Believe so.
Currently refining the sounds as part of the final work, & someone elsewhere has said AH 'told them' it could be out be the end of March, 2022.
Not sure if they were hallucinating, or have a good source.
T43
Asobo partnering with Orbx on Fokker F.VII Trimotor
- Thread starter ak416
- Start date
Believe so.
Currently refining the sounds as part of the final work, & someone elsewhere has said AH 'told them' it could be out be the end of March, 2022.
Not sure if they were hallucinating, or have a good source.
T43
K5083
SOH-CM-2024
I have been flying it tonight and here is a brief review.
There are five versions in total, the F.VIIa/1m single-engine version, the F.VIIb/3m Southern Cross, the F.VIIb/3m on skis, the F.VIIb/3m on floats, and the F.VIIb/3m "Retrofit" with modern cockpit. All of them have only one skin except for the Retrofit, which comes with 8 skins, a Southern Cross, a "generic" (Southern Cross colors but without lettering on it), four nice vintage airline schemes, and two stupid Aviators Club schemes. The model for the Southern Cross and generic /3ms have the modified angular vertical tail, whereas the others have the more standard comma-shaped tail. Weirdly, they did not provide a standard airliner trimotor version with the vintage cockpit. However, I found that you can swap the cockpits by editing each livery's model.cfg file so that it uses the old cockpit rather than the new one. Hopefully word about this will get around so that repainters are not deterred from doing the many fabulous skins that could be done for the standard airliner.
The modern cockpit is really modern, steam gauge but very up-to-date with a lot more dials and switches. I haven't tested whether they all function, but the overall impression is one of overkill. It's not convincing as a vintage aircraft with its instruments updated by a modern restorer, it's more like how the cockpit would be set up if these aircraft were still in airline service circa 1980 or so. The vintage cockpit is very straightforward, the same one is used for all of the /3ms, and it's functional but I find it odd that there are no manifold pressure gauges. The /1m has a different cockpit which is even simpler but again has no m.p. gauge.
The models and texturing are to a high standard. The sounds are quite nice.
Flight characteristics seem pretty decent. The CG limits on the weight and balance screen are useless, giving no guidance as to the allowable range, but an empty airplane defaults to a CG of about 5% MAC which is definitely out of range. Move the slider so that your CG is at least 25% MAC if you would like to have any ability to flare on landing. The plane feels appropriately heavy and stable apart from the usual MSFS twitchiness on the runway. On landing it shows down and stops nicely. I would say the flight model is better than the Ju 52 that was released with the Germany WU.
The biggest disappointment is the /1m, which is far underpowered and will barely struggle off the ground, even when empty. There's no peeking at the encrypted flight model, but the target_performance.cfg file calls for a max hp of 300, which is wrong. F.VIIa/1ms were engined with anything from 360 to 480 hp, with 450 hp being the most common. So, poor show on Orbx for not properly researching this interesting variant, and they couldn't have flight tested it, either. It was satisfying the first time I coaxed one up to a safe altitude, but it shouldn't have been that difficult. This is the one thing I've found that really cries out for a fix. But given the history of these partnered airplanes, I won't hold my breath waiting for one.
Overall, except for the anemic single engined variant, I'd say it's a nice plane and good value for money.
August
There are five versions in total, the F.VIIa/1m single-engine version, the F.VIIb/3m Southern Cross, the F.VIIb/3m on skis, the F.VIIb/3m on floats, and the F.VIIb/3m "Retrofit" with modern cockpit. All of them have only one skin except for the Retrofit, which comes with 8 skins, a Southern Cross, a "generic" (Southern Cross colors but without lettering on it), four nice vintage airline schemes, and two stupid Aviators Club schemes. The model for the Southern Cross and generic /3ms have the modified angular vertical tail, whereas the others have the more standard comma-shaped tail. Weirdly, they did not provide a standard airliner trimotor version with the vintage cockpit. However, I found that you can swap the cockpits by editing each livery's model.cfg file so that it uses the old cockpit rather than the new one. Hopefully word about this will get around so that repainters are not deterred from doing the many fabulous skins that could be done for the standard airliner.
