• 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

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

B-52 VC Screens Are Here

Please don't get the impression that I'm dissing the crits. I'm just bitching because I really want to get this one out the door with the least amount of time and effort as possible. It's not a real priority for me, or my team. What is a priority are the Eagles, the Raptor, the Harrier, the AH-64D, the AH-1W, the CH-47D/E, the Stuka, the E2C and the AW-109. The BUFF VC was, for us at least, a filler.

That said, please send pics to colin@milviz.com with info and labels marking the areas you are talking about. I make no guarantee(s) that these areas will be addressed but we'll see.

kc
 
Are the flight dynamics pretty squared away on this aircraft?

(the default ones, I know milviz isn't upgrading those)
 
krazycolin said:
Please don't get the impression that I'm dissing the crits. I'm just bitching because I really want to get this one out the door with the least amount of time and effort as possible. It's not a real priority for me, or my team. What is a priority are the Eagles, the Raptor, the Harrier, the AH-64D, the AH-1W, the CH-47D/E, the Stuka, the E2C and the AW-109. The BUFF VC was, for us at least, a filler.

That said, please send pics to colin@milviz.com with info and labels marking the areas you are talking about. I make no guarantee(s) that these areas will be addressed but we'll see.

kc
Click to expand...

Colin,

The BUFF project is a Target of Opportunity...certainly nothing wrong with that. If you ship it the way it is, I'd buy it without a second thought. I'm just trying to help.

I'll annotate the pics you posted to illustrate the areas in question, and I understand that no promises have been made.

Regards,

Nick
 
It is very hard to come across pics of the 52 pit. I looked around and it coincides with the stuff I have seen. I have never worked on, or even seen a B-52 in real life though. I am sure you guys are probably like me with H-60 models in FSX. I can spot every single bolt/screw that is out of place, lol.
 
Hi Roadburner,

I know exactly what you mean, when I built the AS Buff for FS9 I hit quite a few areas that required expert help and in the end I was blessed with a B-52G EWO and an B-52H Crew Chief beta testers to fill in all the blanks so far as the crew toilet back by the stairs :icon_lol:!

You've done a fine job.

David.
 
Roadburner440 said:
It is very hard to come across pics of the 52 pit. I looked around and it coincides with the stuff I have seen. I have never worked on, or even seen a B-52 in real life though. I am sure you guys are probably like me with H-60 models in FSX. I can spot every single bolt/screw that is out of place, lol.
Click to expand...


Being a subkect matter expert in FSX is something you have to come to terms with. Being a B-1B guy, I'd love to have a complete B-1 sim. The last two released were kinda weak, and I guess you just have to be happy with a fun VC, fair external model with OK textures and having it fly ina convincing manner.

I've helped people develop products I know well in the past, and you just have to not beat them over the head about stupid stuff. I'm only around to point out stuff that's grossly wrong, and answer questions if needed when I offer those services.
 
Yeah. We would love to do a B-1B.. KC already started on the model, but we quit due to lack of resources.. for obvious reasons that is one closely guarded aircraft. I think it would be amazing screaming a few hundred feet above the ground at Mach speeds. If we could get pubs for the B-1B, and Tu-95 that would be a great day.
 
Roadburner440 said:
Yeah. We would love to do a B-1B.. KC already started on the model, but we quit due to lack of resources.. for obvious reasons that is one closely guarded aircraft. I think it would be amazing screaming a few hundred feet above the ground at Mach speeds. If we could get pubs for the B-1B, and Tu-95 that would be a great day.
Click to expand...


I'd be willing to bet that's not the reason Kolin quit. Kolin knows I was in the B-1 community for almost a decade and we've had more than a few talks about it, also, I am very aware of what's appropriate to talk about and what's not. Most classified systems would never be possible to duplicate in FSX anyway. I thought it was for a lack of a publisher. Isn't the model mostly done though?
 
If you guys do decide to do the B-1B, give me a shout.

My aerodynamics instructor was one of the B-1B test pilots.

Regards, Diego
 
Not sure. He was one of the guys that got the thing flying in a sense.

Col. Robery Hamilton

Also flew B-52's, was T-38 Instructor of the year, and was the last crew to train for the SR-71. Program was scrubbed 2 weeks before his first flight

Guy is amazing!
 
cockpit

You guys put out some amazing work, really appreciate that your doing this cockpit, I know it's gonna look good.
 
The model that is done isn't for FSX.. it is a professional level model and is way above the poly limit for FSX. It still needed to go back and be reduced, animated, etc. There is a starting point though for a B-1B if the oppertunity for it materializes. I didn't know you worked on B-1's tigisfat. I would have guessed (this is me coming from a rotorwing guy in the Navy so not up to par on USAF proc), but I would guess that most of the aerodynamic/performance info itself would be classified. Is what I meant by not having access to info. I know alot of the class systems are unable to be done in FSX, or would be useless anyway. Is the same thing with looking to do my own aircraft for the sim. All the stuff that is class for sub-hunting and such would be a waste of time to do for FSX cause it'd be useless anyway (aside from the fact of it being illegal). In the end we will just have to see what the future will bring I suppose.
 
