africa- so you Alt-Enter out, open Chameleon, click Africa, and your desert skin is loaded in- without having to trade in and out of a aircraft textures file. Ingenius really!IP: Logged |
Pachy
Pilot
|
posted 01-19- 05:47 PM
But Ground Crew is good at managing large number of textures.
I have 120+ paint schemes here in GC format, I browse them with GC's preview feature. I don't have to search for the file. Click, installed. Too bad some competent skin painters were too lazy to distribute their creations in GC format, making them less convenient to use (have to replace different files manually, and so on).SDOE Chameleon could be great but it is not flexible enough yet (that is, the number of theaters is not user-definable, and what about aircraft?) ------------------
Pachy's SDOE stuff
perso.club-internet.fr/gledimet
IP: Logged |
Pachy
Pilot
|
posted 01-19- 06:10 PM
and oh yes i forgot9. it would be interesting to be able to choose the HUD units. Since the german planes instruments are in kph and m, I'd like not to have my HUD display in mph and ft when I'm flying my beloved Dora. Same for that target distance device that switches from 1.0 mile to a very stupid number of smaller units (I dont remember if these are feet, yards, fathoms or whatever). ------------------
Pachy's SDOE stuff
perso.club-internet.fr/gledimet
IP: Logged |
Zoycite
JAG
|
posted 01-19- 06:53 PM
Heya,Number nine, It sounds interesting, but right now you can add almost anything to an OpenPlane sim. Once you learn its not that hard. While it could be easier work with, I think more importance should be placed on adding more features to OpenPlane rather than making it as easy as Legos to work with. Hud options should remain a host option. The individual toggle of componets might be nice. What really needs to be fixed is a/c id's and padlocking. These should not work behind terrain, objects, clouds and cockpits. There's no element of surprise in the current state. Even with hud off due to padlock working behind the above items. In defence of the "Too bad some competent skin painters were too lazy to distribute their creations in GC format, making them less convenient to use (have to replace different files manually, and so on)" comment. Let me say this. Not everyone including myself use gound crew. It is easier for a painter to release in a format that will work for "everyone" not just those who use GC. The extra time spent to add this just doesnt seem to be justified by the small user group. IMHO  If a end user wants to use GC and their not "too lazy", then they can simply change a skin to GC format. Managing skins is quite easy. Currently I use ACDSee to manage my skins. It previews them, and with the click of the Save as button, they go were they need to go. And actually any graphics viewer will do the same thing. And now that Chameleon is out, what more could one need. Is 8 versions of each A/C not enough? And its easy to use. Unzip, click and your ready to go. ------------------
Zoycite {GS}
GUNSLINGERS visit The War Paint Factory IP: Logged |
Poodle EAF322
Pilot
|
posted 01-20- 11:57 AM
It seems most of you guys have never even tried GC. GC works with the same file type as GTT's Camo Commander, thus with almost all skins around. It also works about the same way, only much and much better.
GC has a small database in it so even files without a small pic can be chosen, and there will be a sign saying 'classified' at the little picture screen. Also, you can install vehicles, planes, squads, and a lot more. You can choose different skins for vehicles (eg, I have 3 skins for the Saratoga) and you can also select a plane so you can only see the skins for that plane.
GC really is the best painting utility around. Anyway, MUCH better than GTT's Camo Commander.
http://www.tomb.demon.nl/alt/paintboy.htm ------------------
Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it's a Flying Poodle ! [This message has been edited by Poodle EAF322 (edited 01-20-2000).] IP: Logged |
Jeeves
Pilot
|
posted 01-20- 05:19 PM
For painters who know what they're doing- you're probably right about GC. But I'm a full-time teacher who gets maybe one to 1 and 1/2 hours to play on the computer a day- I tried to use Ground Crew and couldn't for the life of me figure it out- and I don't have the time to read about how to use it! I got Chameleon working right in just 5 minutes- and wasn't at all frustrated...5 minutes with GC made me sick to my stomach- I couldn't even open a damn file in the thing...so no thanks!IP: Logged |
Serval_EAF322
Pilot
|
posted 02-05- 08:22 AM
What is so hard in using Ground Crew?
