PDA

View Full Version : sorry for uploading the sab trioblin


Chandlerclay96
06-15-2015, 02:00 PM
im very sorry i posted the sab trioblin some time ago. it wasnt my work and im very sorry. i shouldnt have this helicopter at all i just found the dropbox link on facebook. im sorry.

chandler

Johnny31297
06-15-2015, 04:36 PM
Well, thanks for noticing after OVER 1200 DOWNLOADS AND I DONT EVEN RENEMBER HOW MANY PMS... Sir, you seriously messed up there. I remember misposting this link to a facebook comment, should have gone to a chat. You managed to click it in those 5 seconds before I deleted it. Not bad.

Even though I made a mistake there, this does NOT permit you to post it on the Swappages, what were you thinking?! You did NOT create this helicopter. And I guess a simple "sorry" doesn't do it here.. Over 1200 people have this aircraft and you think it's not gonna come back to the swaps? Well yeah. That worked great in the past. Not.

This helicopter was never meant for being public since it violates Knifeedges terms of use. This was something I made for me and a friend, just for fun. People could get banned.

You, sir, just convinced me to never build any RF model for the Swappages again. This decision is final. Thank you.

abaser
06-15-2015, 07:09 PM
Sheesh man........chill out a little. Take a look at the OPs profile. You'll see he/she is very new here and most likely is very unaware of how things work. And not everyone checks in each and every day like you. You seem very unhappy here anyway, so why stick around? You gripe about the poly limit, and show your models off just to hide them elsewhere. I assume you charge for your models and expect nobody upload any of the variants of them. Hmm, seems like you don't respect the fact that KE asks us not to do this. Did we forget that clause in the exporter agreement? So I say chill out!! This person tried to make things right and you snap. Grow up!!

kpilot786457
06-15-2015, 07:28 PM
though, technically, in the rules of the forum when you sign up, it DOES say that you're not allowed to upload others' work :)

abaser
06-15-2015, 07:31 PM
I understand that. Just saying people make mistakes.

csgill75
06-15-2015, 08:07 PM
A 3 blade goblin on the Swaps isn't going to get anyone in trouble. It isn't a stock model that was modified but most likely a modified gronimod model. If anyone should be complaining it's Groni.

Johnny wants an almost unlimited amount of polies or else he will keep his models to himself. They are his and he can do as he likes. Nobody is really missing anything he is creating since we can't miss what we never had. There is a reason the poly limit is what it is and it's clearly explained in these forums.

kpilot786457
06-15-2015, 09:44 PM
you know WHY he wants more poly's right?

csgill75
06-15-2015, 10:26 PM
you know WHY he wants more poly's right?

No and not many probably even care. I do know that an other simulator has much better looking models. I forget the name off hand but while the models look better it is lacking in many other features like 3D fields and multi-player. Probably because the poly count is too high. Asking for something that is impossible with the current software is

http://s2.hubimg.com/u/1132719_f496.jpg

kpilot786457
06-15-2015, 10:34 PM
You know why they are " lacking in many other features like 3D fields and multi-player"?

Because they aren't turning it into a game like KE is.

abaser
06-15-2015, 10:35 PM
You're thinking accuRC. Their models run 150000+ on polys. Yeah they look great, but at what expense? Who cares if you model each and every screw? Yeah, I do what I can, but come on.......we can make models that look just as good with 27,000.

csgill75
06-15-2015, 10:53 PM
You know why they are " lacking in many other features like 3D fields and multi-player"?

Because they aren't turning it into a game like KE is.

It's BORING not to be able to fly with friends. That is really what the Hobby is about. Who goes out to fly real world solo all the time? I do once in a while but I don't enjoy it as much as I do with others flying with me. It's a social event.

People are flying FPV in real world flying. I bought a quadcopter with a 5.5" screen built in the transmitter for FPV. The Hobby has evolved to this and there are few simulators that do this and not as well as RealFlight.

So what if there are games and challenges in RealFlight. There's combat that can mimic real world RC combat like streamer cut and not so real combat like paintball. It all helps with developing muscle memory, finding correct orientation, and again it's socializing with others in the Hobby which isn't boring.

kpilot786457
06-15-2015, 11:10 PM
AccuRC is working on MP by the way. :)

Johnny31297
06-16-2015, 10:10 AM
Geez guys calm down.. I had PM contact with Chandler before, apparently he likes using the F word a lot. He wasn't really nice to me at all and kept insulting me, that's why I flipped on him. As long as nobody uploads it again I'm okay with it, if anyone does, well just ban me, right? Yes it's a Groni model. Yes I modified it. Bad luck it fell into wrong hands.

