• 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.

Microprose-showcases-b-17-flying-fortress-in-new-msfs-preview-video

Watched the Dream of Wings preview tonight up to the point when I saw the quality of the external modelling. Take a close look at the radial engine cowlings from the front - they aren't close to being round? Not sure if I remember what a multi straight sided 'round' coin is called. From what I saw the cockpit interior is nowhere near the quality of rendition that we expect now from the likes of Flying Irons etc.

Not for me anyway as its 2024.
 
For those who might be interested, the TwoToneMurphy preview of the MicroProse B-17G can be seen here, starting at the 1:19:28 mark:

Starting at about the 1:29:07 mark, there's just so much about the lack of quality of the propeller blades, both in the way they're modeled and textured, that has surprised me, as well as the overall low fidelity of the rest of the exterior when you actually get in close.

As I mentioned before, all of the crew figures are greatly under-scaled, and the "Alcoa Alclad" watermarks throughout most of the interior are way too large - they should all be the same size, everywhere throughout, and the closest to being the right size and layout are the Alcoa watermarks that MicroProse applied in the nose section. Depending on the direction of how each individual skin was cut, the Alcoa watermarks would either end up being vertical or horizontal, up-side-down or upright, when viewed on the completed aircraft (I've yet to see any real world instances where they're angled to any great degree, like those applied to the inside of the waist section of the MicroProse B-17G). The watermarks, obviously, also wouldn't run in a continuous flow across multiple skins either - even if by chance they were oriented the same, the lines of text wouldn't match up from skin-to-skin. For those who may not know, the Alcoa watermarks were only applied to one side of the aluminum skins, from the Alcoa factory, and in aircraft production they would always try to cut the skins so that the Alcoa watermarks would be on the interior-facing side (though, in the height of wartime production, that didn't always work out that way either, and sometimes the watermarks would actually end up on the exterior-facing sides, in some cases). I've posted all of this on the MicroProse Discord as well.
 

Attachments

  • 1_2FMGiPW79gJCx6DRGR1Wwg.jpg
    1_2FMGiPW79gJCx6DRGR1Wwg.jpg
    65.1 KB · Views: 18
  • 72711631_10206456438287357_3822210423139074048_n.jpg
    72711631_10206456438287357_3822210423139074048_n.jpg
    133 KB · Views: 18
  • 396279435_10163185411643032_6652278446576675206_n.jpg
    396279435_10163185411643032_6652278446576675206_n.jpg
    291.9 KB · Views: 17
  • 469223973_1115839223620331_4625314451735971626_n.jpg
    469223973_1115839223620331_4625314451735971626_n.jpg
    151.5 KB · Views: 16
  • B-17-8th-AF-tail-turret.jpg
    B-17-8th-AF-tail-turret.jpg
    283 KB · Views: 13
  • 556029203_10234771242376485_2122667778893863220_n.jpg
    556029203_10234771242376485_2122667778893863220_n.jpg
    73 KB · Views: 15
  • 516442242_10237845221854200_5163150251388717712_n.jpg
    516442242_10237845221854200_5163150251388717712_n.jpg
    82.4 KB · Views: 15
  • 482202267_1197549912380333_2225581725418686418_n.jpg
    482202267_1197549912380333_2225581725418686418_n.jpg
    2.5 MB · Views: 16
Last edited:
It's obvious, isn't it. Microprose thinks that MS Flightsimulator is a game.... ( one of the reasons why they have their B-17 flown by kids..)

Oh, A2A, where art thou...

I certainly am not *extremely* dissapointed by watching the TTMurphy review (thanks John ! :encouragement:), and thanks a lot too Jim for that other B-17 preview vid, i think it looks a *lot* better in olive drab than the bare metal ( steel ?...) version in Murphy's video. Dissapointed just a little bit....

Where TT says "it needs a *bit* of work" i'd rather believe "it needs a *lot* of work" some of which may not even come to fruitation. The first thing that blatantly catched my eye in TT's vid was the wrong way of setting up the mesh for the prop blades, if it would've been only one it might have gone unnoticed but with 12 of them right at the front it's a real eye catcher. How could they have let that pass ??...
I believe the same mistake is causing the awkward phase shifting effect tormenting the engines/props sound. They have used the exact same wave file for all 4 engines, that's asking for trouble. The slightest minor change in pitch or lenght of each of the 4 wave files could've taken care of that.

Overall the sound and the scale of the crew figures are two major points in the 'needs a bit of work' department. I do hear something quite good in the engine sound suite depending on power and/or rpm. Full power sounds terrible atm. Maybe we might be able to hope it'll turn out reasonably acceptable when MP has done their 'bit of work' on these items. IMHO sound can make or break an FS aircraft model.

