All's quiet on the Alphasim front?

[VCN-1]

I always liked the products AlphaSim produced along with their pricing structure. If I want to buy a uncompleted product that is my choice no one else.

I thought the FSX F-105 and FSX T-34C were very good. They had a lot of technical help from individuals that that had flown the real world planes and were willing to share their knowledge.

We were on the 3rd page of an AlphaSim thread which seems to be about where it starts to go south. I hope the new year brings a change to that trend.

VCN-1

 

[michael davies]

Getting back to the REAL original topic, Is Alphasim going to be around for a while still releasing aircraft? Are the winding down? Does anyone know?

No they are not winding down, yes they are still releasing aircraft, the C-17 and Islander are due for release. I've been asked to look at a reworked FS9 product (one I know intimately) due out soon, every indication I have recieved indicates business as usual. A more apt description would be a scaled back operation due to the current global economy.

If its anything different to that then I am not aware of it.

 

[Kavehpd]

Please note that the text below is NOT an attack. It is outright curiosity...

I think that the methods Alphasim and Iris chose for their respective "C" haulers bear some similarity: charging for an unfinished plane with no VC, no sound and basic FDE and basic or no code with the minor(?) difference of Alphasim contracting theirs and Iris buying theirs off of Turbosquid for about 200 bucks.

To be honest, we're seriously considering doing this same thing with our F-15C and E. How many people would buy those? 15 bucks, two planes, 4 liveries, basic animations (externals and VCs) no real system(s) code, no sound and a basic FDE but they do have awesome VCs with some working gauges and stuff and nearly beautiful externals (still working on the materials)... (and a paint kit). And we are working on them on a daily basis...

I'm really curious because this is a great way to pay for dev costs as the project goes on as well as allowing us to gauge the amount of interest a product will get... (especially if we buy the models rather than make them)

And no kidding, I am really serious about knowing this...

kc.

I sure hope no one starts a flame war as that is NOT my intention...

I've never paid for an unfinished product and never will. So, that's one customer down for you if you choose to go C-17 on us!!

As an end user, production costs and difficulties are none of my concern. All I care about is the quality of the final product and service I am paying for.

 

[JohnC]

I'm going to pick on two people that like and respect, so hopefully this does not burn any bridges.

There is no 'budget' or 'basic' FDE either. There may be less detailed VCs and exteriors, but it either flies like the real thing or not.

Middle market, I strongly believe there is a market here, a market just above default, bespoke sounds, a believable FDE but not necessarily accurate to within 1% of the real deal, 10-15% would be a good base line ?

Personally, I would be bouncing off the walls if I had managed to make a Flight model which was 1% accurate to the way the plane actually flies. Within the realm of longitudinal flight dynamics; Lift/Drag/Thrust/Climb, we (FDE developers) can get on track. For a single configuration, we can get even closer.

But considering the change of Reynold's numbers over a given aircraft's flight profile, and that Reynold's Number is the basis for an body's aerodynamic properties, and that it's assumed static from a FDE modeler's point of view. I would claim that it's impossible to set up a single configuration which was accurate to 1% throughout the entirety of a flight envelope. Then consider multiple configurations. When flaps and slats are applied to a wing, it frequently changes the stalling angle of attack by several degrees, yet there is no way to account for those changes in MSFS. Sure we can increase the lift coefficient, but a 1 degree offset obliterates your 1% accuracy. Now mesh the concept that pretty much every FDE developer ignores complex three dimensional flow, such as vortex sheets, because we simply don't have the computational power at our finger tips (Am I the only one who can't afford Fluent?) and combine that with the second order differential equation, which describes rigid body motion in 3-dimensions with six degrees of freedom (attached) and you see 1% accuracy in the realm of Lateral dynamics and stall is just plain crazy. Exactly how complex is it? China built a super computer to professionally accomplish what an FDE modeler does for MSFS:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8362825.stm

Does any of this really matter? No! No ones seems to care all that much unless a problem is painfully obvious. Just how obvious is that? Two recently purchased, and I think quality payware aircraft had a little too much kick on the runway. Turns out the power output for each engine was on the order of 3x the static rating. Were their support forums laden with complaints? I haven't seen one in either of them.

So, I think there is lots of room for gray in the realm of flight dynamics. Sure, there are always developers who cut corners. But holding us 1%, or a black and white "It does or it doesn't" sets the bar impossibly high.

