Just how in the heck did this one get missed???

The Bristol really is a quality job by Garry Russell & team. They released it as a WIP to CBFS members only back around Christmas. I missed it until a month or so later myself! It looks great and flys even better! The 2D panel is fantastic, too.
 
Downloaded it, took a look at it...no VC....it got dumped. Would love to see the team add a VC to the 170...such an interesting plane, but without a VC, it won't be staying in my hangar.

OBIO
 
OBIO, So nothing good about it then ? have a look in the FSX forum at the on going poll there, this is the sort of negative reply that disillusions modelers.

This think is Garry's first model and as far as I am concerned it is exellent, I never use VC anyway so it does'nt bother me, why do'nt you put a VC in yourself ?


OBIO said:
Downloaded it, took a look at it...no VC....it got dumped. Would love to see the team add a VC to the 170...such an interesting plane, but without a VC, it won't be staying in my hangar.

OBIO
Click to expand...
 
Beautifully made model...but no VC. I prefer to fly from the VC. It would be a keeper for me if it had a VC, but thats my own preference. There's no reason why anyone won't have it just because it hasn't got a VC...its beautifully made and with a good 2D cockpit with side views, etc, it would still be a good package.
As its still a WIP...you never know, a VC may be added to it later.
 
Well, I never let a thing like a VC keep me from loading an aircraft I like, particularly if it is of a historical note.

However, like OBIO I only do dedicated flying with aircraft that have a decent VC.

But if the exterior of the model is of the quality I admire, no VC means nothing, I fly in the 2-D using the FS9 recorder, then playback and record from spot view. One of my pet peeves are spot view aircraft with no pilot. Ghosts do not fly aircraft, they have no need to, people do.

Caz
 
Odd I have both pilots sitting in the cockpit in spot view, my point is it is wip though I am pretty sure there will be no VC.

It is a excellent model the thing that niggles me is condemnation from a high posting moderator that could well kill the put other people off even trying it.

Remember it is free so if you do'nt like it just delete it and build your own.

Cazzie said:
Well, I never let a thing like a VC keep me from loading an aircraft I like, particularly if it is of a historical note.

However, like OBIO I only do dedicated flying with aircraft that have a decent VC.

But if the exterior of the model is of the quality I admire, no VC means nothing, I fly in the 2-D using the FS9 recorder, then playback and record from spot view. One of my pet peeves are spot view aircraft with no pilot. Ghosts do not fly aircraft, they have no need to, people do.

Caz
Click to expand...
 
I wasn't complaining about the quality of the modeling or downing the makers. I fly from the VC, plain and simple. If a plane has no VC, it doesn't get flown. If it doesn't get flown, there is no point in having it in my hangar. I wasn't being negative about the overall quality of the model or the work done by the makers. Simply stating facts: I down loaded the package, I looked into the package without extracting it or installing it, took a look at the panel config and saw that there was no VC, erased the package from my HD. That is how I handle EVERY aircraft model that I download...I look to see if it has a VC. If it does, I install it and give it a test run. If it doesn't have a VC, I dump it.

I am not a modeler...have tried to become one and did manage to produce a fairly not-to-horrible V2 rocket in FSDS. That effort convinced me that modeling aircraft is not for me. Those who do model aircraft have my utmost respect for doing so. I have no idea how hard it is to put together even a mediocre virtual cockpit...but I am sure that it is a lot harder than modeling a fairly not-to-horrible V2 rocket...which pretty much kicked my butt to do. There are modelers who do not put the added burden and strain of modeling a VC into their models...that is fully understandable, and fully within their right to go that route.

There are a great number of very nice looking models out there that do not have VCs....and I do not have them in my installs. And these are planes that I would dearly love to have in my sim. F-101, F-102, F-106, F4D Skyray, and others. If I can't be "in" the plane, flying it from a 3D cockpit, it just doesn't feel like a simulator to me...well, maybe like the very first flight sim I flew back in 1984 perhaps.

OBIO
 
I had been watching the progress of this one on CBFS, and then stumbled across the WIP earlier in the year. The 170 has long been a favourite of mine, and Garry and his team have really done it justice.

Nothing seems to happen fast at CBFS, but the upside is that the finished products are never half-baked, and you're always kept in the loop as to the progress (sometimes you just have to ask nicely:d). I see some peoples point about the VC, but I mainly fly IFR so the 2D suits me better (that, and the fact I can't afford a TrackIR atm :crybaby:). The Dove, HS748 and Argosy have long been some of my favourites, and if these and the 170 are anything to go by, Derek's Heron will be another stunner!
 
I've had this installed since it was released earlier this year. :jump:

Not having a VC doesn't worry me but as long as the 2D is of good quality it's a keeper. :)

All we need now is some new repaints for this workhorse .... maybe some northern Canadian or Alaskan ones ;)

Pete.
 
Rich said:
Odd I have both pilots sitting in the cockpit in spot view, my point is it is wip though I am pretty sure there will be no VC.

It is a excellent model the thing that niggles me is condemnation from a high posting moderator that could well kill the put other people off even trying it.

Remember it is free so if you do'nt like it just delete it and build your own.
Click to expand...

Not referring to that plane, just others that are spectacular on the exterior save for the fact there is no pilot in the pit when flying. Sorry for the confusion.

Caz
 
OBIO said:
I wasn't complaining about the quality of the modeling or downing the makers. I fly from the VC, plain and simple. If a plane has no VC, it doesn't get flown. If it doesn't get flown, there is no point in having it in my hangar. I wasn't being negative about the overall quality of the model or the work done by the makers. Simply stating facts: I down loaded the package, I looked into the package without extracting it or installing it, took a look at the panel config and saw that there was no VC, erased the package from my HD. That is how I handle EVERY aircraft model that I download...I look to see if it has a VC. If it does, I install it and give it a test run. If it doesn't have a VC, I dump it.
Click to expand...