The modern cockpit is really modern, steam gauge but very up-to-date with a lot more dials and switches. I haven't tested whether they all function, but the overall impression is one of overkill. It's not convincing as a vintage aircraft with its instruments updated by a modern restorer, it's more like how the cockpit would be set up if these aircraft were still in airline service circa 1980 or so. The vintage cockpit is very straightforward, the same one is used for all of the /3ms, and it's functional but I find it odd that there are no manifold pressure gauges. The /1m has a different cockpit which is even simpler but again has no m.p. gauge.
The models and texturing are to a high standard. The sounds are quite nice.
Flight characteristics seem pretty decent. The CG limits on the weight and balance screen are useless, giving no guidance as to the allowable range, but an empty airplane defaults to a CG of about 5% MAC which is definitely out of range. Move the slider so that your CG is at least 25% MAC if you would like to have any ability to flare on landing. The plane feels appropriately heavy and stable apart from the usual MSFS twitchiness on the runway. On landing it shows down and stops nicely. I would say the flight model is better than the Ju 52 that was released with the Germany WU.
The biggest disappointment is the /1m, which is far underpowered and will barely struggle off the ground, even when empty. There's no peeking at the encrypted flight model, but the target_performance.cfg file calls for a max hp of 300, which is wrong. F.VIIa/1ms were engined with anything from 360 to 480 hp, with 450 hp being the most common. So, poor show on Orbx for not properly researching this interesting variant, and they couldn't have flight tested it, either. It was satisfying the first time I coaxed one up to a safe altitude, but it shouldn't have been that difficult. This is the one thing I've found that really cries out for a fix. But given the history of these partnered airplanes, I won't hold my breath waiting for one.
Overall, except for the anemic single engined variant, I'd say it's a nice plane and good value for money.
August
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
hangarrat101
Members +
The modern cockpit is really modern, steam gauge but very up-to-date with a lot more dials and switches. I haven't tested whether they all function, but the overall impression is one of overkill. It's not convincing as a vintage aircraft with its instruments updated by a modern restorer, it's more like how the cockpit would be set up if these aircraft were still in airline service circa 1980 or so. The vintage cockpit is very straightforward, the same one is used for all of the /3ms, and it's functional but I find it odd that there are no manifold pressure gauges. The /1m has a different cockpit which is even simpler but again has no m.p. gauge.
I've not had a go yet but if the aircraft have fixed pitch props, the lack of manifold pressure gauges is quite normal.
I've not had a go yet but if the aircraft have fixed pitch props, the lack of manifold pressure gauges is quite normal.
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2023
The cockpit on the modern version of the MSFS Fokker F.VII is (somewhat loosely) based on the real world replica "Southern Cross", which is in Australia with HARS and soon to fly again. It's not mandatory to fly this version, and I like that it is provided, as it makes sense flying something like this in the modern world rather than the original version (unless you don't plan to fly anywhere but over your private field or something). Many of the 1920's and 1930's vintage types flying today have modern instruments and radios installed - the one and only Stinson Trimotor flying even has a GPS added into the instrument panel, in addition to modern instruments and transponder (not to mention the various Ford Trimotors and all of the other Stinsons, Travel Airs, Wacos, etc. that have been similarly modified).
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2023
Here are some screenshots of the "main show", the sparse vintage/original interior:
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2023
...and some external detail shots (note the cotter pins within the fasteners securing the nose cowlings).
Looks like ASOBO left out or forgot the logo on the wheel hub. So how does it fly? -dThe cockpit on the modern version of the MSFS Fokker F.VII is (somewhat loosely) based on the real world replica "Southern Cross", which is in Australia with HARS and soon to fly again. It's not mandatory to fly this version, and I like that it is provided, as it makes sense flying in the modern world. Many of the 1920's and 1930's vintage types flying today have modern instruments and radios installed (the one and only Stinson Trimotor flying even has a GPS added into the instrument panel, in addition to modern instruments and transponder - not to mention the various Ford Trimotors and all of the other Stinsons, Travel Airs, Wacos, etc. that have been similarly modified).