The good thing of course is to have the gracious looks of a B-17 back in our beloved FS, even in MSFS24 ! How about that, éh ??!! :jump:

And that's exactly why i am just a little bit dissapointed. I have my precious B-17 back in my precious FS but it's clear it is NOT gonna be anything like what A2A brought us in FSX/P3D ! I mean, wasn't it A2A that finally brought us the long awaited (atleast by me..) '3D Spinning Prop Sideview' ? (which luckily has been picked up by atleast a number of FS aircraft devs). Particularly very much needed in multi-engined prop aircraft (where props can be seen from inside the cockpit, like with many WWII multi-engined aircraft). In my book of FS aircraft modeling it is almost a crime NOT to add this effect to a model. Remember how it looked from the A2A B-17 cockpit and see how miserable and cheesy it looks from the MP B-17 cockpit....(Ok, let's go with it will belong to the 'bit of work' as well ).

I DO like much more what i see in Jim's video featuring the B-17 in olive drab and just hope that the crew scale, the sounds, the spinning prop side view and the other 'bits of work' will be taken care of in the coming weeks/months/or even year(s).

And last but not least THANKS A LOT for doing the B-17 for MSFS24 Microprose ! Keep up the good work !! (cause it needs it !...) :rolleyes:😁:cool:
 
Last edited:
It just appears, overly-so, that this is going to be released way, way too early. There is so much in the cockpit not functioning or functioning properly, but what really gets me is in the Dream of Wings preview video, when he's trying to land the aircraft. With full flaps, he's having to use full power (way above red line - close to 60-in Manifold Pressure!) just to keep it from falling out of the sky, which is insane. That sort of thing scares me. In the real aircraft, on final approach with full flaps, you need no more than 21-in Manifold Pressure with a 500 fpm descent to keep the aircraft at an approach speed of about 100-105 KIAS. B-17s easily do go-arounds with flaps still full down.

BTW, I've also seen some folks on various forums stating that they hope that the aircraft will have a "rough" or "hard to handle" flight model, believing that to be realistic. In reality, every pilot I've ever heard talk about the B-17 talks about how nice of a flying aircraft it is, and how it handles as if it were just a very large Piper Cub. The only vice I've ever heard with regard to flying a B-17 is that they're a challenge in crosswinds.
 
Last edited:
Bomber_12th said:
In reality, every pilot I've ever heard talk about the B-17 talks about how nice of a flying aircraft it is, and how it handles as if it were just a very large Piper Cub.
Click to expand...

Yes, John, wasn't it Spitfire pilot Johnnie Johnson who said "when an aircraft looks good it flies good".. And the B-17 surely looks good !

(i think from a bit of distance the MP B-17 *does* look good too.. ) ( when the olive drab MP B-17 comes into view in the second video i thought in a split second that it was the real thing... ;-)
 
Last edited:
Snuffy said:
When I last spoke with Scott, he said they're pretty much all working for MSFS now. He didn't elaborate and I didn't push.
Click to expand...
Well, that's great to know, Ted, thanks ! :encouragement: (i always had the feeling that the A2A crew did love their own B-17 very much too ! ;-)
 
Honestly, the fact that we’ve reached the level of detail that we’re critiquing the stencils from the aluminum manufacturer is just amazing to me. I like accuracy but that’s certainly not going to ruin the experience for me.

I’m more concerned about the flight modeling/handling. Coming up from the C64 to today I’m a lot less focused on visual perfection. But I want the flying experience to feel as convincing as possible.
 
Bomber_12th said:
It just appears, overly-so, that this is going to be released way, way too early. There is so much in the cockpit not functioning or functioning properly, but what really gets me is in the Dream of Wings preview video, when he's trying to land the aircraft. With full flaps, he's having to use full power (way above red line - close to 60-in Manifold Pressure!) just to keep it from falling out of the sky, which is insane. That sort of thing scares me. In the real aircraft, on final approach with full flaps, you need no more than 21-in Manifold Pressure with a 500 fpm descent to keep the aircraft at an approach speed of about 100-105 KIAS. B-17s easily do go-arounds with flaps still full down.

BTW, I've also seen some folks on various forums stating that they hope that the aircraft will have a "rough" or "hard to handle" flight model, believing that to be realistic. In reality, every pilot I've ever heard talk about the B-17 talks about how nice of a flying aircraft it is, and how it handles as if it were just a very large Piper Cub. The only vice I've ever heard with regard to flying a B-17 is that they're a challenge in crosswinds.
Click to expand...