Why not keep the "dump" thing for yourself? Your explanation does sound very negative. I removed quite a few downloads from my hard disc because I wasn't very happy with them. But that is no reason to comment that way.

Cheers,
Maarten
 
I never read anything where someone was criticizing the model. All I can see is opinions stated and criticism of opinions. Opinions are like bellybuttons - everybody has one. Can we just stick to just having fun flying (or not flying) a model freely offered for our enjoyment?
 
If I can't be "in" the plane, flying it from a 3D cockpit, it just doesn't feel like a simulator to me...well, maybe like the very first flight sim I flew back in 1984 perhaps.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's the great thing about Flight Sim - it's horses for courses. I guess I'm in the minority, but with the ever increasing amount of VC-only a/c I find myself missing out on a few truly great releases because I'm a 2D flyer; I have a CPL in RL, and find that I can fly the 2D more realistically, especially IFR. Rick Piper's A-22 Foxbat is one of the all-time great pieces of freeware, as is Lioheart's Kodiak to name but a couple, but I rarely fly or don't own them (even though they have VC's that are not too bad to fly in the 2D sense).
I have Carenado's 206, 210, 182Q, 182RG, PA28-180, Mooney and V35, and if they continued to produce 2D panels, I would have bought the Arrow, Seneca, 185 & Saratoga, but that's just me I guess. So thanks to the likes of Milton Shupe, Derek Palmer, Garry Russell and their respective teams, and the countless others I haven't mentioned who continue to supply quality 2D panels with their releases.
 
Tom Clayton said:
Opinions are like bellybuttons - everybody has one.QUOTE]

Apparantly not always true http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7738144.stm
Underwear model Karolina Kurkova has no belly button.

On a personal note, I don't miss VC on Heavy Iron when the instruments take precedence over the view o/s. However in small aircraft or Mil Jets etc I need a VC with TrackIR for total immersion. I agree with the sentiment not to be so harsh in dismissal of someones hard work who is only adding to our free enjoyment of this hobby. I'm sure the commentit wasn't meant to read as it sounded though in this instance.
Click to expand...
 
When the WIP was discussed at CC a while back Garry indicated there would not be a VC for the Bristol. As I recall the main reason was that he felt he could not do the real thing justice and rather than having a "mediocre VC" in a otherwise great airplane he decided to go with a 2D only.

Like OBIO I normally do not keep 2D only airplanes around. Unless the exterior is good and I like them as AI. But in case of the 170 there simply is no other model around that comes even close to this one in every regard. It flies great, it looks great and it sounds great. So it is still in my hangar.

If someone made a 170 that looked half as good but had a good VC I would probably fly that one over Garry's....because I prefer that perspective.

Stefan
 
Tell you what: there are many instances - flying a tubeliner is one - where a VC really does not add to the actual flying experience.
I hate trying to mouse a bobbing click-able, especially when you need to do it NOW to set up for finals in minimum weather, for example.
And many aircraft have such a deep cowl that the "realistic" view all but blocks out the horizon.
These I prefer to fly with a 2D minipanel!

I could go on...but I reckon especially freeware models do best when the designer spends time firstly, on creating a great-looking model, then a workable 2D, then an eye-candy VC, and finally (if there is energy left!) a working VC.
And remember the VC is as much work again as the entire plane.
I think it really detracts from a good visual model, if the VC doesn't match the standard of the external model.

If you can't do without looking around you, up in the sky, just pretend you have these wonderful big cockpit windows, and all those instruments are down below, just out of sight! :d
Just talk yourself into it - flightsimming is as much about exercising your imagination as anything else.
 
As someone else said earlier...to each his own. In a well made plane I don't need the 2D panel...ever. I'll use our Connies as one example, Miltons Beech 18 and DHC-7 are others.
Carenado's C-210,C-206 and Saratoga are others that work just fine...for me.

Yes there still is a difference between my real Saratoga where my hand naturally goes where the switch or knob is without looking and the VC where I have to point and click or mouse wheel ,possibly with a small click spot.

However unless the design is done correctly the 2D panel can and often does introduce a very distinct visual misalignment between the pilots POV and the projected 3 dimensional world you fly through.
That is much less prominent if not impossible if everything happens in the 3D environment.
Then it is simply a case of setting up the screen properly....and that almost always means to run FS in windowed mode and not in Fullscreen.

But again this purely personal preference and just like you won't convince me that going back to the flat world of 2D is better, will I convince you of the benefits of the 3D world.
It's almost as un-solvable as the other perennial discussion of FS9 vs FSX.....it just has to work for the individual.

The airplane in this thread is one of those for me rare exceptions where I can live with the 2D only option. Because as I said before it is beautifully done in every other aspect.

Cheers
Stefan
 
Sunny9850 said:
...Then it is simply a case of setting up the screen properly....and that almost always means to run FS in windowed mode and not in Fullscreen...
Click to expand...

Agreed... simple personal preference plays a big part.
And obviously if you can have everything: full working VC, absolutely authentic sounds, perfect flight characteristics...would anyone say no to any of that?

But I'm interested to hear why you'd want to set up in windowed mode?
 
I could never do the explanation justice...the best I can recommend is to look for the Breda Ba 65 by Manuelle Villa with FDE by FSAVIATOR.

ba65_mvg.zip at Flightsim.com

Once you have the airplane unzipped you will find a folder called READ BEFORE FLIGHT.

Aside from very useful information on how to fly a vintage airplane such as this one you will find a detailed explanation on how to get the visuals set just right as far as the screen size and Zoom factor goes.

The same settings however will work wonders for other VC operations.

Stefan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top