TeiscoDelRay
Life Time CM
Yes, this is not that great.
K5083
SOH-CM-2024
It flies pretty well if you put the CG in the right place. I've been doing some calculating to figure out where the right place is.
The manual that comes with the plane says that the allowable CG range is from 400mm to 600mm aft of the datum, which is the forward wing spar. That's a permissible range of just 200mm, or about 8 inches! So it's important to get right.
I found a drawing (attached pic shows the relevant portion) and drew this range on it as the red box. Yes, the left edge of the red box is the forward limit and the right edge is the aft limit. It's a small range!
Based on the drawing, I calculated the MAC (my computation came to 3.21 m, with a bit of simplifying for the rounded wing tip) and drew it on the drawing at the 50% mean chord line. That's the green rectangle.
Measuring the permitted CG against the MAC, it comes to a range of 24.9% to 31.2% MAC, which is just about exactly what you'd expect.
Now this is based on some assumptions. I assume the CG limits in Orbx's documentation are correct, I assume this scale drawing is reasonably accurate, and I assume that MAC as expressed in the plane's loadout screen in the game is correctly calculated. However, if these assumptions are true, you should set your CG between 25% and 31% MAC in the weight-and-balance screen whenever you fly. Don't whine about the flight model unless you've done this! I'm talking to you, Into the Blue!
August
Attachments
K5083
SOH-CM-2024
Here are some further thoughts on flying the Fokker.
The versions with a fixed pitch propeller actually have a variable pitch prop, maybe even constant speed. There's no control in the cockpit, but it responds to your hardware pitch control. You might think that you should just leave this alone to simulate a fixed pitch prop, but not if it's constant speed. You may have to adjust the pitch to get the RPM that you think you should be getting at your current throttle setting.
This morning I decided on a flight up the Spanish Mediterranean coast in one of the retrofit liveries, but with the old cockpit subbed in. I started on the runway, checked my CG at 28% MAC as part of my preflight check -- you have to do this, because setting the CG slider in the pre-spawn aircraft selection screen often doesn't stick -- and advanced the throttle. She took off beautifully and started climbing out nice and steady, my best takeoff yet. When I tried to initiate a turn, nothing happened -- because my flight controls weren't working! My yoke and pedals weren't set up properly when I loaded the sim. So even though I didn't realize it, it was a perfect hands-off takeoff. The moral of this story is to minimize your control inputs with this plane. Properly balanced and trimmed, she flies fine by herself, and because of the lag in control inputs, you're likely to get into pilot induced oscillation until you learn to anticipate and not overcontrol. Anyway I quit the sim, got the controls working properly, reloaded, and did the same flight, and was able to establish a hands-off cruise with just occasional rudder input for course correction. The difficult part of establishing a stable cruise is that it is hard to know when you are flying level because there is no VSI and there is a bug in the altimeter (at least in the antique cockpit), it says it registers in hundreds of feet on the dial face but actually it registers in thousands of feet, which means you have only a vague idea of how high you are. It was a lovely trip to Barcelona anyway.
The single engine version can be flown all right if you set the weight-and-balance for no passengers but pretend it is full of passengers. The trick on takeoff is to let the airspeed build while on or just over the runway and climb out gradually. You'll have to run it at full power in level cruise. It's bad, but you can wring at least a little value out of the airplane if you work at it. It just looks so nice that I want to somehow make it work!
There are many bugs with this plane but if you love the old transports and bush planes like I do, it may still be worth it. I wonder if Orbx can persuade MS/Asobo to let them put out a patch quickly.
August
The versions with a fixed pitch propeller actually have a variable pitch prop, maybe even constant speed. There's no control in the cockpit, but it responds to your hardware pitch control. You might think that you should just leave this alone to simulate a fixed pitch prop, but not if it's constant speed. You may have to adjust the pitch to get the RPM that you think you should be getting at your current throttle setting.
