Simviation Forums

Ohhhh I like the last.... but there no plane....  :(

I didn't see any "angels" .



Loving the photoreal scenery in #1 .

- Kevin

Lovely shots! Though 2 and 4 aren't really to my liking. Though I don't mind cut-offs I don't see the use for it in these two shots.  

Great set.

Sweet!!!!

long lives the Mad Dog!

1st looks very cool, quite an unusual angle.

Greetings,
Fabian

Okay mate, honest opinion, as you were so kind as to comment on my dismal set...

I have to say I'm not too keen on them. I'm not a big fan of the plane anyway  :)

Hope not to offend you with this but I reckon you posted this as a test as your shots are usually a million times better

In one the texture on the nose doesn't look too nice - I usually try to show off the best aspects of the plane...
In two the clouds look lovely but the angle is nothing special, though the 'looking back towards the tail' cut-off does work sometimes.
In 3 you can see the best photoreal texturing on the plane but otherwise ordinary. If you were among the clouds things would be different, perhaps....
4 is an example of a bad cut-off, the 'photo taken  by my kid brother' look. Looks like a mistake.
5 you're too close to the top, and the clouds at the bottom just entering the shot are not good - more or none.
6 ain't bad, and 7 has a great look to it, but not enough to be without a plane.

That's my honest opinion, hope it doesn't offend    ;)

Cheers

Krigl

:-?

Does she have a VC ? Would like to try her if she has !

Yep, first and last ones are very nice !

Sorry Heretic.... call me crazy...... but i just didnt like them  :'(

To be honest mate, I think you've gone too far with this set. Keeing the aircraft off center can work to a point but it's far too extremely used here for no real purpose. Try and only use the off center look sparingly and only in small amounts.

Whoop dee doo, ask for honesty and you'll get your replies.


I'm not offended in any way if you don't like those shots. They were not intended to please in any way, just another go at experimenting with the Flex Cam.
Plus, the quality of the plane was not as good as I expected (It's Aurelio Torres' MD-88 package V2; with VC (only for the looks); not avaiable here), the textures were photoreal, yet low-res. So not that good for shots.

The Flex Cam still is a PITA to use. There *is* a camera add-on for FSX, but I consider it still quite buggy, since it's eating up CPU power (according to the task-manager).
So putting the camera into the right angles takes up a lot of time and the results, compared to the effort, are way too unpleasant.


Anyways, gonna keep on trying.

Whoop dee doo, ask for honesty and you'll get your replies.


I'm not offended in any way if you don't like those shots. They were not intended to please in any way, just another go at experimenting with the Flex Cam.
Plus, the quality of the plane was not as good as I expected (It's Aurelio Torres' MD-88 package V2; with VC (only for the looks); not avaiable here), the textures were photoreal, yet low-res. So not that good for shots.

The Flex Cam still is a PITA to use. There *is* a camera add-on for FSX, but I consider it still quite buggy, since it's eating up CPU power (according to the task-manager).
So putting the camera into the right angles takes up a lot of time and the results, compared to the effort, are way too unpleasant.


Anyways, gonna keep on trying.

I keep forgetting that this is FSX and your flexcam at work - I'm so used to my payware W+f that I don't feel the awesomeness of being able to get a freeware product that gets similar angles..... but that's a pretty good invention for FSX, shame it's a pain to use (if you say so). Hopefully there will be an FSX walk and follow, and it won't be impossible for some demented fSXy reason...

With the possiblilities FSX opened up for the average developer in terms of camera usage, there won't be a need for a payware like Walk + Follow...fortunately!



Anyways, a small "rant" of mine to everyone:

Show more experimental shots. Think outside the box.

Most of the screenies I'm seeing here are just a variation of the same theme: "Aircraft in focus at various angles with scenery in the background".

If you have the possiblity (W+F, Flex Cam), experiment!

Most of the screenies I'm seeing here are just a variation of the same theme: "Aircraft in focus at various angles with scenery in the background".

Isn't that the whole point of taking screens of FS? What good is a screenshot of an aircraft when you can barely see it or the critical segments (mainly the nose) is completely missing, you wouldn't think an aviation photo is good with the nose missing would you? A good screenshot isn't all that dissimilar to a photo, lighting, composition, background etc are factors in taking both.