Project Airbus – Talk

Also, the nose gear steering wheels/mechanisms (located beside the side-sticks) appears to be missing...I assume they will be added later?

Yes. The model is still being built so there are a lot of things missing.

The night lighting will be good as the PA A380?

I can't wait to play with this model!! I check back every day if there are any new news from the A330/340!!!
I read on the first page of this topic, that the strobe light will be visible on the ground, that they are reflecting on the ground. Will that be implemented as well on your other PA models (A319/320/321/380)?

Airbus Fan wrote:The night lighting will be good as the PA A380?

No, it'll be so much worse.

space_coast wrote:I can't wait to play with this model!!

...yes, that's what I'm thinking everytime when I'm reading Playboy magazine! :lol:

Naughty!

When you upload some new screenshots, could you upload night lighting VC?

P.S. Sorry for my bad english.. -_-

I look forward to the A330-200F, the brand new freighter. Are there some shots available to satisfy my hunger?

Thx&Grtz,
Timo

Will you be providing an SDK? So that users can hardcode in custom lights or something? I'm currently working on 3D lights for the PA A320, and I am having a VERY hard time getting them to work without the xml code...

The lights are hardcoded into the model. I don't think you can edit them without the source model and code. At least, it should be very hard to do.

Alexis wrote:The lights are hardcoded into the model. I don't think you can edit them without the source model and code. At least, it should be very hard to do.

Exactly--so will you guys be providing that as a sort-of SDK with the A330/A340? This would make adding effects a LOT easier. For example, I want to create a wing condensation effect (not vapor trail, I mean the localized cloud that sometimes is created) as well, but i don't think that works unless it is hardcoded.

I'm not sure how we'd go about it. Has it been done before?

esg wrote:I'm not sure how we'd go about it. Has it been done before?

Well, as far as going about it, I have no clue--if you want to protect your rights, as the makers, you could come up with a registration system that just means that you have to register as a community developer before you can download the SDK. I don't think this has been done before, except for with paintkits (of course). I assume the idea would be similar, just with the xml code for the mdl.

I suppose there are a number of ways to do this, but seeing as this is a freeware "company", I understand that you guys probably don't have a whole lot of time to work on this stuff. If you do, I would have suggested a system where you have developers make the changes they want, send them back to you for approval and/or compilation and publication...

It hasn't been done by open sourcing before in FS, AFAIK. The only models that allowed you to edit a lot of stuff via XML were the POSky ones, where you could edit the lights and hide stuff, if I recall correctly.

Regarding von Richthofen's question: apart from the intellectual rights concerns of open-sourcing, say, the A330, there is a host of other problems arising.
-If 3 people make 3 different model compilations from the source file, that would create a mess. What if your lights and edits made other peoples' textures unusable? Imagine what would happen if three or four people served up different models.
-What if you animated something right and I edited it and messed up the model?
-If you edited the UVW mapping of the pedestal panel, wouldn't that make the PA gauge placement obsolete, thus making the two models "incompatible", unless the other model is edited the same way?

If Nick Loh wants to and knows how to make his lights compatible to 3D lights redux, he will. But open-sourcing would create more problems than it would solve.

Edit: Just saw your reply. Registering the SDK doesn't mean that the model won't be leaked all over the internet by someone. Think of piratebay...

I was thinking more along the lines of an API. I don't know whether/however that'd be feasible, though. Give everything an L var? lol

Regarding von Richthofen's question:

First order of business: I like that! I think I now have a new AKA!

Edit: Just saw your reply. Registering the SDK doesn't mean that the model won't be leaked all over the internet by someone. Think of piratebay...

Second order of business: FACEPALM. Duhh...I have no clue how I didn't consider that!

-If 3 people make 3 different model compilations from the source file, that would create a mess. What if your lights and edits made other peoples' textures unusable? Imagine what would happen if three or four people served up different models.
-What if you animated something right and I edited it and messed up the model?
-If you edited the UVW mapping of the pedestal panel, wouldn't that make the PA gauge placement obsolete, thus making the two models "incompatible", unless the other model is edited the same way?

That is an interesting take on my idea--I think you are looking at it more from a modeling/ animation standpoint. This was probably unclear, but I was thinking about this from a systems, effects, and panels standpoint. Also, I think people who are likely to even try to dive into this will probably know that messing with animations and geometry messes with the textures (and that placing the interior model 2m port of where it is supposed to be is BAAAAAD idea!)

To tweak with effects placement you have to have the model source. However, noone guarantees that everyone will use it correctly. It would be better if it was done as a community project, however we tried something like that and no result was produced in the end.

oh...I see. Hmm...this is perplexing.

Have you consider the fact that some plp just want to tweak models for themselves? Of course, some plp does want to share their tweaks, so as you said, there might be some problems, interferences, ending up in a total mess. But no need to make 'packages' right? One finds a tweak, posts it, [offers support if willing to] end of the story!
And about the piratebay.se stuff...If you're really concerned about piracy, then you've got two obvious solutions: 1- you don't release any SDK of any sorts; 2- you make a kind of application that requires crypted infos' (passwd...)...which is an API in fact right?
Just saying...I've never try any tweaks of any kinds anyway, so...

Our main concern is maintaining 'editorial control'.

esg wrote:Our main concern is maintaining 'editorial control'.

So, if I understand correctly, you want to make sure that nobody ends up releasing a potentially messed-up version, correct?

Pretty much, yeah.

