General Category > General Discussion
People????????
Silverbird:
James with all due respect you have asked Umberto many many times about this and he always explained to you the reasons he writes a full paragraph explaining it further and you basically say hes wasting his time? he has told us about the scripting engine and its ability to do many things that fsx has a limit on, also don't forget that it has taken this much time because of the issues with the fs9 user base finally moving too fsx.
I'm sure 100% Umberto knows exactly what we have been wanting in regards to people and a live environment buts its not going too help by pushing it I'm as eager as you are to finally see in all the fsdt airports.
Hi skimmer I love people! lol having them move and interact with are aircraft is something I always dreamed about in fs it is true we did get 2d people in terminals and even outside some scenery's like back too fs2002? I don't remember which was a big step, after that we got 3d marshallers like in cloud9 klax scenery which looked fantastic! and we got some 2d people in the terminal over in klas and Zurich.
Then we got aes which helped greatly, currently aes really needs a major upgrade to there 3d models and I know Oliver is looking into it. and of course we have the final big one when fsdt releases there 3d models and there expanded python scripting engine its gonna be amazing I'm sure. the orbx peopleflow looks really wonderful and it gives you a big idea on how it will really look in future in regards to the further enhanced realism in flight simulator. but it is unfortunately limited to the fsx engine.
skimmer:
Virtuali, thanks for the great explanation, some of which I did not know. Im happy to know that you are working on populating scenery with people.Remember they dont have to be moving. At least not all of them.
Also thank you Silverbird.
Bruce Hamilton:
--- Quote from: Silverbird on December 19, 2010, 04:51:36 pm ---..but it is unfortunately limited to the fsx engine.
--- End quote ---
But is it really limited to the FSX engine? With some of the technology developers are putting into sceneries, like elevated jetways you can actually taxi over, I'm not so sure some of them aren't writing their onw engines. Microsoft never intended to have animated people on the tarmac.
virtuali:
--- Quote from: Bruce Hamilton on December 19, 2010, 09:11:12 pm ---Microsoft never intended to have animated people on the tarmac.
--- End quote ---
Well, yes and no. They haven't supplied anything like that themselves (but there are several human characters as library objects in the default scenery), but they put the basic foundation to make it possible, and it was there since FSX was released.
It's a little bit tricky to define if we are running within the FSX engine or not. Surely, the basics are entirely provided by FSX, if it didn't supported animations with bones and vertex shaders, it would have been close to impossible to make such kind of characters. However, the FSX engine is made with many parts, which sometimes are intended for other uses, and are not really cooperating well between APIs. There's Simconnect, which is the "official " API, there's the XML gauge interface and the C gauges interface, and there's the scenery engine.
We used both official methods and reverse engineering as well, to get access to all of these, and used Python as a "glue" script engine, so once we got access, we don't have to worry in which language or how the original interface worked, but it's all wrapped in an easy to use language, which allows us to do very complex things, that FSX normally doesn't provide. For example, we don't have any limitation on the complexity/length of the animations, we don't have to loop them if we don't want to, we can have triggers, conditions, variable evaluations, control playback speed and direction, and interaction with any variable in the FSX engine.
As I've tried to explain in my previous post, once we tested that human animations were theoretically possible (this was almost a couple of years ago), we haven't just dive in and started to animate stuff just to have something to show, but rather went to lay down the foundation to do something useful first, since the technology is just too good to be wasted on just scenery decoration.
Silverbird:
--- Quote from: virtuali on December 19, 2010, 09:34:14 pm ---
--- Quote from: Bruce Hamilton on December 19, 2010, 09:11:12 pm ---Microsoft never intended to have animated people on the tarmac.
--- End quote ---
Well, yes and no. They haven't supplied anything like that themselves (but there are several human characters as library objects in the default scenery), but they put the basic foundation to make it possible, and it was there since FSX was released.
It's a little bit tricky to define if we are running within the FSX engine or not. Surely, the basics are entirely provided by FSX, if it didn't supported animations with bones and vertex shaders, it would have been close to impossible to make such kind of characters. However, the FSX engine is made with many parts, which sometimes are intended for other uses, and are not really cooperating well between APIs. There's Simconnect, which is the "official " API, there's the XML gauge interface and the C gauges interface, and there's the scenery engine.
We used both official methods and reverse engineering as well, to get access to all of these, and used Python as a "glue" script engine, so once we got access, we don't have to worry in which language or how the original interface worked, but it's all wrapped in an easy to use language, which allows us to do very complex things, that FSX normally doesn't provide. For example, we don't have any limitation on the complexity/length of the animations, we don't have to loop them if we don't want to, we can have triggers, conditions, variable evaluations, control playback speed and direction, and interaction with any variable in the FSX engine.
As I've tried to explain in my previous post, once we tested that human animations were theoretically possible (this was almost a couple of years ago), we haven't just dive in and started to animate stuff just to have something to show, but rather went to lay down the foundation to do something useful first, since the technology is just too good to be wasted on just scenery decoration.
--- End quote ---
Was about to post a reply to Bruce's comment on the limits, but I'm glade you answered it Umberto. :)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version