Jump to content


- - - - -

new plane announced


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#21 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:48 AM

View Postjcovelli, on Apr 29 2012, 08:46 PM, said:

i design boats.. and yachts. i do all the technical modeling and hull design in rhino..  then import to either max or c4d (mostly c4d) for rendering and all the visual stuff. i have max... pretty much just to learn it.... kind of a add to the resume type deal.  i greatly prefer c4d though... so much faster and easier.

i just started a coroflot profile.. i have a few things there.  working on a website....  
http://www.coroflot....idual_id=437573
What's your field of work? I tried C4D once but I just never got the hang of it. I had never heard of Rhino before your post. 3D Max was the only program that was superb back in the early days. I've got an old copy of 3D Max in my folder. I haven't used it in years. A year ago I gave something called Blender a whirl and it was a little difficult to use. The software ergonomics were a pain in the butt. I downloaded a newer revision the other day and it's much easier to use. Main interests were only custom device architecture and room development.

#22 jcovelli

jcovelli

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Location:WI

Posted 30 April 2012 - 12:51 PM

View PostSwitchFX, on Apr 30 2012, 01:48 AM, said:

What's your field of work? I tried C4D once but I just never got the hang of it. I had never heard of Rhino before your post. 3D Max was the only program that was superb back in the early days. I've got an old copy of 3D Max in my folder. I haven't used it in years. A year ago I gave something called Blender a whirl and it was a little difficult to use. The software ergonomics were a pain in the butt. I downloaded a newer revision the other day and it's much easier to use. Main interests were only custom device architecture and room development.


naval architecture / marine engineering. rhino is.. awesome... especially v5 coming out. way cheaper than solidedge or solidworks or other surface modelers. it uses nurbs and is designed for engineering so it's a lot more precise than max or c4d which are more just for visual work.  plus it has plugins for stability, hydrodynamics, structural analysis including FEA and CFD.  gmax has a direct import for .3dm files.. which is rhino. i think a few fs developers use rhino.  i actually do have blender also... you can't beet something that's free lol.  that's what i used for a long time before i could afford c4d ($650 even for the student license  :hrmm: ) in the last year blender has really exploded with all kinds of new tech.. now there's even water, particle, cloth, and hair simulation.. it's become basically the free version of c4d.. but lacks the user friendless and due to it's coding a lot of the plugins are way over complicated.

#23 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 05:40 PM

View Postjcovelli, on Apr 30 2012, 10:51 AM, said:

naval architecture / marine engineering. rhino is.. awesome... especially v5 coming out. way cheaper than solidedge or solidworks or other surface modelers. it uses nurbs and is designed for engineering so it's a lot more precise than max or c4d which are more just for visual work.  plus it has plugins for stability, hydrodynamics, structural analysis including FEA and CFD.  gmax has a direct import for .3dm files.. which is rhino. i think a few fs developers use rhino.  i actually do have blender also... you can't beet something that's free lol.  that's what i used for a long time before i could afford c4d ($650 even for the student license  B) ) in the last year blender has really exploded with all kinds of new tech.. now there's even water, particle, cloth, and hair simulation.. it's become basically the free version of c4d.. but lacks the user friendless and due to it's coding a lot of the plugins are way over complicated.
Very nice. I just looked up your information; will you be heading into a privately held company or go the government route since many of your university's graduates have gone that route? I did some digging around at work today because I thought you could do just that with AutoCAD but apparently you can't. It seems Rhino 3D is the industry "standard" for ship design, development and virtual testing. Rhino 3D is affordable in terms of Adobe product affordability as a comparison. :hrmm: I've always said that it's not the tool that matters, it's how you use it. Blender is free, but it's very powerful if you know your way around it.

Edited by SwitchFX, 30 April 2012 - 05:41 PM.


#24 jcovelli

jcovelli

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Location:WI

Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:29 AM

i was working at a firm that designed small commercial craft.. fishing vessels, ferries, tugs, stuff like that. but now, i'm actually gonna be doing a payed internship with Bill Prince.. who's a well known yacht designer. that's really what i want to do.. pleasure crafts, yachts, and smaller passenger vessels. there's a lot more freedom and creativity along with that rather than going with the government or "big" shipping.. tankers and such.  eventually i'll start my own studio.  and yeah.. there's the ShipConstructor software that is autocad based.. they buy a license from Autodesk and basically change things around and add a bunch of plugins and make it more geared for ships than civil engineering... a single seat license is $35,000.. and $7,000 a year after....  i won't be touching that anytime soon lol.  (i would assume AutoDesk charges them a fortune.. )

