Those of you interested in converting FS9 aircraft to FSX or later may be interested in this: https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/threa ... rt.457832/

Yes, Arno has tackled it in principle and Tom has provided excellent feedback about things not yet done right. This will work very soon.

I have said it before and I will say it again - There are some really clever blokes around here.

Oh it works! Still in its infancy but I have some FSX stuff (AI only so far) converted, and this will keep me occupied for months now. Few issues here and there but something is better than nothing!

Greg

Hi all,

I did a little experiment, but not conclusive.

I opened a FS2004 FAIB B747 in ModelConverterX.
I added an MDL object to add antennas (Collada object previously transformed into MDL by ModelConverterX).

In ModelConverterX, the 2 objects display perfectly together. The B747 displays correctly with its new antennas and now looks like a real E-4B.

I try to compile it into FS2004 Aircraft MDL, but I only get errors and the file is not created.

I don't understand anything about the errors or the model design. This is the first time I've tried this.

I wanted this model for my personal use, but without help it will be difficult.

I suppose the first question is do you have the fully operational key. If so, the toolbar will state your name is licensed and the status bar will state that you have an unrestricted animation export app.

Are the errors you get related to this.
With more power being added to the tool it is restricted by default to avoid people modifying other peoples models and then distributing them.

Other than that we would have to see the errors to be able to have any idea.

Firebird wrote: ↑21 Jan 2024, 17:44 I suppose the first question is do you have the fully operational key. If so, the toolbar will state your name is licensed and the status bar will state that you have an unrestricted animation export app.

Are the errors you get related to this.
With more power being added to the tool it is restricted by default to avoid people modifying other peoples models and then distributing them.

Other than that we would have to see the errors to be able to have any idea.

Hi, No I never saw that there was a license for ModelConverterX.
My goal is not to take a model from someone and redistribute it, but just to test the possibility of assembling objects together just for me.
It's not even a conversion from FSX to FS9. In Model Converter, the assembly of the 2 objects looks good. It's just the compilation that doesn't work.

Your plan may well be honourable but Arno plays safe and only gives keys to people that he knows and can trust or developers with a track record of producing their own work.
The last thing he wants is be accused of helping piracy.

In simple terms the idea is that somebody like JY COULD use it to create FS9 versions of his work without going through all the effort involved of doing it from scratch.

Before anybody asks or gets their hopes up - no I have no idea whether JY has any inclination to do this. It is merely an example.

Now to your specific issue here, if you give us the error(s) either a txt file or screenshots of the errors then people that dabble in MCX here might be able to help you. If not then you would have to go to FSDevlopers and report the issue.
Two things do occur to me. Firstly, it might be worth checking the MCX section of FSDevlopers to see if your error is there. Secondly, from what little I know most compilation problems are due to MCX not being set up to compile for the sim of your choice.

In your case you seem to be only doing an FS9 operation on an FS9 mdl so you only need to have all the options set up correctly for FS9. If you were doing an FSX to FS9 conversion then you would need to have the FSX sDK installed and those options setup as well.

I don't need MCX to produce FS9 versions of my FSX/P3D only work. If I had any inclination to do that, I would convert the Gmax FSX file and compile from there.

John

I know, John.
It was purely an example of why somebody would legitimately use MCX rather than suggesting that you will/would use it.