This probably belongs in January, because that's when I did the pack-ice fandango on the way to work. It's quite silly really - it's been snowing and freezing since before Christmas and I manage to get all the way through five weeks of slippery paths only to go base over apex a mere ten metres from the front door to my place of work.
A week later and still no improvement in the sprains, so I had to go to the specialist for work-related injury. By the way, having an accident on the way to work is classed as being work-related, so employers are more sensitive to these accidents. Anyway, off I goes to the casualty clinic and on the way there, the ice-worm trips me again - just to add insult to injury. Oh well, I guess I'm just lucky like that.
So anyway, February will be light on postings because there's not much to say and I even have problems typing anyway - with one wrist splinted, I am back to hunt and peck typing; as for using the mouse, that is more difficult than usual.
See you around soon...
Friday, February 12, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Done!
That took some doing... now what?
This one's finished and has been uploaded to my website - go there and help yourselves.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Sometimes it Goes Right First Time
But I am now on week three... (but getting there)
Yes, yes, I know... "Stunning", "Wow", "Your best yet"...
Well, I've got news for you - my next one's always my best and my last one's a nightmare. So. Let's check my readership - who wants me te write a book about painting FS models?
Yes, yes, I know... "Stunning", "Wow", "Your best yet"...
Well, I've got news for you - my next one's always my best and my last one's a nightmare. So. Let's check my readership - who wants me te write a book about painting FS models?
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Taking You a Stage Further...
oops - sorry there, got carried away as I just remembered a drill lesson oh so many years ago...
When you've got nasty paint schemes that wrap over half a doz different pieces spread over three UV sheets, you really have to get into the nitty gritty with those colour grids. In the case of the EC120 I have been playing with the way the pattern wraps over the tailboom. I have a multi-layered vector graphic drawing (11 layers with several dozen separate vector objects and jpg background images...)
All I have to do with these now is copy the black bits over, spray the points red, copy the white bits over... blah blah... all time consuming stuff. After all that it's make up a set of dds images and try them out. I'd like to think I can get it reasonably right in one go, but there'll be adjustments for sure...
You can look at this picture small here or doubleclick it for the full-sized one - which is only a quarter sized to save bandwidth. The vector drawing I am working with is 8000 by 2000 ish...
Anyone notice how the underside texture panel of the tail boom is lopsided? The makers mapped this model somewhat unevenly. Oh well - that's all part of being a painter.
When you've got nasty paint schemes that wrap over half a doz different pieces spread over three UV sheets, you really have to get into the nitty gritty with those colour grids. In the case of the EC120 I have been playing with the way the pattern wraps over the tailboom. I have a multi-layered vector graphic drawing (11 layers with several dozen separate vector objects and jpg background images...)
All I have to do with these now is copy the black bits over, spray the points red, copy the white bits over... blah blah... all time consuming stuff. After all that it's make up a set of dds images and try them out. I'd like to think I can get it reasonably right in one go, but there'll be adjustments for sure...
You can look at this picture small here or doubleclick it for the full-sized one - which is only a quarter sized to save bandwidth. The vector drawing I am working with is 8000 by 2000 ish...
Anyone notice how the underside texture panel of the tail boom is lopsided? The makers mapped this model somewhat unevenly. Oh well - that's all part of being a painter.
Back to my Musings...
Enough of this frivolity I say! I came here to moan about painting sim-planes...
Anyways, I'd like to share some pictures, but I have used copyrighted photos as comparisons, so I can't publish. Still, when you are painting, it does help to have photos that you can open in a window over the FS one. That aside, I am going to let you in on my current paint project and share a few screenies with you.
In that first shot, you can see that I have overlaid a coloured grid pattern over the textures so that you can see where the textures should wrap. Here's another on the right. Notice how the lozenge shaped paint over the top of th eboom seems odd? Well, now that I have added a grid, I can correct that.
Why a grid? Why don't I use the wireframes? Well, you can use the wireframes as a guide, but often you find that the polys that the modeller has mapped are a tad too large in places, or the lines that he unwrapped from the 3D model are just too thick. But hey, don't blame the makers for this. It's just an inherent part of painting - if you want detail, you have to be fiddly...
Well, that's enough musing for now. It's time for a cuppa...
Anyways, I'd like to share some pictures, but I have used copyrighted photos as comparisons, so I can't publish. Still, when you are painting, it does help to have photos that you can open in a window over the FS one. That aside, I am going to let you in on my current paint project and share a few screenies with you.
Why a grid? Why don't I use the wireframes? Well, you can use the wireframes as a guide, but often you find that the polys that the modeller has mapped are a tad too large in places, or the lines that he unwrapped from the 3D model are just too thick. But hey, don't blame the makers for this. It's just an inherent part of painting - if you want detail, you have to be fiddly...
Well, that's enough musing for now. It's time for a cuppa...
Friday, January 22, 2010
Totally Off Course (of course)
I haven't really ever been on track with this blog, have I?
Well today I have one or two cross-links to music videos - I really can recommend these for the sheer cleverness of what this guy does.
Oh - and I may plug a laugh or two as well... (So that's what "Plug 'n Play" is all about...)
The last vid above is intended to be played with this one opened in a separate window. Simply right-click the link and select "open in new window". Do that and hit pause, then come back hereand wait for MGM in the video above to give the countdown.
[edit] and just in case you are wondering what that should look like, then here's a screenshot of what it could look like...
Wayyyy too cool!
Want to know more about this guy? Go to youtube and search "Mystery Guitar Man"
Well today I have one or two cross-links to music videos - I really can recommend these for the sheer cleverness of what this guy does.
