Consumer report : Is the Iris F-20C pilot overscaled ?

[VaporZ]

Let me first tell you that I am a big fan of Iris Paywares.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
I actually SimFly the T-6 Texan II / Harvard II almost on a daily basis and I bought many FS9 Iris paywares during the last 5 years.<o></o>
<o></o>
I am also a big fan of the F-5A/B/C/D/E/F and logically of the F-20 Tigershark that could had an interesting career.<o></o>
<o></o>
I just bought the Iris FSX F-20C/D "What If" with a lot of repaint projects based on agressor colors and potential customers at the time for this superb evolution<o></o>
of the F-5 family and the very short career of the 3 x F-20 prototypes.<o></o>
<o></o>
The Iris FSX F-20C/D is superb on all aspects but one element is in my mind to
be questionned :<o></o>
<o></o>
It seems the Pilot is overscaled by 143 % !!!! giving a general impression that the F-<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:metricconverter w:st="on" ProductID="20C">20C </st1:metricconverter>is a very very ( very ) small combat aircraft.<o></o>
<o></o>
Take a look at the two illustrations below<o></o>
<o></o>
On the photo at the left, the proportion between the pilot's helmet diameter and the base line of the cockpit transparency gave us a Helmet / Base line ratio of 17,9 %.<o></o>
<o></o>
On the screenhot of the Iris F-<st1:metricconverter w:st="on" ProductID="20C">20C</st1:metricconverter> at the right the Helmet / Base line ratio is 25.6 %.<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
25.6 % / 17.9 % equals a proportion comparison ratio of 1.43<o></o>
<o></o>
So if I am right ! the pilot must be reduced to 70 % of its current size to be close to the real proportions.<o></o>
<o></o>
I admit the photo I have found to demonstrate my report is not to the highest quality<o></o>
but even corrected to 130 % or to 120 % with a better quality photo, an overscale pilot <o></o>
is an overscale pilot and for a payware I think its questionnable.<o></o>
<o></o>
Am I wrong ?<o></o>
Can I correct it myself with the pilot file ?<o></o>
If not<o></o>
With its good support reputation, can Iris release a free update Tigershark Pilot file<o></o>
with correct proportions ?<o></o>
<o></o>
Iris had once this overscaled pilot problem but it was during the development of<o></o>
the Texan II / Harvard II before its release on the Payware market.<o></o>
<o></o>
I then mentionned it to Iris on their development forum and they made the correction.<o></o>
<o></o>
<o>This "Consumer Report" is of course fully open to discussion. </o>
With all respect !<o></o>
<o></o>
VaporZ<o></o>
<o></o>

 

[Helldiver]

The F-20 / F-5 is a tiny aircraft, On the assembly line they are setup on a jig like on a lathe and one person can rotate the airplane by hand. But I have to agree with you, the pilot has a swelled head. Perhaps it because he's flying an Iris aircraft.

 

[joanvalley]

Hey mate!

It has to be the angle of the real picture what's wrong, You are comparing a pilot facing the camera with a pilot figure facing the nose of the aircraft. The Iris F-20 is fine mate, here's why:

I have it too and love to fly it!

Jose.

 

[Piglet]

The pilot is sized correctly.
The plane was made too small!
Odd shaped pilots/crewmembers is something I noticed about add-on planes. Some look too big/small/bloated/silly/etc. When I made my first "master pilot" model, I took measurements of my body, arms, head, etc.
(I admit-- I added some "muscle"!):gossip:

 

[VaporZ]

Hey mate!

It has to be the angle of the real picture what's wrong, You are comparing a pilot facing the camera with a pilot figure facing the nose of the aircraft. The Iris F-20 is fine mate, here's why:

I have it too and love to fly it!

Jose.

Sorry JoanValley but the photo you have used
is the first prototype who had the F-5E cockpit.

The final version cockpit of prototypes No.2 and No.3
is longer and have more transparency area as depicted
on my photo and screenshot comparaison.

So your proportions can not be used for this analysys
the F-5 cockpit being shorter and having less transparency
area.

I still thing I am ok with my "overscale pilot" analysis.

Sincerly yours,

VaporZ

 

[tigisfat]

it's always impressive to watch people debate that have an almost scary amount of knowledge about an oddball jet like the F-20!! Where's the popcorn emoticon?!

 

[Lionheart]

lololol.....

