DC Designs Northrop P-61C Black Widow RELEASED

Hi everyone, sorry for the delayed reply but I've been away,

I hope that everybody is enjoying the Widow despite the issues some have been seeing. The changes made since I last visited have caused some confusion again which is understandable considering the number of variations in people's platforms. I can't answer every question but in general here are my observations:

Textures: my own final .cfg file has not been used as a base for further alterations since the original release. Hence, the "791" textures and other important changes I made in the .cfg before release suddenly disappeared from later .cfg files released here. I did try to control which .cfgs were used but this hasn't happened and may well be behind some of the problems folks are seeing.

The Virtual Cockpit master model was unfortunately deleted, by me, in error. For this reason I won't be making any changes to the cockpit textures / VC instrument maps etc, because I can't. At some point I will convert the model and re-build the VC ( I still have the Reporter VC which acted as the base ) and will try to accommodate some of the requests made. However, in attempts to make changes based on requests I think that the model suffered a little and doesn't look as good as the Reporter did. For those wanting larger or extra VC texture maps I would suggest mapping weather radars to the RO position or modifying the panel.cfg to allow for 2D pop-up windows to achieve what you're looking for.

Prop spin direction: this is the result of real-life engineering differences in aircraft manufacture. In the UK, where I'm from, airplane props spin one way. In the USA, they spin the other way as standard. If I were charging money for the Widow and Reporter I'd alter it, but for now I don't think it's that big of a deal. I did make a note of the difference though, so that next time I don't make the same error.

I have extensively tested all of Pam's various AIR and .cfg files in both FSXA and P3D v4. I couldn't recreate any of the issues discussed here, such as jumping airplanes, jerky props, rudders etc. That doesn't of course mean that they don't happen but it's tough to know whether the model was ever at fault. I sent the model to a couple of friends to get some extra feedback and they also reported no issues. The Widow is exactly the same model as the Reporter, they just have different fuselages - nothing else changed at all other than the FDE. I'm afraid that I can't see anything that would cause all of them but the .cfg / FDE changes or differing simulator set ups.

Sorry that I can't be of more help folks, I'll be releasing the paint kit here in a day or two for those who would like to colour the plane differently :)

Cheers,
 
warchild said:
I wonder, I fly with realism set to 100% on all controls. Falcon flies at 50%. I'm willing to bet theres some correlation between reality settings and degrees of pull, but there just isnt enough evidence too support it. Also, Falcon isnt the only one to see the reversed rudder problem. I've seen it too.. You steer left it goes right, Steer right it goes left, just like the issues the 737s had a long time ago. I just dont know..
Click to expand...

Sorry, I did forget to say all realism settings at 100% always. I have never varied from that, even when testing. If the plane veers on taxi, just a slight bit of opposite rudder brings it back. I normally taxi around 15 knots.
 
My report re: FSXA using the V2.5 FDE of 12 Aug.

Everything works OK!!!!! Cold & dark, props stationary. Engines start OK with throttles cracked open. Taxy OK & take off straight as a die. Realism settings at 100% except for crash tolerance.
Did notice that if engines are not at same rpm & temp, which can happen if No 2 needs a manual start, then obviously if one is in too much of a hurry then there is thrust assymetry.

So for me prop cold & dark & rundown problems only exist in FSX SP2 - why Dunno!!!!

Pam you can relax a bit, Falcon, Zippy et al, it looks as if we are stuck if using SP2, although I might continue with my mods - even though the prop MoI might be horribly wrong. BTW my old Cyborg I have with that puter is horribly worn sticky & a slight out of alignment causes quite a large deflection in roll in flight! My Logitech in my normal puter is a lot better - & newer!

Keith
 
PhantomTweak said:
Actually, there is, and evidence to support it. Many of the formulae utilized in the .air file work differently with the Realism sliders below 100% than when the sliders ARE up to 100%. 99% is the same as 1% to these formulae. But it does matter.
This information is taken from Yves Guillaume's great PDF, Flight Dynamics in MSFS V1.0. A truly amazing work for those who are willing to put some mental effort into adjusting .air file settings. It's for FS9 and FSX, not P3D though, so be aware.
If you wish to use it to it's full capabilities, be ready to do some pretty advanced math, although it's not up to calculus. Algebra and trig, with maybe a little geometry thrown in.
Even without actually doing the math for yourself, the explanations Yves gives are very enlightening.
It's available on the FSDeveloper form, IIRC, and if not, it's easy enough to find on Google. Just punch in Yves name and MSFS, or something like, and it's easy to find. If you want to adjust .air file settings, I strongly suggest getting, and using it. Couple it with Airfile Manager, and you have a superb .air file adjustment setup.
I wish more devs use it. NOT pointing any fingers, it would just make things a lot easier, and more accurate, as well as saving a lot of experimentation for them.

