Seaking HAR Mk3a

[michael davies]

Its in the revised package

Best

Michael

 

[conork]

Its in the revised package

Best

Michael

great news . thanks for adding it , looks much better now on a side note ...it's also got a FLIR camera under one of the sponsons ...see here :

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK--...1679213/&sid=cdc94f536c52e1e474158cb1aac6fdc9

thanks for the update

 

[michael davies]

I know its not a pure Mk3a, but its close enough, in reality we will probably rename the model as a Mk3 II to avoid the purists beating us over missing Mk3a parts LOL. The term Mk3a was just easiest and quickest at this moment in time to insert into the installer and text files. Older versions of the 3a didnt have the FLIR pod so its not too far out, though I have noticed that the sand filter needs some vents on top as well.

Best

Michael

great news . thanks for adding it , looks much better now on a side note ...it's also got a FLIR camera under one of the sponsons ...see here :

http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK--...1679213/&sid=cdc94f536c52e1e474158cb1aac6fdc9

thanks for the update

 

[Cag40Navy]

Thank you Mike!

 

[vora]

Michael, is the revised package already up or is it a separate patch to download?
I want to buy the package today or tomorrow, or should I wait a few days (Phil wrote about "within 24 h")?
After install I always modify the installation, e.g. "Panel=off" for unwanted versions, to keep my hangar clean and I don't want to do this twice or more.

 

[Fireball6]

Great addition - thank you very much

 

[conork]

I know its not a pure Mk3a, but its close enough, in reality we will probably rename the model as a Mk3 II to avoid the purists beating us over missing Mk3a parts LOL. The term Mk3a was just easiest and quickest at this moment in time to insert into the installer and text files. Older versions of the 3a didnt have the FLIR pod so its not too far out, though I have noticed that the sand filter needs some vents on top as well.

Best

Michael

thanks michael no problem about the FLIR ....im just a huge sea king/s61 fan/geek ...btw one more small problem i can see with it if you compare to pictures .. the yellow is darker/different on the real helicopter ...: http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK--...1751937/&sid=25d4e897685aeaec207a276414859c29

what you think ??

also finally just a question ..when will the patch be ready ??...........btw thats my last problem =D ive fixed the winch door problem myself

 

[michael davies]

The yellow color seems to vary quite wildly, I've seen some pictures where it is very vibrant and strong, others where its almost bleached out, the orignal yellow was quite strong, this revised one is more dirty and down at heel so to speak. Glad you got the sling sorted .

Best

Michael

thanks michael no problem about the FLIR ....im just a huge sea king/s61 fan/geek ...btw one more small problem i can see with it if you compare to pictures .. the yellow is darker/different on the real helicopter ...: http://www.airliners.net/photo/UK--...1751937/&sid=25d4e897685aeaec207a276414859c29

what you think ??

also finally just a question ..when will the patch be ready ??...........btw thats my last problem =D ive fixed the winch door problem myself

 

[michael davies]

The revised model is not available yet, I will post in the sticky thread when it is, I did 31 hours on Tues/Weds, and 22 hrs yesterday and we're getting there. All of the reworking is being done on the Mk3, once that is bullet proof I will compile the other 20 VCs and send to Virtavia. I'd like more time to explore more switches, though many don't work due to the Bell 206 FDE shell, ie, only one engine, and thus one generator and one this and one that <SIGH>, but we have to draw the line somewhere, the orignal problems are fixed and now were just picking off minor new bugs and looking for a few extras to add.

We really do hope to have it all bundled up by the weekend, we know full well how much people like to fly at the weekend, so please bear with us a little longer .

Kindest

Michael

Addendum, the revised HAR Mk3 passes muster , now the marathon recompile of the other 20 models LOL.

Michael, is the revised package already up or is it a separate patch to download?
I want to buy the package today or tomorrow, or should I wait a few days (Phil wrote about "within 24 h")?
After install I always modify the installation, e.g. "Panel=off" for unwanted versions, to keep my hangar clean and I don't want to do this twice or more.

 

[noddy]

Michael,

Many, many thanks for your hard work on this model. :salute:

 

[Chris Sykes]

Michael thanks very much!!! Definatly getting this when the revision is out!

 

[fsafranek]

Outstanding as always Michael! :salute:
:ernae:

 

[gajit]

And a BIG thank you from me :salute:

 

[michael davies]

Thanks, its worth the effort to see the old girl off in some sort of style I think.