 

[michael davies]

John,

No bridges burnt here, I think ?, your agreeing that 1% FDE isn't always necessary or practicable ?.

The FDE is always subjective to individuals, what one feels is just right then another feels is too soft or too hard, you cannot account for individually controller set ups or end users systems, its just too diverse.

Perhaps I was a bit weak on the 10% FDE comment, don't get me wrong, it is a thing to aim for and anyone who is that dedicated to achieve the utmost best in what ever sphere they choose should be applauded. However not everyone wants to fly like that, for example a 1% file (name traken from the accomplished CFS team that aimed to get within 1% of reality) would have ultra accurate rates of climb, engine thrust parameters, wing loading and fuel burn etc, a 10% would be close but not that accurate, you might fly a little shorter or longer than the fuel capacity says you should, you might reach the right altitude with a given weight sooner or later than real world specs, your roll rate might be slightly out, nothing untoward, it still feels like you 'think' the aircraft should and thats basically all that matters.

I mean we accept compromises in other fields, 1024 viz 2048 textures, click able VCs or not so it should be acceptable to accept a lesser FDE if it falls within the rest of the models chosen quality bracket.

This doesn't mean that those FDEs developed with sweat and raw grit and big calculators are not required, it may mean that those sorts of FDE are better mated to high end models ?.

I've worked with helo FDEs for many years, a well documented area thats just littered with can't do's and never going to work's, yet for many some of those FDE's were enjoyed immensely by users, some still are, leading one to the conclusion, what is actually important, the numbers in the file that many cant read or care about or the way it feels by the end user ?. The answer to that I feel depends on the type of simmer you are, if your a systems man then the numbers are very important, if your target audience is middle market then I'd offer its perhaps not so.

Kindest

Michael

 

[DennyA]

As the person who made the initial comment about wanting an accurate FDE, I just wanted to clarify... I want something convincing, but I don't care if it's 100% on the numbers. I just don't want "generic jet FDE" "generic prop FDE" etc.

Having flown in a real F-15, and having pulled additional Gs doing laser combat in a T-34, I know that even the most realistic FDEs and systems capture about 10% of what it's really like to fly in a high-performance aircraft. So nitpicking numbers is silly; it just needs to feel right, so that, say, flying an F-15 would feel very different from flying an F-104.

 

[IanP]

I think what I'd say is that you wouldn't want a Spitfire that handles like a Flitfire or a Starfighter that handles like a Eurofighter. People have certain expectations of what an aircraft should handle like based on numbers available and piloting accounts they've read. Provided a package gives people something close to what they'd expect, most will be happy - the lower the price point, the larger the percentage of "most" will be.

 

[jdhaenens]

Henry, I'll be glad to sell you my WW II scenery if you really feel the need to pay for it. RAF Oban, Oak Harbor, Doebritz, and Floyd Bennett Field are all I have at present (maybe Gutersloh if you squint in certain directions).

Jim

 

[Henry]

I think what I'd say is that you wouldn't want a Spitfire that handles like a Flitfire or a Starfighter that handles like a Eurofighter. People have certain expectations of what an aircraft should handle like based on numbers available and piloting accounts they've read. Provided a package gives people something close to what they'd expect, most will be happy - the lower the price point, the larger the percentage of "most" will be.

3rd time today
thats how i feel about fd's and how i make them
i have never had a complaint
mind you it could be no one cares
H

 

[OBIO]

I have not purchased a single plane from Alphasim or IRIS, but I have grabbed and flown every item that they have released as freeware that I have been able to get my grubby little hands on....heck I have some Alpha stuff from way back in their earliest days. I have never had a problem with the quality of the stuff from Alpha or IRIS....they both produce very nice animated cartoon airplanes....and that boys and girls is exactly what we are dealing with here...animated cartoon airplanes. They aren't real, they may look pretty much like the real thing in many aspects...they may even sound a good bit like the real thing....but they are not the real thing. CFS1, CFS2, CFS3, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX, IL2, XPlane....all of these sims do nothing more than allow you to pretend to be a pilot...but in all actuality, we are all doing nothing more than giving directions to an animated cartoon airplane.

If you want 100% realism in your aircraft, shut down your computer, go to your local airport, pony up the bucks to get a Sport Pilot License, or a Private Pilot License, buy yourself a nice used Piper J-3 Cub or Cessna 172 and go fly a real aircraft with real rivets, real radios, real fuel, real flight dynamics. If you can not afford to do that and must rely on flight simulators to fulfill your dream of flight...do so with the understanding that you are a make believe pilot in a make believe airplane in a make believe world with make believe clouds and make believe trees.

