Quixoticish
Charter Member
For those who own it, is there any sign of a repaint kit being released yet?
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
Area51sim - c-5m galaxy out now
- Thread starter Jetmechanic
- Start date
Yes, the paintkit is released, see this topic on there site : http://www.area51sim.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=167#p167
grts,
Lenny
T
tigisfat
Guest
I need to release my soundpack, it's the real deal TF-39s. If you choose to have the C-5M as it's depicted, the default CLS 747-200 sounds or CLS DC-10 sounds will be just great.
I think I am going to buy it. It looks like a fairly solid 30 dollar release. Noone would complain about the cartoony VC textures if this release would've come a few years ago.
John, any more impressions of quality or lack thereof to speak of? The handling?
I think I am going to buy it. It looks like a fairly solid 30 dollar release. Noone would complain about the cartoony VC textures if this release would've come a few years ago.
John, any more impressions of quality or lack thereof to speak of? The handling?
I was able to take it out for a reasonably long flight and here was my impression. I'm tempted to do a little work on the fm/engine model...will definitely need to talk with the developer first.
Good:
- It's a C-5!
- My cold and dark default flight files are compatible with it, so C&D starts are a go.
- I can't go into much detail here because everything is very subjective. Bottom line is that I enjoy what I picked up for $30, and with a little bit of digital wrench turning it could be a great heavy to fly when not in the mood for something as complicated as a PMDG.
Given that, here's a list of what I think could be done better/fixed:
- Biggest problem I noted in the fm given that I've never analyzed a C-5M, which means I could be totally wrong; is that the body fixed x-axis (longitudinal) is offset from the atmospheric relative x-axis when defining lift and moment coefficients vs angle of attack. When flying straight and level at cruise, my pitch attitude varied between -2 and -4 degrees depending on load and altitude.
- Wrong engines; The defined thrust rating fits the TF39-GE-1C (C-5B) rather than the CF6-80-C2 of the C-5M. Pretty easy to fix though if desired.
- I changed the minimum throttle from 0.25 to -0.05 for a better range of throttle control.
- There's a little distortion on the PFD when looking straight at it, but it goes away as the view pans (you can see this in the pictures I posted)
- There's a couple of disconnects with the autopilot I had to get used to. First, on the Autopilot module above the PFD, units are imperial but on the FMS they are in SI. Also, when adjusting for optimum engine/aerodynamic conditions I always use Mach Number. However, on the PFD and I believe autopilot, it is set in knots and not updated until you change it again. So, you if set the FD to climb at a certain mach, you're actually climbing at a constant speed which is the mach number at the instant you set it, and will be steadily increasing the flight mach number as the climb progresses.
Hope this was helpful.
Good:
- It's a C-5!
- My cold and dark default flight files are compatible with it, so C&D starts are a go.
- I can't go into much detail here because everything is very subjective. Bottom line is that I enjoy what I picked up for $30, and with a little bit of digital wrench turning it could be a great heavy to fly when not in the mood for something as complicated as a PMDG.
Given that, here's a list of what I think could be done better/fixed:
- Biggest problem I noted in the fm given that I've never analyzed a C-5M, which means I could be totally wrong; is that the body fixed x-axis (longitudinal) is offset from the atmospheric relative x-axis when defining lift and moment coefficients vs angle of attack. When flying straight and level at cruise, my pitch attitude varied between -2 and -4 degrees depending on load and altitude.
- Wrong engines; The defined thrust rating fits the TF39-GE-1C (C-5B) rather than the CF6-80-C2 of the C-5M. Pretty easy to fix though if desired.
- I changed the minimum throttle from 0.25 to -0.05 for a better range of throttle control.
