Depends on how much was ported. If the model means the physical shape of the model, minus the textures, who really cares. Why redesign all over again. But I would be disappointed if lower resolution textures were used.
Then the claim is “adapted”
Instead of
“rebuild for the great new sim with new possibilities “
1 Like
Ok, perhaps after you develop your first plane you’ll understand the meaning of what they meant. The CRJ was absolutely built from the ground up. They may have used some geometry they’ve used for other builds, but they had to define all the animations, build the pbr, define the flight characteristics…everything was redone for MSFS.
Have you done even a complete livery yet? I mean including done a definition of the normals and material surfaces yet?
Complaining about a marketing quote is absolutely ridiculous. What is up that people waste their time thinking these thoughts, much less even talking about them?
That geometry is a business asset - the more they can use it, the more valuable it is to them. Who cares??? All I care about is if I feel like I’m sitting in the plane. That’s it. I could not care less where the geometry “came from”. It came from the artists head and was created in a 3D modeling program that has ZERO relation to the sim it’s being used in.
2 Likes
I do not cRe either
BUT then just do not make the claim
I just explained that they DID build it from the ground up.
It’s like talking to flat earthers…
6 Likes
That reads “PORTED” mr flat-earth
1 Like
So, here’s the deal, since you don’t seem to understand how modeling works. I have no idea what modeler they use. Let’s assume it’s Blender. More likely 3DS Max, but, it doesn’t matter. There is no correlation to X-Plane or FSX between any 3D model and those packages. The artist creates a 3D model in whatever package they use, then they have to do a whole bunch of simulator specific work (i.e. define animations, define materials in the format the modeler uses, define contact points, etc, etc.) and use a converter to write a copy of the 3D model in the format the simulation uses. Typically simulators use a format similar to what graphics cards or a stereolithography model where it breaks the nurb surface down into triangles at a density the simulator can use. If you want to get into a discussion about the mathematical definition of the base 3D model vs what is written out for the sims, we can do that. But, really that mathematical definition of the 3D model has been hidden from the user since the '80’s. I’ve been using 3D modelers for work since then and watched the transformation. I was an application engineer for SDRC selling I-DEAS and Master Series.
While it is possible to use an FSX model in MSFS, I don’t own the CJ, I’m not a jet guy, but I can nearly 100% guarantee they did not take their FSX model and “port” it to MSFS. I’m sure they used the SDK tools and other tools to create the model in Asobo’s native MSFS format. You cannot “port” an X-plane model to MSFS.
IOW, you can use the same 3D model assets in any of the simulators, but there is a process to convert them from the modeler to a format usable by the sim. I’m positive, while they may have started with their existing 3D model assets, they modified them for MSFS. That is not a “port”. They then had to completely rewrite the animations of the model for MSFS. They had to completely reformat their textures for MSFS, and I’m imagining redid at least the cockpit textures. They had to completely write the flight model for use in MSFS. They had to redo the lighting. They had to completely rewrite the systems modeling. And many other tasks.
That, by definition, is a ground up rewrite of their package for use in MSFS. Through and through. There is NO marketing jargon going on here.
Reusing 3D assets is not “porting”. Using the FSX->MSFS converter is a “port”. That is not what Aerosoft did.
Be that as it may… WHO CARES??? All that matters is that it flies and is enjoyable to use.
This discussion is a silly argument over nothing, and a complete waste of server space. This whole rant regarding “Ohhhh!!! The passenger cabin is ported, can you believe it???” is completely ridiculous.
5 Likes
This thread is not about the CRJ, it is about the NextGen EMB-110. Before you reply and state something like “I was just correcting someone” or “I was simply explaining what a port is or isn’t” just stop. This thread is not about that, not about trying to be right, not about getting your point across, not about how you look or feel, etc. It is about the NextGen EMB-110. So keep on topic please!!!
3 Likes
To echo what @PhantomStreak has said, please keep this thread related to the NextGen EMB-110.
There are other threads to discuss the CRJ.
Many thanks for everyone’s cooperation in this!
4 Likes
I actually love the EMB-110. I was having trouble with the landing gear lever constantly clicking, and had been talking to them about it. I eventually tinkered around and removed the sound from the XML file. I told NextGen Simulations CEO what I did, and they implemented my fix into an update. I also mentioned that the Honeycomb Alpha can’t control the beacon/strobe lights. We discussed the issues with fixing it, but they seem to have done so in an update. I still can’t move the cockpit switch with the Alpha, but I CAN control the lights.
It’s an absolute joy to fly. The only thing left I’d like to see improved is the engine sounds. Not all of it, but mostly while starting them. There’s a moment in the engine startup process where the engine is basically silent. The sounds are otherwise decent.
3 Likes
Agreed, steam gauge twins are what I’ve mostly flown in with my uncle so they have a special place in my heart.
1 Like
I bought it today to fly with the economy mod I use. Most of the issues above seem to have been worked out. I am quite pleased with it. It is a little pricy so maybe catch it on sale to be happy. I was just tired of the King Air and needed something similar to haul freight and pax. The only annoyance is the non-working weather radar. Oh, also, I don’t see an OAT anywhere - useful for icing.
Edit: forgot to mention it has lots of gauges (radar altimer is a gauge!) and a simple GPS so if you like the Seminole, Mooney, etc., you’ll like this. The glass cockpits just don’t do it for me.
3 Likes
Did you tell the CEO that the sound is terrible?
It’s now my AH2 aircraft which I’m using for a World Trip. Really enjoying it.
4 Likes
While that stand alone weather radar would be nice to have working, if you have the GNS530 mod then you can display basic weather radar on the GNS530’s screen.
1 Like
Just downloaded this mod, haven’t tried it as yet:
EMB 110 Bandeirante Enhancement Mod - Third Party Addon Discussion / Aircraft - Microsoft Flight Simulator Forums
2 Likes
Click on the FUNC button of your transponder, you’ll find OAT there.
Wow, thanks! I’m in a flight now and just tried your suggestion to see OAT. Thanks again. that was bugging me.
Somehow my frames on this half by going from outside to inside. It has worse fps in cockpit then the fbw or crj despite having a standard analog cockpit without much detail. Really strange.
I notice a knocking but only from time to time. I put it down to the airframe stressing, but maybe not. Not a deal breaker.
Yes the AP is in an annoying place but that’s where it is in the actual plane. Easy enough to set up a custom view for it if it’s bothering you.
Many of your criticisms relate to a dated feel. Well, you know what? It’s a dated aircraft. I like it.
The advertising states there is a document pdf which might aid orientation into the aircraft. Unfortunately on my Steam install I can’t find it anywhere. I could really do with a bit of assistance setting up the plane for IFR flight otherwise I like it. Flew an ILS yesterday and no issues whatsoever.
Good value if you are looking for a larger twin turboprop.
1 Like