Oh - and I may plug a laugh or two as well... (So that's what "Plug 'n Play" is all about...)
The last vid above is intended to be played with this one opened in a separate window. Simply right-click the link and select "open in new window". Do that and hit pause, then come back hereand wait for MGM in the video above to give the countdown.
[edit] and just in case you are wondering what that should look like, then here's a screenshot of what it could look like...
Wayyyy too cool!
Want to know more about this guy? Go to youtube and search "Mystery Guitar Man"
Monday, January 18, 2010
Bernoulli Sucks
I guess that caught your eye then...
It should also give you a hint as to my faith. I am a Newtonian. Action and reaction. Try leaning over a piece of paper and sucking it up into the air. Now lean under it and blow upwards...
David Anderson can describe it more succinctly - look him up in Google. Add "Fermi Labs" to your search - and "how planes fly".
...and yet clever heads still insist on teaching young engineers the Bernoullian theory of flight.
It's like some sort of masonic movement out there. Engineers and counter-engineers. I think I have been reading too many Dan Browne books and watching too many films of his lately. I am seeing good teaching ignored and dumb teaching promoted as gospel. Oh, don't get me wrong - Bernoulli's numbers work in a tube - that's why venturis work - and thus carburettors and internal combustion engines; but wings?
Research David Anderson and prepare for enlightenment.
It should also give you a hint as to my faith. I am a Newtonian. Action and reaction. Try leaning over a piece of paper and sucking it up into the air. Now lean under it and blow upwards...
David Anderson can describe it more succinctly - look him up in Google. Add "Fermi Labs" to your search - and "how planes fly".
...and yet clever heads still insist on teaching young engineers the Bernoullian theory of flight.
It's like some sort of masonic movement out there. Engineers and counter-engineers. I think I have been reading too many Dan Browne books and watching too many films of his lately. I am seeing good teaching ignored and dumb teaching promoted as gospel. Oh, don't get me wrong - Bernoulli's numbers work in a tube - that's why venturis work - and thus carburettors and internal combustion engines; but wings?
Research David Anderson and prepare for enlightenment.
(Anyone worried about my mind yet? It's all these dark conspiracies, doncha know. They're out to keep us dumb.)
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Now Why Would Anyone Make Textures 4096 Pixels Square?
I have often been asked this by people who complain that FSX eats frames. Everyone insists that creating 4096 px textures for FSX paints adds wayyy to many bits and bytes and slows FSX down. Well folks, I have a three and a half year old PC. It's based on the AMD FX62 chip. It is grass roots minimum for FSX. I generally fly with at least 25 to 30 fps in even the heaviest and slowest planes (as far as file-size and FPS goes) My 4096ers are not noticeably slower than standard 1024s.
All I say is take the advice offered by people like Mathijs at Aerosoft.
Anyway, I like 4096 because of the detail you can get... look, you can read the small print:
This is the kind of detail I had been looking for, ever since I started painting aircraft textures. Would you believe that it's only a little over five years ago, that I started painting planes? The first paint I shared online was a Christen Eagle (of course...) and it was a fictional paint with the registration G-EAGL. Anyone remember this one?
I have fond memories of this livery - it still resides in the hangar and is waiting for me to do an FSX version of it. Mind you - this was not the very first livery I painted. I think that was my "Fire Eagle" aka "hot stuff". Without any experience I barely knew what to do, so I made an all black skin and added some default paintbrush flames. Again, this was on a Christen Eagle. Some time in the late summer of 2005 if I remember rightly.
AS I look back with the experience of hindsight I'd say that is a pretty "basic" paint. But it worked for me.
Anyway - that was in the days of 1024 pixel textures and dxt3 formats. So now we can just about use four times the size textures and thus sixteen times the amount of data per image map.
One major aspect of creating such ultra high detail images these days is the fact that the painter versions of these textures can easily reach half a gigabyte in size. I paint with Corel Draw Suite version X3 now, and when I have added all the little details, a single photopaint texture weighs in at around 70 MB for the detail texture I show at the top of this post. Then there are the specular sheets - here I usually "get away with" making only 2048 pixel square textures. But even so, there's over one gigabyte of data on my hard drive for the basic skin and for all the current EC120 textures in my Hangar I have clocked up over four and a half gigabytes storage space.
So why do we do this to ourselves?
It's simple - I like screw and rivet heads to look like the right size of screw and rivet heads. A pixel is a pixel. It's the smallest "blob" our monitors can display and if you measure the size of a Beaver texture sheet in FS9 and then make a line of rivets, you will see that a pixel takes more space than a single rivet head, so it looks awfully clutzy.
Nowadays we painters are able to achieve around 250 pixels per metre for even the larger jet liners and I have even managed to get some sheets up to around one pixel per millimetre - but of course - that is only when I can work directly with the developer (and they are a right conservative bunch at times, you mark my words...).
Anyway, here's a few more clickable high-detail images of my recent paints of the Nemeth EC120. It may not be the greatest FSX addon, but it sure as heck can be photogenic!
...and of course, as a painter, I do have to leave a mark of sorts so's you all know who dunnit!
Catch you all around again soon.
All I say is take the advice offered by people like Mathijs at Aerosoft.
Anyway, I like 4096 because of the detail you can get... look, you can read the small print:
This is the kind of detail I had been looking for, ever since I started painting aircraft textures. Would you believe that it's only a little over five years ago, that I started painting planes? The first paint I shared online was a Christen Eagle (of course...) and it was a fictional paint with the registration G-EAGL. Anyone remember this one?