Hope this is of a little help...
Pat☺
Click to expand...

Thanks Pat.
I've got three or four copies of it on my system and one on dropbox just in case. I'll also be putting a copy up on my minecraft server as an extra layer of protection. Its the first reference i go to when i'm setting up an fde.
Now, I would personally go a lot further than just recommending this PDF. The PDF itself was written during a period where the general paradigm was that flight sim was a "game". It SAID simulator but most people just giggled at that and didnt take it seriously. The PDF was and is a perfect reflection of the attitudes of that day. Its formulae are mostly approximations modified and simplified to be easy to use, but providing an inferior product.
Now, as i said. I keep four or five copies of this on hand as its my main goto document. But to be honest, we stopped using "game" centric physics calculations back around 2008 or 2009. There is no such thing as good enough or close enough. PMDG, A2A, Myself, Jerry Beckwith, Tom Faley, Berndt Stoley, a lot of us, Use only real life physics. My recommendation is that, if a person wants to do physics, get an education first. High school isnt enough. Get airframe and powerplant and whatever else you can gobble up from the schools because the future of simulation is reality itself. Anything less than real, is only a game..
 
wow, what a stable aircraft! It flies as if on rails!

43965387992_9f0557cef6_b.jpg


euh, was there talk of a paintkit?
44013916851_32ea543b6d_b.jpg
 
Dev One said:
Just a quick thought - if wanting to eliminate joystick problem, disconnect same & use keyboard keys?
Keith
Click to expand...

Worth a quick try, but i'm not certain that would work. Like I was telling my associates over at Jade Island, Windows 10 updated and all of a sudden, I didnt have a problem.. I become more convinced by the moment, that the issue isnt with the plane. Its in the way the instructions from the hardware are interpreted by the system before they are handed back off to the programs api. Yeah! Its that deep. There are, off the top of my head, at least ten entries in the .air file that change several other areas of the airfile, on the fly. Those ten area's are effected by and changed by entries in the config file, and its all a big inter-relational mess that borders on the mystic more than the physical realms. Learning, and relearning how to manipulate those relationships is the key. Heh. Home for me in other words..
 
jankees said:
wow, what a stable aircraft! It flies as if on rails!

43965387992_9f0557cef6_b.jpg


euh, was there talk of a paintkit?
44013916851_32ea543b6d_b.jpg
Click to expand...

Yup.
When Paul and I first started the FDE back in 2010 GODS how we wanted to make this plane a challenge to fly. Here it was, the Chuck Norris of Fighterdom. The biggest baddest airplane on the block. Had to be difficult to fly right??
Wrong.
The arguments between Johnny Meyers and Northrops engineering staff became legend. He was bound and determined to make them make a plane that was stable, easily controllable and had few if any negatives working against it. It had no stall characteristics, no spin characteristics, nothing. It was the most infuriating FDE I have ever worked on, because we couldnt get creative in the normal way, we had to get creative in a completely different way. We had to make it real, and that meant milk toast boring. The plane is a magic carpet. Go ahead, find your buddies in the F6Fs and kill an engine, then embarrass the hell out of them because you can still fly circles around them. Take on a P-38 and watch it die. Get inside an FW-190s turning radious and shred him because you can turn tighter than he can.
These were the realities of the plane, recorded and reported. Its not just the FDE.
If you look up the P-61 projects thread here at SOH, youll find a ton of references to people and places and history. I felt it was mandatory that we didicate the fde to those men who flew the plane and some of them dieing in it. It had to be real, just out of respect for my own brothers in arms. Heh, ancestors of the battlefield. Trust me, your 150000 dollar cessna can be far more dangerous than this thing will ever be.
This plane WAS the Chuck Norris of fighterdom. Johnny Meyers was the Chuck Norris of Northrops P-61 division.

::LOL:: and yes, theres a paint kit coming :)
 
Dev One said:
My report re: FSXA using the V2.5 FDE of 12 Aug.

Everything works OK!!!!! Cold & dark, props stationary. Engines start OK with throttles cracked open. Taxy OK & take off straight as a die. Realism settings at 100% except for crash tolerance.
Did notice that if engines are not at same rpm & temp, which can happen if No 2 needs a manual start, then obviously if one is in too much of a hurry then there is thrust assymetry.