#25 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 01 May 2012 - 12:42 AM

View Postjcovelli, on Apr 30 2012, 10:29 PM, said:

i was working at a firm that designed small commercial craft.. fishing vessels, ferries, tugs, stuff like that. but now, i'm actually gonna be doing a payed internship with Bill Prince.. who's a well known yacht designer. that's really what i want to do.. pleasure crafts, yachts, and smaller passenger vessels. there's a lot more freedom and creativity along with that rather than going with the government or "big" shipping.. tankers and such.  eventually i'll start my own studio.  and yeah.. there's the ShipConstructor software that is autocad based.. they buy a license from Autodesk and basically change things around and add a bunch of plugins and make it more geared for ships than civil engineering... a single seat license is $35,000.. and $7,000 a year after....  i won't be touching that anytime soon lol.  (i would assume AutoDesk charges them a fortune.. )
Indeed they do. I'm very familiar with Autodesk's business models. Sounds like a good plan. Good luck. Off topic question, but do you know if Prepar3d allows for destructible material or things possible that FS didn't? It would be awesome to finally shoot missiles and have the land destruct. :hrmm:

Edit: If it does, I'll probably start modeling some of my very old plane designs I came up with. They're a little over 15 years old, but they're still good.

Edited by SwitchFX, 01 May 2012 - 12:53 AM.


#26 jcovelli

jcovelli

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 596 posts
  • Location:WI

Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:13 PM

i have no idea about prepar3d.. haven't been following that closely. seems easy enough to implement those things though

#27 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 02 May 2012 - 07:44 PM

View Postjcovelli, on May 2 2012, 05:13 PM, said:

i have no idea about prepar3d.. haven't been following that closely. seems easy enough to implement those things though
Read their forums if they have any, but watch the videos on YouTube. Lockheed Martin seems happy about FSX users using it. I think one of their spokespeople posted on here.

#28 Daube

Daube

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 04:12 AM

View PostSwitchFX, on May 1 2012, 12:42 AM, said:

Off topic question, but do you know if Prepar3d allows for destructible material or things possible that FS didn't? It would be awesome to finally shoot missiles and have the land destruct. :hrmm:
There is almost nothing that FSX doesn't allow.
What you're looking for is nammed TacPack, made by VRS, in beta phase right now.

#29 niteye

niteye

    Commercial Pilot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,559 posts

Posted 03 May 2012 - 02:29 PM

It would be nice if the plane crumbles if you land it wrong, though it was already pretty good in FSPassengers, with the failing gears, propellor that stops working when it hits the ground and the screaming occupants. :hrmm:

#30 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:49 PM

View PostDaube, on May 3 2012, 02:12 AM, said:

There is almost nothing that FSX doesn't allow.
What you're looking for is nammed TacPack, made by VRS, in beta phase right now.
Sure, I'd love to use something graphic intensive with code that delivers crap gaming performance. Genius.

#31 Brandon-M

Brandon-M

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,912 posts
  • Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 04 May 2012 - 10:56 PM

View PostSwitchFX, on May 4 2012, 07:49 PM, said:

Sure, I'd love to use something graphic intensive with code that delivers crap gaming performance. Genius.

get a better rig? Captain sim have a similar product.

#32 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 12:05 AM

View PostDr_Phil, on May 4 2012, 08:56 PM, said:

get a better rig? Captain sim have a similar product.
I would get a very small benefit by getting a high end video card. There's only so much you can do with FSX, and even you have an insane system, using certain add-ons craps your system out like there is no tomorrow.

Edited by SwitchFX, 05 May 2012 - 12:06 AM.


#33 Daube

Daube

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 06:57 AM

View PostSwitchFX, on May 4 2012, 10:49 PM, said:

Sure, I'd love to use something graphic intensive with code that delivers crap gaming performance. Genius.
FSX delivers crap gaming experience ?  Sorry, it seems I forgot I was on FlightSimWorld forums here. My bad  :hrmm:

Edited by Daube, 05 May 2012 - 07:11 AM.


#34 Brandon-M

Brandon-M

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,912 posts
  • Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 05 May 2012 - 07:30 AM

View PostSwitchFX, on May 4 2012, 09:05 PM, said:

I would get a very small benefit by getting a high end video card. There's only so much you can do with FSX, and even you have an insane system, using certain add-ons craps your system out like there is no tomorrow.