I'm a bit surprised by this, because I've had very little questions about GC, apart from new options requested.
OK the text-file included is also not my way of doing things. This was done for compatibility with Camo Commander.Releasing a skin in 'GC format' as you call it does not mean noone else can use it or that you are tied to useing GC. All you have to do is ZIP the files like you allways do for distribution over internet. Then open your notepad and type: My marvellous skin (the title displayed)
Spit (assuming this is a spitfire, you know all the dir's)
And save the file as 'file.id.txt' and also put it into the ZIP-file. Then GC users can use it as well as all other people. Nothing strange is done to the textures themselves. But to make it easy, the next version of Ground Crew lets you select the aircraft (all now known) or type it if it's not in the list. Type the title you want displayed. Point to the directory where you have the texture files. Press the button and your ZIP-file is ready. Just in Win-zip comatible zip's For the guy above: If GC did not work for you I can think of a few things:
1. the ZIP-files did not have the file.id.txt included
2. You had Zip Magic running In both cases I'd like to point you to the 'How to use GC' and 'known problems' chapters of the help-file. If you are sure your ZIP-file has the file.id.txt file then copy it to the ZIP directory of GC or use the import function in the menu of GC (let's you search for the file and then copies it to the place it needs it to be). I hope this makes things clear for people not understanding GC. IP: Logged |
Mirthain
Pilot
|
posted 02-05- 10:04 AM
I have to agree.... I haven't used Chameleon because I don't need to paint all my A/C at once. I will DL a skin that I want to see on an A/C and then I click paint and there we go. Thats it. If I was going to do full theater painting at once, then I would use Chameleon, becuase that is easier for many A/C... but for just one, it is far easier, and I don't have to specify which skin and where. I just drop the zip file in my FStemp folder, which is where I do all my SDOE downloads to, then open GC, import a zip and there it is. Click paint and I am off. That is far easier then Chameleon. And if I have to do my own file.id.txt, then so be it, it isn't that tough, and still easier then making sure I got all the tif's in the right place for Chameleon.
Both programs are good for their own thing. If you have certain skins or squadrons, or other things that GC do, then it rocks, if you want to paint a whole theater at once, then use Chameleon.
------------------
Mirthain=FC=
 IP: Logged |
Serval_EAF322
Pilot
|
posted 02-05- 10:16 AM
As the screenshot in my other post shows: There will come an option to make quick sets for those who like the feature.You create a set with any name, select which aircraft to be in the set and which skin each aircraft will have. With a click at a button you will have them all painted. People familiar with the program called Yer Winlogo will understand how it works right away, but it really shows itself. IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-06- 11:46 AM
I'd like to touch on #1.What if formations of "heavies" (insert what THAT is here) were all ganged off the behaviour of the lead plane? That's essentially how formations fly anyway. What I mean is, what if you added a bomber box, ALL of a bomber box, into a mission, but it only really "flew" one aircraft? Wouldn't that greatly reduce the CPU workload? Essentially it's a single aircraft with a "funny" model and a lot of turrets. When planes are hit and fall out of formations, they are spawned into a new plane. Does that make sense? I realize this would have some side effects in terms of what formations look like and how they act, but wouldn't this also potentially allow for massive formations even in the current engine? Maury IP: Logged |
STef_EAF329
Pilot
|
posted 02-07- 03:28 PM
That's what Microprose's Falcon 4 do. They use a "bubble". Objects operating in a distant flight (out of the bubble radius) are considered to be only one object. It allows much more objects to be handled. ------------------
P/O STef, EAF STef_EAF329
stephan.bondier.free.fr/gazette.html
ICQ 52072208 IP: Logged |
Maury Markowitz
Pilot
|
posted 02-09- 07:57 AM
Stef:Thanks for the reply. I'd like to know more! I think what you're saying here is that there's a radius around _you_ where everything is fully simmed, and then outside that what happens? Formations are reduced to single planes? If it does this to everything, doesn't that make it harder to simulate the "rest" of the world? For instance, are planes attacking the formations also "bubblized", and if so, do you know what they do to make it all work out? Maury IP: Logged | |
FSIC Messageboard
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
