Milviz F15 or JF Tornado

[flaviossa]

I think the last version of milviz f15 is 1.1.0.74. Check if it´s your installer is the same

 

[joe bob]

Tornado question

I have been trying to decide between the JF Tornado and the Flight 1 Super King air lately.
I have flown the demo for the Tornado for a couple of days now and I have one question remaining.
Does it actually fly in TFR mode? If so has anyone actually successfully done it?
It automatically slams me into the ground when I try it, not as in pitching down and it flies into the ground but it just rapidly drops to the ground and skids along it.
I have worked on this a bit but at 15 minutes a shot it does not accommodate much testing.
I have seen a post about this on their forums but it did not receive a reply of any kind.

I have also come to realize with the recent F-4 that as much as I love the aircraft, for me at least, a military aircraft that is not tacpaced seems rather dated if not pointless.

 

[xpelekis]

Though off topic...

for me at least, a military aircraft that is not tacpaced seems rather dated if not pointless.

Be sure you're not the only one and I like the way you say it : pointless.
A military plane without weapons, cannot be called a "military plane". Period.
The simulation is just incomplete. What's the point of simulating everything else, apart of the purpose that
this airframe serves ?....
Regarding Tornado, I like it as a plane and I will most probably buy it when tacpacked (SSW). I really
admire developer decisions like with SWS F-4B in a market like the FSX one : They do want their product
to be Tacpacked from day 1 (release date). It's a conscious decision. My hat off.

Regarding Milviz F-4, "in Milviz we trust...". It will get there finally. And with Razbam's A-7s when tacpacked
as also the SWS F-4B, and Tacpack's SAMs, they will all do for a good Vietnam Era combat simulation in FSX...

Finally, my feeling is, that within FSX community when the word "Tacpack" is pronounced, you have to wash
your mouth after that... It's like a taboo thing, some sort of "sin"... having weapons in FSX.

 

[747jet]

Ok today I changed my mind as I saw I have enough points at JF to buy the plane. The problems I noticed when I tested the demo where my fault lol.
So I bought the tornado and what should I say:

The plane is a whole diashow, still. I do not have the newest of the newest pc but even the Aerosoft Airbus runs twice as smooth as the damned Tornado. I then switched the performance of the tornado panel back. It got a bit better but lol the rear cockpit was completely useless. This cannot be. The dome ran much better on my system.

Then I managed to fly (fps where still about 10 fps). The plane has problems to get over M1 at an altitude of 35.000ft.

Best thing is the "fatal error" I get every 2nd time, I select the Tornado in the menu. I never ever had this on my fsx. Of course I deinstalled the plane, even redownloaded the installer. Same thing.
As I said all those things did not happen with the demo
This was the last time I will ever buy a Just Flight made plane or anything. As this was not the first time, I have problems with their stuff.
Now I friendly asked if they can give me a refund on my points

(Yes I had problems with the Milviz F4 but this was my fault)

The only thing I can say here: Be extremly careful with just flight stuff! It looks good on pics but is never as good as it should!!

 

[Peg o my heart]

a bit harsh, but its you hard earned cash, and I understand when something goes wrong. I dont have the Tornado but are you sure it is 10 fps?
---
Anyway, Tacpacked makes mil a/c alive, but When I feel like shooting down enemy, I turn to DCS. Military is wider than just locking shooting and seeing explosions and smoke. Mil a/c can be depicted by flying recon missions, sea patrol, or training sorties. Arent they military too?

 

[joe bob]

My impression is that adding Tacpac as an afterthought is more difficult to do extensively than if it is done from the get go, certainly for the more complex aircraft. I hope that proves to be untrue.

Has anyone heard of a rumor of someone who knows someone who has used the TFR feature on the Tornado!

 

[joe bob]

---
Anyway, Tacpacked makes mil a/c alive, but When I feel like shooting down enemy, I turn to DCS. Military is wider than just locking shooting and seeing explosions and smoke. Mil a/c can be depicted by flying recon missions, sea patrol, or training sorties. Arent they military too?

