Cntrl/E pilots please read...

Absolutely brilliant marketing strategy. I like a study level plane as much as anyone else, but the bulk of my flying would fall into the Ctrl+E category. How many times have I spent an hour setting up a flight with live weather, flight bag, check lists and the rest, only to get borked by some sim anomaly or other unforeseen interruption. Too many....

An attractive, affordable and relaxing model with PBR is an option I will purchase every time. Kudos. :very_drunk:
 
DennyA said:
I love this, Baz! I do enjoy study planes, because it's an interesting challenge to learn to really operate them, but I don't need every plane to be a study plane. And I'd love the opportunity to explore more planes, see what it's like to scream over hills low in a Pucara!

Let me tell you, on my T-34B and F-15D flights, engine startup and fuel management were NOT the fun and exciting parts. :)

I used to love the FS9-era Alphasim planes, because even though they had simple cockpits and light systems, they were inexpensive and I got to fly planes like Sepecat Jaguars and F4D Skyrays and F3H Demons that could likely never justify a study sim. So hoping this series takes off (sorry) and you'll be able to put your amazing talents to work on some more old warbirds.

And at $19.95, it becomes an impulse purchase. I never knew I wanted a Pucara, but for the price of McDonald's with my teenager, I'd love to give one a try. Plus, we're not allowed to go to McDonald's anymore. :)
Click to expand...
I agree with this! Could a simplified Caravelle be requested. I was really waiting for that one and was disappointed when announced it was P3D only. Which I still may get into one day in which case the Caravelle is a frontline buy along with JF's 747 classic. Not that I'm an airliner guy, I normally go for prop and jet warbirds but I do like vintage stuff and airliners with pure turbojets are scarce nowadays! (Oh, Convair 880/990 while I'm wishing!)
 
bazzar said:
I think you're right on the brand. We may make the change before things go "real".
As to upgrades, it is partly why we came up with the concept. If there is sufficient interest in a subject we may produce it as a "full" release. CtrlEzy is a good way for us to test the market with a subject at much lower risk.:engel016:
Click to expand...
After buying your other products I'll risk my wallet on the Pacura. A nice fit with Piglet's Bronco and Mohawk! If it doesn't include a loadout editor would we be able to remove stores on a weight condition through the FSX fuel/loadout screen?
 
Load outs wise for this and the next one which is also military ( it's on fb it's a little faster than a pucara - and we arent only focussing on mil stuff for ctrl-ezy )... will be visual only. Ctrl+E for me anyway is just that. I dont want to fiddle with weight based loadouts ( certainly dont want to code it! ). I foresee ( and I think baz does too ) you check you have fuel- one of the switches will be a "add 100 % fuel switch " - hit an autostart switch on the "panel" or use CTRL+E, throttle forward and you are gone. The single page brochure will be a panel familiarisation and a note about any special simple things that we may add.

So loadouts wise we're thinking a knob - on the pucara we're going to use the arming knob on the left side- that will let you cycle through the loadouts. I dont know how tacpack works but if you as a user can retrofit it to an empty loadout then you're golden.

Also we need to keep an eye on the code base. We're wanting to make it "one code- both simulators " sort of thing so FSX specific stuff like blends in materials cant be used as it doesnt work in P3d PBR and vice versa.

Whilst Ctrl-ezy is hopefully good for the community it actually is good for us. To be able to model certain subjects that otherwise wouldnt have been released is really great. We've got a number of semi-started subjects which for a few reasons have remained as semi started and now they will see life under ctrl-ezy. Some appear on lists of "aircraft that are still not in the sim" type of threads for example. Some will get the "WTF are they thinking?" type of response.

I'll let baz answer the multiple options with CE ( ctrl ezy ) and AH versions of the same plane... but do we need a full HD westland lysander ? Do we really? :playful: ( we dont have plans for a lysander )
 
Personally I prefer As real as it gets option, never Ctrl+E. So this line maybe not for me but Ill try Pucara, we’ll see.
 
If you are into full-depth, systems rich simulations then this concept is not for you. It is specifically designed for those who don't want a) a steep learning curve to go flying and b) want to pay for it. Also it is our way, we think, of extending the FSX franchise in particular, little further into the future than otherwise may be the case.:engel016:
 
pilto von pilto said:
Load outs wise for this and the next one which is also military ( it's on fb it's a little faster than a pucara - and we arent only focussing on mil stuff for ctrl-ezy )... will be visual only. Ctrl+E for me anyway is just that. I dont want to fiddle with weight based loadouts ( certainly dont want to code it! ). I foresee ( and I think baz does too ) you check you have fuel- one of the switches will be a "add 100 % fuel switch " - hit an autostart switch on the "panel" or use CTRL+E, throttle forward and you are gone. The single page brochure will be a panel familiarisation and a note about any special simple things that we may add.

So loadouts wise we're thinking a knob - on the pucara we're going to use the arming knob on the left side- that will let you cycle through the loadouts. I dont know how tacpack works but if you as a user can retrofit it to an empty loadout then you're golden.

Also we need to keep an eye on the code base. We're wanting to make it "one code- both simulators " sort of thing so FSX specific stuff like blends in materials cant be used as it doesnt work in P3d PBR and vice versa.