AS I look back with the experience of hindsight I'd say that is a pretty "basic" paint. But it worked for me.
Anyway - that was in the days of 1024 pixel textures and dxt3 formats. So now we can just about use four times the size textures and thus sixteen times the amount of data per image map.
One major aspect of creating such ultra high detail images these days is the fact that the painter versions of these textures can easily reach half a gigabyte in size. I paint with Corel Draw Suite version X3 now, and when I have added all the little details, a single photopaint texture weighs in at around 70 MB for the detail texture I show at the top of this post. Then there are the specular sheets - here I usually "get away with" making only 2048 pixel square textures. But even so, there's over one gigabyte of data on my hard drive for the basic skin and for all the current EC120 textures in my Hangar I have clocked up over four and a half gigabytes storage space.
So why do we do this to ourselves?
It's simple - I like screw and rivet heads to look like the right size of screw and rivet heads. A pixel is a pixel. It's the smallest "blob" our monitors can display and if you measure the size of a Beaver texture sheet in FS9 and then make a line of rivets, you will see that a pixel takes more space than a single rivet head, so it looks awfully clutzy.
Nowadays we painters are able to achieve around 250 pixels per metre for even the larger jet liners and I have even managed to get some sheets up to around one pixel per millimetre - but of course - that is only when I can work directly with the developer (and they are a right conservative bunch at times, you mark my words...).
Anyway, here's a few more clickable high-detail images of my recent paints of the Nemeth EC120. It may not be the greatest FSX addon, but it sure as heck can be photogenic!
...and of course, as a painter, I do have to leave a mark of sorts so's you all know who dunnit!
Catch you all around again soon.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
I seem to be losing it...
...my affinity for the Christen Eagle that is...
Shock! Horror! Dismay!
Well, it's not quite as bad as that really, it's just that I have re-installed FSX and all the addons recently, after converting to Windows 7 (big improvement there, MS, well done!) and now I am finding fun with helicopters again.
As much as I could slate them, the Nemeth Brothers made really pretty EC120, EC135 and MD500 helicopters. Their standards have dropped a bit with the FSX version of the EC120, but these helis are good to fly and good to paint despite quite a few niggling little bugs. I hope we'll see patches for the EC120 - she's just too photogenic not to have in the hangar.
...and that is just some of the fun I have been having with this chopper!
The best one at the moment though, has got to be the CERA Bell 412. It is great to fly - realistic procedures have been programmed into it and she is also really nice to paint. So without further ado, here are some more piccies:
There are more to see on my website in the downloads section.
Shock! Horror! Dismay!
Well, it's not quite as bad as that really, it's just that I have re-installed FSX and all the addons recently, after converting to Windows 7 (big improvement there, MS, well done!) and now I am finding fun with helicopters again.
As much as I could slate them, the Nemeth Brothers made really pretty EC120, EC135 and MD500 helicopters. Their standards have dropped a bit with the FSX version of the EC120, but these helis are good to fly and good to paint despite quite a few niggling little bugs. I hope we'll see patches for the EC120 - she's just too photogenic not to have in the hangar.
...and that is just some of the fun I have been having with this chopper!
The best one at the moment though, has got to be the CERA Bell 412. It is great to fly - realistic procedures have been programmed into it and she is also really nice to paint. So without further ado, here are some more piccies:
There are more to see on my website in the downloads section.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
I have had my knuckles rapped
Good morning all and a Happy New Year.
Hasn't it been a long time - again!
It seems my last post has caused umbrage amongst the modelling fraternity. I make no apologies for putting a few noses out of joint. After all - standards ARE dropping.
You want proof? I shan't name names, but when you buy a model and see that text on the instrument panel is mirrored, then you absolutely know that is sloppiness.
When you put your right foot in and the little "Turn and Slip" bubble resolutely tells you you are flying balanced, then you know that is sloppiness.
When you turn on the nav lights and red is on the right, then you know that is sloppiness.
When you sit inside a VC that looks like it was made for FS98, then you know that is just laziness. Especially whe the exterior has been modelled so well.
When you browse through an aircraft's folder structure and wonder why the plane takes up hundreds of MB storage space - and even a numty like me could apply a texture.cfg to reduce such a waste of space, then you know the developer has missed a trick.
When you try to take off in a plane that, in real life, can clear the runway in a few feet and it takes you half a mile to get airborne, then that is more down to the difficulties of creating air files.
There are so many more examples I could show - but that would overload the system...
Now I have been accused of talking without knowing how difficult it is to make models.
So... with over two dozen beta tests behind me and co-development on a couple of commercial models, I can possibly say I have more experience at making models than some modellers. Hubris? Am I arrogant? Quite possibly. However, I have spent hours, days, weeks and months working with some of the best developers in flight simulation and I am basing my statements here on my blog on what I know from these developers. As for making the 3D models myself. Well, I know what can be done - I just don't (yet) have the necessary skills to make a model.
But I do know what can be done.
On a lighter note...
I have managed to get myself thrown out of a chat forum... Well, it looks that way, as I can't log on any more.
[edit]
Maybe or maybe not - I still can't logon to that forum, but there were some odd looking cookies there. After I cleared the cookies, I could see more of the forum, but still cannot access the site - so who the heck is "rubiconproject.com"
[/edit]
I was being my usual provocative self and trying to look at things from a different viewpoint. There was an action by the site owners that might have been viewed as discrimination by some. Well at least by one - me.
Perhaps I should have held back and used the private message option? Sorry guys.
You see - I AM becoming that boring old fart I always snigger at.
