Experiences with FS2004 aircraft import/export

[tgibson]

Yes, I guess that would be the harder case with no code to modify if needed.

 

[arno]

I think it has to be turned into code, since FSX doesn't seem to allow a min or max value with the sim.

 

[tgibson]

Test 2: FS9 AI Britannia to FSX
Flaps and main gear collapsed into plane. They do not animate.
Props do not turn (visibilities are OK).
Tried the Export/Import/Export trick and it worked! All animations now work correctly.

This trick did not fix the props and right main wheel animations in the AI DC-6B though.

 

[arno]

I will try to find that AI model as well and see what is going on there. But first I will test those inversed visibility conditions, I think I have a fix for them now, but I need to test it in the sim tomorrow.

 

[tgibson]

I have sent you the models.

 

[arno]

I have sent you the models.

Thanks.

I have tested the AI DC-6 model in the sim now, but the solution I made for the reversed conditions it not working correctly yet. Let's take the air stairs as example, they have a condition like:

(A:LIGHT BEACON, bool) (A:VELOCITY BODY Z, knots) 0 != ||

How would you reverse this condition? I tried a few approaches, but none seems to work fine. Probably because my RPN is very rusty .

Initially I tried to use the min (-1) and max (0) values from the MakeMDL.parts.xml file like this:

((A:LIGHT BEACON, bool) (A:VELOCITY BODY Z, knots) 0 != ||) -1 >= ((A:LIGHT BEACON, bool) (A:VELOCITY BODY Z, knots) 0 != ||) 0 <= &&

But that does not work as expected. Maybe I should just inverse the condition. I tried to add NOT at the end, but that didn't give the expected effect either.

So any suggestions are welcome

 

[tgibson]

Hmm, it works for me. The ! symbol reverses the logic so just add one at the end of the code.

(A:LIGHT BEACON, bool) (A:VELOCITY BODY Z, knots) 0 != || !

That’s it. I tested it and it works.

 

[arno]

Hi Tom,

I just tested it and it works fine indeed. I tried with NOT at the end (from the SDK I thought ! and NOT are the same, but apparantly not). This should make the logic more simple indeed. Let me modify my code and see how it looks in the sim then.

 

[tgibson]

In my experience the word commands AND, OR, and NOT do not always work as expected. I always use the symbols for those.

 

[arno]

I got the air stairs to work correctly now. So I went on to the next visibility condition to check

I have been looking at the MCX FS9 AI DC-6B modeldef file to look for issues. One thing I found is possibly causing the nose gear doors to not disappear when the gear is fully up. In the GMAX model I used the FS9 visibility tag c_wheelwell, where the object is invisible if the gear is fully retracted. I don't find it in the MakeMDL.parts file so it must be an automatic tag. This tag appears to be missing in the FSX SDK.

MCX appears to have created a custom animation for this:

 <PartInfo>
    <Name>custom_vis_GEAR_ANIMATION_POSITION_0_00_mcx</Name>
    <Visibility>
      <Parameter>
        <Code>GEAR ANIMATION POSITION:0 1 &amp;gt; GEAR ANIMATION POSITION:0 200 &amp;lt; &amp;amp;</Code>
      </Parameter>
    </Visibility>
  </PartInfo>

I don't think the code is quite correct? I think there should be a & sign in front of the second amp at the end of the code line? And I don't know if &gt and &lt will work? They might be OK though. The rest of the file uses > and <.

And the variable should be (A:GEAR ANIMATION POSITION:0, percent) using the Code statement.

And it seems this is visible during gear travel, not when it's completely up? It would make more sense as:

<Code>(A:GEAR ANIMATION POSITION:0, percent) 1 &gt;;</Code>

I believe this could be converted to

<Variable>GEAR ANIMATION POSITION:0</Variable>
<Units>percent</Units>

and it should do the same thing - visible only when the variable is non-zero?

EDIT: I can confirm that the line

<Code>(A:GEAR ANIMATION POSITION:0, percent) 1 &gt;</Code>

Does give the proper visibility, matching the FS9 c_wheelwell tag.

Thanks for this info Tom, I was just about to ask how this bit was intended to work. I think the visiblity code that MCX puts in the modeldef.xml file is generated based on what is read from the MDL file. I suspect in this case the code was not in the MDL file as it is for some, but was totally generated by MCX. I guess a Sim instead of a Code visibility condition might also work here. Let me see what I can do here.

 

[jetpilot1980]

Here is another one that failed on me with red messages... This time I just tried to convert it raw without changing any xml or vis conds...

 

[arno]

Ok, I'll have a look at this one as well.

 

[Firebird]

I can't help feeling that there is a danger of Arno getting pulled in too many directions at the moment.
As far as I can see the original issues were relating to FSX-FS9 conversion and this also through up some FS9-FSX issues. Whilst not wanting to dismiss other issues I get the feeling that it may be most productive if those issues are cleared first before others are addressed.

My reasoning is two-fold. Firstly the obvious concentration of effort. Secondly, it would rule out further complications due to any FS9-FSX conversion having further issues when being converted to P3D.

Just my observation. Nothing more.

 

[gsnde]

The thread have been mixed a bit by now.this one here was from the beginning concentrating on AI FS9 to FSX conversion.

The other thread by to was concentrating on few models and converted those back and forth in all directions.

Arno will make sure to have all this under control ;-)


Send from mobile hence short

 

[arno]

Arno will make sure to have all this under control ;-)

In my bug tracker I have made one issue for FS2004 to FSX conversion issues and a separate one for issue in the reverse conversion (each has many sub issues for the different things reported in the threads). So I try to keep track of them.

My main concern is that with the recent rate or reporting I can't solve the issues as soon as they are generated. That will for sure take multiple weeks (or longer if some proof to be complex).

 

[tgibson]

I’ll hold off more reporting more until you sort out the current issues.

 

[gsnde]

My main concern is that with the recent rate or reporting I can't solve the issues as soon as they are generated. That will for sure take multiple weeks (or longer if some proof to be complex).

Good thing we are not on a race

If all this is fixed and working, MCX is so much improved, that it makes all waiting time worthwhile.

 

[arno]

You had to wait more than 10 years before I started on this feature request on the todo list, so on that scale a few weeks are nothing

 

[arno]

I’ll hold off more reporting more until you sort out the current issues.

If you find big issues just let me know, I'll add them to the list.

 

[arno]

Here is another one that failed on me with red messages... This time I just tried to convert it raw without changing any xml or vis conds...

Btw, the fix for your previous issues was not yet deployed to the development release. I have only pushed a new release this morning. Can you check if you still have the issue with that release?