gilbenl

Thanks for the replies guys! XP community being what it should be. TK- Haven't tried voiding the plug-ins folder yet, but will do so. I know saying "random acf" is usually less than helpful, but it literally is a problem with virtually all acf. Nevertheless, Im going to try to do a fresh install on my external and see if that fixes it. If so, looks like my comp is getting a clean OS install. Ill post back after I do those. Thanks again folks!

Everyone hits a wall some time, and this has got me stumped. It all began one day, when for no apparent reason, a few of my acf would cause XP to crash during loading. Like any XP user, I then deleted my prefs etc etc, and tried again. No luck. Feeling frisky, I decided to try another, random acf. Sure enough, it started loading then crashed. Out of about 100 acf in my hanger, maybe 15 of them will load. A bit annoyed, I reluctantly erased XP and did a clean install (Newer version; 9.67). Downloaded fresh copies of random acf and placed them in the folder. No dice. This led me to the conclusion that neither my plug-ins nor my acf were causing the problem. Maybe it has something to do with my predominantly v8 and early v9 acf, I figured. So, I went into planemaker and did a batch convert of my old acf folder, put it back where it belongs, and prayed...Didn't pray well enough I guess because out of those 15 planes that worked, now only the default acf and King Air 350 work. Lonnnng story short, I'm back to where I started, with everything the same as it was when it started goofing up except with an updated version of XP, and a folder of batch converted acf which don't work. In other words, XP is unusable and I am out of ideas. Any hair-brained suggestions would be extremely appreciated. Specs: XP v9.67 MBP i7 OSX 10.6.6 Nvidia/Intel GFX (OEM) 4GB Ram (OEM) 500GB 7200RPM HD (OEM) Log File: (Yes, I haven't used XP since Jan 31 due to this problem...boo) Log.txt

Coooool! Does it give any form of instrumentation though?

I think the quickest way of going about that would be to simply use Alt-Tab to switch between programs. As for having the missing toolbar, I assume thats because although it may only be 10px (or whatever) high, since the max res of your screen is the same as the minimum res to run XP, even relinquishing those 10px would put you below the minimum...if that makes sense.

http://www.x-plane.com/pg_Sys_reqs.html The minimum resolution is 1024X768. It wont shrink further.

Some things are best not said at all on a public forum in a public place by a representative of your team, Goran. The issue, which has since been removed by Nic to stop himself looking like the asshole he is, is that Nic decided to throw a little joke around about pirating iOS apps. I'm not amused. First of all, I am working under contract with Leading Edge...I am not apart of Leading Edge. Even if I was a formal member of Leading Edge, its not up to Goran to check up on my posts unrelated to the projects we're working on. Second, Ben, I don't talk to you...ever. You know absolutely nothing about me. Your only basis of judgment, and what I assume to be your sole reason to personally attack me is some words we had on XPFW when I was 18. I'm now 23. Things have changed, and if you still harbor ill-will over some conflict on the internet that occurred a half a decade ago then you should really let it go. Finally, I didn't remove it to save face. I couldn't care less. I erased it because you were right. Go figure? Ultimately, despite the fact that not only did I agree with you and modified the post, you still chose to make a concerted effort to start an argument with me; one which I have no interest in pursuing further. In doing so, you also decided to use vulgar language, which is universally unacceptable on just about every forum on the net. It's nice that mature adults can use whatever language they choose on this site, but using it in a personal attack demonstrates poor class. So, to use your own words: Some things are best not said at all on a public forum in a public place by a representative of your team, Cam. P.S: My name is Nick, not Nic. At least get the name of the person right before berating them.

Problem solved. Won't happen again, but feel free to remove things you feel are inappropriate from an otherwise useful post.

Hey all- Saw this the other day on itunes... http://ax.itunes.apple.com/app/id398073834?mt=8 I'm not much for programming, but the program seems intuitive and easy to use if you're using the LUA programming language. If so, this seems like a cheap way to avoid lugging your laptop around when you want to get some work done. If anyone else who knows what they're doing could provide some additional feedback, it would be appreciated by myself and others.