If you have read "The nice and accurate prophecies of Agnes Nitt (witch)" then you can see me turning into an archetypal "P. P. Taylor"
And finally
Whilst I won't name and shame the less able developers, I will gladly name the ones I have worked with or discussed modelling issues with.
Thorsten Reichert - developer of the Bushhawk at Aerosoft
David Brice - Iris Simulations
Michael - Flight Replicas
Alex and Andrey - Sibwings
Rob Young - Realair Simulations
William Ortiz - Lionheart
Joachim Schweigler - Aerosoft Glider
Sascha Normann - Aerosoft VFR Germany Sceneries
Kevin Lechmanski - Long Island Classics
Francois Dumas - FSaddon
Holder Sandmann - Vancouver and Victoria
Christian Stock - Various New Zealand sceneries
...and quite a few more. These guys are the top in their specialities and they do know what they are doing. I have even been quite a PITA to these people - more to the point: I have been a right nit-picking 'arris of a beta tester in quite a few of their works and I have also made quite a few wishes about their projects that couldn't be included in the models - yet.
You have listened to me though gents. despite my often self-righteous moments.
I am just the painter - you are the masters of the flightsim world.
Hasn't it been a long time - again!
It seems my last post has caused umbrage amongst the modelling fraternity. I make no apologies for putting a few noses out of joint. After all - standards ARE dropping.
You want proof? I shan't name names, but when you buy a model and see that text on the instrument panel is mirrored, then you absolutely know that is sloppiness.
When you put your right foot in and the little "Turn and Slip" bubble resolutely tells you you are flying balanced, then you know that is sloppiness.
When you turn on the nav lights and red is on the right, then you know that is sloppiness.
When you sit inside a VC that looks like it was made for FS98, then you know that is just laziness. Especially whe the exterior has been modelled so well.
When you browse through an aircraft's folder structure and wonder why the plane takes up hundreds of MB storage space - and even a numty like me could apply a texture.cfg to reduce such a waste of space, then you know the developer has missed a trick.
When you try to take off in a plane that, in real life, can clear the runway in a few feet and it takes you half a mile to get airborne, then that is more down to the difficulties of creating air files.
There are so many more examples I could show - but that would overload the system...
Now I have been accused of talking without knowing how difficult it is to make models.
So... with over two dozen beta tests behind me and co-development on a couple of commercial models, I can possibly say I have more experience at making models than some modellers. Hubris? Am I arrogant? Quite possibly. However, I have spent hours, days, weeks and months working with some of the best developers in flight simulation and I am basing my statements here on my blog on what I know from these developers. As for making the 3D models myself. Well, I know what can be done - I just don't (yet) have the necessary skills to make a model.
But I do know what can be done.
On a lighter note...
I have managed to get myself thrown out of a chat forum... Well, it looks that way, as I can't log on any more.
[edit]
Maybe or maybe not - I still can't logon to that forum, but there were some odd looking cookies there. After I cleared the cookies, I could see more of the forum, but still cannot access the site - so who the heck is "rubiconproject.com"
[/edit]
I was being my usual provocative self and trying to look at things from a different viewpoint. There was an action by the site owners that might have been viewed as discrimination by some. Well at least by one - me.
Perhaps I should have held back and used the private message option? Sorry guys.
You see - I AM becoming that boring old fart I always snigger at.
If you have read "The nice and accurate prophecies of Agnes Nitt (witch)" then you can see me turning into an archetypal "P. P. Taylor"
And finally
Whilst I won't name and shame the less able developers, I will gladly name the ones I have worked with or discussed modelling issues with.
Thorsten Reichert - developer of the Bushhawk at Aerosoft
David Brice - Iris Simulations
Michael - Flight Replicas
Alex and Andrey - Sibwings
Rob Young - Realair Simulations
William Ortiz - Lionheart
Joachim Schweigler - Aerosoft Glider
Sascha Normann - Aerosoft VFR Germany Sceneries
Kevin Lechmanski - Long Island Classics
Francois Dumas - FSaddon
Holder Sandmann - Vancouver and Victoria
Christian Stock - Various New Zealand sceneries
...and quite a few more. These guys are the top in their specialities and they do know what they are doing. I have even been quite a PITA to these people - more to the point: I have been a right nit-picking 'arris of a beta tester in quite a few of their works and I have also made quite a few wishes about their projects that couldn't be included in the models - yet.
You have listened to me though gents. despite my often self-righteous moments.
I am just the painter - you are the masters of the flightsim world.
Monday, May 11, 2009
It's been an interesting year...
I suffered a certain amount of illness, was unemployed and found a new job. An amazing year really. And now I am back where I started, before I launched myself on the downward slide a little over two years ago.
And what has happened sim-wise? In my favourite pastime? i.e. painting planes?
Naff all (to use an "only fools and horses" quote). I am slowly getting not just disappointed with the aircraft modelling set, I am getting downright angry at the sheer laziness of model makers.
Those idle so and sos do not follow the ground rules that ACES set down as conventions in the FSX SDK. And because they don't follow the guidelines, the standards of FSX models is still barely better than TOTR models for FS9. If I was to analyse how many FSX models I had paid for, I would probably be horrified. For it would have been wasted money and I might as well have stayed with FS9.
Most of the "bad" FSX models are poor FS9 conversions. The rest are FS9 models exported with the FSX SDK and merely have poor quality bumpmaps and NO specular textures.
The use of specular texture mapping was the single most innovative improvement to FSX models and yet the modelling fraternity have ignored this. Only a few modellers actually use specular. IRIS for one of the fixed wing modellers and Nemeth in the rotary scene.