I would disagree, its not all GPU. You do need the high end graphics card yes, but you also need the high end processor to go along with it. I have seen people with Orbx scenery & PMDG getting high and steady frame rates easily.

#35 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 05 May 2012 - 03:50 PM

View PostDr_Phil, on May 5 2012, 05:30 AM, said:

I would disagree, its not all GPU. You do need the high end graphics card yes, but you also need the high end processor to go along with it. I have seen people with Orbx scenery & PMDG getting high and steady frame rates easily.
Again, spending $450 and another $300 to get two new parts, three if you count in a new mobo bringing up the costs another $300, just to get 8-10 FPS more really isn't worth it to me. To get subpar increases in frame rates from what most high end systems were getting in 2007 is sad. It really is.

Now what I see in this thread is people defending FSX's performance when I've seen them whine about it in other threads and over the years. I've seen these same people praise Lockheed Martin for their proposal on selling their software to the public. Either you say something and you mean it or you don't. You don't get to switch sides whenever it pleases you.

Edited by SwitchFX, 05 May 2012 - 03:52 PM.


#36 Brandon-M

Brandon-M

    Orville Reincarnate

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,912 posts
  • Location:Canada - Calgary

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:14 AM

View PostSwitchFX, on May 5 2012, 12:50 PM, said:

Again, spending $450 and another $300 to get two new parts, three if you count in a new mobo bringing up the costs another $300, just to get 8-10 FPS more really isn't worth it to me. To get subpar increases in frame rates from what most high end systems were getting in 2007 is sad. It really is.

Now what I see in this thread is people defending FSX's performance when I've seen them whine about it in other threads and over the years. I've seen these same people praise Lockheed Martin for their proposal on selling their software to the public. Either you say something and you mean it or you don't. You don't get to switch sides whenever it pleases you.

It isn't "just" 8-10 fps that you get from that upgrade though?

#37 _TW_

_TW_

    First Class Member\Screenshot Hotshot of 2004

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,474 posts
  • Location:Baden-Baden, Germany

Posted 06 May 2012 - 11:27 AM

View PostSwitchFX, on May 5 2012, 04:50 PM, said:

Again, spending $450 and another $300 to get two new parts, three if you count in a new mobo bringing up the costs another $300, just to get 8-10 FPS more really isn't worth it to me. To get subpar increases in frame rates from what most high end systems were getting in 2007 is sad. It really is.

Now what I see in this thread is people defending FSX's performance when I've seen them whine about it in other threads and over the years. I've seen these same people praise Lockheed Martin for their proposal on selling their software to the public. Either you say something and you mean it or you don't. You don't get to switch sides whenever it pleases you.

Yeesh!  2500K = $180.  Graphics card = $200.  Motherboard = $150.

The rig in my sig is handling FSX beautifully at 1920x1080 with Payware add-ons.

#38 Daube

Daube

    Private Pilot - IFR

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 01:05 PM

View Post_TW_, on May 6 2012, 11:27 AM, said:

Yeesh!  2500K = $180.  Graphics card = $200.  Motherboard = $150.

The rig in my sig is handling FSX beautifully at 1920x1080 with Payware add-ons.


No no no nooooooo... no.
You're on FlightSimWorld forums here. The rule is simple: IF it doesn't run on maximum settings at more than 100 FPS, then it doesn't run at all.

Also, you DO need more than 30.000,00$ in order to run FSX at more than 5 FPS on medium settings.

Keep that in mind, and stop trying to be smart  :hrmm:

B)

Edited by Daube, 06 May 2012 - 01:07 PM.


#39 SwitchFX

SwitchFX

    formerly TeleFarsi_Airlines818

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 30,753 posts

Posted 06 May 2012 - 02:58 PM

You can see it's just a small bump for a bit of money. Though it does translate well for games that don't have the issues FSX does.

#40 _TW_

_TW_

    First Class Member\Screenshot Hotshot of 2004

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,474 posts
  • Location:Baden-Baden, Germany

Posted 06 May 2012 - 03:38 PM

Daube - I am sensing lots of sarcasm  :hrmm:

Switch - Definitely bigger than a small bump.  I've been here since '03, started running FSX on a Athlon X2 machine and a 256MB X800XT.  Ran nice on Medium settings and 4xAA. I've upgraded plenty of times and have went through countless amounts of graphic cards.  I'm telling you, the system in my rig will run FSX the way it's supposed to run; smooth and with the appropriate filtering applying (8xAA) with almost all settings close to max.  And at the prices that I listed above, that certainly isn't the end of the world.