Anyway, why I want more polys? Because I ran out in the past! That BK 117 I've been working on for over two years now just needs them when I want to get to the level of detail I require.. I animated almost every gauge in the cockpit, I animated the controls, I built the INSIDE of the rotor head with TT-straps, nuts and bearings so it wouldn't be empty if you crash and look at it, I animated the pendulum absorbers on the rotor blades, I created a realistic startup sequence, I even reconstructed the working principle of the tripple rpm indicator and mast moment indicator..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEqGQQw1CEA

I ran out of polys for realistic looking control rigging. I reduced every single object on this helicopter as far down as I could without it looking ugly. Every single one of the 289 objects on this helicopter. I'm at 26.984 triangles. And that's the limit of what's possible for this helicopter. I planned to release it as soon as I got everything on my wish list done, but well, I guess now it doesn't matter anyway.

Have a good day.

12oclockhigh
06-16-2015, 12:37 PM
Johnny,

The thing that gets me is that there might just be technical issues preventing what you want and not simple willingness by KE to give what you want. If the MP is preventing such, it would be nice if the model was just marked as single play only and allow more polys. Really, I think that it is just the limits of older underlying technology. The market share may not allow a huge rewrite. Some guys just refuse to upgrade to the latest version. They see a simulator as a one time purchase rather than a subscription. If the revenue is not there, it is hard to expend a lot of resources. The vast amount of content on Real Flight is what makes it great. Getting gamers interested in RF is what has helped save it to this point.

I really enjoyed the active instruments in your video... good work!

Johnny31297
06-16-2015, 12:53 PM
Well thanks. That's what I was planning to do, I wanted to create something people could enjoy and fully operate from the cockpit. The sim engine is certainly not the problem poly-wise.

I flew a model with 27000 (model itself)+8*27000 (8 rotor blades, for testing purposes) polys, so a total of 243.000 polys, it performed just fine in flight, got 60 fps with maxed settings except DOF and soft shadows. I sent the model to a friend, we flew it on multiplayer, still performing fine..

The multiplayer system won't be the limitation. I mean, the sim doesn't send the visual model data. It sends position updates, the other pilot's pc then places the model flown by the other pilot accordingly. The limit for multiplayer should therefore ONLY be the participants' computers, and that's most likely not gonna be a problem with today's hardware.

Back then, when we got the 27.000 poly exporter, I wondered why it's exactly 27.000, not 30.000, not 40.000. They managed to update the exporter and the sim to a new number, I bet it's just one number in the uncompiled code they have to change.

But maybe that's just me. Who knows.

12oclockhigh
06-16-2015, 01:59 PM
being of sound mind and a software programmer, I know that it is never as simple as changing one thing. If it is, I am happy to do it for my clients. Without a lot more knowledge of the entire system, I would never venture a guess such as you are making. That is just me, anyway you do lend doubt to the limit (243k polys).

I just don't think the strike will be useful to get the changes needed. Hope springs eternal and lack of much discussion from KE leads me to hope for more... maybe a 64bit version of RF8? Maybe that is needed before other areas are explored.

csgill75
06-16-2015, 02:28 PM
Getting away from the relic that is DX9 would be a start. I would gladly give up All backwards compatibility with all expansion packs and downloaded content for this to happen.

Boof69
06-16-2015, 06:18 PM
I am a firm believer that the poly limit should be higher. Frankly it is the main reason I don't model for the sim anymore. If you can't step up your game with each new model then what is the point? 27k is not enough for the ideas I had either. On the other hand no one else seemed to care too much either way. The modeling community here at the forums is all but dead anyways and KE really doesn't care if we model or not. They know that the exporter will soon be rendered useless and it is not a priority for them. I think this sim might be on it's last version soon if not already, so why keep bothering them with the exporter and the poly limit at this point? Model away because soon you won't be able to unless you are going to pirate 3dsMax 2012.
It is possible to get great results even from 20k. It ain't easy but using AO maps and getting proficient with smoothing groups makes for pretty impressive models. Remember this is the only sim that offers the capability to do custom models. It ain't all bad, but I have been where Johnny is right now and I get it. Now you need to decide if you want to stay in a loosing fight or get what models done you can before the other shoe drops.
As for AccuRC it's apples and oranges. It looks great but it still needs more aircraft and airports and the biggest point is you can't model for that sim, so why bring it up. If it is so great stop wasting your time with RF and fly the 28 models (and that's generous due to the several versions of the same models) and 4 photo fields TOTAL! (No 3d fields). The discussion in this thread was about custom models. That will never happen in AccuRC. I asked them on FB and got the "Never" response.