As usual its polarized opinion, on here common sense and respect for what its attempting to achieve, lets be fair its no dodosim or PMDG, on other forums, its a p,o,s ?, I swear, I'll never work this consumer perception all out LOL.

All the models are compiled and checked.....that doesnt mean to say there are no more bugs, just that we haven't found them ...Virtavia is waiting for some files from elsewhere and then it'll be uploaded.

Thank you (personally) for your patience and understanding.

Kindest

Michael

 

[mal998]

Dumb question Mike, what does POS mean?

 

[michael davies]

pile of shix

Wasn't impressed, criticism I can take (taken me 11 years to get a skin thick enough LOL) but broad sweeping comments and criticism for aspects the package was never designed to achieve get my goat every time.

Its meant to be a fun, stable, easy to use 'lite' helo to suit as many people as possible, not a training tool to get your type rated certificate on .

I think this incessant drive for uber realism in every product thats released is actually counter productive to the market and the hobby, anyway [\pedant mode off] .

Kindest

Michael

 

[conork]

good to hear the update will be out soon looking forward to it ...thanks michael

 

[Snave]

pile of shix

Wasn't impressed, criticism I can take (taken me 11 years to get a skin thick enough LOL) but broad sweeping comments and criticism for aspects the package was never designed to achieve get my goat every time.

Its meant to be a fun, stable, easy to use 'lite' helo to suit as many people as possible, not a training tool to get your type rated certificate on .

I think this incessant drive for uber realism in every product thats released is actually counter productive to the market and the hobby, anyway [\pedant mode off] .

Researched and authentic (with FSX limitations) flight dynamics

Pedanticism goes both ways. What you are saying apparently contradicts the claims made on the product page, which combined with other adjectives cropping up throughout such as:
`detailed` texture sets
`authentic` virtual cockpit
`Stunning Realistic` Texturing

If the ascribing of the characteristics of the simulated model do not match the claims, (and clearly the current wave of bug-fixing and patching confirms they dont) then what we are seeing is false and misleading advertising, and should be amended.

No excuses.

If nothing else, `researched and authentic` needs to be dropped as a description of the flight dynamics, or at the very least changed to `researched but not implemented`, assuming the research was in fact carried out - perhaps there should be independent scrutiny of that claim, just to be sure?

Personally, I like the notion of applying the epithet `Lite` to the product. So why is it not applied and in plain view on the product pages? Where any potential purchaser can take stock of what that term implies, prior to purchase...

If the product is not delivering what the customers who purchased it expected, that is NEVER a failing of the customer, only the vendor.

Why is it, I wonder, (and this is not a criticism of Virtavia alone, most of the industry needs to take note) that developers of flight simulation products seem to think that proper business ethics and practices, clear and concise statements of what a product can (and can't) do, and where it fits in the Great Scheme of things are things which need not concern them, as disgruntled customers who have spent money are just troublemakers?

I write technical documents for a living, and I would never have signed off on the Virtavia Sea King page as it clearly and obviously ascribes claims to product veracity that are simply not justified.

 

[mal998]

Too bad you don't build models for a living. I can just imagine the level of perfection we'd all be treated to. It will be interesting to read your next critique of some other developer's product.

 

[michael davies]

I don't write the publicity pages, I have no input into the blurb or the pricing or business stratagem, I'm just the poor schmuk sweeping up after-wards .

Trust me, its not what I would write .

Many vendors 'push' the descriptive envelope, historically Alphasim only had one level so you always knew what you were getting into, irrespective of what the front page said. more recently there have been higher level products and the mix is making choice's and deciphering a lot harder.

Textures, I'd say they were reasonably detailed ?, layered, weathered, bumped and specular.

VC authentic, hard to quantify, its acceptable for one variant, but with 20 variants your always going to come unstuck , not sure how you'd describe whats in the package to be honest.

Realistic texturing, looks pretty good, crisp lines and weathered, all panel seams and rivet rows line up across textures, moderate text fidelity for larger labels, stunning ?, depends on what you find stunning, to some they are, to others there ordinary, perception plays a large part here I think.

Bug fixing wasn't a wave or a great hullabaloo, tired to explain that elsewhere, the bug was singular and simple (the initial one anyway) the VC switches suddenly stopped working, that was resolved in a few hours, the rest of the time was spent rechecking the compiler as thats what messed with it in the first place, whilst doing that it was noted that even the default MS supplied modeldef was corrupt, and that issue applies to all model developers who use these tags, unless they also edit there modeldef.xml they too will suffer the same bug, hardly Virtavias fault the SDK tools are panned ?. After that it was a case of adding the fixes to 20 other models.

