Peter Hager A380

[gilbenl]

1) No plane in X-Plane has a "complete" FMS. And, let's face it, no plane in MSFS has a "complete" FMS. At best they will have an abstraction of an actual FMS which we pretend is the real thing. So, please, let us accurately define our terms.

2) What does he fill it with? Complete specs for the engines, modeled systems, graphs for take off V speeds, cruising and landing, V speeds for landing, tips on flight planning, etc. All the things you need to fly the thing accurately.

I think I'm done with this thread, as it seems others here have made up their minds without ever having used any of Peter's planes.

1) Maybe not right this second, but UFMC is darn close with the 737, and if I recall the CRJ will have a complete FMC. In any case, there are a NUMBER of planes with complete systems (namely A/P). This cannot be done w/o plug-in work. Generics are very powerful tools but they are exactly that: Generic!

2) Okay...that's 10 pages tops, not to mention that you can find those on the internetz quite easily. If you want to know what the different price points should be, in my opinion/experience, here we go:

>$10: PM only aircraft w or w/o plug-in work.

$10-$20: Basic OBJ aircraft (that which predominates the .org)

$20-$40: Advanced OBJ work with full VC, accurately modeled and performance tuned. Prime example is TK's MU-2

$40+: Fully modeled aircraft (exterior, interior, systems, etc) with extensive plug-in work, attention to detail, and involving rigorous testing to ensure proper performance.

Quite frankly there is nothing out there, which would qualify for the last category...yet. Case and point is this: If you want to spend $65 on a $10-$20 product, go for it! Personally, I am a bit insulted that he would take this particular route on his first OBJ release and expect us to just roll over and wag our tails. After reflecting on this situation, I think the reason why I am upset is simply because I was really looking forward to this plane and it turned out to be a giant, over-priced dud. By the way...

"...as it seems others here have made up their minds without ever having used any of Peter's planes."

Bull.

In any case, there's no point in whining any more. Que sera, sera...

[OlaHaldor]

I must admit, I have been interested in those Airbus addons. But the lack of a kick ass nice virtual cockpit has made me save my money. And then finally, the MU-2 came along, and I went nuts about it. It sets the standard for what addons should be for XP, and is what MSFS users had all along since MSFS2004.

I took a quick look at the A380 wireframe render. Wow.. What a bunch of wasted polygons. If at least a third of those polygons had been placed in the cockpit, I'd jump on it instantly.

I might be picky, but for what the externals are worth, I really miss some details. It's so flat and dull.. It's something I'd suspect from a freeware addon. A payware addon should have a good external texture. Panels, rivets, it should look like it's been used at least a little, exhaust, dirt and oil.. You name it! Am I the only one wanting such details? Might be my crazy need for fantastic visuals. 

To say it in another term: if I were to make a video for a fantastic helicopter or plane, I would refuse to do it if it looks like shit. 

[inktomi]

I have to agree with you regarding the external texturing. It looks like it's brand spanking new, and never even been ran down the runway.

I have utmost respect for Peter, I love his 330, but I do agree that the external texturing on this 380 is far too clean.

Sometimes dirt and grime is a good thing

(I don't think that I'll be able to run this 380 unless he releases a version for people with slightly slower computers )

[Airbus]

I think of X-Plane like the XBOX and PS3 game systems.

You have the console which is X-Plane for us and you have the game developers which is the X-Plane developers to us.

Game developers don't release half finished games do they?

If so its a well polished demo.

Peter released a demo in my eyes.

There is a game called Granturismo Prologue it is a pre release before the official Grantursmo 5 is finished. But it is propperly named  Granturismo Prologue.

I think thats a simple way to look at it.

[Goran_M]

Obviously, a lot has been said about the A380.  Well, Peter has been following the talk around the various forums and has offered an explanation about why he did what he did.

In it, he admits to paying someone for modelling it.  Something I knew for quite a while but left up to him to divulge.

Anyway, his statement:

http://petersuv.vs120062.hl-users.com/A380/poligons.html

Goran

[MatthewS]

he admits to paying someone for modelling it

No wonder he has to charge so much for it!

But if he can't model it himself then why even bother?

I guess this also means that he doesn't have the time or inclination to do decent modeling and thus purchasers should never expect a 3D cockpit with this aircraft.

[Kaphias]

he admits to paying someone for modelling it

No wonder he has to charge so much for it!

But if he can't model it himself then why even bother?

I guess this also means that he doesn't have the time or inclination to do decent modeling and thus purchasers should never expect a 3D cockpit with this aircraft.

Right... why should the guys here even bother making planes if they don't do the texturing and systems themselves?

[MatthewS]

Right... why should the guys here even bother making planes if they don't do the texturing and systems themselves?

The textures are bland and there are no normal maps, the systems modelling is basic, the 3d external model is bloated at 1.5m polygons and there is no 3D cockpit.

What did he actually do for this to be worth $65?  IMO this aircraft should be selling for $15 max!

If the joint efforts of others developers here on X-Pilot are as clumsy then they should not bother either.

