Night shots will be shown just prior to release, and I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
Anyway, this is going to be a seriously crazy month as I wrap up the final bits here, so further posts will be erratic at best. ;)
Also, sorry about the image load times but jpeg compression murders cockpit pictures. Hope you like it. :)
Click to enlarge as usual. Just for fun there's a comparison shot from the very first VC export at the bottom. ;)
37 comments:
Nice Work on the Panel keep it going. Dumps up.
Ok I am officially drooling here.. That VC looks great! I'm glad you've left parts of the exterior visible from the interior MDL. I think it only adds to the realism of being able to go "outside" the VC and look into it.
Were you able to get a lot of the "realism" coded? I read on the L-39 enthusiasts forum you were trying to go for as real as it can get in FSX. I just purchased a real L-39C manual, reason why I'm asking :)
Darrell
Darrell, you asked how realistic the L-39 is?
I can't speak for Lotus, but I can tell you this from my experience: if you follow the manual, you can operate this plane. I believe 95% of the cockpit controls are fully functional as published in the manual. The only ones Lotus didn't code are the ones FSX can't replicate.
The amount of gauge coding and flight modeling Lotus has done is *insane*. The plane will fly by the published numbers.
I've been flying Lotus' plane since day one, in all its various versions, and I have to tell you that I've never felt so fully immersed in a plane as these latest versions. I really, truly feel as if I'm flying a real L-39.
You are *not* going to be disappointed.
(Lotus, if you think this post is too evangelical, feel free to delete it. But I'm speaking with total candor.)
(I deleted my previous post to fix a grievous typo. Sorry!)
Thanks Darrel and Thomas, and Peb, hehe.
Darrel, yes the plane is very realistic in its operation and its performance is very close to the real thing, warts and all, hehe. A little compromise is always needed with FS planes because the basic aerodynamic code in the sim is broken in some serious ways (especially for jet engines), but these are deviations that only a real L-39 pilot with hundreds of hours would ever even notice.
As for the controls in the cockpit, yes a whole lot of what you see is functional. The only things I haven't modeled are the weapons selection and release controls on the front centre console and a couple of their counterparts in the rear pit because they really have no application in FSX. Similarly the climate control functions for cockpit air conditioning and heating don't work because there's simply no way to 'feel' hot or cold in a sim hehe. The real L-39 doesn't even have a cockpit temp gauge.
The oxygen and pressurization controls do work though and you'll need to pay attention to them at higher altitudes.
I've built this plane specifically for shared cockpit flight, so you'll find that a lot of the cooler bits, like the failure simulation controls in the rear cockpit only apply in that scenario. I really hope people use it for shared flight because I've put mountains of work into keeping it perfectly compatible with that mode. :)
Anyway everything that I posted on the L-39 enthusiast's forum is working in the plane, and of course I'm still keeping a few of the features secret until the day of release. :)
Insace decsription of the plane, pebble. Enjoyed that paragraph and gotta say, it sounds quite unbelievable!
Darrel, where did you buy the manual, is it an online source? Reason I'm asking is that if the plane really is as pebble describes it, then a nice manual would only add to the realism. :)
Lotus, I guess the modeling's all done now? The weathring's very realistic. Now it's on to distribution? Oh boy! :D
Cheers Vlad. There is still quite a *lot* left to do before distribution, but the time between now and then is measured in weeks at this point I think, not months.
Vlad:
I purchased it from eflightmanuals.com, search for "L-39" It's fairly detailed with a performance appendix containing all the charts necessary for flight planning,fuel consumption, etc.
Lotus/Pebble:
Everything sounds great! I'm definitely looking forward to this one and can forsee many happy hours in it :) I'm going to have to try multiplayer and formation flying with it definitely.
Darrell
Check the load factor vs airspeed chart carefully hehe. You'll find my L-39 matches it perfectly and overstepping the limits there can result in a wrecked airplane pretty quick. ;) High wing loading plus lower power engine plus insufficient airspeed plus heavy hand on the stick = mush/beep beep beep/crash. :)
Nice to see it coming along. I much anticipate the release, and hope it goes smoothly from here to point B. So many lightyears from where you began.