The sling load wasn't a bug after all, theres no issues reported about textures and such, the tail rotor has been fixed on the Sikorsky's, an admitted over sight, the side window was a mix up as to what was required and what was supplied, hardly a wave of bugs, two side windows, six bladed tail rotor on some models, VC buttons not working, three bugs, one part caused by ACEs modeldef.xml.

Flight dynamics were originally checked by a RCAF instructor, a Belgium SAR pilot and a US Marine One pilot, you only have my word for that, they said it was ok, thats good enough for me, but it doesn't support the latest file structure from the Merlin nor other tricks and software from 3rd parties, so I suppose in that context it is rubbish. That was FS9, FSx has dumbed down helos a lot I'm afraid. The choice of using the Bell 206 shell was on hindsight a personal mistake, its a FDE format thats stunted at best, very little can be changed, few systems supported.

For those oblivious to these things the shell is very important, unlike fixed wing the helo shell clamps many things in FS, there are three shells or formats, Bell 206, Merlin and R-22, depending on which format you use will define what you can add and not add in, even animations, you can add spoiler as much as you want to any helo model, add the corresponding code in the FDE but will it work in sim ?, with it ever !, the helo format has switched it off in the game code. Each format also defines what engines you can have or even start and stop sounds, only the Merlin and R-22 support pure start stop sounds, the Bell is a hybrid mish mash, the start stop sounds a result of clever bending of rules, but not pure start stop.

The reality is that there are only two effective shells one can use, the Merlin and the R-22, the latter is actually quite good for helos, allowing for much more fidelity but will only support piston engines, gauges and coding. The biggest down side of the Merlin is that its only for acceleration users only, Bell 206 and R-22 can be used on any FSx installation, hence the choice of Bell for the Seaking....bigger user base.

The biggest problem I have with the FDE is the customer, none of you are the same, you all want something different , the shix storm we got off the Cobra (assisted by a well respected rotor head FDE guy) was crazy, sure the rotor die hard fan thought it was passable, but to everyone else it was unmanageable.

Sadly pure rotor heads only make up a small percentage of customers, so who do you pander too ?, the small purist (and the most vocal I must add) lobby or the larger fixed wing fancy a helo now and then types.

Anyway, I'm doing what I promised myself I'd never do again, attempt to justify my work in an environment I don't have full control of, hence no more Helo FDE work, not publicly anyway, my next project is fixed wing for another developer, I'm only responsible for polys and paint, I'll try to make it match their publicity...honest , alongside that, my Essex carrier project and 'that' I'm fully in control of, its authenticity, its accuracy and any public blurb attached.

Your views are valid and in some areas I empathize, some are just not mine to defend I'm afraid, your dialog is concise, polite and well written, I've no issues with that at all.

Now, I'm off to try and get the Yorktown in sim and AI land-able.

Regards

Michael

Pedanticism goes both ways. What you are saying apparently contradicts the claims made on the product page, which combined with other adjectives cropping up throughout such as:
`detailed` texture sets
`authentic` virtual cockpit
`Stunning Realistic` Texturing

If the ascribing of the characteristics of the simulated model do not match the claims, (and clearly the current wave of bug-fixing and patching confirms they dont) then what we are seeing is false and misleading advertising, and should be amended.

No excuses.

If nothing else, `researched and authentic` needs to be dropped as a description of the flight dynamics, or at the very least changed to `researched but not implemented`, assuming the research was in fact carried out - perhaps there should be independent scrutiny of that claim, just to be sure?

Personally, I like the notion of applying the epithet `Lite` to the product. So why is it not applied and in plain view on the product pages? Where any potential purchaser can take stock of what that term implies, prior to purchase...

If the product is not delivering what the customers who purchased it expected, that is NEVER a failing of the customer, only the vendor.

Why is it, I wonder, (and this is not a criticism of Virtavia alone, most of the industry needs to take note) that developers of flight simulation products seem to think that proper business ethics and practices, clear and concise statements of what a product can (and can't) do, and where it fits in the Great Scheme of things are things which need not concern them, as disgruntled customers who have spent money are just troublemakers?

I write technical documents for a living, and I would never have signed off on the Virtavia Sea King page as it clearly and obviously ascribes claims to product veracity that are simply not justified.