The old days are over and second rate X-Plane products just wont cut it anymore.

[OlaHaldor]

He may say whatever he wants, but the value of this plane is not just for anyone but himself and the original modeler.

Since he bought this from someone, he might just have gone to TurboSquid or 3d02 and bought an existing model, meant for production (TV, film, pre-rendered cut-scenes for games).

Look at the amount of triangles! Is that REALLY necessary?

[Kaphias]

Right... why should the guys here even bother making planes if they don't do the texturing and systems themselves?

What did he actually do for this to be worth $65?  IMO this aircraft should be selling for $15 max!

Worth that much? Nothing. But because he outsourced the 3D model and asked for so much to be put into it, he has to charge that much or else he would lose money.

[Kiedels]

How many people have bought the A380? Because on X-Plane.org everybody is saying that it is a really good plane.

[inktomi]

I would have, but I'm pretty sure my computer can't deal with it =(

I'm happy with his the couple 330s I have though.

[Kaphias]

I would have, but I'm pretty sure my computer can't deal with it =(

I'm happy with his the couple 330s I have though.

Quote from the page in the DLM at the org:

Customers report good framerate even with only 256MB of RAM on a MAC.

Might be worth giving it a shot!

[Kiedels]

Maybe we shouldn't be critisizing him. I've been talking to him on skype and he does this for a living.

[Kiedels]

I'm trying to convince him to make the A380 better, and up to the customers expectations. He just doesn't have a lot of time.

[Cameron]

Maybe we shouldn't be critisizing him. I've been talking to him on skype and he does this for a living.

I've been silent on this topic, but I think there's been enough posts now to see where everyone is at. First off, as a publisher of payware products I and the other developers behind them understand that criticizing is all part of the gig. Most criticism is the stem of what people WANT, and as such, should be taken as constructive from developers regardless of whether it's harsh or not. Decide what the masses say (don't focus on just one), and assess what's worth it to YOU as a developer or publisher. Just because this is Peter's job (if it is), doesn't mean we should be criticizing him or anyone else any less (this includes X-Aviation products). He's taking people's hard earned money, and I'm sure he'd like their money again. If he DOES want it again, he's going to need to face the criticism and show that he cares so not as to leave a sour taste in a customers mouth.

The main consensus here and other places is that people feel the product does not JUSTIFY a ~ $65USD price tag. All the bickering here tells me people want or would be willing to give his plane a shot, but not for that amount of cash. To a consumer it appears a bad investment compared to what they have gotten in the past for less money.

I'm trying to convince him to make the A380 better, and up to the customers expectations. He just doesn't have a lot of time.

Didn't you say he does this for a living?  

Worth that much? Nothing. But because he outsourced the 3D model and asked for so much to be put into it, he has to charge that much or else he would lose money.

While it's not my goal to bash Peter, I must say that I'm willing to bet that for this product in the state it is now he'd probably be making more cash flow with a lower price tag. It's all economics, but with a lower price tag for something that appears and is admittedly incomplete comes more revenues and less opposition/criticism since the expectation of what the package offers is lower.

At the end of the day Peter has his place in the XP market and feels his work is worth the price tag. To him, maybe it's not all the cash that matters, but what he feels his own work is worth (thus I would chalk this up to a hobby and not a living for him). The buying public may not agree, and they'll make their statement by not making the purchase.

[YYZatcboy]

If anyone does have this aircraft, would you be so kind as to post a review of it so we can get an idea of what it's like?

[Airbus]

192,449 triangles thats how you do it! This is my benchmark of quality. Only if X-Plane had a rendering engine this beautiful :'(. You don't need 1.5million polys if so you can add a tonn of detail with that threshold of 1.5mill! Watch in 1080p! This is my favorite super car BTW!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuRMLp_xOz0

http://www.propergraphics.com/3dlowpoly/Koenigsegg_32_960.htm

[OlaHaldor]

Well, this is just that - a rendered sequence. Pre-rendered. Not in-game. Reflections, and some times transparency too (depending on application and settings) is rendered using "ray tracing".

I know nVidia has done some testing with ray traced rendering in-game. I don't know how the performance is, but it depends on one very negative thing regarding XP. It requires DirectX. XP uses OpenGL in order to power all platforms it supports..

However, it MAY be possible to implement general reflection maps. I use LightWave 3D for my work, and there we have a flag for showing multiple layers of texture, including reflection maps. GLSL. Takes some time to load, but it's at least a possibility. If only they could take a look at that in XP10.

No matter what the future holds, GT5 and the Koenigsegg looks good.

[Jack Skieczius]

You know, the things i always liked about modeling 3d cars was its great for the beginner, in the fact you don't really need a fancy texture job on them, as they are basically one color, but you can learn all about reflections and such. There is also HDRI in that render too.

XP needs reflection mapping, ray traced like this, and i do believe OpenGL can accomplish this. It can do a lot of things that direct x can do despite what one may hear.

[Sulman]

People are valuing the product here solely on cosmetic criteria. An interesting perspective, for an X-plane community.