- There's a little distortion on the PFD when looking straight at it, but it goes away as the view pans (you can see this in the pictures I posted)
- There's a couple of disconnects with the autopilot I had to get used to. First, on the Autopilot module above the PFD, units are imperial but on the FMS they are in SI. Also, when adjusting for optimum engine/aerodynamic conditions I always use Mach Number. However, on the PFD and I believe autopilot, it is set in knots and not updated until you change it again. So, you if set the FD to climb at a certain mach, you're actually climbing at a constant speed which is the mach number at the instant you set it, and will be steadily increasing the flight mach number as the climb progresses.
Hope this was helpful.
arrowmaker
SOH-CM-2024
Seeing as this apparently has very little systems modelling I've come to the conclusion that I may as well stick with my old Alphasim Galaxy. Combined with Christoffer Petersen's freeware C-5 Galaxy Sound Pack, it still makes a nice addition to any hangar, even if it is a bit long in the tooth.
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmSe-Eaj9Zw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmSe-Eaj9Zw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>
<object width="445" height="364"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmSe-Eaj9Zw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TmSe-Eaj9Zw&hl=en_GB&fs=1&border=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="445" height="364"></embed></object>
TheOptimist
Banned
*Post postponed...*
TheOptimist
Banned
No
My mate said it was alphasim. I don't know much about Area51sim - I'll look into them and see whether the post still stands.
T
tigisfat
Guest
Well, this is a dissapointment. I guess I won't get it after all. It looks great, but it's still a simple aircraft and I won't put up with cruddy FPS from a simple aircraft. It's had way to many bad reviews already as well. It's a shame that it's so underloved that there aren't even any youtube videos yet. I was hoping for much more information, but the bad reviews speak for themselves.
I was also kinda hoping that the area51sim people would show up and defend it, possibly even explaining a bit of it, but I can't expect or demand that. Oh well.
I was also kinda hoping that the area51sim people would show up and defend it, possibly even explaining a bit of it, but I can't expect or demand that. Oh well.
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
Detailed comparison reveals that this is the old Alphasim C-5 redone by another publisher for FSx, comparing the VCs and external model, most of it is poly for poly identical to the old Alphasim one.
On the face of it it appears that the author has redone the model for FSx and published it via another developer, thats his remit of course and good luck to him in all fairness if thats what he wants to do. However it is essentially a reworked FS9 model for FSx and brings along with it the poly limits from the previous sim, it is not a bespoke FSx mesh that takes advantages of all that the FSx SDK can offer these days.
There does also appear to be some concern over the FDE as much appears identical to the old Alphasim one, that would need the original FDE authors consent, which may well have been freely given as I am sure has been.
The C-5 publishers also have a B-2 and F-22 in the works, previews show they look very close to the old Alphasim ones, strangely also from the same author as the C-5, draw your own conclusions.
As we say at work rather crudely, a granny dressed in mini skirt and high heels, technically a FS9 model compiled for FSx I'm afraid, shame as the original mesh looked to have much potential for serious reworks and upgrades, but once again short cutted to get to market....probably before Alphasim did theirs as was originally planned....so I've heard whispered !.
Kindest
Michael
T
tigisfat
Guest
Well that's just cute. The premise is just fine and dandy, but reusing one of the worst payware jet FDEs ever built is kinda insulting.
That seals it. I will never buy this product. The FDE ruined the Alphasim model for me. I got tired of having to taxi on 75% thrust. I spent months making my soundpack for the Alphasim model, only to find out that the engines would be blaring away at damn near full throttle on final approach just to maintain speed. Give me a break. I don't feel bad about posting negative stuff anymore, either.
This proves that that ethese new guys aren't out to provide us with a good or correct product. They just want dough.
That seals it. I will never buy this product. The FDE ruined the Alphasim model for me. I got tired of having to taxi on 75% thrust. I spent months making my soundpack for the Alphasim model, only to find out that the engines would be blaring away at damn near full throttle on final approach just to maintain speed. Give me a break. I don't feel bad about posting negative stuff anymore, either.
This proves that that ethese new guys aren't out to provide us with a good or correct product. They just want dough.
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
Doesnt matter