Thanks very much Dougie. Yeah, this is the first time during the entire development of the plane where I can't find anything in it that I hate. I guess that's a good sign hehe. :)
Following the progress on this blog from day 1 to this is pretty insane. I don't think I've been more attentive to anything as much as this. Seeing that it started off from the first post about making this plane (http://lotus-films.blogspot.com/2008/04/dusting-off-some-very-old-skills.html) to this post kind of makes me want to dance. I think it's a bit redundant to mention this but you did an *amazing* job on this plane. Will we be seeing any more Lotus aircraft in the future?
Thanks a lot Mugar, much appreciated. :) Yeah, assuming this plane sells decently I will be making another, and the next will be FAR easier than this one, and done in much less time now that I know where all the pitfalls are. What airplane it would be I have no idea. Too sober to think about it right now hehe.
Lotus, I'll definitely keep an eye on the chart. I've got the dive recovery chart out, planning an airshow routine for the L-39 on paper now :)
Plan it out for flying with 1/3 full tanks and no rear pilot weight, you'll find everything a lot easier... or use Pipsqueak, aka L-39C on crack. :)
That instrumentation.. the depth.. speechless.
Thanks man. :)
based on your workload and time used accomplishing certain tasks within the last 14 months, how many weeks would you estimate untill the completion of the product?
-Misty
That's a "damned if I do and damned if I don't" question that I refuse to answer or speculate on anymore.
Hey mike, its futureflyer....been awhile...very cool stuff you got going on here...I took a bit of a break from the sim...now im back on it...drop me a message sometime and we can have a chat...
Cheers,
Future
Hey lotus,
just a quick question... can Icing be modeled in fsx? bc On very cold nights in dc alot of my pilot friends talk about icing but i cant figure out how to do replicate it in fsx. Any info is appreciated. thanks
Anonymous, yes FSX models icing effects on both prop engines and surfaces. You can set icing severity in clouds in the weather interface.
Hey Jeremy, long time no see yeah. I'll email you when I have some time to think hehe, just swamped with work atm.
Sorry, to be bothersome, but if icing is set to severe and im flying at FL290 in the Pilatus PC-12 can I actually see the atmospheric icing build up on the windshield ect..? bc I was trying yesterday and didnt see any. thanks again
Jesse.
Hey FutureFlyer16, when are you usually on multi? Ive flown with you once and I would like to fly with you again. thanks
Jesse
c'est beau a pleurer !! tu es vrai un chef ramasurinen !! tes vidéo sont des chef-d'oeuvre et l'avion que tu crées va l'etre aussi, il y a des choses que tu ne sais pas faire ?? ^^
That looks simply amazing! I have never purchased a payware aircraft simply because I was not sure it it would be worth it. But following the progress of this plane and seeing those photos, I have no choice but to buy this plane! AMAZING! Great Job Lotus!
-Robster
@Jesse:
Nope, with very few exceptions, aircraft do not display visible icing but you will feel the effects of it after awhile if you're flying in it regardless of what plane it is. I can't say much more about icing... or can I? ;) Hmmmmm.... (evil grin)
@FSboarder:
Mon francais n'est pas bien, (je suis Canadien), mais je comprends, merci beaucoup!
@Robster:
Many payware aircraft are great actually, but it's worth spending some time reading reviews first if they are available and to see what other people say about them on forums. Just remember that one person's cup of tea is another person's bucket of lard, and any airplane that gets particularly slammed by just one person on a forum, is usually better than they make it out to be. If everyone slams it, well avoid it probably hehe. Some people are just spoiled brats about this stuff unfortunately.
I certainly hope you like the Albatros when she's available!
Thanks all.
Also, if I may add to your comment Lotus..Some aircraft actually have lard spread all over the cockpit. Be sure to watch for puke as well.
@Lotus- well its great that I can still "feel" the effects of the icing. I could have sworn I've seen an addon plane for FSX that had visible icing effects on the cockpit glass but I can't remember now. Anyway thanks for info...