Just remember that no one is forced to buy early access. The problem with EA is that people still expect everything to be good and done, or at least this topic, or that one. Which is not the purpose. If this method is well used, it can give the community a chance to witness part of the development process (even if it's a small final part). It can be very ok if it's not behaving like the final product or real plane during the early access phase. Can even be intentionally used to keep people from worrying about this area and not reporting other issues they see. We'll have to see how Microprose and the Community work during that phase.
My biggest worry is that they released a roadmap, where you can roughly estimate the release window. Due to that, they now have limited time to work on things because usually people react poorly if this completely artificial deadline is missed. Currently witnessing the same thing with a racing sim which is also in EA. I would have preferred it a lot if they kept the roadmap for themselves or at least left out any time estimations. At least they are currently saying that they'll also work on improvements after 1.0. But that is usually also depending on the community reception and reaction.

DennyA said:
Honestly, the fact that we’ve reached the level of detail that we’re critiquing the stencils from the aluminum manufacturer is just amazing to me. I like accuracy but that’s certainly not going to ruin the experience for me.

I’m more concerned about the flight modeling/handling. Coming up from the C64 to today I’m a lot less focused on visual perfection. But I want the flying experience to feel as convincing as possible.
Click to expand...

The handling is of course most important. If a sim airplane does only look like a B-17 but flies like a DC-3, I'd just fly the DC-3 instead. But I see a lot of people focusing mostly on visuals to the point where the shell of a plane could be placed onto any generic flight model and people would still be happy. Great for them if they don't care, but for me I don't see the point.
As said above, we`ll have to wait and see what they do in the time they have left now.
 
Javis said:
It's obvious, isn't it. Microprose thinks that MS Flightsimulator is a game.... ( one of the reasons why they have their B-17 flown by kids..)

Oh, A2A, where art thou...
Click to expand...
Latest from A2A is next all new aircraft are to be ones that they have never done before.

"Once Aerostar tasks are complete, we’ll be moving on to the next aircraft. The only detail we can share right now is that it will be a brand-new aircraft, never before modelled by us at A2A."

https://a2asimulations.com/2025/10/01/a2a-simulations-aerostar-2025-q4-update/
 
TuFun said:
Latest from A2A is next all new aircraft are to be ones that they have never done before.

"Once Aerostar tasks are complete, we’ll be moving on to the next aircraft. The only detail we can share right now is that it will be a brand-new aircraft, never before modelled by us at A2A."

https://a2asimulations.com/2025/10/01/a2a-simulations-aerostar-2025-q4-update/
Click to expand...

Hey Ted, how you're doing my good friend... Long time no see. Are you still in aircraft sound editing ?... ;-)

Funny policy that, to carve in stone not doing anything they've done before... This MSFS thing is an utterly totally new way of flightsimming ! Don't they know that ??... They could've givin their glorious B-17 a second even much more glorious life !

So.... Big Blatant B-17 Bummer Boy Oh Boy !! :violent-smiley-031:

We might have two in the pipeline atleast but one already shows we'd better not expect anything A2A'ish... Still...., happy to see the ol' gal back into our virtual skies !

Say, A2A never did a B-25, did they ?.....
 
I've given up A2A, they lost their way. They produced some great airplanes, especially for the WW2 era back in the day, but now they have left all the WW2 warbird guys having to look for other developers. I don't want a
C-130, SR-71, Aerostar or a Commanche, or anything else they are producing. I want more awesome WW2 airplanes and early jets. That's just me and my own opinion.

The freeware B-24 is a very nice airplane in it's own right. I hope MP and their B-17G will be a good flying airplane when they finish the development and refinement of the early access launch. Hopefully they will listen to many of the SOH members for suggestions for further improvement.

If you do go for FS2024, just purchase the Standard version, and not waste your money on anything else. You can always upgrade in the future if you want to. I personally love FS2024 and haven't flown in FS2020 for a long time now, and probably will not ever again. FS2024 is just too nice to look back.
 
Javis said:
Hey Ted, how you're doing my good friend... Long time no see. Are you still in aircraft sound editing ?... ;-)

Say, A2A never did a B-25, did they ?.....
Click to expand...
It's been a while, something like 6 yrs me thinks. When did P3Dv3 come out? That tells you it's been a while? I started posting some screenshots recently.

As for the B-25, A2A never did. I still have the MAAM B-25.

Aeroplane Heaven is cooking one up!

https://msfsaddons.com/2025/09/16/a...-25j-mitchell-for-microsoft-flight-simulator/

2024-10-4_4-3-59-43.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top