Jump to content

FastCargo

ADMINISTRATOR
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8,142

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Posts posted by FastCargo

  3. Posted

    Modifying a 767 to be a 737 would take a LOT of work. It's better to start fresh for the following reasons:

     

    1. Large engined versions of the 737 (-300 and later) have distorted engine intakes. They are flat bottomed for ground clearance unlike the round intakes of the 767.

    2. The cockpit area is more pointed for a given length. The cockpit windows themselves would have to be resized to be proportional.

    3. The body tube on a 737 has a 'crease' on the side just above the wing line. The 767 has no such crease.

    4. The wheels on the landing gear actually remain exposed when the aircraft is 'clean'. The 767 has a more conventional arrangement.

     

    This of course doesn't address things like the wing and tail being completely different between the aircraft, including the 'cuts' of the flaps, slats, ailerons, etc.

     

    I'd just start from scratch verses trying to twist, cut and bend.

     

    FC

  9. Posted

    No, not necessarily.  The Super Hornet (because the basic model was so poly intensive) I did low poly models of.  The big thing is that the meshes you delete (if you delete any) have to be in order like I showed up top, and I THINK any deleted meshes can't be referenced in the data.ini file (ie you can't reference a pylon that doesn't exist in your lower poly versions of the model).

     

    Here's what I did for the Super Hornet:

     

    http://combatace.com/topic/35624-my-projects-ericj/?p=247486

     

    FC

    • Like 1

  12. Posted

    Ed is correct. Bump and specular mapping is treated like any other texture by the game engine. However, the model needs to have it built in MAX initially and exported.

    A good example is to look at the OUT file of one of my models...you can see all the additional entries for a model with bump mapping:
     

    ( 1) Standard_19:
    SF21BodyTexture.jpg
    SF21BodyNormal.jpg (bump map)
    SF21BodySpecular.jpg (specular map)
    ( 2) Standard_21:
    Transparency enabled
    SF21CanopyGlass.tga
    sf21canopyspecular.tga (specular map)
    ( 3) Standard_22:
    Transparency enabled
    CompletelyClear.tga
    ( 4) Standard_20:
    SF21WingTexture.jpg
    SF21WingNormal.jpg (bump map)
    SF21WingSpecular.jpg (specular map)
    ( 5) Standard_23:
    Self-illumination enabled
    Slimer.tga


    Note the different entries under each material line:

    Self-illumination enabled - For slimers
    Transparency enabled - For your lenses, cockpit windows, etc
    zzz.jpg - Basic texture
    zzzyyy.jpg (bump map) - Bump maps
    zzzxxx.jpg (specular map) - Specular maps

     

    If you don't see these kind of entries under the material section in the OUT file, the model won't have that feature enabled.

     

    FC

  16. Posted

    I also think people are probably overestimating how much money he makes from the mobile games. In my experience and in that of some of my friends in the industry, the % of people who actually spend any money on your typical free-to-play game is only about 2-4%. It is bad enough that here at Killerfish Games we've specifically decided to avoid this type of business model.

    You've got me curious...how is that working out for you guys? I'd be curious as to the costs (size of staff, pay scale, expenses) verses revenue. How much of that can you talk about?

     

    There was, originally, a flyable F-104. I think licensing problems with Lockheed killed it.

    I think that's what also killed the C-130 for a while...

     

    I also think it's absolute horseshit that an aircraft paid for with tax dollars cannot be considered public domain for a virtual representation of it. Hey, you want a developer to acknowledge the source, sure (ie a simple 'Created by Lockheed' or some such), but license fees should be verboten on a publicly funded aircraft. That goes for things like the military services too. If I want to create a military looking model rocket with 'US AIR FORCE' on the side as a kit, that should be okay...if you want to have a kit builder put something like 'Not An Official Representation of a US AIR FORCE Weapon System' on it...sure. We pay for this stuff once...we shouldn't have to keep paying for it.

     

    FC

    • Like 2

  18. Posted

    Well, some modders here initially said that converting a model to work in DCS from TW wouldn't be that difficult (assuming you had the MAX file of course). However, as far as I know there has not been ONE model that this has happened with.

     

    From what I understand, the amount of effort to program in LUA (the language used for things like avionics) was seriously underestimated.

     

    Also, I have to chuckle a bit. One of the reasons folks would bitch about the TW sims was the constant patching. That doesn't seem like it's going to happen anymore. Any mods you create for SF2 will probably work forever. Yet no one seems to bring that up as a positive...

     

    DCS seems to run pretty well for me, but I have a fairly modern gaming laptop.