One more question.. I noticed you have a quad core extreme, I have a E8400 & 9800gtx, and Ive been gettin about 20fps locked. However, I want to be like you and get *solid* 30 locked. Would you reccomend Q9650? I read alot of opinions but FSX is such a unique game that Im not sure what will be best. High Fps is my only goal.
Sorry for the wall of text!
Thanks
Jessie
Hey Jessie. I would recommend the new intel i7 processors, any of them, over the qx9650. They just have a lot more to offer speed and cache wise, and have basically the same overclocking ability. The thing with FSX though is that you need parts that are well matched to each other in capability.
There's no point putting an 8800GT card on an i7 for example because it'll just bottleneck it. Same for ram. So going up to an i7 means you need fast DDR3 ram, very good aftermarket cooling for the cpu, either air or water (stock coolers suck), and a really strong video card, nvidia 260 or better. The problem is that it's expensive of course.
Bottom line though, if you want fps, go i7, with at least 3 gigs of ram running in triple channel (preferably 6GB if you get a 1GB vid card) and run a 64 bit OS, either XP64, Vista 64 (barf), or hang in there till Windows 7 (hopefully good).
Also a quad will give you smoother flight and less blurries over a dual core, and will allow you to lower the fibre frame time fraction setting in fsx, which will give you an extra bump in FSX of 5-10% more fps, without getting blurries at high speed.
As I always tell people though, keep your expectations in check. Even a completely tweaked i7 system isn't going to give you 30+ fps with all sliders maxed in all situations. Dense cities and multiplayer can still hammer it. We're looking at another two generations of processors before FSX will be truly smacked down.
Good luck.
Understood. So to clarify...Is is better to get a 2.66ghz i7 for 250$ or a 3.2ghzi7 for 1,000$? Is the extreme worth 4 TIMES the price?
Also I noticed you have the qx9650 which costs 800$ and recommended against it to a cpu family that 2 of the 3 cpu are less money than the qx9650.
thanks.
jesse
cont.
so what Im asking is:
Is it worth it to get the i7 extreme?
Why does 2 of the 3 i7's cost less than the (inferior) qx9650? Wouldn't the better cpu cost more?
for the record, Im not second guessing you, I really appreciate the advice. I am simply trying to get the best bang for the buck. THANKS ALOT!
Hey Jesse, I just built my system not long ago with the i7 920 and currently have it OC'd to 3.4 Ghz very easily and I'm more than happy with FSX.
No it won't run with everything maxed out while using the Aerosoft F-16 or RealAir Duke while flying down Park Avenue in New York City :), but it will handle almost anything FSx will throw at it with a little tuning and proper setup, and this is with most all sliders to the far right.
Good luck with your decision ;)
Hey Jessie. Getting the i7 is better for several reasons. One is that it has hyperthreading, and on a 64 bit OS you'll see boosts well beyond what a qx9650 can deliver. There is more to life than FSX after all... maybe. ;)
It's also about the future a bit. The qx9650 is typically paired up with DD2 ram and the i7 works with DDR3, so some speed boosts there as well. The i7 is also a true quad, not a pair of dual cores slapped together so in general communication between the cores is faster, and this is mega useful to FSX.
I'd split the difference and go with an i7 940 or whatever the midrange model is. The extremes in both classes offer more overclocking options, and they are a slightly higher quality chips from a manufacturing perspective, but all of them will give you good fsx performance. The call is yours.
Just saying that for future compatibility and options I would go i7. The Penryn will start showing its age soon.
Lotus/Ramasurinen,
You have done a beautiful job! Realism is key... and your work here looks as real as it can get. I couldn't find a screenshot of the canopy glass, but I hope you are also able to give the glass reflections, scrapes, and other imperfections...
I look forward to taking a ride in the back seat...
I would also love to make a video featuring your creation.
Take care.
penneyfour
Hey Penney, good to see you again, and thanks. Not to worry, the canopies have gotten plenty of love, and screenshots don't really capture them well.
Hope you like it when it's released.
-mike
THANKS GUYS, Im gonna go with the 920, new mobo, new ddr3, new 64 bit xp & new vid card.. ill have to save a little more than i thought but it will be worth it. thankgs again.
Post a Comment