FWIW, here's how I did the fuse. It takes a heck of a long time spent moving verts to figure out the best way for all of those longitudinal lines to mesh into the windows nicely. Also, using the "Make sharp" edge tool really makes that flat space stand out nicely.

PM Sent

I call it a completely different plane... You gotta remember man, it's not an "extended" cockpit. It's a completely different cockpit! With a completely different cockpit comes a whole new range of systems programming. Hell man, even knobs which seem similar to the -200, are different in the -400! Also, the wings, engines, pylons, flaps, gear, fuse, ACF file all need changing, and that's the short list. Same thing is true with a DC-10/MD-11...very similar; totally different. I understand where your coming from, but when you actually see the planes side-by-side, I think you'll have a greater appreciation for just how different the Queen and the Princess are. In the process of doing this, I will probably compose a list of all of the exterior differences as there really isn't one that exists. As the list grows, I think it will also give ya'll a better idea of the huge task we face!

Don't even ask. After the Boeing projects are done, I'm sleeping for a month. Ditto. The -800 would require new engines, systems, fuse, etc. Maybe someday though...

Ditto!

Translation: "I don't have enough information/don't care to look." $20 says his so called "license" is derived from an e-mail to the effect of "I'm Heinz. I build plane. Cool?" which either was not replied to, or by a confused "Okay...? *Standard legal don't steal our stuff* Love?, Boeing" I mean I respect the guy for trying, but a pig with makeup is still a pig; maybe a pig with a publicist, is more apt. You can do much better Heinz...you know it, I know it, we all do. Do it?

God Awful. Does he know you can measure things, and use reference images...?

Goran, your way works, but it's the slow way. Here's the fastest way I know of for joining loops like that*: 1) Select both loops. 2) Hit Shift+S-->Cursor-->Selection** 3) Press "." to make it go into cursor mode. This will make all movements relative to the cursor. 4) Hit "S", "Y"*** , "0" 5) Hit "W"-->"Remove Doubles" That should do the trick. If not, increase your limit which is located near the "RemDou" button in the "Mesh Tools" panel. The value should never be greater than 0.02 in my experience. See the notes for each Astrix: *This only applies when the rings of verts are the same diameter (IE on a fuse, wing, etc) **This is optional. I find that it is not often needed, but if you don't know what to expect from this process, it somewhat eliminates the chance of screw-ups. ***The "Y" is indicative of the axis on which you want the verts to line up. I typically make the y-axis the long axis of the fuse. If it's not, then you need to substitute whichever axis you have it lined up with. Always check and make sure you are snapping along the correct axis or funny things will happen. Final note: You should always check the entire loop to make sure all doubles were removed. Sometimes, if theres one or two out of line, blender will skip them, and merge the rest. An easy way to ensure you have gotten them all is to know how many verts compose a ring. If, for example, you build a 24 vert ring, and after remove doubles it says "22 doubles removed" you know there are two which need to be done by hand. Also, when using Alt-M to do each by hand, avoid doing "snap center." Unless you've been careless, there should be one vert in each pair which has the proper alignment. You want to select the correct one first, then the second, and hit "merge first." I know this was a long explanation, but I assure you the actual process is very quick once you learn the various caveats. Good luck, and don't hesitate to keep asking questions. -Nick Last note: Rafael, it appears you have some funny things going on with those windows. You need to try and carry the original lines of the fuse through those window sections. Basically, between two windows, you should have straight lines that are in-line with each line of the un-modified fuse. If that doesn't make sense, I can post a picture tomorrow.

