Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Internet connection restored - F-35 on short final

Finally my new home is connected to the Internet at a reasonable speed - it took almost a month, but now everything works as it should.
There are still a couple of minor tweaks that need to be propagated through the different visual models - and the manual needs to be completed / updated (I hope it will be ready today or tomorrow - as soon as the draft is ready I will provide a download link).
EDIT: "Between the tweaks, I've decided to split the folders to have different flight models: one for AA-1 (which was 4000lbs heavier and had a slightly derated engine), one for AF-1 and unarmed versions, and one for the loaded visual models. Initially I was not keen to do this as it generates several duplicated files and larger HD installation... but I think it adds significant value, as the user can appreciate the "weight watcher" effort done by Lockheed Martin engineers to bring the F-35 down to the desired weight" - I've just finished implementing this and...the file and installation size are huge - with lots of duplicate files as I thought. Final decision is to leave this feature out - and it has been cancelled. EDIT/2 - As I've received negative feedback about this decision, I've reworked the file structure so that the separate folders and flight models are back again. Total HD space required is now about 890Mb for six models (AA-1, AF-1, F-35A Dark grey, F-35A USAF, F-35A USAF with CBUs, F-35A USAF with JDAMs). Also, external weapons are visible from the VC (for track IR users).
So... the release date is still pending - as these are pretty busy weeks for my paying job...and honestly when I come back home after so many hours spent in front of a computer screen, well, another computer screen is the last thing I want to see...


Anonymous said...

wow,nice job!!!we're waiting! i'm very impatient

blackbird said...

Take some time to relax, no need to hurry.

Lars Domen said...

Hey Dino,
Concerning your edit, about the duplicate files. What files make it so huge? If I'm not mistaken, you can use the FSX fallback feature to avoid duplicate texture files and and aliasing for sound files and panels, which take a lot of space on the HD. The model files and some respective texture files need to be duplicated anyway, not matter how you implement it,
and the aircraft.cfg and .air files are relatively small. So I was wondering, what makes it impossible to implement this very neat feature?
Of course, I don't know nearly as much as you about developing for FSX, but I was just curious, as it sounds as a nice feature to have (and good for sales!)

ScimmiaSpaziale said...

@Lars Domen

The main problem are the HD textures, which are huge (110 Mb per livery). It is true that you can use the fallback option to reuse them, but it is known that, at least on some machines, livery selection may "fail" if you use it ( do not get the paintscheme you've selected). That would bring the required HD space up to 1.5Gb...

Lars Domen said...

Thanks for the explanation Dino.
That really is too bad, as it would have been an awesome feature to have!

Anonymous said...

Just curious, how much space would it take without the separate folders for each model? Thanks! Orion

ScimmiaSpaziale said...

Less than 580Mb. Which, if you ask me, it is still a lot for a plane.

Anonymous said...

Dino Cattaneo,

I know that you must consider many things with this project. But, IMHO, you made the right decision...

I, too, would rather have the seperate folders, larger HDD req.'s, etc., if it means that we get to have differing flight envelopes, etc., for each configuration.
Now, if I could convince you to make the ordinance droppable so users could do missions and have CCIP HUD capabilities, I for one would be on "cloud9" with this product.

Grazie! :)

BTW: Love the HD Textures. ;)

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

Thank you very much.
James F. Chams

ScimmiaSpaziale said...

@ James F. Chams

As usual, thanks for the appreciation and support - still, not enough to convince me to add droppable ordnance (which requires a significant amount of work).

I am sorry to disappoint, but I am re-considering the "separate folder" feature once again. The fact is that, after some flight testing, it was hard to perceive the differences between the various flight models. That is, my opinion is that they are perceivable - but only to pilots with some experience. That is because of the flight model (which is designed to mimic-al least partially- the fly-by-wire controls) and the high power of the F-135 engine.
Basically, most users would only see a difference in landing speeds.

Considering that the multiple folders create some issues in making updates or additions... well, I think I will drop the feature once again.

@ All
Some news on the project tonight - I promise!