Of course I have worked my way through several aircraft betas where the models are non-specular, but in the end, I have never flown them after the beta closed. Not even the Aerosoft Catalina has made it into my heart - despite a jaw droppingly beautiful level of detail and love in the paintkit.
...and then you get the odd freeware model and there are gorgeous speculars included.
Guys, I am sorry, but if you can't build decent models which can be really loved by painters of my "bent" then I give up on you and your models, no matter how accurate. I am going back to those that do give you the freedom - like that beautiful little Bushhawk.
And what has happened sim-wise? In my favourite pastime? i.e. painting planes?
Naff all (to use an "only fools and horses" quote). I am slowly getting not just disappointed with the aircraft modelling set, I am getting downright angry at the sheer laziness of model makers.
Those idle so and sos do not follow the ground rules that ACES set down as conventions in the FSX SDK. And because they don't follow the guidelines, the standards of FSX models is still barely better than TOTR models for FS9. If I was to analyse how many FSX models I had paid for, I would probably be horrified. For it would have been wasted money and I might as well have stayed with FS9.
Most of the "bad" FSX models are poor FS9 conversions. The rest are FS9 models exported with the FSX SDK and merely have poor quality bumpmaps and NO specular textures.
The use of specular texture mapping was the single most innovative improvement to FSX models and yet the modelling fraternity have ignored this. Only a few modellers actually use specular. IRIS for one of the fixed wing modellers and Nemeth in the rotary scene.
Of course I have worked my way through several aircraft betas where the models are non-specular, but in the end, I have never flown them after the beta closed. Not even the Aerosoft Catalina has made it into my heart - despite a jaw droppingly beautiful level of detail and love in the paintkit.
...and then you get the odd freeware model and there are gorgeous speculars included.
Guys, I am sorry, but if you can't build decent models which can be really loved by painters of my "bent" then I give up on you and your models, no matter how accurate. I am going back to those that do give you the freedom - like that beautiful little Bushhawk.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sick, lame and lazy...
Well, I am back again...
Oh? You didn't notice I was gone? Oh well, never mind, you weren't to know. So what has happened in the interim? Moved house, changed jobs - to a job I have yet to start. Rebuilt the PC to a Vista 64 bit system... You know - the usual stuff in the life of a nomadic PC addict. Spring is finally looming after a fashion, the mornings are still fresh but this afternoon was gloriously sunny out on the balcony. Got a decent one this time with enough room for a lounger and table for the cocktails. All I need now, in my quest for the perfect domicile is one that faces the afternoon and evening sun - I just get the morning sun here, which is a bind for someone who has to go to work.
Anything new on the flightsim scene? Not really. I have been "down" a lot recently with that IKEA building, furniture arranging, living out of a suitcase... It's been almost three months now, since I packed up at my last home and started all this move thing, and now I am slowly reaching that stage, where I can say comfortable.
Still - I have set out my library and am working through the Pratchet section again.
I'll keep in touch.
Oh? You didn't notice I was gone? Oh well, never mind, you weren't to know. So what has happened in the interim? Moved house, changed jobs - to a job I have yet to start. Rebuilt the PC to a Vista 64 bit system... You know - the usual stuff in the life of a nomadic PC addict. Spring is finally looming after a fashion, the mornings are still fresh but this afternoon was gloriously sunny out on the balcony. Got a decent one this time with enough room for a lounger and table for the cocktails. All I need now, in my quest for the perfect domicile is one that faces the afternoon and evening sun - I just get the morning sun here, which is a bind for someone who has to go to work.
Anything new on the flightsim scene? Not really. I have been "down" a lot recently with that IKEA building, furniture arranging, living out of a suitcase... It's been almost three months now, since I packed up at my last home and started all this move thing, and now I am slowly reaching that stage, where I can say comfortable.
Still - I have set out my library and am working through the Pratchet section again.
I'll keep in touch.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Once more into the breach, dear friends...
Bloody Blogs, you start 'em and then, ages later, you realise you haven't said much in a while. But in the meantime, my forum post counts have shot up beyond count. I have passed five and a half thousand on SimFlight and almost eighteen hundred on Aerosoft plus thousands elsewhere - and no, they aren't all pithy "one worder" posts either. I usually write pithy thousand worders *ggg*
Here and above, you can see a couple of shots of my "Don't mess with Texas" paint for the Iris Raytheon T6. Basically an American redesign of the Pilatus PC9, but a bit more modern. A real fun plane to blast down the Grand Canyon in.
I have been beta testing like Billy O until recently, I have been "threatening" forum posters with all kinds of dire consequences (big nasty moderator that I am) and I have been painting too. One thing that pleases - and puzzles - me is that I get a lot of "fan mail" asking to do someone a paint. Either I am getting better, or folk just don't know better. I also find myself answering all kinds of questions about how to do "this, that or the other trick" on a skin.
The Aerosoft Twin Otter was a real fun plane to beta test and to paint. These two are proving very popular on the downl0ad fora. I wonder? Should I write a book and solve everyone's problem? Good scheme! Make some money...
So, let's catch up with the "now" in my life. Real world wise I have been busy too. I landed a new job with Eurocopter - Hoorayyy! I am back working on helicopters. Well, I am doing it primarily to keep "off the dole" and the fact that I am "tech clerking on helicopters" is a coincidence. There are better things I could be doing - like simming. But that evil Mammon just keeps pulling at my soul and the needs are there. So that also means another move to another home in another town. All that is keeping me rather busy real world wise these days, more's the pity.