I find it highly suspect that he would get an "official license" from Boeing. First, to get such an arrangement, he would have to be contracted by Boeing, in which case it would probably not be a public project. Second, I have never heard of such an arrangement between a company like Boeing, and a one-man acf developer. I suspect he sent Boeing an e-mail/letter asking if he could do the project without getting sued. They replied by saying something along the lines of, "sure, and if you would like, we'll send you a customer information packet." Beyond that, I really don't buy this "official Boeing license." Likely just an official "we're not going to sue you," license. Truth of the matter is Heinz is a master of putting out planes, quickly. He is very good with making them fly right, and should be respected for it. That being said, I wouldn't hold your breath for something spectacular. Maybe though, just maybe, he'll decide to elevate his talents for this one, but based on what I've seen in the past the final product will like look similar to what he has now (no normal mapping, plain textures, rather inaccurate modeling)...BUT it will fly well, probably be in the $20-$30, and be better than what you could get now. Sorry to be a downer because I would love this to be a fantastic plane. Unfortunately, I've never seen any reason to believe he is capable and/or willing (don't know which one) of producing something on par with JRollon, Denis Krupin, XPJ, etc.

NICE co-pilot! It's quite refreshing to see something other than the human figures I've seen around. Really shows off the benefit of knowing how to use textures to make up for minimal poly usage!

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...

Problem is, unless I missed something, he hasn't put the work into the systems on this one as he did in the past. (IE He has released the most expensive plane in XP history with only limited systems pages, no VC, no plug-in logic, and a good, but mediocre 3D model) Also, what most folks don't understand is that the actual size of the plane makes little difference in how long it takes to build it. Granted, a four engine heavy may take a bit longer, but you're still only building 2 engines, one wing, a half of a fuse, and an extra landing gear. Its exactly the same as building a 737 or something smaller, just the parts are scaled up. I think that's what most people miss when they think about obj: Its not the large size of the plane, but rather the number of small details you add to it...details that just aren't in this A380. And quite frankly, if you're charging $65 for something, I think folks are well within their right to be as mean and cruel as they want. Payware is not a "let's all play nice" game. If he did it for free, it would be a very different story.

Unbelievable, especially for your first OBJ plane. I'd give him $20...maybe, and I would consider it more of a donation than a purchase. *Shakes head* Due to the ridiculous price, I have a feeling this will end up on the torrents before the new year. Anything payware will get leaked onto the torrents, but if you charge a fair price more folks will just buy it rather than steal it. When you charge an insane price though...well, he'll see.

I'm dreadfully afraid of Peter's A380. Hands down, he has managed to produce some of the best flying models out there. Even his non-obj aircraft are so meticulously built that they look pretty darn good. That being said, it's evident that he modeled the A380, then subdivided the ever-loving crap out of it. Basically, he did what the sim does to smooth things out, but does with shading via the gfx card. The sim does this because its far more efficient to optimize textures and crease angle than it is to add a bunch of polys. Simply put, there shouldn't be more than 250-350K polys in that plane. I have a feeling that by the time he adds in his 2048^2 panel with a bunch of generic instruments that the plane will run preetttttttyyy slow. Then again, he'll probably realize this sooner or later and cut back on the polys. Nevertheless, with lessons learned, I have a feeling he'll be putting out some outstanding products in the next year!

Nice renders, but you do know the wingbox, wings, and engines are all the wrong shape, right? If you plan on making this a payware project, you're gonna have to do some major corrections. On a positive note, your modeling skills have improved considerably.

...Someone drank the Kool-Aid...You apparently LOVED this ad : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRF9-5itZA4 I doubt this is the place for this debate, which unlike the airbus-boeing debate never gets old in my book. Nevertheless, I will admit that Windows 7 is probably the best PC OS thus far. That being said, OS X blows it COMPLETELY out of the water. Mac computers are indeed pricey. BUT, compare a PC running OS X to a PC running windows, and guess who wins? OS X every time...even when it's been hacked to work on an inferior system. *Sigh* that being said, X-Plane, unlike most programs, runs best on Windows running on a mac AFAIK. So, I would advise having windows on the system. Okay, maybe on an external hard drive you can remove when the windows half gets a virus.

I can't tell anything without the mesh...It does look like you have some issues though simply based on the object's shading...