Wing leading edge
-
Hello Black Square,
I am really looking forward to getting the Commander 114 tomorrow.
But one thing that bothers me is the leading edge of the wing.
It looks too round compared to all the other images I could find.
On the other hand, everything looks perfect for me.BSQ
vs
Original
-
I spent a couple hours today comparing different liveries and different angles and I have to concur with the OP. Curious if anyone else agrees with us?
@tlvid Since I see you've posted about this on the official forums now, I thought I would take the time to write you the answer you deserve. I know you've been asking a lot about updates recently, and I tried to explain some of the personal challenges of being a one-man-team. I know that your requests come from a place of appreciation, which always makes it hard for me to explain when something is unlikely to be a top priority.
Every aircraft in MSFS likely has some level of visual distortion compared to the genuine article, as most developers work from photos and measurements only. The schematics included in service manuals, especially from the 60's/70's, are of insufficient resolution, and are often downright inaccurate or exaggerated for clarity, so the human eyeball remains the best tool, short of investing in a laser scanner. Unfortunately, subtle model changes like this are nearly impossible to correct once the aircraft is completed, as it would take editing the model, rearranging UV's, re-baking ambient occlusion, re-3d-painting the affected area, repainting all the liveries, exporting a dozen LOD models, testing, and publishing the update. In some cases, the result will never be as good as the original, because late stage model changes can introduce texture distortion. I estimate this to be 2-3 days of work. Also, every 3rd party livery creator would have to repaint their liveries to match, or else the result would be shockingly poor.
Perhaps others will prove me wrong by replying, but I suspect the majority of my users would rather see more progress on new aircraft and backporting new features to older aircraft in free updates, rather than tweaking a wing shape. Perhaps I'm wrong! The only way I can know what my users are thinking is when they share, as you have done here. I'm always happy to tackle big projects when I know they will be appreciated by many, like my new state saving system. All I can promise is that I do my best to strike the best balance for everyone as a one-man-team. I appreciate all your questions recently, but it does break my heart to tell any user when their concern is likely not a priority, because I want everyone to have the best simulation experience possible.
I hope that answers some of your questions, even if it wasn't the answer you were looking for. I enjoy sharing details of the development process whenever it comes up, but I'm always weary of oversharing too.
-
When I saw Mmaxx’s post, my first thought was: surely that won’t be a big problem to fix.
Thank you for your detailed response and for explaining the complex chain of consequences that such a change entails. It helps me better understand why things are the way they are. I completely agree with you that the focus should remain on the projects you mentioned.
-
When I saw Mmaxx’s post, my first thought was: surely that won’t be a big problem to fix.
Thank you for your detailed response and for explaining the complex chain of consequences that such a change entails. It helps me better understand why things are the way they are. I completely agree with you that the focus should remain on the projects you mentioned.
@0_Tommy_0 Thanks for writing this! I always wonder if my explanations just seem pedantic. I've been 3d modeling since I was probably ten years old (Caligari TrueSpace, anyone?), so it's hard for me to guess what might be common knowledge and what is not. It also seems hard to believe in our modern world of software that some things are more "baked in" than others, but 3d models can actually be tremendously difficult to correct after materials are applied.
