McPhat Studios - developing any more for XP?

[Thywillbedone]

Have had the ATR from this developer for some time. While the systems modelling is very basic it never ceases to amaze how good looking the aircraft is from the outside - probably the best I have seen (and I own many of the available payware aircraft). Anyone know if they are developing any more for XP? Also, what is their secret and why can't other payware developers match their external standards? 

 

Thanks!

[Leen de Jager]

These days , I cannot say what McPhat is developing for X-Plane.
They are working on a Fokker 50 and I expect ( just expect) it will be available in a X-Plane version too.

 

Saying their ATR is probably looking the best at the outside...............................mhhhhhm................you should have a closer look to the Saab by LES.

Flying the Saab is closer to reality than flying the ATR anyways.

 

In other words I am in love with both planes.

I would marry the Saab!!!!

 

 

Leen

[Thywillbedone]

Have somewhat gone off commuter props since (1) was a bit disappointed with the Jetstream 32, and (2) I bought the Q400 about 18 mths ago and have not been able to get any support whatsoever to get it to run properly so it sits unused - very disappointing. Its a good time for XP with a number of payware models to choose from…I am being a bit more discriminating for the time being as I have limited resources! Maybe I will go for the Saab at some stage next year.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Thywillbedone

[Ben Russell]

McPhat, where we clear coat over everything, including the algae....

 

 

 

...they definitely have a style to them, and it's definitely NOT to my tastes.

[Thywillbedone]

...they definitely have a style to them, and it's definitely NOT to my tastes.

 

Harsh assessment IMO (although maybe they are overgenerous with the gloss)…care to name an XP aircraft which matches the detail up close? What floats your boat? Just curious...

Edited December 28, 2013 by Thywillbedone

[Ben Russell]

I find McPhat use way too much "wear" ...... it just doesn't sit right with me, especially when it's got brand new 15-layer clear coat on it.

 

Like this:

 

What the hell have they been flying through? Shrubbery?

 

 

 

 

 

And here's what it probably looked like freshly coated in reality:

 

 

 

 

...sure, it's "fifteen year old paint" or whatever... it just doesn't sit right with me.

 

The more detail you add the closer to reality you need to be, the amount of texture noise they use just puts me off.

 

 

Comparisons? Don't know.

 

I don't really care that much for external paint work. I only started picking them apart because you put them on a pedestal and asked a question... 

 

 

They do have ultra high def detail, but is it ultra-real...? I'm not convinced.

[Ben Russell]

I had a 1992 toyota 4wd with acid-rain pock marked clear coat that I absolutely _thrashed_ through the undergrowth, to the point of using it for land-clearing..... it STILL looked better glossier than that v-stab texture.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Ben Russell

[Hueyman]

Well, no need to be harsh guys by expressing your likings ... Their textures are maybe the best I have seen, but their 3D is only really great, while the rest ( systems etc ) is simply chaotic, anyone can do a plane maker plane in 5 hours or so with same default systems

 

Now , it really depends on what you want. Some planes only focus on a certain side of the thing where they excel ( the case with the ATR and textures ) others are great in every sides ( 777 from what I heard ) etc etc ... And some aims to be the best in every sides ( IXEG 737 AFAIK and 340 too )

 

Theres enough screenshots, reviews, forums and youtube videos to make your own idea then.

 

To answer your question, you should e-mail them to get your answer...

[Thywillbedone]

They do have ultra high def detail, but is it ultra-real...? I'm not convinced.

 

Fair enough…understand what you mean…but they are able to get better exterior eye candy than most if not all payware authors IMO and I am still wondering whether they have a proprietary technique for doing it that others are not able to match or whether it is very labour intensive etc which make it uneconomic for small payware teams to achieve etc. Again, just curious and not stirring up a row!

[Cameron]

I am still wondering whether they have a proprietary technique for doing it that others are not able to match

 

Nope, it's just a massive amount of textures that cover a small area, thus using up quite a bit more VRAM than your typical add-on. It helps that they are good texture artists, but my first point is the primary answer that you're after. Where a typical plane can be textured on a single UV map, McPhat will split it up into multiple.

[Leen de Jager]

Hi guys.

 

I happen to know a bit about textures ( including McPhat-textures) and I`ll be back later today to do some explanation about it.

Not saying I know all and not saying I am the only one, nevertheless I can tell some interesting things I think (hope)

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Leen

Edited December 29, 2013 by Leen de Jager

[Leen de Jager]

OK what is the ATR showing us.

Where comes that 15 layers varnish-look from.

 

The gloss on the model comes from an ATTR command inside the OBJ files for the airplane exterior.

The way this gloss shows on the plane depends on various factors.

A very important factor is the surface the light is been reflected on.

When the surface is smoorh and flat we have exactly the amount of gloss the OBJ files is making the model gloss by its ATTR command  (  e.g.  ATTR_shiny_rat    1.500 )

A less smooth surface gives us more gloss.

Better said a  surface having a smooth 3d surface and a more orange-skin look due to an orange-skin producing normal file.

 

Thats what we see when are looking at the ATR by McPhat.

 

The first time I saw this effect was when I saw the Caranado Beechcraft Bonanza .

Simply said , creating a varnish like gloss by creating a non-smooth normal file.
Adding some noise to the texture for the normal file will do the trick. ( some =very fine and very little)

The more un-smooth we make the normal the fatter the gloss goes .

On the ATR the varnish is very fat , its McPhat if you like.

 

This all has some disadvantages.

Most important, it makes regulation of the gloss ( by editing the alpha-layer (specular-layer) in the normal texture) on spots where we do not like to see gloss more complicated.

Clear coat over everything, including the algae....is such a problem.

This problem however CAN be solved , if a painter really wants to.

 

On the screen below you see a part of the wing I removed the orange-skin-effect.
On the second screen you see  a part of the plane where I reduced the orange-skin-effect and I regulated the gloss.

The bottom-screen shows one of the default-liveries I made for the LES Saab 340.

I used exactly the same  method. ( in a fine and high densety)

In this case very mild applied and only visible at extreme short distance, giving the bird a very nice appearance at normal viewing distance.

Just knowing the trick does not do the trick..................its all about how to execute it.

 

Mind,  the engine nacelles and the underside of the wings do not have the orange-skin-effect by default.

 

Its not my intention to say whats nice and whats wrong.

Thats for you all to decide.
I just explaned what you see and where it comes from.

Many developers use it , the Saab by LES has the effect too , as I stated above.

 

Cheers

 

Leen de Jager

 

 

 

 

Edited December 29, 2013 by Leen de Jager

[Thywillbedone]

Thanks Leen - very interesting - much of it above my head as I have only managed to make one small, basic scenery in my career which is not fit for release anywhere! 

[Leen de Jager]

Harsh assessment IMO (although maybe they are overgenerous with the gloss)…care to name an XP aircraft which matches the detail up close? What floats your boat? Just curioAs As

As I said before , it might be a good Idea to have a look at the 340.

I am sure there are more models wich come close.(at least)

Carenados planes , the Jetstream you name it.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Leen de Jager

[Airbus]

I hate picking at other developers work but; McPhat seems to create wear and tear in the wrong departments.

I can show you some beat up airplanes! Planes that have paint worn down to the original primer colors, aircraft with speed tape over bezels, mix matched parts ect! Yeah heavily used aircraft have shiny dirt; especially after oils, deicing fluids and other crap!

 

But this is way over done, in my opinion! You have to be standing dead next to the plane to see this much detail!