Wonky Animations

  • Hey, I just noticed from the screenshots how the lower cargo doors appear to only be half ajar. Is this intentional or will this be fixed in the future? I also noticed how you guys appear to have fixed that upper deck emergency exit animation, which was very wrong before but now appears to be perfect. Regardless, I anticipate this product very much, and I cannot wait for it to be released. Also great work on the new forums staff, I've been desiring the ability to give feedback on products in development for ages now!

  • JF Staff

    Thanks for the feedback. We're happy to make any necessary adjustments to animations as we go. If you have any images/documentation showing the correct range of movement for those doors then if you can point me towards them we will use them to base the animation range off.

  • I don't have many images on hand, but I do have this which should help you guys a little, if this isn't a clear enough image, I should be able to find more with a little bit of searching.
    alt text

  • By the way, after showcasing the 747-200F model, the other cargo doors (nose and side) appear to have excessive extension of their opening. I have found a good source here for the actual limitations of the nose and side cargo door’s rotation, as well as the lower cargo doors here; https://www.atclogistic.net/air-freighter-specification/
    This information is technically for the 747-400F but until I can get any evidence that these aspects were changed between the 747-200F and 747-400F, I will consider this a sufficient source. I hope this information is used to make this 747 as accurate as possible. Also on a side note, I hope the use of PW engines on the Cathay Cargo 747 is merely a placeholder, because I have not found any evidence of Cathay Cargo ever operating a 747 with PW engines, at least in that livery, just GE and RR engines.

  • JF Staff

    Thanks for the link. We'll take a look at that now.

    The 747-200F variant animations are currently work-in-progress and not representative of the final product, and all doors will be animated as per the real aircraft.

    We have all three engine variants (https://www.justflight.com/product/747-classic) and they are currently interchangeable for the purposes of testing, hence the JT9D (our default engine choice) on the 200F variant in those in-dev screenshots.

    Here are screenshots showing the CF6 and RB211 (we'll share more shortly which show off the PBR materials):




    Note: as always, any screenshots posted prior to release are showing work-in-progress and are therefore subject to change (improvements/fixes) as testing progresses.

  • Excellent work, thanks for the feedback. I just would like to make sure you all are aware and that we're on the same page. As for the CF6 and RB211, they look excellent. I had some minor fears when the original in progress images were up, as the RB211 engine cowling looked more like that of the new RB211 on the 747-400, but needless to say, I think you guys nailed all the engines. Can't wait for more WIPs. Also speaking of that, are there any screenshots of the 747's cabin from the virtual cockpit that you guys can show? I'd love to see the beautiful cabin that is waiting for all of us customers.

  • Also just wanted to mention one more thing just to make sure you guys have it noted. The upper deck exit for the 747 is currently missing a window, and also, as far as I'm aware, there is only 1 upper deck exit on the right side of the upper deck on all 3 window lounge upper decks and full upper decks that were equipped with I think less than 32 seats, as the left side upper deck exit was an option for increased passenger capacity on the upper deck due to safety regulations. Therefore, I feel it is only proper that there is model options between the -200 to have 1 or 2 upper deck exits, as well as a standard of only 1 upper deck exit on the -100 model, unless someone would like to let me know I'm wrong with a little bit of evidence.

  • I'd rather see more time put into the systems and flightdeck modelling than spending too much of the poly budget on the cabin.

  • @Roebuck said in Wonky Animations:

    I'd rather see more time put into the systems and flightdeck modelling than spending too much of the poly budget on the cabin.

    Agree there.

  • Just wanted to bump this thread as there haven't been any updates to show this problem has been fixed, are there any screenshots showing that the animations have in fact been fixed?