Anyway, let's see about tagging a couple of screenshots of recent paints to this post. The Harvard above is another fine plane to have in the Hangar by the way. As for painting, this offering on the left is a real challenge - to the artistically minded. Who on earth would do a photo paint like this on a real world 747?It was an excercise in seeing what can be done with the default 747... oh well. "It's Cool to be Hot"
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Another day, another year
Happy New Year to anyone who stumbles across this blog. I don't expect it to be too many ;)
So, how did you spend your new year's eve party?
I went way off the beaten track and flew a "Tube" - shock, horror, dismay! Some youngster had pestered me enough with an interesting challenge to repaint an Embraer 170, so in the end I did. I am not overly happy with the result, but I wasn't too unhappy either, so in the end I caved in and let him have it "as-is".
But those of you as knows me (and my little grammatical and authorial idiosyncrasies) will know that I don't fly tubes. That is not real flying. It's bus driving... Horrible ghastly thing to do.
Anyway, I painted the beast, so I had to go fly it, didn't I? Gawd 'ow borin'!!!
Set cruise altitude, set height hold on the AP, set speed on the speed hold, push the throttle forward. Retract gear once up, set bearing on heading hold. Keep your radios n and follow ATC instructions. Set flaps, switch AP off, lower gear, land and follow taxi instructions. Shut down.
Enjoy the slide-show:
So, how did you spend your new year's eve party?
I went way off the beaten track and flew a "Tube" - shock, horror, dismay! Some youngster had pestered me enough with an interesting challenge to repaint an Embraer 170, so in the end I did. I am not overly happy with the result, but I wasn't too unhappy either, so in the end I caved in and let him have it "as-is".
But those of you as knows me (and my little grammatical and authorial idiosyncrasies) will know that I don't fly tubes. That is not real flying. It's bus driving... Horrible ghastly thing to do.
Anyway, I painted the beast, so I had to go fly it, didn't I? Gawd 'ow borin'!!!
Set cruise altitude, set height hold on the AP, set speed on the speed hold, push the throttle forward. Retract gear once up, set bearing on heading hold. Keep your radios n and follow ATC instructions. Set flaps, switch AP off, lower gear, land and follow taxi instructions. Shut down.
Enjoy the slide-show:
Sunday, December 30, 2007
I've "gone aero"
Being a professional aerospace engineer, the idea of having an "Aero" TLD has been on my mind for a while now. So I finally treated myself and registered www.brisland.aero for myself.
Feel free to pay the site a visit - and feel even more free to drop me a line to critique the content.
Feel free to pay the site a visit - and feel even more free to drop me a line to critique the content.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Oh my God!
It has been months since I last posted! Not that I have had nothing to say, but more due to the fact that I have been busier than sin! Betas all over the place. Repaints - well, a few. Job hunting too and now I find myself eligible for a .aero TLD.
So watch out folks - Eagleskinner could be going .aero - but that domain will have to be more along my professional status - with some sim-work thrown in for good measure...
Anyways... this was just a post to let you know I am still alive and kicking.
So watch out folks - Eagleskinner could be going .aero - but that domain will have to be more along my professional status - with some sim-work thrown in for good measure...
Anyways... this was just a post to let you know I am still alive and kicking.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Area Alpha - One Man's View
(This is not a "commercial review"; just some subjective feelings from a Beta Tester)
Originally I chose to volunteer to "fly beta" on this particular area, because the original Vancouver addon had a great little "read along" adventure about Chuck Merryweather. OK, his adventure poaches a bit of the neighbouring terrain, but I had flown that area quite a lot in FS9.
Was the FSX version going to live up to it?
Yes! Cubed! And then some!
But whoa there, don't take me at face value. Let's look a bit closer and deeper into FSX and it's new features first.
FSX can cope with a far greater tree density - Vancouver "outlands" just happen to be very "treed". Point one to FSX for a greater level of detail.
Next, the meshes. Again, FSX can handle a far greater LOD than FS9 did. You go flying low around the FSX version of the Vancouver hinterland, and you are going to be low - in some rather realistically unpleasantly steep-sided ravines in places. Point to FSX
You want crazy flying? In the "9" version I would set a strongish wind from the town and land a Beaver or later the DO27 on the helipad at the Grouse Mountain lodge. In the "X" version I have discovered the ski slope nearby. More fun even, than Courchevel in France. Point to Vancouver and X for "original landing sites"
Visuals. I am not a real world pilot, although I used to be one - gliders - and have collected a few chopper hands-on hours as perks of the job as well. FSX isn't there yet, but the visuals are so much improved, that old pilot habits are coming back. When I approach a new field (well, any field now) I find myself looking for the visual clues to landing. They aren't there yet, but the flight experience is going the right way. You find yourself looking a lot more respectfully at the scenery. Point to X again
Over the past few weeks of testing, I have clocked up over 100 hours day and 25 hours night on both a modern "fast CPU" PC and my "slower" one. Microsoft have "paid the ferryman" after the FSX launch disaster and fixed it with SP1. A lot of other wise folk have added tweaks to our knowledge base. You really do have to "work" with FSX to get your rig enjoyable - it was a lot easier in 9. Point to 9.
The Vancouver scenery is addictive! See above - so many hours collected and I still have not had enough of the scenery! The landscape is simply perfect for bush flight. There's "wild country" to land in - start up your Tundra-tyred Beaver and fly up a river - there's plenty of gravel banks to use as a landing site.
Someone (Erich) posted this video as a very surprised member on Simflight and asked "Whe re in the X world can we do this?"
In a couple of days, this guy is one guaranteed Vancouver customer! There's plenty of places to do that in the Vancouver scenery.