It is interesting - and rather worrying -  to me that there has not been one comment in this discussion regarding flight model accuracy or documentation with the A380; the two other corners of the payware triangle, and an area that I hope the CRJ gets right. I'll buy it anyway; but you get my meaning. It is irrelevant whether there's a pretty VC and 3D model if there's scant documentation and you haven't a clue how the thing flies. When it comes to simming with performance-critical aircraft, one cannot have enough data. PMDG learnt this 13yrs ago (it is how they started in the FS community) and their documentation is still the standard, in my opinion. Peter Hager, as I understand it, is very thorough in this discipline.

This is an area of X-Plane (and MSFS, but winds me up more with X-plane because I hold it to a higher standard) that continues to frustrate me; utterly fantastic models are released basically 'as is'; test flying - whilst great fun - is rapidly replaced with frustration when one cannot plan a flight regime thoroughly;  it is actually far easier to learn the plane when you know the numbers you're aiming for in a given flight regime.

Rgds

James

[Cameron]

People are valuing the product here solely on cosmetic criteria. An interesting perspective, for an X-plane community.

Why shouldn't they? If you're dumping $65 down, one would hope you get great craftsmanship and a great flight model. I can't attest to the flight model (I haven't bought it), but it's quite obvious there are things lacking...something admitted by the author.

It is interesting - and rather worrying -  to me that there has not been one comment in this discussion regarding flight model accuracy or documentation with the A380; the two other corners of the payware triangle, and an area that I hope the CRJ gets right. I'll buy it anyway; but you get my meaning.

I find this statement rather contradictory. Why should people complain or be concerned about this if Peter is well known for good flight models? You went on to say: "Peter Hager, as I understand it, is very thorough in this discipline." So if he's so thorough in it, doesn't it make sense that this is NOT the center of complaint at the given time? I certainly see it that way.

[Sulman]

Cameron,

Balance, in a word. Anything looks bad if one only focuses on weaknesses. It is entirely possible there may be $65 of value locked into the rest of the product.

J

[Mikkel]

I own the A330. For the price it is ok. The flight model is as good as possible within X-Plane. The panel and system modelling is, well, generic - which is sort of reasonable within the price-range.

Even with an exterior model as the A380 including perhaps what-ever upgrades the panel would get to reach A380 standard I still wouldn't pay 65 $. Thing is: to simulate the systems you'd need a plug-in. Otherwise it requires work-around after work-around... which leads to a rather unsatisfying and not really realistic flying experience. That is, if you are looking for a realistic flying experience. Otherwise you may not care too much.

The A380 doesn't come with a 3D-cockpit. Taking into account the generic simulation of the airbus systems and the overdone exterior model with just as poor a paint as the A330ies I'm amazed people are defending the product. It is overprized compared to its features. For 10 $ less you could buy the very realistic PMDG B744 (FSX), which features most if not all systems, a very precise FMC, airac updated navdata (via navigraph) with full P-RNAV SIDs and STARs incl. approach procedures for each rwy at each airport. As well you get fantastic documentation including performance charts for all phases of flight, checklists etc. etc.

(I haven't flown MSFS since 2002, so no reason to start an X-Plane-MSFS war-thread)

The A380, I'm sure, is probably still an entertaining product (even at that price). It's just very poor value for money.

Following the developers on this site shows hope that we'll see MSFS-quality like products (or even much better) within X-Plane very soon. I'm looking forward to it. Keep up the good work.

[Sulman]

The A380 doesn't come with a 3D-cockpit. Taking into account the generic simulation of the airbus systems and the overdone exterior model with just as poor a paint as the A330ies I'm amazed people are defending the product. It is overprized compared to its features. For 10 $ less you could buy the very realistic PMDG B744 (FSX), which features most if not all systems, a very precise FMC, airac updated navdata (via navigraph) with full P-RNAV SIDs and STARs incl. approach procedures for each rwy at each airport. As well you get fantastic documentation including performance charts for all phases of flight, checklists etc. etc.

(I haven't flown MSFS since 2002, so no reason to start an X-Plane-MSFS war-thread)

The A380, I'm sure, is probably still an entertaining product (even at that price). It's just very poor value for money.

Following the developers on this site shows hope that we'll see MSFS-quality like products (or even much better) within X-Plane very soon. I'm looking forward to it. Keep up the good work.

Fair enough. That's what I was getting at.

Something I've wondered about is the genesis of many MSFS developers. PMDG & Level-D produce incredible stuff, and it works very well. The systems modelling you speak of in MSFS is still something that keeps me there for large aircraft (it's half the fun, really) whereas GA for me is about flying the aircraft and enjoying the view; and I prefer X-plane for the latter. I'm assuming the method is in increasingly complex gauge programming; but aren't we approaching this level of fidelity with plugins? I know the level of talent is at least equalled in the X-Plane community, and I wonder if in X-Aviation and the CRJ guys etc we are seeing the beginnings of our own PMDG's and Level-D's.

I'm really hoping for a landmark aircraft for X-plane, not least to show the FS crowd what is possible.