For FSX and tacpac I rarely shoot down anything. Putting bombs on target at the end of a low level training route is fun.
One of my favorite uses is generating aircraft to intercept as in a peacetime air defense mission. With whatever aircraft you want loaded as a tanker you can then set it inbound at what ever distance and bearing you choose and have at it.
using the drop down menu you can alter it's heading any time you want or have it orbit off of your adz.

 

[IanP]

I've used it and was pretty impressed, when it did 500KIAS, 200'AGL Hard Ride across the Scottish Highlands.

Now I've resolved my FSUIPC v Tornado conflict, it's a really good aircraft in my opinion. You have to learn it, yes, to get the most out of it, but it works pretty much exactly as they said it would. Full transparency I don't have the Milviz F-15 to comment on that.

Ian P.

My impression is that adding Tacpac as an afterthought is more difficult to do extensively than if it is done from the get go, certainly for the more complex aircraft. I hope that proves to be untrue.

Has anyone heard of a rumor of someone who knows someone who has used the TFR feature on the Tornado!

 

[Daube]

Regarding TacPack, I also don't shoot much stuff. It's not the reason why I wanted TacPack.
The real reason was to get a plane in which all systems work as the real stuff.
When you get a military plane in FSX/P3D but you can't use half of the cockpit or MFD menus because the radar/weapons/etc... systems are not modelled, it just feels like an incomplete addon.

In the end, when I fly the F-18 with TacPack for example, I just enjoy using the radar to check how that works, or using the laser targetting to try to drop a laser-guided bomb and see if I can touch my target, chosen randomly during my pleasure flight, etc... Eventually we will get some "campaign" utilities some day (FSX@War), but in the meanwhile I just enjoy flying these planes as usual, and being able to aply around with ALL of the systems. Not just "the same systems as the default Cessna 172"...

 

[joe bob]

I've used it and was pretty impressed, when it did 500KIAS, 200'AGL Hard Ride across the Scottish Highlands.

Now I've resolved my FSUIPC v Tornado conflict, it's a really good aircraft in my opinion. You have to learn it, yes, to get the most out of it, but it works pretty much exactly as they said it would. Full transparency I don't have the Milviz F-15 to comment on that.

Ian P.

Thanks for the feedback Ian, that's what I wanted to hear!

 

[Martyn]

This reply is a bit late as you've already opted for a refund, but just to address the points that you've raised:

First when I installed the plane and loaded a flight, the fuselage of the Tornado was transparent, the VC too

That isn't a known issue with the aircraft but I'm sure that our customer service team would have been able to resolve that for you.

Then I wanted to take off and noticed that I cannot move the thrust lever with my joypad buttons I selected

The throttles can be controlled using the standard FSX keyboard assignments (F1 to F4) in addition to the joystick axis. I've never used a joypad with FSX/P3D but it should work if its just mapped to those keyboard assignments.

Last point when I was in the air and tested the afterburner, the exhaust flame was there although the AB was off. I had to move the levers far back, for letting it disappear.

As mentioned by delta558, the Tornado has a large reheat range. The reheat (afterburner) will only come on if the throttles are moved beyond the MAX DRY position. The position of the 'AJ' (nozzle position) gauge needles and fuel flow needles are an easy indication of when the reheats are on.

even the Aerosoft Airbus runs twice as smooth as the damned Tornado

Yes it should. The Tornado has a higher poly-count, more animated objects, more visibility-controlled objects and more/higher-res textures. A larger aircraft with a glass cockpit isn't necessarily more visually demanding due to the way that FSX/P3D works. As I mentioned earlier, I would strongly recommend trying the demo first if you suspect that your PC might struggle. Worth checking out this FAQ too - http://www.justflight.com/support/tornado-gr1/ecf2653

Best thing is the "fatal error" I get every 2nd time, I select the Tornado in the menu.

That isn't a known issue with the aircraft but I'm sure that our customer service team would have been able to resolve that for you.

As I said all those things did not happen with the demo

The demo software is identical to the full product software apart from only having a single livery and a time-limit on its usage.



I don't want to divert the thread away from its original purpose so I'll leave it at that. The customer service will be in touch shortly (if they aren't already).

