So....how does he do it?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Edetriot and his panels.
How does a man just make a few posts here, ‘learn’ how to make gauges and photorealistic panels, then proceed to do what not one single payware developer has even done, and pump out panel after panel after panel for a host of aircraft and add-ons like it was ‘easy’?

And not just any kind of panel. Yes it’s FS9. But they are better panels then anything that’s available for any sim platform that’s out there. And by a long margin.

So, what’s his secret that zero payware developers in the history of flight simulation has ever done? Or should I say, what’s the catch?
 

n4gix

Resource contributor
#3
2d panels represent only around 15% of the work required for a complete aircraft package, which means that it is both faster and relatively easier if 2d panels are all that one is focused on.

But, the era of 2d panels has pretty much ended for both FSX and P3D now. While they still can be done, there isn't much demand for them any longer.
 

Heretic

Resource contributor
#4
Simple: Some people gain an understanding of things by being able to use Google and the forum search and then read and process what's presented. And have enough time and motivation to apply that knowledge.
 
#5
Seems to me this is rather a robotic plug by a first-time poster. Like an idiot I googled "Edetriot" and came up with nothing. On my black list he goes...
 
#8
No catch Jimbo.

"Love of the hobby" Definitely.

"Enough time and motivation to apply that knowledge." "Not what you'd call a short apprenticeship" Bang on!.. time is a biggy. I have spent countless hours/years.

"2d panels represent only around 15%" Hmmmm. 2D or not is irrelevant. Aircraft systems simulation is what I'm after.

Not just a "complete aircraft", I am after a "complete sim". Which means learning about every aspect; air files, sound, effects, scenery, etc etc,

I am currently learning to model with GMAX.

All of this keeps the grey matter ticking over.

If I was in the pay ware business, I'd be making VC's with lots of eye candy.

Finally Jimbo, most of the guys who replied to this post have far greater skillz than moi.

Happy flying.

Ed
 
#9
Ah....the catch.
Aircraft systems is what your after. So your panels are all show and no go. Shame.

What is sadly lacking is all those fantastic retro aircraft with realistic functions, panels, EPR settings, FDE’s etc.
Classics like the early 747-100’s with the 3A, -7 and -7A motors.
The Dc-10-10’s.
Early 727-100’s and -200’s with the -7’s and -9’s.

And so on.

I guess it will never happen although Just Flights 747-100/200 looks promising.
 
#10
Ah....the catch.
Aircraft systems is what your after. So your panels are all show and no go. Shame
.
I think what you are really trying to say is why are my panels not available?
My 747 panel for example is about 8 years of work (I'm still not done) and I do not trust the FS community with it.

Ah....the catch.
I guess it will never happen although Just Flights 747-100/200 looks promising.
I knew it would not happen years ago so I got busy.
 
#12
I think what you are really trying to say is why are my panels not available?
My 747 panel for example is about 8 years of work (I'm still not done) and I do not trust the FS community with it.
I knew it would not happen years ago so I got busy.
No I’m not saying that at all. Strange comment.
Don’t trust the community? Even stranger comment.


I’m already enjoying flying the 747 which I’ve modified but more options would be great.

Instead of griping about things perhaps the OP could do what most of us do here and get to work on fixing what he sees as a shortcoming in the hobby. :twocents:
Most of us here? Nobody here has done it. That’s my point. :)
 
#14
Ed, you should give Max a try if you are enjoying Gmax. Max can do so much more. See if you can get a 30 day trial or the students edition for now. If..... you plan on doing a 'lot' of work...

One thing with Max is you can render parts, great for creating your own part graphics like bazels. You can also do Ambient Occlusion shading mapping (rendering those little shadow bits around parts like bazels and panel area's).

You can also do all of this in Blender and its freeware... But Max is like a good CLS series Mercedes. All the whistles and its just like Gmax but with tons of more good tools and things.
 
#16
First of all Jimbo, thank you for the compliment about my panels.

Don’t trust the community? Even stranger comment.
If you have ever developed anything for FS you would know what I mean. I release my photoreal paints for FS free of charge but even they get plagiarised.

I can make a paint in a few days so I don't mind. My panels take years.... I could not handle that.

A good example is the demise of Russian FS development, the trust has gone completely and so too the development.

Ed, you should give Max a try if you are enjoying Gmax. Max can do so much more. .
Thank you for the tip, I will look into it.

Regards

Ed
 

hairyspin

Resource contributor
#17
Instead of demonstrating ignorance, how about the OP tries to learn some of this stuff, like the people who have replied already did. How about it, Jimbo? Or are you all show and no go?
 

DragonflightDesign

Resource contributor
#19
Darren, that was awful! o_O

It took me four years to build a systems-level Lockheed TriStar. It's taken two years on the current 1930s airliner but that's more down to lack of written and photographic information and hours of scraping details from unexpected quarters. Did I mention the hundreds of hours of research that goes into a 2D panel? It's not just pick-up-the-FOM/FRM/QA manual and start coding. Even with today's EASA/FAA-designated manual layouts things aren't always where you'd expect them to be. Working on an Airbus A320 and looking for tyre pressure monitors under 'Landing Gear'? Forget it - it's under 'Ice and Rain'.

(Yeah - that one got me too but I found a load more like that in Douglas and Lockheed manuals. Don't get me started on Boeing...).
 

Dutcheeseblend

Resource contributor
#20
Darren, that was awful! o_O

It took me four years to build a systems-level Lockheed TriStar. It's taken two years on the current 1930s airliner but that's more down to lack of written and photographic information and hours of scraping details from unexpected quarters. Did I mention the hundreds of hours of research that goes into a 2D panel? It's not just pick-up-the-FOM/FRM/QA manual and start coding. Even with today's EASA/FAA-designated manual layouts things aren't always where you'd expect them to be. Working on an Airbus A320 and looking for tyre pressure monitors under 'Landing Gear'? Forget it - it's under 'Ice and Rain'.

(Yeah - that one got me too but I found a load more like that in Douglas and Lockheed manuals. Don't get me started on Boeing...).
I recognize that!

Working for four years now on my T.5, only two-third of the airplane is finished. Lack of references, no real-world pilots anymore, contradicting documentation, and so on.
But well, we like doing it...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top