OBIO

 

[michael davies]

in a make believe world with make believe clouds and make believe trees.

OBIO

Hey, that sounds just like my world , until I open my eyes

 

[Smudge]

I have not purchased a single plane from Alphasim or IRIS, but I have grabbed and flown every item that they have released as freeware that I have been able to get my grubby little hands on....heck I have some Alpha stuff from way back in their earliest days. I have never had a problem with the quality of the stuff from Alpha or IRIS....they both produce very nice animated cartoon airplanes....and that boys and girls is exactly what we are dealing with here...animated cartoon airplanes. They aren't real, they may look pretty much like the real thing in many aspects...they may even sound a good bit like the real thing....but they are not the real thing. CFS1, CFS2, CFS3, FS2000, FS2002, FS2004, FSX, IL2, XPlane....all of these sims do nothing more than allow you to pretend to be a pilot...but in all actuality, we are all doing nothing more than giving directions to an animated cartoon airplane.

If you want 100% realism in your aircraft, shut down your computer, go to your local airport, pony up the bucks to get a Sport Pilot License, or a Private Pilot License, buy yourself a nice used Piper J-3 Cub or Cessna 172 and go fly a real aircraft with real rivets, real radios, real fuel, real flight dynamics. If you can not afford to do that and must rely on flight simulators to fulfill your dream of flight...do so with the understanding that you are a make believe pilot in a make believe airplane in a make believe world with make believe clouds and make believe trees.

OBIO

Amen to that!

 

[tigisfat]

A couple points:

I don't know why people complain about Alphasim's customer support. People such as Dan, Michael and David have offered thousands of hours of one on one support over the years. Just because a certain character there in charge isn't well liked doesn't mean that Alphasim employees (speaking and helping in the name of Alphasim) haven't helped people tons.

Another:

To refine; Saying the FDE does or doesn't fly like the real thing doesn't mean it has to be perfect, it means that someone like me, who's a pilot, should be convinced that I'm flying it. If I have hours in the type, I should think it's good enough. I've made this distinction in the past and been okay with it. The loss of 'feel' means you couldn't tell if it was perfect anyway. I'd almost venture to say there's a 10-20 percent margin of error that's livable as long as it flies at the right speeds.

 

[warchild]

The absolute, very best i can offer in a flight model, is that of a plane, sitting stationary in a constant speed wind with engines attached. i can get all those numbers exactly correct, but as soon as your in the air, it's a whole different ball game. You would have to have a flight model for each type of flying condition. just the weight of the aircraft alone changes as soon as you reach a point where there is lift on the wings. notice also, i said weight, not mass ( but that changes also as the plane accelerates and decelerates ). There's simply no way for me to model all the changes that take place, so what i can do, and do is simply state that all the numbers that i derive, match the numbers provided by the manufacturer, the FAA, and the MOD. After that, you need a super computer to figure out the center of lift movement across the wing, or the angle of deflection of air off the trim tab as the barometric pressure, lift, and speed of the plane changes.. I can, and do get it close, but i'm not sure if even 10% is possibly.. We're looking at entire sytems within other entire systems and how they interact on each other. That said, I and i know other FDE engineers, will always try and give you folks the very best we can give. We'll make it as accurate as possible, and still make it as enjoyable as possible..

An example though if i may.. I'm working on that C-27 mentioned earlier as we speak. One of the issues brought up was with the constant speed prop. Constant speed props are just that. they dont speed up or slow down, they move at a constant speed, so when you push the throttle forward, you arent adjusting the rpm of the engine, your adjusting the pitch of the prop, but to do that in fsx, you have to change the control axis for the throttle to control prop pitch. We felt it was a little much to ask our customers to do, so accurate as it would have been, you wont find it in the C-27. So i'm reworking the rest of the flight model, to make it fit the specs, and still be a fun ride.. But please.. i do this by hand, one number at a time. it's not an overnight proposition, and it can take a very long time.. I'm sorry.. but thems the truths..
Pam

 

[tigisfat]

I'm working on that C-27 mentioned earlier as we speak. One of the issues brought up was with the constant speed prop. Constant speed props are just that. they dont speed up or slow down, they move at a constant speed, so when you push the throttle forward, you arent adjusting the rpm of the engine, your adjusting the pitch of the prop, but to do that in fsx, you have to change the control axis for the throttle to control prop pitch.

ummm, I hope there's only a miscommunication here.