 

[n4gix]

Be sure you're not the only one and I like the way you say it : pointless.
A military plane without weapons, cannot be called a "military plane". Period.

The military do have aircraft that are not weapons platforms. Your brush is too wide sir!

I do agree that those that are weapons platforms should have working weapons though.

 

[xpelekis]

Your second point is my point also. I see no contrast really.
If we want to stick with the words and not with the meaning of words, well...

 

[falcon409]

. . . . ."Be sure you're not the only one and I like the way you say it : pointless.
A military plane without weapons, cannot be called a "military plane". Period.
The simulation is just incomplete. What's the point of simulating everything else, apart of the purpose that
this airframe serves?. . . ."

To each his own sir. As has been mentioned, painting with a wide brush is not always a fair assessment. Military aircraft (fighter types) are Military aircraft regardless of the lack of loadouts to say otherwise shows a lack of understanding of that airframe. A pilot flying a D Model F-16 with an Instructor for evaluation purposes is still flying a "Military Aircraft". The idea that because the aircraft isn't loaded down with weapons is somehow not a Military Aircraft is ridiculous. But that's just the opinion of an Aircraft Specialist who worked the F-16 for 12 years. . .but what do I know? lol

 

[flaviossa]

If this one is not a military jet, where i fill a request to fly it?

 

[xpelekis]

I think what we do here, is saying opinions just for our opinions shake...

The first thing that pops up in my mind when the word "military" is pronounced,
is not the firefighters, nor the C-130s, nor the apache helicopters, nor the Recon.
At least in my mind, word "military" as a symbol, triggers images of fighters and fighter bombers,
ie, weaponed planes.
At least in my mind, "military" means weapons, as a primitive symbolism...

The F-16D is not a general aviation trainer. Trains pilots to fly F-16, right ? To do what with them ?...
Is the purpose of military the training ? Yes. A part of it. But training for what ?... ie, for what main purpose ?...

We can continue this discussion for ever. But I don't think that I have a big brush when I say that Tacpack is
a taboo word in FSX... Proof, the above discussion

 

[falcon409]

Fair enough you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you.. .glad that's settled. As for Tacpac. . .I think "Taboo" is a bit dramatic but I will say that many of us don't quite get the "All or Nothing" mindset of the "tacpacian crowd". IMHO

 

[xpelekis]

There is nothing really to agree or disagree upon. Is just a matter of personal preferences
and these are different among people, cause people are different.
I don't think that there is a "Tacpack crowd". Just people that prefer to have planes armed
in FSX while others not. (speaking about fighter planes).

 

[joe bob]

I don't think it is about a military aircraft must have weapons, it is more about preferring that it be able to simulate it's intended purpose.

I happily fly the T-38 on cross country training flights, practice combat assaults in the UH-60, and plunking down the C-130 on a dirt strip after a Sarajevo approach.

I haven't noticed Tacpac being a taboo subject, I don't think it gets the attention it deserves but to each his own.

I don't think expressing your opinion on flying fighter/ attack aircraft is stating an all or nothing stance for the community, for me it is getting to the point that when I purchase a fighter I soon feel buyers remorse because it lacks the depth and staying power an aircraft that has more to it. So for me it is becoming an all or nothing thing but I don't think I or anyone else has said it has to be pushed on anyone. If an add on doesn't suite my style then I will give it a pass.
Milviz and Iris may have the right idea with their separate packages.

I see it as being similar to Accusim, for some it has made going back to a Carenado aircraft seem very unappealing. For others, the system depth is not important, it is more about jumping in and going flying, more power to you.

 

[IanHenry]

Some people like to fly simulated "military aircraft" for the experience of trying an aircraft that in real life they would never get the chance to do otherwise. Landing an F-15 or a Tornado bears no resemblance to landing a Cessna 172. If we move on to landing a F-14 onto a carrier flight deck, your talking about an experience that even current U.S navel pilots will never have the opportunity to do now.

Where does one draw the distinction? A warbird is still a military aircraft.

At the end of the day, it's whatever lights your candle, you "fly" whatever you like, and leave others to do the same.



Regards,
Ian