#Sky Ai Fsx Free To Be#

Also have a Facebook page. IMPORTANTI'm by no means inexperienced in terms of installing and managing AI traffic, but when has the entire endeavor become such a tedious nightmare?Forum. Models by Untited Traffic team Repaints by Maksim Rudakov Winter 2012 flightplans by Steve Lewis & Alpha-India Group. File Description: World of AI welcomes you to this Sky Lease Cargo Complete AI Package for FS2004 and FSX. Sky Lease Cargo Complete Package. Category: Flight Simulator 2004 - AI Aircraft.

Many of the links point to the FlightSim Library to download.All it used to take is finding the base models, download the paints, install the paints, download flightplans, adapt the aircraft.txt to point to the paints and compile the affair with TrafficTools/AIFP. The flight schedules touch every corner of Flight Simulator X and Prepar3D world.Updated list of AI aircraft models for FS2004, FSX and P3D sorted by manufacturer, for AI traffic. These schedules include International, National, Regional, Commuter and even Air Cargo operators.

But the amount of unnecessary detail is insane. Textures were efficient DXT3 BMP files and there were little paint variations.But attempting to bring my modern, WOAI based AI environment from the 2000s into the 2010s, I get the impression that things to have seem to gotten way out of hand.Mostly FSX/P3D native by now, which isn't a bad thing at all. I managed to expand upon my WOAI installation that way and created an entire 1980s AI environment with 400+ airlines.The models were there and were acceptably detailed to provide a believable, dynamic environment.

Therefor, I fail to understand how 2048 px textures or even those horriffic 4096 px textures have become the norm for FSX native models. Both in terms of disk space and and VAS. Every polygon and every animation beyond the minimum effectively works against this.This is by no means a new trend, starting back in FS9 days, but in that case some features can (and will) at least be removed during the conversion into FSX native format.To be direct, I consider anything beyond 1024 px and DXT3 format an utter waste of resources.

Ugh!Not to mention the trend for smooth alpha channels (instead of hard black/white borders) to display landing light splashes on the fuselage. And you'll need to repeat the process over and over and over again as you work your AI to-do list since you're generally never finished when trying to keep an AI environment diverse and up to date. Tedious, time consuming and no way as easy as it used to be (batch mass conversion into DDS DXT format with Imaghetool and you were done). You'll basically have to do it in chunks, managing backups along the way and keeping track of what was converted and what wasn't. (X)Nconvert will stop working when you throw 10000+ input textures at it (or for whatever reason), MWGFX based tools (TextureManager) will randomly throw read/write errors due to unfathomable reasons and Imagetool isn't even able to resize textures and will steadfastly refuse to even read DDS files that were exported from Photoshop (try it!). But they aren't.Yes, authors issue FS9 versions of paints in more efficient sizes and formats, but these seem to be on the way out, with many up to date paints only available for FSX/P3D.So you'll need to introduce an extra step into your workflow, namely batch resizing textures down to 1024 px, which will introduce you to a world of pain because there's no tool that's entirely up to the job.

So the old method, manual is all there is and that will be.To put a few positive aspects into the rant:5) Flight plans have become much better, thanks to AIFP. But knowing the highly individualized AI community, this is wishfulthinking at best. But they've gone dark and any effort to standardize and streamline AI installation and management in their wake hasn't gone much beyond AI Flight Planner's installation tool, which can't be made smart enough to provide a quick and easy installation framework unless there is a degree of standardization across development groups regarding folder naming, paint titles and information handling. Looking at you, Norwegian and Air India Express.World Of AI was a great effort, providing standardized packages with a custom installer.

Sky Ai Fsx Free To Be

I know how much effort collecting flight plan data and digging through airplane photo sites is and how little return one gets for that.But I really don't understand why AI needs to be just as detailed as the user aircraft. Believe it or not, I've got at least a few dozen hours in the 'do' department of AI myself (flight plans and paints), albeit only for the (retro) days long gone. An absolute knife in the back.You are complaining that models and repaints are now better and more detailed than ever before.Seriously?You are aware that most people are not running their sim of choice on a PC built 20 years ago right? There have been enormous advances in processing power, RAM, graphics cards and even the underlying sim platforms since the last decade?As has been said if you want AI from the 90s with terrible, basic models and awful DXT1 textures there are plenty of payware packages that will give you exactly that with just a few mouse clicks and you can be spared from all the terrible time and effort that you clearly find so bothersome.I honestly just don't know any more what will make people happy.It's not that it wasn't exactly easy for me writing this down. And this is an advantage that should be preserved under any circumstance and not buried between framerate, VAS and disk space issues!As someone who devotes hundreds of hours of my spare time into making AI repaints, AFCADs, flightplans and even the odd model or two and then gives them away for free to be enjoyed by anyone there are no words to describe how disheartening this post is. Due to the mass of real world traffic that needs to be in the simulator to provide a believable enviroment, efficiency in models, textures and procedures must be the prime objective and the current trends simply do not reflect this.If AI installation, use and management was easier and more streamlined and the models more efficient, there would be less people turning AI down or off altogether and gravitating to all-in-one solutions provided by payware developers or groups with questionable understanding of copyrights or at least model and paint credits.Keep in mind that AI and ATC is one of the very last advantages that MSFS and derivatives have over X-Plane, FlightGear or Aerofly.

Not to mention the rendering engine of the simulator itself, which is by no means the most perfect and efficient.I can't speak for others, but in order to make me happy - and this does not just apply to AI, but especially to userspace models as well - efficiency should never be lost from focus. And hardware resources are limited, no matter the number of cores, memory bandwith or video RAM. And if AI traffic already takes a good portion of the available resources, where does that leave the user aircraft, scenery, weather and sound? Those also tend to possess ever increasing levels of details, therfor you basically have five elements that are all competing for rendering time. I guarantee you that I can bring a current generation PC with P3Dv4 to its knees by simply going HD on textures and using current model generations.