Whilst Ctrl-ezy is hopefully good for the community it actually is good for us. To be able to model certain subjects that otherwise wouldnt have been released is really great. We've got a number of semi-started subjects which for a few reasons have remained as semi started and now they will see life under ctrl-ezy. Some appear on lists of "aircraft that are still not in the sim" type of threads for example. Some will get the "WTF are they thinking?" type of response.

I'll let baz answer the multiple options with CE ( ctrl ezy ) and AH versions of the same plane... but do we need a full HD westland lysander ? Do we really? :playful: ( we dont have plans for a lysander )
Click to expand...
The use of an in cockpit knob sounds good. I like the next one in the queue as well!
 
If loadout is just one model part, then it won't work for Tacpack.

All that is needed (on a model) in order for Tacpack to work visually, is for the individual stores to be assigned their own separate payload station weight. It's not really all that complicated in the overall scheme of things.

So, in the example below, if a 250 lb bomb (the name can be whatever, but I'll use "250_lb_bomb") is to given a "weight" value of 25 and you want it to be visible on station 1, the modeldef entry to give it the visibility would be:
(The station number is in bold font)

<PartInfo>​
<Name>250_lb_bomb_01</Name>​
<Visibility>​
<Parameter>​
<Code> (A:pAYLOAD STATION WEIGHT:01, pounds) 25 == </Code>​
</Parameter>​
</Visibility>​
</PartInfo>
​



If you also had a 500 lb bomb that could be displayed on the same station, you would have a separate entry, with a different weight value, for that:

<PartInfo>​
<Name>500_lb_bomb_01</Name>​
<Visibility>​
<Parameter>​
<Code> (A:pAYLOAD STATION WEIGHT:01, pounds) 50 == </Code>​
</Parameter>​
</Visibility>​
</PartInfo>​



If the parts are set up in this way, then all someone needs to know in order to get it to work with Tacpack is which weight value goes with each part, so that they can add them to the appropriate entries in the Tacpack.ini file.

Otherwise, the only way to do it is to use ModelConverterX to separate the parts and then recompile it with the new modeldef entries.

I'm no rocket surgeon, but if I can figure out how to add Tacpack visually to a model, I would expect a professional developer to be able to do it without even breaking sweat.

I really like the idea of "Ctrl-Ezy" and I like the airplane too, but I'll probably not get it if I can't easily add Tacpack to it.
 
We wish to retain the "purity"of this concept. If Tacpack is your bag, then this is probably not for you. We don't Tacpack our aircraft, whether they are main-line productions or Ctrl/Ezy. That's our choice and has little to do with how simple or otherwise it is to do.:engel016:
 
I think this is an outstanding idea. It satisfies the eye-candy junkie in me while going easy on the time and money budgets.
 
Obviously it comes down to your choice.

To be clear, I wasn't asking you guys to add Tacpack to anything. I was just saying that if you guys could add the stores to your models so that they are each a separate part with a visibility condition tied to a station weight....people that wanted to make it work with Tacpack could do so very easily.

Do whatever makes you feel good.


bazzar said:
We wish to retain the "purity"of this concept. If Tacpack is your bag, then this is probably not for you. We don't Tacpack our aircraft, whether they are main-line productions or Ctrl/Ezy. That's our choice and has little to do with how simple or otherwise it is to do.:engel016:
Click to expand...
 
awstub said:
Obviously it comes down to your choice.

To be clear, I wasn't asking you guys to add Tacpack to anything....
Click to expand...

It will be nice idea - simply model (avionics) but full combat ready, something like "Flaming Cliffs" for DCS, I hope, someone will do mod for TacPack :).


VC of IA58 Pucara (from AH FB):





We thought to give you an idea on how the 3d panels work in sim. These 2 images are straight from the simulators at the same airfield ( Reeve in New Zealand ). Both sims are stock. In P3D you get dynamic lighting and shine as well as working mirrors. Other than the P3D perspective, they're pretty close. This is also the locked off camera view.
Yep we're working on a rudimentary gunsight at the moment
Click to expand...
 
This is also the locked off camera view
Click to expand...


In this line we will have full Virual Cockpit 3D/6DOF but not all will work (like all switches, knobs ect) ?
Im correct?

btw. nice wallpaper for Pucara fans:

alex-klichowski-pucas-malvinas-02-fx.jpg
 
YoYo said:
In this line we will have full Virual Cockpit 3D/6DOF but not all will work (like all switches, knobs ect) ?
Im correct?

btw. nice wallpaper for Pucara fans:

alex-klichowski-pucas-malvinas-02-fx.jpg
Click to expand...

No you are incorrect. It is a front view only 3d panel with clickable switches which control the plane. If you remember fs2004/2002 days of 2d panels then it is a 3d representation of that. To get an idea.

1. Jump in to your favourite plane in fsx/p3d
2. Do not use your hat switch/vr headset/trackir but look straight out.
3. That's exactly it.

So if you do try to use your view hat/trackir/vr headset you will see nothing. Literally nothing. In the latest shots online of the vc's what you see is exactly what we have modelled for the interior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top