Speculation time!!!

Will Captainsim go ahead with their B-52?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 59.1%

  • No

    Votes: 18 40.9%
  • Total voters
    44
SolarEagle said:
By that logic every add on ever made is arcade.
Click to expand...

I don't see a connection, could you explain?

There are no controls in FSX for extra engines, so you cannot assign more than 4 throttle axes. There is no logic for extra engines, so you have to calculate all parameters (thrust, rpm, temperatures, fuel consumpion) by yourself all the time. But most of all, there's no room for extra engines in flight model.

I've seen several aircraft that have more than 4 engines, and what they simply do is to copy data from other engines and make dummy gauges in cockpit. So these engines don't generate thrust, don't consume fuel, don't affect your airplane in flight in any way, you can't really turn them on or shut them down, you can't hear them. You call that simulation?

Doing an aircraft that has more than 4 engines properly is very complicated task that would require doing almost whole simulation outside FSX engine. As many "impossible" things in FSX, it's possible, but require so much work that it's usually unprofitable.
 
some1 said:
As many "impossible" things in FSX, it's possible, but require so much work that it's usually unprofitable.
Click to expand...

Since most projects for FS are 'unprofitable' in the real sense of the word, that shouldn't be a reason to not do it :icon_lol:
 
krazycolin said:
Unless CS says that they are definitely NOT doing a B-52, we are not filling that hole.

Give the amount of planes that we have in production now, the sad state of affairs with A2A, plus the fact that we're just not all that interested in doing that one. We'd much rather do the Bone...

Nice that you thought of us though...

kc
Click to expand...

What's up with A2A? :isadizzy:
 
Tweek said:
Not sure I get what's so 'arcadey' about a B-52...
Click to expand...

Go somewhere, release payload, go home and be sure of never having to go there again. Arcarde. :icon_lol:


tigisfat said:
Everyone has their two cents, just please state your reasoning so that this might be a discussion. Do you think that the Captainsim B-52 has been cancelled? My vote is on yes. I know these things take a while, but that preview has been up for a LONG time.
Click to expand...

The preview for the Do-328 has been up on the Eaglesoft page for a long time as well, yet I don't have a single doubt that it will be released one day. (Even if it was just in form of the source files to enable someone else to finish it).

What would be the point in wasting time on a project someone can't finish it up *one day*?
 
Francois said:
Yawn..... !

Why don't you just ASK them ??
Click to expand...
1228124870300.jpg


They don't return emails, remember? No matter how hard I try, I can't be angry at them though. There products are just so friggin' pretty and great!!
 
harleyman said:
Speculation time!!!


I don't do that! It generally leads to heated debates....:173go1:
Click to expand...


So far, this one appears to be going off better than even I expected. I like to start debates and conversations, but not boiling altercations. I know it doesn't always seem like it, but it's true. :engel016:


VFR Reviews said:
It's still on...

trust me, I know :ernae:
Click to expand...

It's good to know that we now have insider information in the positive.
 
some1 said:
I don't see a connection, could you explain?

There are no controls in FSX for extra engines, so you cannot assign more than 4 throttle axes. There is no logic for extra engines, so you have to calculate all parameters (thrust, rpm, temperatures, fuel consumpion) by yourself all the time. But most of all, there's no room for extra engines in flight model.

I've seen several aircraft that have more than 4 engines, and what they simply do is to copy data from other engines and make dummy gauges in cockpit. So these engines don't generate thrust, don't consume fuel, don't affect your airplane in flight in any way, you can't really turn them on or shut them down, you can't hear them. You call that simulation?

Doing an aircraft that has more than 4 engines properly is very complicated task that would require doing almost whole simulation outside FSX engine. As many "impossible" things in FSX, it's possible, but require so much work that it's usually unprofitable.
Click to expand...

