• 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

Anytime Baby !

michael davies said:
Which renowned expert did you have in mind LOL, I'm not sure Javier does payware ?, and duplicating his Nimitz class would be wasteful, however an oiler carrier (Forrestal / Constellation classes) might not be such a bad idea ?. Its not planned, but its a lurking thought for later.

Best

Michael
Click to expand...

Of course I hadn't a second rendition of Javier's Nimitz class in mind but a Forrestal or Kitty Hawk class. One of those and a late Essex or middle Midway I would very welcome in the FSX world. We have to think ahead: A-4 and F-4 are in the line... :icon_lol:

Think about it... what ya gonna do with all the free time when the coding starts? :icon_lol: <-----
(plus with Aerosoft having a lot of parallel projects there is also the danger of the coder being reshuffled elsewhere, as it happened with the Huey and Bronco projects.)

A Forrestal would also make the Tomcat package a lot more attractive since I assume that a lot of the common Aerosoft customers don't have a clue about Javier's fantastic carrier...

Just not-so-serious musings,

Volker
 
vora said:
Of course I hadn't a second rendition of Javier's Nimitz class in mind but a Forrestal or Kitty Hawk class. One of those and a late Essex or middle Midway I would very welcome in the FSX world. We have to think ahead: A-4 and F-4 are in the line... :icon_lol:

Think about it... what ya gonna do with all the free time when the coding starts? :icon_lol: <-----
(plus with Aerosoft having a lot of parallel projects there is also the danger of the coder being reshuffled elsewhere, as it happened with the Huey and Bronco projects.)

A Forrestal would also make the Tomcat package a lot more attractive since I assume that a lot of the common Aerosoft customers don't have a clue about Javier's fantastic carrier...

Just not-so-serious musings,

Volker
Click to expand...

One of the more important criteria set up for this line of modeling for Aerosoft was a decision to minimize strain on their already full schedule, thus a lot of coding will be done where possible, out side of their current schedule, this will require some learning on my behalf but should help reduce delays and allow them to concentrate on there current and future work loads. With in a week or so a basic animated model will be in FS, this will allow FDE work to begin at a very early stage and in parallel with modeling and art work. The concept of finishing one aspect then handing over to the next stage is antiquated and time exhaustive, a more flexible approach is needed in the market place these days.

On the A-10 we fleshed out a method of working that actually worked quite well, it is hard to develop a FDE with a naked model and for arguments sake sticks for landing gear, but it doesn't half speed up production, in reality you don't need all the detail to enable the FDE to move forward. It does make for a more dynamic environment and does require quite a lot more back and forth in communications, but so far its working quite well.

Carriers, to be fair, to develop a carrier worthy of the aircraft would take a good many months, I personally feel the two should compliment each other in the standards dept, time will be a major factor here, if there is time then it will be considered, but if the carrier cannot be completed before the aircraft release date, then it will not be added, the aircraft will not wait for the carrier, there are other USN aircraft planned so plenty of chances for carriers further down the line we hope.

Best

Michael
 
skyblazer3 said:
I don't know how much longer I can wait for an F-100..... I've been converting 8mm film of F-100s onto DVD and the crisp clean lines of the aircraft are driving me mad! I'll take your F-100 any day Davies!

Good luck on the tomcat, I'm sure she will be a real winner in flight fidelity, systems modeling, 3d artwork, and textures.

Cheers,

Chris
Click to expand...

My F-100 is tied in with Razbam, I started the project with them and so it still resides with them, to yank it from them and send elsewhere, is just not good cricket :).

Best

Michael
 
For FSX...we don't need another payware F-14!!

We need a F-8 Crusader!!

Still weird that vendors come up releasing aircraft other vendors did....simply put : stupid!

My 2 cents
 
SADT said:
Slightly OT:



Bone, I believe someone from Virtavia showed some screenshots of an FSX F-100 a couple of weeks back. Hopefully it shouldn't be too far away.
Click to expand...

I guess I missed that thread, somehow. Now I've got it, thanks SADT.


I'm all for an F-14A, but can we get a Maverick/Goose and Iceman/Slider paints with it? I'm feeling dangerous right now.
 
Michael,

Thanks for the info, I suspected that was the case. After seeing the razbam A-7, I'm sure waiting for your model of the F-100 will be well worth it. I wasn't suggesting you send the model elsewhere, I'm just a dumb pilot who can't wait to get into the super-sabre.

Thanks again,

Chris
 
hae5904 said:
For FSX...we don't need another payware F-14!!

We need a F-8 Crusader!!

Still weird that vendors come up releasing aircraft other vendors did....simply put : stupid!

My 2 cents
Click to expand...

A F-8 Crusader is on the way, probably two if the truth be known, so patience young padawan :).

As I wrote above, when do you think we need another F-14, if vendors didn't keep recycling subjects then we would all still be flying FS5 models ?. Every model has a sell by date, as will this one, there comes a time when every model is surpassed by technology and customer demands, who decides when that time is right ?, bearing in mind that it might take up to 18 months for a model to reach the customer (not advocating that this is the case here, a much much tighter deadline has been set), thus a preview now will usually see the model in the shops around Xmas time, making by my really basic calculations, existing models nearly two years old ?.

Personally I want the best thats available and that means new models on a periodic basis, no one calls car manufactures stupid, they are essentially reinventing the wheel with each new model.

If you are happy with the current renditions of the F-14 available then this will not be for you and I respect that point of view, but I hesitate to suggest that it is not a majority point of view, and businesses aim for the majority point of view. Since the preview the uptake has generally been positive, proof, if any was needed, that the decision to make another F-14 wasn't such a bad decision.

Stupid defines a person as lacking common sense, learning or perception, is that truly how you believe this project was put together ?. It may be something you do not agree with, but that does by default not make it stupid.

Kindest

Michael
 
Bone said:
I guess I missed that thread, somehow. Now I've got it, thanks SADT.


I'm all for an F-14A, but can we get a Maverick/Goose and Iceman/Slider paints with it? I'm feeling dangerous right now.
Click to expand...

F-100, yup, missed that too !.

Back to topic, I'd love to do the Top Gun schemes, will need to check the film for reference data, totally un-authentic I know, but appeals to my boyish side :). I did note the inconsistant use of carriers during filming LOL.

Kindest

Michael
 
Bjoern said:
As well as ten to twelve other people in the MSFS community. ;)


And speaking of, I could....hmm...nah, not yet.
Click to expand...

So now you know why the ESDG DO328J keeps gathering dust in the avionics hanger...

...it's real pity, because the model itself is fully textured both inside and out, but without the gauge system, it's just another work of art that may never be appreciated... :mixedsmi:
 
Michael, good news indeed! Great to hear that another Big Cat is on the way. Can't have too many in my hangar! Tomcats are just like Mustangs....takes a few to make a herd!
 
Odie said:
Michael, good news indeed! Great to hear that another Big Cat is on the way. Can't have too many in my hangar! Tomcats are just like Mustangs....takes a few to make a herd!
Click to expand...

MEOW

2009-6-23_18-14-12-188.jpg
 
n4gix said:
So now you know why the ESDG DO328J keeps gathering dust in the avionics hanger...

...it's real pity, because the model itself is fully textured both inside and out, but without the gauge system, it's just another work of art that may never be appreciated... :mixedsmi:
Click to expand...

Well, I'd buy it (if it came out FSX native before my rendition of the -310).
Take this as a real compliment, considering that I've only bought one plane in my whole MSFS life so far...;)


But then again, I'd even marry that damn plane...



P.S: In case you cancel the project, I'd be interested in the VC mesh. I won't have to model one then. :d
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top