This is not the place to plug someone else's addon, but I am going to anyway. Hi Fi Sim have brought out Active Sky for FSX and X Graphics. Add the three programmes together, and you really get one hell of a bundle. The Vancouver hinterland is absolutely amazing when the weather closes in. Misted valleys, haze, city grot - it's all there. Simply amazing!
Praise over! What can I say against Vancouver Plus?
A fair bit actually. But nothing that can be directed against the Sandmann / Patch / FSAddon team. There are still some limitations within FSX that cause strange overlaps between the MS scenery and the FSAddon textures. Roads break off in places up in the woods. Sometimes scenery floats past in the sky (well, trees) - this is caused by having your settings really high. As you change views, the PC will forget to redraw some tree objects and you'll have floaters for a while, until the next scenery re-draw. Some object alignment is a wee bit off (there is still some object placement inaccuracy in the sim itself it appears) - but if you're a "normal" flyer, you aren't going to notice much.
One thing about this scenery addon... it's going to save you money for a while. How so? You aren't going to want to buy anything else for quite a while! (Even if you do go and get the Hi Fi sim stuff)
I'd like to comment more about this marvellous addon, but I don't have the time - I want to go fly some more!
This is a "must have" with all the bells and whistles!
Originally I chose to volunteer to "fly beta" on this particular area, because the original Vancouver addon had a great little "read along" adventure about Chuck Merryweather. OK, his adventure poaches a bit of the neighbouring terrain, but I had flown that area quite a lot in FS9.Was the FSX version going to live up to it?
Yes! Cubed! And then some!
But whoa there, don't take me at face value. Let's look a bit closer and deeper into FSX and it's new features first.
FSX can cope with a far greater tree density - Vancouver "outlands" just happen to be very "treed". Point one to FSX for a greater level of detail.
Next, the meshes. Again, FSX can handle a far greater LOD than FS9 did. You go flying low around the FSX version of the Vancouver hinterland, and you are going to be low - in some rather realistically unpleasantly steep-sided ravines in places. Point to FSXYou want crazy flying? In the "9" version I would set a strongish wind from the town and land a Beaver or later the DO27 on the helipad at the Grouse Mountain lodge. In the "X" version I have discovered the ski slope nearby. More fun even, than Courchevel in France. Point to Vancouver and X for "original landing sites"
Visuals. I am not a real world pilot, although I used to be one - gliders - and have collected a few chopper hands-on hours as perks of the job as well. FSX isn't there yet, but the visuals are so much improved, that old pilot habits are coming back. When I approach a new field (well, any field now) I find myself looking for the visual clues to landing. They aren't there yet, but the flight experience is going the right way. You find yourself looking a lot more respectfully at the scenery. Point to X again
Over the past few weeks of testing, I have clocked up over 100 hours day and 25 hours night on both a modern "fast CPU" PC and my "slower" one. Microsoft have "paid the ferryman" after the FSX launch disaster and fixed it with SP1. A lot of other wise folk have added tweaks to our knowledge base. You really do have to "work" with FSX to get your rig enjoyable - it was a lot easier in 9. Point to 9.The Vancouver scenery is addictive! See above - so many hours collected and I still have not had enough of the scenery! The landscape is simply perfect for bush flight. There's "wild country" to land in - start up your Tundra-tyred Beaver and fly up a river - there's plenty of gravel banks to use as a landing site.
Someone (Erich) posted this video as a very surprised member on Simflight and asked "Whe re in the X world can we do this?"In a couple of days, this guy is one guaranteed Vancouver customer! There's plenty of places to do that in the Vancouver scenery.
This is not the place to plug someone else's addon, but I am going to anyway. Hi Fi Sim have brought out Active Sky for FSX and X Graphics. Add the three programmes together, and you really get one hell of a bundle. The Vancouver hinterland is absolutely amazing when the weather closes in. Misted valleys, haze, city grot - it's all there. Simply amazing!
Praise over! What can I say against Vancouver Plus?
A fair bit actually. But nothing that can be directed against the Sandmann / Patch / FSAddon team. There are still some limitations within FSX that cause strange overlaps between the MS scenery and the FSAddon textures. Roads break off in places up in the woods. Sometimes scenery floats past in the sky (well, trees) - this is caused by having your settings really high. As you change views, the PC will forget to redraw some tree objects and you'll have floaters for a while, until the next scenery re-draw. Some object alignment is a wee bit off (there is still some object placement inaccuracy in the sim itself it appears) - but if you're a "normal" flyer, you aren't going to notice much.
One thing about this scenery addon... it's going to save you money for a while. How so? You aren't going to want to buy anything else for quite a while! (Even if you do go and get the Hi Fi sim stuff)I'd like to comment more about this marvellous addon, but I don't have the time - I want to go fly some more!
This is a "must have" with all the bells and whistles!
Saturday, June 02, 2007
Eta Beta Pi
...or "To Beta or not to Beta?"
I really have been remiss, haven't I? How long has it been since my last post? Months? Seems like it.
The trouble is, so many exciting things have been happening, so much is going on, FSX has finaly been tamed by SP1 and we are nearer to DX 10 Graphics. A couple of months ago, you could have chased me up the garden path and back again - Fly FSX in very high detail mode on my PC? Not on your Nellie!
Well first of all, the pundits have been coming up with all sorts of FSX tweaks - Fiber Frame Fractions, Max Autogen Trees or Buildings per Cell, Texture Bandwidth... FSX was improving already before SP1. Now SP1 is here and the difference is staggering! I can fly in X at 15 to 20 FPS no problems.
"Huh, I hear you say, "I get 50 in FS9 all sliders right..."