That's quite a valid concern...can you require any sort of beta testing/ bugfixing period? I don't really know, since the SDK would be hard to control, but you might be able to do something with that idea...

We've tried involving the community -in a controlled fashion- a while ago. There weren't many that were interested back then, and from those 5 that were, only one actually contributed something that might make it to the end. I don't think it'll happen again, unless some people from all "trades" (modelers, texture artists, gauge makers) gather up and request. But if such a team is gathered, you wouldn't need to edit our model.

'SDK' gets thrown around a lot. What would the SDK actually come with?

It would be great if we could open up development, but I think there's just not enough interest for that kind of model to be successful. Very, very few people are willing to contribute in any meaningful way.

Alexis wrote:But if such a team is gathered, you wouldn't need to edit our model.

I suppose so. I would love to cover modeling aspects, but I do not know how to do it for FSX. I use actual engineering CAD like Inventor. Coincidentally, I am currently working on an A330-300 wing for CFD analysis

esg wrote:SDK' gets thrown around a lot. What would the SDK actually come with? It would be great if we could open up development, but I think there's just not enough interest for that kind of model to be successful. Very, very few people are willing to contribute in any meaningful way.

For the SDK, i was thinking along the lines of the modeldef.xml for those who want to adjust systems, panels, and hardcoded effects. The mdl source could get tricky simply because it would be easy to mess up, and your models are pretty amazing 99.999999999% of the time!

I understand about people not being committed. I have seen things like that go down in flames before...not pretty. I would be up for it, but the amount of time I could spend on it would be extremely limited because I have a lot of college applications, homework, and research to do (I don't really mind the resarch--CFD is fun ).

Back on topic: Edited middle windshield post, drilled it to receive the backup compass.
Also remodeled the reading lights and some other stuff around the cockpit.
BTW, the hole above the window is a rendering error.

Sorry about that...Very nice interior! Are you guys going to be modeling the displays as they would appear in the newest A330s (LCD)? Or will they be CRT-style?

TheRedBaron wrote:Sorry about that...Very nice interior! Are you guys going to be modeling the displays as they would appear in the newest A330s (LCD)? Or will they be CRT-style?

Those are LCD displays. The CRTs have rounded corners.

BOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM

Awesome!

You're KILLING ME! I can't *censored* wait.

looking great, except those overhead textures ...
just returned back from my trip to nyc, great city! Think I should be done with the OHP textures by the end of this week

Daniel_csr wrote:looking great, except those overhead textures ...
just returned back from my trip to nyc, great city! Think I should be done with the OHP textures by the end of this week

*GaryG likes this

Who ever is developing the outside model should watch this:
(begining of the video, landing gear of A340)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5nDc_Tt ... ture=g-u-u

Nice clip, but we're limited with what we can do with the landing gear animation. We've deemed the current implementation to be Good Enough™.

A good speech of my former chemistry teacher was: "A model (about atomic orbital model) never is the correct copy of something, but it can make sense or not." I see it in flightsimulation as well as in building a model kit. It's not necessary to get into the smallest detail, it's only important to create the feeling to fly an Airbus. And therefore details are nice and I do like a good modelled flightsim aircraft like the A380 or A320 series too, but it is not so meaningful that the main gear does the 100% correct procedure of suspention. So I am asking, do you will recognise such a suspention if you land normally, and your landing weight is something about 100 tonnes at 140 kts?

So I would like to say that the Project Airbus team is doing an excellent job, we have seen it with the magnificent A380, and every other Airbus which you made for us flight simmers.

Best regards!
Elmar

the animation is good enough and from inside we aren't able to see the gear

but isn't it possible to make two times smoke instead of one? I mean in the video the first smoke of the two back wheels at 0:26 and the two forward wheels at 0:29 and 0:30.
I can understand if it is not possible but it's just an idea

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjpFOg4yv90

by the way, if everybody requestig stuff, I heard that it could have some reflecting lights on the ground (just like QW Bae146) during night flight, is it confirm?

RémyG wrote:by the way, if everybody requestig stuff, I heard that it could have some reflecting lights on the ground (just like QW Bae146) during night flight, is it confirm?

esg wrote:It's been done.

Alexis wrote: BTW, the hole above the window is a rendering error.

Great work Alexis!

I suspect the shine-through-cracks on the left edge of the main panel are also rendering errors?

Aileron wrote:

Alexis wrote: BTW, the hole above the window is a rendering error.

Great work Alexis!

I suspect the shine-through-cracks on the left edge of the main panel are also rendering errors?

Yep. For some reason I can't property setup Final gather, so I get those artifacts.

I hope that this modell will have a detailed system. like the wilco a332. and will that be compatible with topcat?

emshomar wrote:I hope that this modell will have a detailed system. like the wilco a332. and will that be compatible with topcat?

lol

How about Airbus a340? any news?

we are focusing on A330 first, then A340

Are you gonna release A330 first then A340 or are you gonna wait A340 to be finished so as to release the two together?

Nixpilot wrote:we are focusing on A330 first, then A340

with or without 500,600????any plans just askin... :?:

szpirogyra wrote:

Nixpilot wrote:we are focusing on A330 first, then A340

with or without 500,600????any plans just askin... :?:

I prefer they do the 343 first since the A330-200/300 and the A340-300 have the exact same cockpit.
I really don't care much for the A340-500 since it really doesn't look good, and making the A340-600 would mean yet ANOTHER Cockpit.