Johnny31297
06-17-2015, 01:18 PM
Finally someone who understands me, thanks Scott. The poly limit is just unnecessarily low. I can understand that KE wants RF to run on all computers, but 27.000 is so 1990-ish, it's kinda sad. I don't want to use normal maps for every little detail. I could just model them, that speeds up the process a lot and makes it look better than normal mapped.

AccuRC doesn't allow for custom content (yet) since it's just too complex for the general public. They would need to check and confirm every single model, they would have to turn down 99 out of 100 since their quality expectations at this point are 0,5mm within real world aircraft. And that's important. They fly the model through the modeled control system. They model the airflow around the modeled airframe. THAT'S the reason they need so many polys. To be precise. And because you can go waaaay closer and look at all the little detail when swapping out components. Graphics matter as well.

I already got into component production for AccuRC which are working and actually look good in the sim, I will attempt building a full model this summer. Who knows how that ends.

It would just be sad to see RF dying, I got into the hobby with RF and I don't wanna lose it.. It's just too awesome to goof around with physics.

doug schluter
06-17-2015, 02:40 PM
yeah i would hate to see it dead , i'm still hoping they're working on a completely new undated RF 8 to bring back some of you modelers

technoid
06-17-2015, 04:16 PM
I think one of the problems they face is so many people have low power laptops that can't run the program very well now, which makes upping the requirements that much harder. Then there's guys like us on the forum that spent big bucks getting a good system and want RF to look better. Just do like the games do, dumb down the install for the guys without sufficient graphics and cpu power.

But the truth is with all it's faults I really like RF, it gives me the ability to create the scratch built planes I model. I like puttering away creating models from scratch. Ha.. like the good ole days when you just built something to fly, not a fancy scale aircraft just a cool model plane. So even if they won't support me in my effort to create planes for RF 6 I'll buy RF 8 the moment it goes on sale.

abaser
06-17-2015, 04:34 PM
I'm far from a computer tech, but I take a bigger hit with an elaborate cs more than anything. I did a test right after the new exporter was released. I took mwillson's 2 poly paper airplane, and one of my high poly models and run them in the same ap with the same settings with no big difference. I then added a spec, normal, and AO map and dropped around 20 fps on the exact same model. So I don't think polys are a huge contributor to hurting weaker machines.

technoid
06-17-2015, 05:27 PM
I'm far from a computer tech, but I take a bigger hit with an elaborate cs more than anything. I did a test right after the new exporter was released. I took mwillson's 2 poly paper airplane, and one of my high poly models and run them in the same ap with the same settings with no big difference. I then added a spec, normal, and AO map and dropped around 20 fps on the exact same model. So I don't think polys are a huge contributor to hurting weaker machines.

For each effect you add there's more passes required to render the scene so yeah, that type of change hits things pretty hard. Those type of effects are per pixel, not per poly. Of course different graphics chips render differently too. So what may hit one system very hard might have very little affect on another with a better graphics chip. And even the CPU has a big part on some systems if the GPU doesn't off load most of the processing from the CPU. I don't know if you understand the relationship between the CPU and GPU (Graphics Processing Chip) but here's an old example.

It takes two guys to fight a fire.

1st Guy (CPU) brings a bucket of water from the barrel to the guy at the edge of the fire.
2nd Guy (GPU) spreads the bucket of water over the fire to put it out.

RULE: The first guy must stand and wait for the 2nd guy to take the bucket of water before he can go back and get another. The fire is put out by water being poured over it, so if the second guy is slow (slow graphics chip) the fire keeps going. But if the 2nd guy is fast but the first guy is slow, the fire still keeps going because the 2nd guy doesn't get the water fast enough. Only when both guys operate fast is the fire put out. Then there's different problems based on either of them being too slow.

12oclockhigh
06-18-2015, 09:23 AM
IMO, KE should have a standard system for lower graphics system and a pro system for high end graphics users. They should have +/- 18 channels on the interface and the system would run on high end graphics cards.

