• 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

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

JF F4U-1 Corsair 'Birdcage' released!

Just picked her up and already got it in the paint shop. Still a lot to do but took her for a short hop and like it. As other have
already posted the one thing I hope will be fixed is the prop rpm. (it doesn't change speed with throttle) But other than that
a job well done to Baz and team and everyone at JF.



P.S.. would really like to see the radar equipped night fighter version. hint...hint..:biggrin-new:

Joe
 
Very nice..

2016-2-29_19-30-56-193_zps1jgmc262.jpg
 
Nice pics. Oh clipped wing Birdcages did exist, in quantity. The 47th and 15th fighter wings of the Fleet Air Arm flew Birdcages. It was only later that the bubble canopy was added, together with the wing-stall wedge on the wing. The British also adjusted the main oleos to make carrier landing more user-friendly and stop the bouncing.As for shots, just Google British Birdcage Corsairs. Here's a few. The one just about to land shows the bubble canopy added later with other mods, for comparison. The first shot shows a mixed bag of early and later RN Corsairs.

The centre line tank was specified from the very beginning of Birdcage development ( there's a shot here of a rough landing on Illustrious) and the bomb was a field modification made in the early Pacific campaign. Both of which we have represented correctly. The statement "there are no accurate Corsairs for FSX" is very sweeping and one I do not understand. :engel016:
 

Attachments

  • Pawson50.jpg
    Pawson50.jpg
    36.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Pawson75.jpg
    Pawson75.jpg
    53.7 KB · Views: 0
  • f4u-1b10.jpg
    f4u-1b10.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 0
  • Pawson59.jpg
    Pawson59.jpg
    54.3 KB · Views: 0
  • Corsair_II_1833_NAS_in_flight_1943.jpg
    Corsair_II_1833_NAS_in_flight_1943.jpg
    61.3 KB · Views: 0
I don't know for certain of course, but I wonder how many qualified Corsair pilots we have in the SOH membership? My guess. . .none, but if there were a few and they stated that this airplane or one of the few other offerings around was not accurate either in interior or exterior details or in the flight characteristics, I would definitely sit up and take notice. Even if someone has been a lifelong fan of a certain airplane and has read everything ever compiled on the subject, it is an immense stretch to say it's doesn't "feel right", or "surely this aircraft could never perform this way", or "it feels sluggish in the turns", "the roll rate doesn't seem correct". . .really? Based on what, your hours and hours as a test pilot taking the aircraft to the edge of the envelope and back again. . . .or your opinion based on what you've read?

Unless someone is a qualified RW pilot on a aircraft that is being criticized for inaccuracies, then the criticism is nothing more than opinion which the developer or reader can either accept as worthy of further inspection or discarded as nothing more than what it is. . .an opinion. No different from my views here. . .they are my opinion and based on nothing more than my observations of similar criticism over the last 20yrs of being in Flight Sim. Likewise they can be found to be worthy of acceptance or discarded as just BS. . . .my guess. . .most likely the latter, lol. "I am clear of the runway"
 
Due to the nature of the custom start and stutter on the corsair that we have coded and the non standard props that we are using ( to give that dimensional goodness we all seem to like ), the Prop RPM shift is less noticeable than using standard props. It is there but is modulated by other factors as well.

<rant removed="" before="" posting=""> < wild long winded rant removed before hitting the post button >

Self moderation is king!

Had a long diatribe into the issues besetting developers but this article sums it up nicely. I am sure there are other devs out there that are thinking the same things.

http://kotaku.com/five-things-i-didn-t-get-about-making-video-games-unti-1687510871

and for the TL;DR brigade this quote in particular ( replace "game" with "development" and add "simulator constraints" to constraints ) boils it down nicely

" When particular aspects of a game end up being less than stellar, it's likely not because the developers are dumb, it's because time and money constraints forced them to make tough choices. "

And those money restraints arent necessarily the developers budget but also the end target market requirements and target price point for that market. Both of which are worked out well before development and code is started.

</rant> <!-- rant removed before hitting the post button --> < / wild long winded rant removed before hitting the post button > <-- hey Baz ... endtag!

:engel016:
 
falcon409 said:
I don't know for certain of course, but I wonder how many qualified Corsair pilots we have in the SOH membership? My guess. . .none, but if there were a few and they stated that this airplane or one of the few other offerings around was not accurate either in interior or exterior details or in the flight characteristics, I would definitely sit up and take notice. Even if someone has been a lifelong fan of a certain airplane and has read everything ever compiled on the subject, it is an immense stretch to say it's doesn't "feel right", or "surely this aircraft could never perform this way", or "it feels sluggish in the turns", "the roll rate doesn't seem correct". . .really? Based on what, your hours and hours as a test pilot taking the aircraft to the edge of the envelope and back again. . . .or your opinion based on what you've read?

Unless someone is a qualified RW pilot on a aircraft that is being criticized for inaccuracies, then the criticism is nothing more than opinion which the developer or reader can either accept as worthy of further inspection or discarded as nothing more than what it is. . .an opinion. No different from my views here. . .they are my opinion and based on nothing more than my observations of similar criticism over the last 20yrs of being in Flight Sim. Likewise they can be found to be worthy of acceptance or discarded as just BS. . . .my guess. . .most likely the latter, lol. "I am clear of the runway"
Click to expand...