This morning I decided on a flight up the Spanish Mediterranean coast in one of the retrofit liveries, but with the old cockpit subbed in. I started on the runway, checked my CG at 28% MAC as part of my preflight check -- you have to do this, because setting the CG slider in the pre-spawn aircraft selection screen often doesn't stick -- and advanced the throttle. She took off beautifully and started climbing out nice and steady, my best takeoff yet. When I tried to initiate a turn, nothing happened -- because my flight controls weren't working! My yoke and pedals weren't set up properly when I loaded the sim. So even though I didn't realize it, it was a perfect hands-off takeoff. The moral of this story is to minimize your control inputs with this plane. Properly balanced and trimmed, she flies fine by herself, and because of the lag in control inputs, you're likely to get into pilot induced oscillation until you learn to anticipate and not overcontrol. Anyway I quit the sim, got the controls working properly, reloaded, and did the same flight, and was able to establish a hands-off cruise with just occasional rudder input for course correction. The difficult part of establishing a stable cruise is that it is hard to know when you are flying level because there is no VSI and there is a bug in the altimeter (at least in the antique cockpit), it says it registers in hundreds of feet on the dial face but actually it registers in thousands of feet, which means you have only a vague idea of how high you are. It was a lovely trip to Barcelona anyway.
The single engine version can be flown all right if you set the weight-and-balance for no passengers but pretend it is full of passengers. The trick on takeoff is to let the airspeed build while on or just over the runway and climb out gradually. You'll have to run it at full power in level cruise. It's bad, but you can wring at least a little value out of the airplane if you work at it. It just looks so nice that I want to somehow make it work!
There are many bugs with this plane but if you love the old transports and bush planes like I do, it may still be worth it. I wonder if Orbx can persuade MS/Asobo to let them put out a patch quickly.
August
grunau_baby
SOH-CM-2024
Since I really like the single engine layout I gave it another trial.
It really is completely underpowered! So I reduced my weight to onyl the pilot and 45% fuel load and set up the balance to 25%. I let it build up speed nicelely and on a low level at first. The engine controls feel distant and "wooly", but by constantly balancing prop-pitch, rpm and mixture via my controler I managed a steady climb to a decent altitude and flight level. But it was a constant fiddling with the engine settings to get a max climb rate out off it and it really lacks accoustic and noticable feedback from the engine upon any changes. I´d love to have a fix for this from Asobo, but...who knows?
It really is completely underpowered! So I reduced my weight to onyl the pilot and 45% fuel load and set up the balance to 25%. I let it build up speed nicelely and on a low level at first. The engine controls feel distant and "wooly", but by constantly balancing prop-pitch, rpm and mixture via my controler I managed a steady climb to a decent altitude and flight level. But it was a constant fiddling with the engine settings to get a max climb rate out off it and it really lacks accoustic and noticable feedback from the engine upon any changes. I´d love to have a fix for this from Asobo, but...who knows?
grunau_baby
SOH-CM-2024
Well great!!!
On my second flight I tried the same "tactics" only with load and more fuel. All pax on board and 65% fuel load. Ended up trimming treetops and hedges and well didn´t get very far...
No way to use this beauty with "normal" loadout.
On my second flight I tried the same "tactics" only with load and more fuel. All pax on board and 65% fuel load. Ended up trimming treetops and hedges and well didn´t get very far... No way to use this beauty with "normal" loadout.
grunau_baby
SOH-CM-2024
Well, with a realistic engine configuration that would be an adventure. But the way this thing handles in MSFS right now it´s a simple no go.
Imagine the KLM going in 1924: "We offer regular flights from Amsterdam to Batavia, but due to circumstances that are beyond our control we are sorry to announce, we won´t be taking any passengers nor luggage - not even co-pilots - on our flights
Imagine the KLM going in 1924: "We offer regular flights from Amsterdam to Batavia, but due to circumstances that are beyond our control we are sorry to announce, we won´t be taking any passengers nor luggage - not even co-pilots - on our flights