This would mean supporting two sims, but eventually the low end computer systems would catch up to the minimums needed for the new system. I know there would be a lot of complaining but that is what modelers do best. I really don't see any other choice for KE... the new sim systems don't have all the baggage to carry forward like RF7.5 does. People would complain like crazy if RF (used to be $199) only had 10 aircraft and 4 airfields and charged 80 pounds sterling.
.

technoid
06-18-2015, 10:20 AM
IMO, KE should have a standard system for lower graphics system and a pro system for high end graphics users. They should have +/- 18 channels on the interface and the system would run on high end graphics cards.

This would mean supporting two sims, but eventually the low end computer systems would catch up to the minimums needed for the new system. I know there would be a lot of complaining but that is what modelers do best. I really don't see any other choice for KE... the new sim systems don't have all the baggage to carry forward like RF7.5 does. People would complain like crazy if RF (used to be $199) only had 10 aircraft and 4 airfields and charged 80 pounds sterling.
.

I see what you're saying but if you have a standard and pro system you might as well program the pro system to be able to fold back features for old systems with limited power so you only have to support one system that's smarter. As an engineer you know that's possible and I would bet you'd agree preferable. And yeah, no problem for me with zero backwards compatibility if they really up the game on a new version. But you also know that most likely won't happen, rarely does a company have the courage to boldly redefine their software and risk huge bailouts by their customers. Don't mistake this.. that's what I would do at this point. Being honest they kind of did that with 7.5, even 7.0 you can't model for their software only 1 version old. I have ask both KnifeEdge and Great Planes to provide me a copy of 6.5 so I can release my planes for both but they won't support my effort. So when you create software that doesn't support 1 version back you're definitely cutting them off. So yeah, give me RF 8 with stand out features and drop support for everything behind it.. I'll support that.

12oclockhigh
06-18-2015, 03:05 PM
The second you start carrying this or that piece of baggage forward.. then everyone wants the rest and the rust and decrepitation starts. I would like to see a white sheet restart so that all lower level machines are dusted.

When your competition is showing signs of stealing your audience, sooner or later you will have to make a huge jump forward. Part of the problem of the WinOS is all the baggage being carted forward. Part of the reason people like WinOS is because a SW program they paid $50 40 years ago might work.

technoid
06-18-2015, 03:39 PM
The second you start carrying this or that piece of baggage forward.. then everyone wants the rest and the rust and decrepitation starts. I would like to see a white sheet restart so that all lower level machines are dusted.

When your competition is showing signs of stealing your audience, sooner or later you will have to make a huge jump forward. Part of the problem of the WinOS is all the baggage being carted forward. Part of the reason people like WinOS is because a SW program they paid $50 40 years ago might work.

HA.. Can't argue with a bit of that. I programed for the WinOS from Windows 3 forward until I retired, so the baggage problem is definitely understood by me. I supported a clean sheet Win64 but no one I worked with thought that was a good idea, and look what happened for years after the mixed version came out. Go forward, people will follow because it's Clearly Better.. so spending some bucks to get it is justified. But as it stands I'm afraid if RealFlight doesn't do something they'll slide out of sight in the near future. I can see the edge after just the short time I've been working with it. But I hope that doesn't happen because I'm having a blast creating scratch models for it. HA.. No one but me and a couple of other guys probably cares much for them but I have a blast while I'm modeling them.. I fly them almost as much as I model them. And some, a lot, don't even see the swaps.

csgill75
06-18-2015, 03:49 PM
I see what you're saying but if you have a standard and pro system you might as well program the pro system to be able to fold back features for old systems with limited power so you only have to support one system that's smarter. As an engineer you know that's possible and I would bet you'd agree preferable. And yeah, no problem for me with zero backwards compatibility if they really up the game on a new version. But you also know that most likely won't happen, rarely does a company have the courage to boldly redefine their software and risk huge bailouts by their customers. Don't mistake this.. that's what I would do at this point. Being honest they kind of did that with 7.5, even 7.0 you can't model for their software only 1 version old. I have ask both KnifeEdge and Great Planes to provide me a copy of 6.5 so I can release my planes for both but they won't support my effort. So when you create software that doesn't support 1 version back you're definitely cutting them off. So yeah, give me RF 8 with stand out features and drop support for everything behind it.. I'll support that.