Extremely well said Ed ! Mike :applause:
 
I wholly agree with you, Ed. Besides, even among qualified pilots there can be wide (and sometimes for me unexplicable) differences of perception in what would seem to me to be 'objective' flight characteristics.
 
falcon409 said:
I don't know for certain of course, but I wonder how many qualified Corsair pilots we have in the SOH membership? My guess. . .none, but if there were a few and they stated that this airplane or one of the few other offerings around was not accurate either in interior or exterior details or in the flight characteristics, I would definitely sit up and take notice. Even if someone has been a lifelong fan of a certain airplane and has read everything ever compiled on the subject, it is an immense stretch to say it's doesn't "feel right", or "surely this aircraft could never perform this way", or "it feels sluggish in the turns", "the roll rate doesn't seem correct". . .really? Based on what, your hours and hours as a test pilot taking the aircraft to the edge of the envelope and back again. . . .or your opinion based on what you've read?

Unless someone is a qualified RW pilot on a aircraft that is being criticized for inaccuracies, then the criticism is nothing more than opinion which the developer or reader can either accept as worthy of further inspection or discarded as nothing more than what it is. . .an opinion. No different from my views here. . .they are my opinion and based on nothing more than my observations of similar criticism over the last 20yrs of being in Flight Sim. Likewise they can be found to be worthy of acceptance or discarded as just BS. . . .my guess. . .most likely the latter, lol. "I am clear of the runway"
Click to expand...

I agree totally. I haven't tried the JF Corsair yet, so I have no opinion about its flight characteristics. But I have run into some FSX flight models that do feel very sluggish. These planes don't respond to wind turbulence and just aren't very responsive. I refer to this as the "flying in molasses" effect. I'm not sure if developers know that this is how the real planes actually fly, or if possibly the developers err on the stable side so that neophyte sim flyers won't be upset and angry about a plane that's difficult to handle.

In any case, I've discovered that it's very easy to adjust a plane's control effectiveness or stability by changing the numbers in the flight tuning section of the aircraft cfg. file. For example, if it says "yaw stability=1.0", I change it to "yaw stability=0.5." Maybe now I have a bunch of planes with totally messed up flight characteristics...who knows? But I no longer have to fly in molasses, this makes me happy, and I figure, that's what really matters. :untroubled:
 
Not tried to cat launch Cees.. it'll get off under it's own power. There IS a LaunchAssistance entry in the aircraft.cfg though:untroubled:

ATB
DaveB:)
 
JimH said:
I agree totally. I haven't tried the JF Corsair yet, so I have no opinion about its flight characteristics. But I have run into some FSX flight models that do feel very sluggish. These planes don't respond to wind turbulence and just aren't very responsive. I refer to this as the "flying in molasses" effect. I'm not sure if developers know that this is how the real planes actually fly, or if possibly the developers err on the stable side so that neophyte sim flyers won't be upset and angry about a plane that's difficult to handle.

In any case, I've discovered that it's very easy to adjust a plane's control effectiveness or stability by changing the numbers in the flight tuning section of the aircraft cfg. file. For example, if it says "yaw stability=1.0", I change it to "yaw stability=0.5." Maybe now I have a bunch of planes with totally messed up flight characteristics...who knows? But I no longer have to fly in molasses, this makes me happy, and I figure, that's what really matters. :untroubled:
Click to expand...

Of course one can change any parameter in the flight files to experiment with the envelope but there are considerations of which you need to be aware. All our productions are built using bespoke code for many of the unique features. Altering parameters in the CFG or airfile can have a negative effect on the correct animation and thereby, function of those features. We have had customers who have made changes to their models and have "broken" things in the cockpit. By all means try different things to suit your preferences but always back up so that iti is easy to return if you make a mistake.:engel016:
 
Baz,

I do have a question regarding the model. I am wondering about the vertical canopy bracing (the two bars closest to the gun sight) that are closest to the front view of the pilot which held the front plant of glass in place. Was the distance between the two bracing strips so narrow as the model suggests? From the screenshots I have seen, it looks like there is just enough room to give the gun sight a clear view, and not much else. I know the cockpit canopy change drastically between the F4U-1 and F4U-1A, and that the two front braces (I am not sure of the true technical term for them) were move further away from the pilot's forward view to help improve forward visibility, but I didn't know that the forward view of the F4U-1 was as restricted as the screenshots seem to imply.
 
Forward view in the early Birdcages was very restricted, not only from the narrow cockpit windscreen framing itself but also the armour glass screen positioned between the windscreen and the gunsight glasses. This also had a fairly hefty metalframing which further added to the clutter in front of the gunsight. The later F4U-1A had this area distinctly improved by wider curved, one-piece windscreen.:engel016:
 
I saw a portion of the referenced critical video of the F4U-1; after doing so I made it a point to pick up a copy and am now immersed in the joys of cockpit exploration. I've always liked this bird and now we have a copy for use in FSX. Thanks for getting this out!

PS - Has anyone heard anything about an SB2C - -1 or -4 model - being released? The last I heard one of these was being worked on but had gone dead in the water. Hope it is resurrected.
 
SSI01 said:
I saw a portion of the referenced critical video of the F4U-1; after doing so I made it a point to pick up a copy and am now immersed in the joys of cockpit exploration. I've always liked this bird and now we have a copy for use in FSX. Thanks for getting this out!

PS - Has anyone heard anything about an SB2C - -1 or -4 model - being released? The last I heard one of these was being worked on but had gone dead in the water. Hope it is resurrected.
Click to expand...

IIRC the Helldiver was being touted as 'in development' by RAZBAM a couple of years ago at least.
Given the recent announcement from that group to the effect that they were 'taking a year off' (no idea why myself!) I doubt the SB2C project will ever see the light of day.
:173go1:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top