The throttle doesn't ever adjust prop pitch, it still throttles the engine; I promise. A constant speed prop has a governor that adjusts pitch to maintain a certain RPM, which can be adjusted with the prop control. Onve the RPM is set, engine effort can be adjusted with the throttle, usually measurable by something like manifold pressure.

FSX already accurately simulates constant speed prop control, believe me.

but now we're WAY off topic. :mixedsmi:

 

[JohnC]

My favorite FSX prop quirk is the thrust efficiency equation: ηp = CT*J/CP (Efficiency = Thrust*Adv Ratio/Power Required)

You can define ηp vs J and CP vs J in the .air, and then MSFS calculates CT from ηp and CP for a given advance ratio. (It should calculate ηp from CT, CP and J)

A problem arises in MSFS because at V=0, J=0; so ηp has to = 0.
Using correct numbers with the MSFS equation at V=0:

CT = Cp*ηp/J = CP*0/0 = undefined or 0

But, if the Thrust Coefficient (CT) is 0; the aircraft would never start to accelerate!
This has lead to all sorts of fudge factors for ηp, up to 70% in the default aircraft. Beyond that, just the opposite happens at high advance ratio. When the Thrust coefficient actually goes to 0 at some high advance ratio, ηp has to be 0, but for some reason it's artificially inflated....for who knows what reason!

Edit: Sorry Walker, once the nerds have made an appearance..conversations are bound to digress into oblivion. But between you and Pam, I think there is a bit of a miss communication in terminology. The C-27 has a gas turbine powered constant speed propeller. I've never really dabbled in Turbo-props within FSX, so I can't vouch for Pam directly, but MSFS is notoriously bad at them. A large company who is held in very high esteem has had to fudge their gauges in the past to show what the engines should read rather than what MSFS was calculating them to be.

 

[michael davies]

A couple points:

I don't know why people complain about Alphasim's customer support. People such as Dan, Michael and David have offered thousands of hours of one on one support over the years. Just because a certain character there in charge isn't well liked doesn't mean that Alphasim employees (speaking and helping in the name of Alphasim) haven't helped people tons.

I don't think customer care 'generally' has been too much of an issue over the years, your right, a lot, an awful lot if we're truthful is carried on outside of the normal channels, much of it silent and unseen. However it would also be truthful to say that some people have, sadly, for one reason or another slipped through the net, landed on stony ground and walked away with an after taste. As I said above I'll not defend either party as its none of my business (unless I was directly involved in which case an apology is hereby offered), but it is sad to see two adult parties part with out reaching some sort of amicable agreement.

 

[warchild]

Sorry Tigisfat.. Didnt mean to drag it off topic.. but now i've got two air force people telling me contradictory information.. I'm hoping i'm just going nuts and your both saying the same thing and i'm just hearing it sideways or something.. ..
Thanks for the info though .. my solution on that was to use what you describe, using the formulas that JohnC posted. Silly thing STILL doesnt want to sit still though :;sigh:;

Anyway.. apologies to all for dragging everything off topic..
Pam

 

[tigisfat]

Sorry Tigisfat.. Didnt mean to drag it off topic.. but now i've got two air force people telling me contradictory information.. I'm hoping i'm just going nuts and your both saying the same thing and i'm just hearing it sideways or something.. ..
Thanks for the info though .. my solution on that was to use what you describe, using the formulas that JohnC posted. Silly thing STILL doesnt want to sit still though :;sigh:;

Anyway.. apologies to all for dragging everything off topic..
Pam

PM sent. I'd like to know who your AF people are. There are many people in the AF that have nothing to do with planes, and there are many liars on the internet.

:ernae:

 

[Gibbage]

Its a tight-rope we walk, between detail we WANT to put in, and the possible return on investment.

There is no way too please everyone. It would be nice to have a product devided though, say have a base F-15, and then a super-detailed F-15 for more, like what A2A does with Accusim. That way you can please both sides or at least try.

To put things bluntly, we are throwing darts at a wall, and trying to find out what sticks. A big company normally has people locked in a back room with crystal balls and slide rulers that can tell them what aircraft will sell how many units for what price. We dont have that. We just to try things out, and see what sells.