MILVIZ T-38 current pics...

[Roadburner440]

Personally getting 25-30fps on an i-950 system with 6GB RAM, GtX 285 1GB, and Windows 7. Is also with Norton Anti-Virus running in the backround, MSN messenger, and usually i-Tunes. It drops to high teens/low 20's in places like NYC.

 

[Roadburner440]

Took some screens, and a video. The video is cruddy, but I didn't take it in FRAPS for a reason. Cause then it would have been stuttering, and the whole point of the video would have been negated. Is smooth as silk through NYC even in somewhat bad weather. Like I said I apologize in advance for the way the video looks, but it was the only way to show how smooth it is in the roughest environment I can think of. Cause FRAPS just brings my PC to its knee's for some reason.

 

[Bone]

Here's some info on fps I put in a response that's on p4 of this thread. Please forgive the faux pas of quoting myself. My sliders are full to the right, except for scenery complexity (3/4) and autogen (1/2). I keep those two dialed back because anymore than that just doesn't look like how it does in real life flying.

Skyblazer3: Hijack away, it's all good.

I've gotten six of the regular model T-38A's in formation at once (fsrecorder), with fps locked at 29, and they varied from 25-29 depending on where I was looking (and I'm looking at a 30 inch 2560x1600 resolution monitor). And yes, it's a fantastic formation platform...surley you knew I would check that out, right? Lol.

Nowwww, here's the good news. Colin and team have built an AI version. I swapped that into some flight plans, and I've gotten 14 AI T-38A's in a tight grouping on the ramp with steady fps of 20 (+ or - a few). I did do a tester with 25 jets, but frames dropped to crappola.

These AI will use the same paints that the regular model takes...so any repaints someone does will fit on them. The down side to that is the AI won't be as light on frames as a true multi LOD'ed AI model...and the upside is they look 100 times better than regular AI. The AI model does have canopy's that will open, and even though NG4IX said that part of the animation wouldn't work yet, I have seen it work in my tests (and I forgot to tell him that...DOH!).

 

[skyblazer3]

That is some fantastic back-seat action

Here is a question.... Will this T-38 support FSX's Share the Cockpit functionality? So that if I and a friend both purchase this aircraft, we can fly with one guy in the front and one in the back and use it to train IFR procedures?

Cheers,

Chris

 

[Bone]

That is some fantastic back-seat action

Here is a question.... Will this T-38 support FSX's Share the Cockpit functionality? So that if I and a friend both purchase this aircraft, we can fly with one guy in the front and one in the back and use it to train IFR procedures?

Cheers,

Chris

Yeah, it really is.

I don't have an answer for you there, Chris. I can tell you this, with regards to instrument/IFR flying. After looking behind the instrument panel, it's quite clear this T-38 has some real balls.

 

[krazycolin]

Uh oh... we've been discovered.

At this point, I can't, in all honesty, answer the question about shared pits. It's a big maybe.

 

[Barfly]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=47&ved=0CEQQFjAGOCg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmysite.verizon.net%2Fres7zx3v%2Fsitebuildercontent%2Fsitebuilderfiles%2FLanding_jets.doc&rct=j&q=t-38%20throttles&ei=SmXcTZKfGcrRiALY8Zz1Dw&usg=AFQjCNHWiRi4sfutNbPucJVgMlQ508iFQA

For anyone interested in a professional opinion on handling characteristics of this and similar jets, a few years ago Dudley Henriques wrote a primer on it... see link above. Once you get into the Milviz T-38, you'll find the flight characteristics described are perfectly replicated

 

[Bone]

I've got a Q6600 oc'd to 3.0 GHz and a 768MB GTX8800. I can run Aerosoft's F-16 fairly well in PNW Blue, so long as I stay away from big city areas.

OK, I just tried the T-38 out on my old rig, and I flew it around solo with the FPS locked at 29, and it stayed steady in normal sized city areas. Again, my old rig has a QX9650 CPU (OC'd 3.8 GhZ), a GTX 8800 vid card, 4 GB of DDR2 memory, Vista 32 bit, and a 30 inch monitor at 2560x1600 resolution. Sliders varied, but the important ones were the scenery complexity (3/4) and autogen (1/3)....keep in mind the 30 inch screen uses alot of resources. Your results may be better.

I have the Aerosoft F-16 and used it as a comparison to the T-38 in a couple of areas flying solo, and then with a wingman. The F-16 is much, much heavier on frames than the T-38...probably because of the HUD and glass displays in the F-16. So wherever you fly the F-16, expect to get better and steadier frames with the T-38. With a T-38 two ship formation, expect to get about a 40 percent frame improvement over that of an F-16 two ship formation.


EDIT:And, that's using the normal models as a wingman. There's an AI T-38 that's going to be available, and it looks as good as the normal model, at a fraction of the poly's.

 

[DaveKDEN]

OK, I just tried the T-38 out on my old rig, and I flew it around solo with the FPS locked at 29, and it stayed steady in normal sized city areas. Again, my old rig has a QX9650 CPU (OC'd 3.8 GhZ), a GTX 8800 vid card, 4 GB of DDR2 memory, Vista 32 bit, and a 30 inch monitor at 2560x1600 resolution. Sliders varied, but the important ones were the scenery complexity (3/4) and autogen (1/3)....keep in mind the 30 inch screen uses alot of resources. Your results may be better.

I have the Aerosoft F-16 and used it as a comparison to the T-38 in a couple of areas flying solo, and then with a wingman. The F-16 is much, much heavier on frames than the T-38...probably because of the HUD and glass displays in the F-16. So wherever you fly the F-16, expect to get better and steadier frames with the T-38. With a T-38 two ship formation, expect to get about a 40 percent frame improvement over that of an F-16 two ship formation.

Thanks for the report!

 

[Skyhawk18]

Right. No worries, you did put that disclaimer in your previous post. Here's a few shot's after Gunnar did his thing. It's very glossy now, I hope the screenies convey it appropriately.

The BB is even more shiny now

View attachment 38840 View attachment 38841 View attachment 38842View attachment 38843

 

[fliger747]

Det var rikti god!

Tusen Tak! Tom

 

[doublecool]

If you released this beauty it would get everyone thinking positive...

 

[Roadburner440]

We're working on it... We all decided to implement one rather cool (at least we think so) feature before we put her on the market. That's what has the manual held up at the moment too pending the addition of the feature so we can add it to the documentation as well.

 

[fliger747]

As one of the "Crash test Dummies", will comment that she is a pretty accurate fly it by the numbers with some precision plane. This one will teach you a lot about flying.

T

 

[fliger747]

Colin:

If you read this, I have had the Milviz site dissapear, as well as your associated e-mail.

Tom

 

[krazycolin]

Yeah. ISP is down. Working on it....

 

[jp]

Will today be the day...???

 

[OleBoy]

All I can say is, if I had the slightest inclination or interest in aircraft of this type, this one would definitely be a must. It looks excellent in the last photos.

 

[bstolle]

Well, I wasn't interested in this aircraft either in the beginning but I can tell you that seeing and flying it is a really great experience.
It's very rewarding being able to handly it correctly!

 

[Roadburner440]

Will today be the day...???

Unfortunately JP no. Our website tends to have issues from time to time (the server).. Sadly this makes finishing the bird harder as we were supposed to start testing a release candidate today/tomorrow.. It should be back up at some point today though, so hopefully we can continue wrapping her up.