 

[Prowler1111]

The pilot is sized correctly.
The plane was made too small!
Odd shaped pilots/crewmembers is something I noticed about add-on planes. Some look too big/small/bloated/silly/etc. When I made my first "master pilot" model, I took measurements of my body, arms, head, etc.
(I admit-- I added some "muscle"!):gossip:

..And that´s is how we do that............

Prowler

 

[VaporZ]

Here is another illustration supporting
my "toughts" !

VaporZ

 

[jmig]

Well people are getting bigger. Maybe Iris used a large pilot?

 

[DennyA]

You know what? The seat texture also has two extra rivets.

 

[kilo delta]

Nah...it's Chuck Yeager that's flying ...........with full 1950's pressure suit and helmet:faint:

 

[Warrant]

Well people are getting bigger. Maybe Iris used a large pilot?

LOL, The F-20 is a modern multi-role plane with all those MFD's. Pilot's need bigger brains to operate all that equipment & stuff, therefore they have bigger heads :costumes:

Now seriously: i have to agree the pilot's head is a bit on the large side. But i still enjoy the plane a lot!

 

[Kiwikat]

I honestly don't see why the OP is making such a big deal of this. If he has made the point to Iris on their forum, that is all that is necessary.

I really don't see what is gained by posts like this. Talk with IRIS customer support. If they feel the issue is worth fixing, they'll fix it.

 

[VaporZ]

This is exactly what I have done
no answer from them ( I wonder why ? )
could I be right ?
http://www.irissimulations.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=61&p=10263#p10263
Do you want me to start another topic about the AlphaSim Gripen Pilot ? With its totally wrong Vietman Era Us helmet ?
I ask Alpha for a full year ( a full year ) a real Gripen pilot with the specific Swedish helmet used by all real Gripen Operators !!!
Still waiting news from them.

These two examples could be tolerable for freewares but certainly not
for Paywares.
:gossip:
VaporZ

 

[CodyValkyrie]

Develop payware VaporZ, and your tune might change.

 

[Kiwikat]

Do you want me to start another topic about the AlphaSim Gripen Pilot ? With its totally wrong Vietman Era Us helmet ?
I ask Alpha for a full year ( a full year ) a real Gripen pilot with the specific Swedish helmet used by all real Gripen Operators !!!
Still waiting news from them.

I REALLY don't care what you want to do. I wasn't part of the Gripen project. I never will be part of the Gripen project, I don't even OWN the Gripen. Not to mention I'm dropping any affiliation with AlphaSim once the Islander is completed.

An honest email to support is always a better move than posting on some public forum whining about it. If they don't feel that it is important enough to fix, suck it up and forget about it. Believe it or not, one SMALL error that does NOT effect the aircraft whatsoever, is not terribly high on the to-do list of developers.

As Cody said, develop your own aircraft and see how it is yourself.

 

[Panther_99FS]

Whoa Nellie.....!

We can disagree yet be respectfull here...

 

[CodyValkyrie]

I think it was respectful Panther. I also believe that developing payware is a masochist's dream come true.

A good couple of saying I have heard in the industry:

"90% of the project takes 10% of your time. The last 10% take 90% of your time."

"A project is never finished, it is only abandoned."

Developers have to weigh the cost benefit of doing things. If a product has been out for a LONG TIME, changes are harder to come by because likely the developer has already moved on to newer projects. The cost benefit to going back to old models and fixing changes that very few have noticed or that would require significant amounts of time to correct do not factor into a budget, especially when this is your primary source of income.

If money, time and dedication all lived in harmony in a perfect world, we would not only not need patches, but many games on the market would certainly have been received better. You can develop a project for years only to find you sell a few hundred copies, putting you out of business immediately.

Furthermore, lets say the developer no longer is in contact with that particular modeler or development team? What then? If they don't have the source files, there is literally NOTHING that can be done.

In this instance, it might just be that their source imagry that they modeled directly against didn't show this issue that you are bringing up. I have seen hundreds of times where a modeler develops against real pictures, only to have customers complain about a real plane THEY saw somewhere that didn't match their payware. It isn't to say either is wrong, they are simply using different sources.

I could model directly against a picture, only to find that the picture was stretched or distorted in some way.

 

[Kiwikat]

Whoa Nellie.....!

We can disagree yet be respectfull here...

Sorry bout that Panther, but I really believe there is a point to be made. This isn't the developer's support thread. I'm no moderator here (nor would I ever want to be) but I was clearly pointing out the fact that developers don't have the time to look at every little issue.

Perhaps if the OP were on a beta team or anything, he'd know that. I just wanted to echo Cody's point.

I promise to behave now