Well, FSX is a LOT heavier on our systems. 2500 Trees 1200 Buildings, most sliders way up towards the right... and 15 SMOOTH Frames / second. I can live with that. The scenery is so much improved now and the payware addins are really coming up trumps in ways we really didn't think about six months ago. And planes...
Don't get me started folks! The airplane market for FSX is amazing. Freeware, Payware... it's all there and more than there was this time last "iteration" - at least that is the feel I am getting. It's also been so busy in the scene, that I have even started pulling a few FS9 planes across, like my beloved Christen Eagle. Anyway, where have I been? Well, I can safely tell you about a couple of Betas closed - First of all, there was the Aerosoft Beaver and the Helgoland scenery.
The Beaver is really an update based on the FS9 paints. OK, there's far more paints for the Beaver X now, but it is still basically "poor" in the paint sense. Instead of fully implementing the FSX paint techniques to the full, Aerosoft have chosen to do a simple adaptation of the FS9 skins. No, don't get me wrong, the Beaver is a great value-for-money payware. It's just that I have been spoiled by some pretty damn good FSX painting recently.
The Helgoland Beta was an amazing experience. The trouble is, my most recent Beta invitation is Helgoland to the power of ten! If you thought Helgoland was good, you wait till you see the jaw dropper "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" Sorry! I can't tell you. More to the point, there's another Beta I am on - "yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" and that is even more stunning! Folks, you are in for a HOT summer.
And then there's Vancouver X - go visit the FSAddon site and have a peek at THOSE previews - and take a drool mop for your keyboard!
Then there was another little project I had started to get involved in. This little darlin' is amazing! A pity that it is not going anywhere. I did some paints six months ago, bu the dev team has not yet managed to pull the chestnuts out of the fire yet. But just think! This plane will have a level of detail hitherto unknown in the FS world. We're talking up to 800 and more pixels per foot resolution in places and rivet heads that can be modelled - and not just painted or bump mapped.
OK, let me see about som images to pad out this post...
There you go - business as usual. Don't forget to go explore my Photobucket... loads more there. Have fun!
I really have been remiss, haven't I? How long has it been since my last post? Months? Seems like it.
The trouble is, so many exciting things have been happening, so much is going on, FSX has finaly been tamed by SP1 and we are nearer to DX 10 Graphics. A couple of months ago, you could have chased me up the garden path and back again - Fly FSX in very high detail mode on my PC? Not on your Nellie!
Well first of all, the pundits have been coming up with all sorts of FSX tweaks - Fiber Frame Fractions, Max Autogen Trees or Buildings per Cell, Texture Bandwidth... FSX was improving already before SP1. Now SP1 is here and the difference is staggering! I can fly in X at 15 to 20 FPS no problems.
"Huh, I hear you say, "I get 50 in FS9 all sliders right..."
Well, FSX is a LOT heavier on our systems. 2500 Trees 1200 Buildings, most sliders way up towards the right... and 15 SMOOTH Frames / second. I can live with that. The scenery is so much improved now and the payware addins are really coming up trumps in ways we really didn't think about six months ago. And planes...
Don't get me started folks! The airplane market for FSX is amazing. Freeware, Payware... it's all there and more than there was this time last "iteration" - at least that is the feel I am getting. It's also been so busy in the scene, that I have even started pulling a few FS9 planes across, like my beloved Christen Eagle. Anyway, where have I been? Well, I can safely tell you about a couple of Betas closed - First of all, there was the Aerosoft Beaver and the Helgoland scenery.
The Beaver is really an update based on the FS9 paints. OK, there's far more paints for the Beaver X now, but it is still basically "poor" in the paint sense. Instead of fully implementing the FSX paint techniques to the full, Aerosoft have chosen to do a simple adaptation of the FS9 skins. No, don't get me wrong, the Beaver is a great value-for-money payware. It's just that I have been spoiled by some pretty damn good FSX painting recently.
The Helgoland Beta was an amazing experience. The trouble is, my most recent Beta invitation is Helgoland to the power of ten! If you thought Helgoland was good, you wait till you see the jaw dropper "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" Sorry! I can't tell you. More to the point, there's another Beta I am on - "yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy" and that is even more stunning! Folks, you are in for a HOT summer.And then there's Vancouver X - go visit the FSAddon site and have a peek at THOSE previews - and take a drool mop for your keyboard!
Then there was another little project I had started to get involved in. This little darlin' is amazing! A pity that it is not going anywhere. I did some paints six months ago, bu the dev team has not yet managed to pull the chestnuts out of the fire yet. But just think! This plane will have a level of detail hitherto unknown in the FS world. We're talking up to 800 and more pixels per foot resolution in places and rivet heads that can be modelled - and not just painted or bump mapped.
OK, let me see about som images to pad out this post...
There you go - business as usual. Don't forget to go explore my Photobucket... loads more there. Have fun!
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Stits and Farts
Yep, this blog is moving along in stits and farts...
Again it's been ages since I last posted - but at least I have an excuse folks. But who cares? I just hope you are enjoying this as we go along. Anyway, what's my latest escapade? Let me see now...
I quit my old job, moved house, am settling in to the new town and job, started some fitness training - the trainer is a distant relative of the Marquis de Sade - I've almost sorted all my baggage out after the move and my main PC
is online again. That sums it all up I think.
Anyway, I've been invited to join the Aerosoft Catalina Beta Test team - an honour and a pleasure! It'll be a while before anything useful comes from that, but she is looking great already. As for the fun side of sim flight, well I had a session over New Zealand doing a dog fight with two Spitfires. That was fun. Otherwise there's no real news to report.
Enjoy the scenery...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