For years RealFlight has been like a subscription service. I have had every version since RF4.0. There's no money in making just one version of the software and adding features upon features and updates for years. This is a niche product and I don't mind paying for each successive version so that I can have the updates and features. You have 7.5 and you should be modeling for whatever version you have. Forget about the people who are not going to upgrade their software. There is no reason you should let people hold back your models. That being said, if the next version is a rehash of what is essentially G4 with updates, I will not be upgrading.

I have purchased a copy of AccuRC last night which is in a relatively early stages of development, but I like what I see in relation to physics and the way my TX works with the software. I understand why at this time there's no custom content. They don't want garbage in their simulator they want accuracy. The models are very precise to the .5mm of the real aircraft. Realflight needs to be on this level if it wants to continue to be viable. It will require a rewrite of the current software which would probably mean nothing we have now would work but that's OK. I think everyone would give up expansion packs and swap page models for a revolutionary RC sim. This is the only way I will continue to support this product.

technoid
06-18-2015, 04:09 PM
For years RealFlight has been like a subscription service. I have had every version since RF4.0. There's no money in making just one version of the software and adding features upon features and updates for years. This is a niche product and I don't mind paying for each successive version so that I can have the updates and features. You have 7.5 and you should be modeling for whatever version you have. Forget about the people who are not going to upgrade their software. There is no reason you should let people hold back your models. That being said, if the next version is a rehash of what is essentially G4 with updates, I will not be upgrading.

I have purchased a copy of AccuRC last night which is in a relatively early stages of development, but I like what I see in relation to physics and the way my TX works with the software. I understand why at this time there's no custom content. They don't want garbage in their simulator they want accuracy. The models are very precise to the .5mm of the real aircraft. Realflight needs to be on this level if it wants to continue to be viable. It will require a rewrite of the current software which would probably mean nothing we have now would work but that's OK. I think everyone would give up expansion packs and swap page models for a revolutionary RC sim. This is the only way I will continue to support this product.

Creating the version I talked about is the same thing you're talking about, just because the installer is able to fold back features to support older hardware doesn't mean there's not a new version every year to add content and improve features. But I like supporting others it's what I've done my whole professional life so I don't mind having support for a few versions back. And right now the difference is 7k of polys right, not that much. I also like the custom models I don't think every simulator has to be down to nth degree. There's a spot in the market for both. Like you said, RealFlight is a niche product.

willsonman
06-19-2015, 10:58 AM
This is all a very interesting conversation... and one that has been had before time and again. The reality always comes down to how much fun you make it with the tools you have. Personally, I've grown past making models for any sim and honestly, I rarely fly the sim anymore. I'm at the field. I'm at the work bench. I've now had one of my models pictured in Model Aviation. Those here who have met me know I'm not one to spend crazy money on this hobby or go after recognition. I'm content on being average.

technoid
06-19-2015, 11:29 AM
This is all a very interesting conversation... and one that has been had before time and again. The reality always comes down to how much fun you make it with the tools you have. Personally, I've grown past making models for any sim and honestly, I rarely fly the sim anymore. I'm at the field. I'm at the work bench. I've now had one of my models pictured in Model Aviation. Those here who have met me know I'm not one to spend crazy money on this hobby or go after recognition. I'm content on being average.

So how can I see your average model in Model Aviation :) Do you have a link for it?

And yeah, these kind of conversations are always the same. But for me since I can't get to the field any longer, because of health reasons, RealFlight is very important to me. It allows me to fly and build my little scratch planes. I never cared for scale models I'm one of those guys that built up an average kit to fly. Hey I think I'm average too.

willsonman
06-19-2015, 08:35 PM
Page 81, Feb 2015 issue.

doug schluter
06-19-2015, 08:44 PM
http://www.modelaviationdigital.com/modelaviation/february_2015?folio=81#pg93

excellent model Willsonman , if i got the right mag 8)

technoid
06-19-2015, 09:03 PM
Very cool... I like it. But nothing average there, it's beautiful. Great Work!

csgill75
06-19-2015, 09:39 PM
Could Someone please post a picture? I don't have a subscription to view the article :(.

abaser
06-19-2015, 09:53 PM
No subscription here either. But I was able to view it. I assume this is the beauty in question.

doug schluter
06-20-2015, 09:17 AM
as Andy said you can view it , they let you view 2 pages i think , just x out the box they put in the way

csgill75
06-20-2015, 09:45 AM
I am on my mobile device and can't see it the same way y'all can. All I get is a page that tells me how to subscribe to the magazine. I rarely use my PC to surf the Web. I see what you posted and it looks awesome. Is that a kit or scratch built?