CH-47 Chinook

Barnes said:
Hi Jeansy

Are the rotor animations as bad as the screenshots look?
Click to expand...

yes and no

its hard to say , i just cant look at it any longer,

theres so much i would like to say but i wont, its a huge step backwards from the seaking,

im sorry frank you have done a good job with the paints but you have been let down by the very very very very plain exterior

this guinea pig is flying something else from now on
 
jeansy said:
yes and no

its hard to say , i just cant look at it any longer,

theres so much i would like to say but i wont, its a huge step backwards from the seaking,

im sorry frank you have done a good job with the paints but you have been let down by the very very very very plain exterior

this guinea pig is flying something else from now on
Click to expand...

I'm sure we can summise what you'd want to say. I was only involved in the FDE and have since found that the majority of the developed FSx FDE has not been used, thats a good four months work being used as a secondardy back up file, the primary one being a FS9 format based one. Whilst both perform pretty much the same there are differences, the reason stated is the sound files failed to work with the accel FDE, I think thats called the tail wagging the dog?, everyone a loser.

I was always dreading the day when I'd not want to be associated with a product, but that day has finally arrived, the double blow is this is my last piece of work, it'd been nice to go out on a high. Its a shame, because the changes/decisions/errors are actually quite small, however their impact is high.

Utterly frustraited by it all to be honest.

Thanks for reminding me about the Seaking, I'd recently shelved some ideas I had for that, perhaps now is the time to resurrect that little project, obviously for legal reasons it'd have to be almost all new from the ground up, some of that is already accomplished but the rest not beyond the bounds of possibility.
 
sorry mate

Mick I loved your seaking, I have no idea what happened with this one, from frank and yourself, I can only guess the man who writes the pay checks did some over ruling

at the end of the day I cant retract what I feel about the exterior as it "looks like a FS9 model"

it a shame most developers only go forwards after each release, looks like upper management doesn't have that interest

I look forward to your SH3 plans and what they have to offer
 
jeansy said:
the man who writes the pay checks .........
Click to expand...

Now theres a novel thought!!.

Say it how it is, don't feel you need to pull punches because we're here.

If I think your wrong I'll say so :), thus, my silence should tell you everything you need to know.
 
im guessing he wont be getting xmas cards again this yr :icon_lol:

all i can say is, it will be interesting where it goes from here, and how much is taken on

I know what your going to say and what the majority are going to say, but i will give him the benefit of the doubt, saying that i wont hold my breath either

at least its not the stock EH 101 fde and passed off as complete like another payware helo developer did
 
jeansy said:
im guessing he wont be getting xmas cards again this yr :icon_lol:
Click to expand...

I think we have arrived at a mutual point.

jeansy said:
all i can say is, it will be interesting where it goes from here, and how much is taken on

I know what your going to say and what the majority are going to say, but i will give him the benefit of the doubt, saying that i wont hold my breath either

at least its not the stock EH 101 fde and passed off as complete like another payware helo developer did
Click to expand...

I don't know where it'll go, I've know Phil for many years, some decisions seem strange but there's usually an explanation, but this time I fail to see the reasoning.

The primary FDE does follow the EH101 format where all of the data is in the cfg, ie accel format, the secondary (now primary) is FS9/pre accel format, I have to say that the FS9 format is probably better (with hindsight), it has more fidelity and parameters that can give a better feel, but only if the right engine type is choosen. The type of engine effects much more than just numbers, the best type is type 5 which is turbo prop, however that means you need turboprop gauges and a sound set to match, what generally happens is that sound sets and gauge sets are for type 3 (helo) or type 1 (jet), thats ok but you loose some fidelity and the type 5 if not set up correctly can present many challenges for the casual user.

The right way for most users is type 5, its hard work, requires more work on the sound set and gauges (so I'm led to believe), but gives the best fidelity and clickability, but as we've seen, hard work is often not the path of choice for some, and that is not exclusive to this particular conversation.
 
jeansy said:
im sorry frank you have done a good job with the paints but you have been let down by the very very very very plain exterior
Click to expand...
No worries Matt but I didn't paint this one. I just helped test it. Didn't really get much involved until the end with the flight model by Michael. All the things you (and I) feel are missing were mentioned by myself in the beta forum long ago.
:ernae:
 
Barnes said:
Glad I havent purchased - i see the reviewer says it dont sound like a Chinook!!
Click to expand...

I've heard many chinooks fly overhead from a lifetime of being around aviation. Just like most people are able to tell the sound of an approaching Huey that still hasn't come within visual range, I can identify an approaching Chinook.

I think this model sounds pretty good, I quite like the model, and I have no reason to be for or against Virtavia.
 
Spotted an active thread over in the FS2004 section. Someone is working on new sound
file sets for the Lynx and Chinook. Perhaps when they are finished they may be of use?

Chinook-Lynx-sounds
:ernae:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top