So for me prop cold & dark & rundown problems only exist in FSX SP2 - why Dunno!!!!

Pam you can relax a bit, Falcon, Zippy et al, it looks as if we are stuck if using SP2, although I might continue with my mods - even though the prop MoI might be horribly wrong. BTW my old Cyborg I have with that puter is horribly worn sticky & a slight out of alignment causes quite a large deflection in roll in flight! My Logitech in my normal puter is a lot better - & newer!

Keith
Click to expand...

::LOL:; Keith! Your a treasure.. I hope you never change and i hope you never stop what your doing.. :)
 
Well put, Pam.

I watched the "Beginner's guide to the P-61" video from 1944 about half a dozen times and I'm in awe of how easy it looked to fly. Like a giant, twin-engine 172 with even more stable flying characteristics. I'm used to flying deathtraps. I loved the ALPHA Gee Bee, the Alabeo Z, the F-104 in various configurations. I flew P-51s and P-40s like bush planes and got away with it in the sim. Then along comes this P-61 you guys made and suddenly this "flying" thing is deceptively easy. :biggrin-new:
I'm awestruck by your passion for FDE modeling Pam. You did a great job and I can't sing you enough praises.

warchild said:
Yup.
When Paul and I first started the FDE back in 2010 GODS how we wanted to make this plane a challenge to fly. Here it was, the Chuck Norris of Fighterdom. The biggest baddest airplane on the block. Had to be difficult to fly right??
Wrong.
The arguments between Johnny Meyers and Northrops engineering staff became legend. He was bound and determined to make them make a plane that was stable, easily controllable and had few if any negatives working against it. It had no stall characteristics, no spin characteristics, nothing. It was the most infuriating FDE I have ever worked on, because we couldnt get creative in the normal way, we had to get creative in a completely different way. We had to make it real, and that meant milk toast boring. The plane is a magic carpet. Go ahead, find your buddies in the F6Fs and kill an engine, then embarrass the hell out of them because you can still fly circles around them. Take on a P-38 and watch it die. Get inside an FW-190s turning radious and shred him because you can turn tighter than he can.
These were the realities of the plane, recorded and reported. Its not just the FDE.
If you look up the P-61 projects thread here at SOH, youll find a ton of references to people and places and history. I felt it was mandatory that we didicate the fde to those men who flew the plane and some of them dieing in it. It had to be real, just out of respect for my own brothers in arms. Heh, ancestors of the battlefield. Trust me, your 150000 dollar cessna can be far more dangerous than this thing will ever be.
This plane WAS the Chuck Norris of fighterdom. Johnny Meyers was the Chuck Norris of Northrops P-61 division.

::LOL:: and yes, theres a paint kit coming :)
Click to expand...
 
SH427 said:
Well put, Pam.

I watched the "Beginner's guide to the P-61" video from 1944 about half a dozen times and I'm in awe of how easy it looked to fly. Like a giant, twin-engine 172 with even more stable flying characteristics. I'm used to flying deathtraps. I loved the ALPHA Gee Bee, the Alabeo Z, the F-104 in various configurations. I flew P-51s and P-40s like bush planes and got away with it in the sim. Then along comes this P-61 you guys made and suddenly this "flying" thing is deceptively easy. :biggrin-new:
I'm awestruck by your passion for FDE modeling Pam. You did a great job and I can't sing you enough praises.
Click to expand...

::LOL:: Yeahhh. The P-61s great claim to fame: Lose an engine on takeoff and your dead ::LOL::.. But watch out. She may have big wings with aa light wing loading ( 45 pounds/foot/2 ) but she still weights 34000 pounds.. Her electrically assisted elevator can pull you out of a lot of jams, but not all of them, and it can put you into a few. It must have been really weird being a P-61 pilot back then. You were a fighter pilot, but you werent, because your plane was twice as big as any other fighter out there. it had to be weird..
 
warchild said:
::LOL:; Keith! Your a treasure.. I hope you never change and i hope you never stop what your doing.. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Pam, Just try stopping me - I'm a stubborn Taurean thats why. Working also as an aircraft Development Engineer doesn't help either.......as that was mainly with a UAV, one could fly it & try it.....walked away from a couple that fluttered at 520 IAS - from the control room that is.......
Keith
 
.xcf files are used by Gimp. Gimp also exports photoshop files..
Oh and, sorry it took so long to get the plsne too you.. :)
 
Last edited:
Ok, managed to convert them.
I also uploaded the earlier all black paintjob, check it out!
If you like it, I'd appreciate a screenie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top