     

    FC

  19. Posted

    Notice that SF2:NA offered 2 new things--flyable F-14, Iceland terrain. I suppose the carrier ops and naval combat were also new, but less noticeable. Anyway, previous "full" titles offered multiple flyables. Even Exp 1 and 2 offered more than 1 new one. NA alone only offered the A-7 IIRC as another flyable if you had it standalone. The F-4 campaign was only there for people who had merged it with a title with the F-4.

     

    ...

     

    I just have trouble understanding the cost structure. His SF2 engine is the same. Any increase in costs to make a flyable airplane are 100% labor related as the same techniques and software are in use for any SF2 expansions or further titles. I can't imagine how post-Great Recession those costs have gone up SO much when it's largely...him? Is he charging himself more??? It's just his time he's mostly spending aside from some art assets and since, as I mentioned, SF2 is the same how much can those costs have gone up? Development for games has gotten more costly because of the added complexity and art fidelity requiring more labor. SF2 is flat.

    Though parts of the engine were the same, SF2:NA did have some significant code changes from the base SF2 engine. And as we all know, coding core is different from coding add-ons. My guess is that most of the time and money was in making those changes (rendering engine, naval battles, etc).

     

    I disagree with the old 'pull a model off the net' way of quickly populating a DLC or EXP. Having done this a few times, I can tell you it is rare that a model not built from the ground up to be used in SF will work without a serious amount of time and effort to get right. In a LOT of cases, it's better to build the model yourself rather than trying to adapt from another source.

     

    Do335, your math got me curious...I did a bit of research and found this:

     

    http://www.gamecareerguide.com/features/1279/game_developer_salary_survey_.php?page=1

     

    It's an article that came out in January of 2014, which shows average game developer salaries for 2013. Interesting is that except for QA, in the Southern US, average salaries start at just over $60k and top out just under $80k. Again, these are AVERAGE salaries.

     

    So, assuming a two man shop, and each of them earning $70k, you're talking $140k per year just for the salaries. Which would take about 4700 sales of $30 games to recoup. Of course, this doesn't include ANY other costs, like standard utilities, server costs, and anything else that an e-business/game developer requires. What I thought was interesting was reading the comments about the expansion/explosion of mobile gaming and how there is a lot of consternation that all other types of gaming (console, PC, etc) may be in serious trouble.

     

    Fundamentally, I think the hardcore, post Korea, military combat flight simmer is a niche of a niche market. And I don't know if it's going to get much better.

     

    FC

  23. Posted

    Minor point here...to save money, you fly higher, not lower. The routing is more critical to fuel savings than altitude. If they were barely above the no fly zone, it was probably because of a combination of weight and direction of travel.

     

    I still disagree about modern airliners operating in war zones. The majority of threats are from MANPADS, which modern airliners are resistant to. The risk is significantly less, especially at altitude and cruise speed from a MANPAD for a modern airliner. If you look at airliner downings over history, almost all of the have been slower, lower, smaller props/turboprops...much more vulnerable to any gomer with a shoulder fired MANPAD. The big airliner downings have been due to either large SAMs (MH, Iran Air) or fighters (KAL). The one exception was DHL, and even then, that aircraft was recovered and repaired.

     

    It's simple...you should not operate airliners in an active combat area where combatants have medium to high altitude capable SAMs. What costs more...increased fuel usage or a downed aircraft?

     

    FC

    • Like 1

  24. Posted

    All US airlines? Besides cargo-operators and troop-charters, there are no US airlines flying along that route, unless you count codeshare-flights.

    So far, nothing suggested the whole mess down there to turn crazy. Airlines have been flying through troubled airspace for long times.

     

    In any case, somebody went one step too far and has to be made accountable.

    Yes, all US airlines are affected if they had operations in that area. That includes cargo, charter and CRAF.

     

    Make no mistake, this was different from your standard MANPAD threat. Active combatants, both (or three...depending on how you view the conflict) all have medium range SAMs in that area.

     

    Nobody is going to fess up to this one anytime soon...unfortunately.

     

    FC

  25. Posted

    And how many US airlines do you think were affected by that order? Probably zero.

    Other airlines have routed their traffic through this area as well. According to that logic, half of Africa and most of the Middle East would be off-limits as well.

    Wrong.

     

    All US airlines were affected by the order, especially long range airlines like UAL, Delta...and mine. In fact, we stopped flying in that area back in Feb.

     

    Also, most SAM threats against airline ops have been from MANPADS striking during climb out...and even then, the amount of actual airliners downed per MANPAD fired has been low due to various factors, not the least of which is the podded engine pylon design of most modern airliners.

     

    An SA-6/17 derived SAM is a different class of weapon. One only has to look at the Iran Air 665 incident to see how dangerous flying an airliner in contested airspace, in tense international situations, with long range weapons, and very little reaction time can be a tragedy in the making.

     

    A sad day for all the families affected by this.

     

    FC

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..

  I accept