Let me put my cards out on the table on this one and, hopefully, I won't get flamed or worse yet, sound like I'm whining:

The Bone and nearly all of the planes we have in the inventory, are already, or could be ready for FSX in a very short time.

However, without having an easier way of coding the systems and the gauges, we're at the mercy of companies like, no offense intended, Alphasim, A2A, Iris, FSD, Captain Sim and, most of all, MS. Why, you may ask? Because nearly all the coders in the world that do FSX aircraft are locked up with them and other companies like them. And, what's worse, most of the coders are 50+ years old and that's a worrying factor as well. They are also, as you may know a very small group and getting smaller every year.

What does this say about the future of FS? Bad news. Who will make the planes fly? It's not enough just to have the model. You need to have code behind them. And MS hasn't made it easy to either make or get the code. Sure, we could spend a year per plane, accusimming each one at huge cost and great risk. But that, sadly, though it might be profitable in the long run (like Lotus' L-39 and VRS' F/A-18)), isn't something that I'm interested in. I want to get all of my planes in the air NOW and not have to do the coding myself. I, personally, HATE coding.

Basically, it means that, because it's not simpler to do and use, we can't make our own code and gauges without a pretty hefty learning curve. Now, we could go the old style Alphasim route and go for great lookers but real basic flying code (no offense intended). But, that's not really what I, nor you, the clients, want. I want half-way at least and 90% at best. 90% of real type systems. More than that and you are talking about one to two years for one product.

We have such a huge list of planes it's not even funny. The biggest collection with full cockpits in the world that I know about. At this point, a total of 73 AC both GA and military, choppers and airplanes and more arriving every day. It actually makes me want to cry when I think about them all languishing in their hangars.... waiting for someone to code them and bring them to life. Sad but true.

So there you have it. The Bone could be ready if a coder is willing to take it on. This isn't the first time I say this and it probably won't be the last... but if you are a coder, and you want to join us in our hopes to make the best AC for FS (and take over the world!) or, you want to take the Bone, or any other specific plane in our inventory on as a project, PM me and we'll talk.

kc
 
Where'd you get the info on the ages of coders?!! :icon_lol: That may be innaccurate!

What I'd recommend you do if you really want some coders, is put up a post on the Avsim gauges and flight dynamics forum with some screenshots of your VC's etc and ask for coder/s!

They are a good bunch of guys and you may find what you're looking for over there, they have helped me out a few times over the years with problems.

I mean even as a lowly modeller in this hobby of ours, it doesn't take long to get to grips with simple radial gauges, however the more complex displays I'd never attempt for being way out of my league.
 
centuryseries said:
Where'd you get the info on the ages of coders?!! :icon_lol: That may be innaccurate!

What I'd recommend you do if you really want some coders, is put up a post on the Avsim gauges and flight dynamics forum with some screenshots of your VC's etc and ask for coder/s!

They are a good bunch of guys and you may find what you're looking for over there, they have helped me out a few times over the years with problems.

I mean even as a lowly modeller in this hobby of ours, it doesn't take long to get to grips with simple radial gauges, however the more complex displays I'd never attempt for being way out of my league.
Click to expand...
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>
Well I certainly feel 50+ !! after ten years in FS LOL.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Subject matter is always hit and miss, having been involved with 100+ projects over the years I still do not have the magic formula that assures sufficient funds to warrant the man hours, its more fickle than a women, especially in the military side of the market. <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I'm also not convinced that full realism is what people want, its certainly what the majority of people in this forum say they want, but experience has shown that 100% of the posters here equates to about 20-30% of sales overall. The silent majority make up the largest buyers and are often quite happy with less than 100% accuracy, but fail to say so publicly, for many reasons.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
You have to select your market and aim for it, one publisher listened to the forum and it nearly broke them, it may still do, changing focus on its target audience has had deep ramifications that perhaps most are unaware of, or care TBH.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Coding, the other way to look at this is to produce models that you know you can code for, modern military aircraft are by there very nature very complex pieces of equipment, the coding required for the F-22 will be immense, the F-15 less so due to it origin harking back to steam gauges 'on the whole'. Both will be a huge mark up on something like the F-86 or F-102, therefore to break the coding deadlock it might be prudent to make models that you know you can learn simple codes for and work form there, ie sub sonic and steam gauges.<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Coders jumping ship, very hard to do, you tend to risk becoming an outsider in the new group until your 'trusted', why jump from a position of comfort into an outsider ?, the grass is not always greener on the other side of the street. Most developers tend to keep a close hold on their key team members, hence little movement between developers.
 
I certaintly agree with your point. I know all to well what it is like being in the military to be an outsider when you go from one command to another. Definately is a long process to gain people trust. I do FS stuff simply because I enjoy doing it. I like the community. Although I have seen tensions flare up in the past hopefully that doesn't occur in the future. I am a customer of many developers as well as working for Milviz. We are not looking to steal other peoples talent away as much as we are looking to bring new talent to the table.
 
Looks like Captsim announced they are going to build the B-52 VC after all. I wonder if MILVIZ is going to continue with their cockpit? Well either way, at least we will get a great VC to go with the buff.
 
LOL Well I guess that answers that. Grats to MILVIZ then! Unofficially of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top