Believe me, you're not getting realistic multi-engine training with FSX, so being concerned about unrealistic modelling when more than four engines are present is, well, a waste of concern. If a person is going to throw down the BS flag on an aspect of FSX for not being real enough, then you might just want to throw the whole package in the trash. Just enjoy it man.
 
krazycolin said:
I could say something but every time I do, my comments get erased. So... head on over to here for more information about why A2A is in a "sad state of affairs"...
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff, especially the numbers in that post. Being an A2A fanboy and one who found that add on to be my one and only dissapointing A2A purchase, I have to be honest and say I did feel it was a bit risky on A2A's part for publishing it, but not becuase the model is bad, but becuase it's not that well rounded when the "other elements" are factored in. Aircraft Factory is a fitting product line title to me, as it feels like an add on that was pushed through an assembly line of various talents in a rather quick fashion, however, if A2A had done all but the model as you initially envisioned, I feel it would have been A+ for sure. If MilViz gets $6000 a pop for models I can see why you've turned to the sim market as of late.

As brutally honest and constructive critism, and speaking from my highly subjective personal impression of the two MilViz models I own(Hellcat & Corsair), I'm hesitant to buy another, which again is not the models fault but due to the "other elements" not being homogenous. Since the P-38 is getting the title of "the defininitve P-38 for FSX", it sounds like it might be getting the attention it deserves in the "other elements" department, so I'm going to buy it and I'm hoping for the best! Also, if my honesty is painful to hear, I appologize. I'm just one guy hoping to see add ons that impress in not only the models department, but all departments, which is an ideal not easily achieved.
 
I have no issues with you on the whole about the Corsair. We were fixing issues with it until it went beta. However, once A2A had it in beta, we were not allowed access nor were we told about any specific problems so we really had no idea and no control about whether it was good or not.

Btw, we don't get 6K a pop for a model. I wish. We only got that for the Corsair cause it came with a hefty chunk of code, the sounds and the FDE nearly done. We only sold it to them because we wished to have a partnership with them. But due to many things, none of which belong here, there was a serious falling out.

On the subject of money , just to give you an idea, doing a TV commercial makes more money than that in one week. It takes 3 months to make a single engined fighter plane...

That said, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that we're still in the process of growing and learning. We're always trying to do better and that is something worth striving for. So, for the P-38, we are, with the assistance of David Copely and the coding smarts of FSD, looking at the best P-38 out there.

I suggest that you try out the YF-23. It's not low-end at all even though the price is low and it has "seemingly" been taken as such. It truly is a rocket and fun to fly. (Not arcadey at all!)

kc
 
Bjoern said:
Go somewhere, release payload, go home and be sure of never having to go there again. Arcarde. :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

Either way it sounds ghastly! I'd rather be sat on the target than have to endure the horrendously boring long haul flight it takes to get there!
 
Solar Eagle, that's a little off topic and it's likely to bring up some drama. That's been hashed out here before and it's never ended well. It always get threads deleted and stored.

invisiblebikecrash.jpg
 
Bone said:
Believe me, you're not getting realistic multi-engine training with FSX, so being concerned about unrealistic modelling when more than four engines are present is, well, a waste of concern. If a person is going to throw down the BS flag on an aspect of FSX for not being real enough, then you might just want to throw the whole package in the trash. Just enjoy it man.
Click to expand...

I am enjoying it greatly :) But not having the ability to operate half of the airplane engines is a bit important to me. I admit you'll get as real simulation of B-52 as it gets, probably just without weapon systems (no real weapons in FSX), part of naviagion systems (no TACAN beacons in FSX), and half of the engines (no 8 engines in FSX).

If you are satisfied with these limitations, then fine, and if the word 'arcade' offended you, then sorry. To me this aircraft just doesn't fit FSX well.
 
Here's a thought: Maybe they'er taking so long because they DO plan on taking measures to simulate all 8 engines?

On a side note, I seem to remember having a freeware B-52 where I had to start all 8 engines...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top