Released: The Milviz Corsair
- Thread starter roger-wilco-66
- Start date
Bradburger
Charter Member
I see Wells Sullivan has taken a look: -
Cheers
Paul
Cheers
Paul
A comment on "restored" aircraft, especially flying ones; many have installed the commonly available CB 16 or 17 engines which have many operational advantages for an operating warbird as to parts, MX, TBO and whatnot being the motive power for still operating DC6 and C46.
as well the original corsair prop may not be mated to this C model engine....
as well the original corsair prop may not be mated to this C model engine....
alpha charlie
Members +
What's wrong with the main landing gear shocks? They seem to be extended to maximum on all screenshots as if the aiplane has no weight.
How do they look when you add fuel tanks? Compressed or not?
odourboy
SOH-CM-2020
They do, don't they. That can likely be addressed by adjustment a couple of parameters in the aircraft.cfg gear contact point.
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
That's a great video, Paul ! "Everything you always wanted to know about the Milviz FG-1D but were afraid to ask"
Thanks mucho!
cheers,
jan
Just a quick response to that "Review". Be aware that it is full of erroneous info and knowledge lacking statements. Many of which would be non issues if he had READ THE MANUAL. Regarding the VC, it is entirely new and has been redone from scratch.
There's NO RESERVE tank. It's in the manual.
Generator switch...is there....read the manual.
Going to stop there. You get the idea. I don't think that pointing out errors is a bad thing, but get the facts correct. Thanks,
There's NO RESERVE tank. It's in the manual.
Generator switch...is there....read the manual.
Going to stop there. You get the idea. I don't think that pointing out errors is a bad thing, but get the facts correct. Thanks,
Welp, I upset the developers. What else is new? I did say the VC had new 3d and textures. There's no RESERVE tank? Why does the selector have a position for it? I was trying to debug the gauge, which is supposed to read 237 gals, not 50. yes, I missed the generator switch. Out of sight, out of mind. The real Corsair didn't have one in that position, so I didn't think it was a big deal. I could turn it on. Bugs are minor compared to some other products out there. I thought my review was mostly positive. I don't think anyone is going to avoid the product based on my "review". The kinks will be ironed out I'm sure and I'll let people know that too...
Wells, Not sure why you would post "I upset the developers. What else is new." Have you posted any issues you feel need to be addressed on the Milviz product site? That would be a really positive thing to do. Knowing how Milviz want their products to be as accurate as possible consider communicating directly with them. My comments are made here as a request to keep things positive. Folks with real expertise can be a real help in making any aircraft better. Please let Milviz know your concerns. Thanks!!
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
Ok, more free time from now. Revised version of Mk.II (using Your palette). Upcoming repaint. Thanks John! Now I think is mach better!
Sub Lieutenant Donald J. Sheppard, No. 1836 Squadron, HMS Victorious, Sakishima Islands, East China Seas, May, 1945, Fleet Air Arm (Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve).
Bomber_12th
SOH-CM-2023
Although I understand that it appears lighter/brighter in the sim, the adjustments do look fantastic, YoYo!
With regard to the Corsair main landing gear oleos/shocks... it would be awesome if the contact points could be adjusted (though perhaps the animation parameters have to as well) so that the oleos completely compress closed, as they should be, when the full weight of the aircraft (even when not fully loaded) is resting on them. The Corsair is unique among warbirds in various ways, and one such way is in how the main landing gear oleos are most commonly setup - on the corsair, even when lightly loaded (no bullets, no bombs, no drop tanks, etc.) the landing gear oleos/shocks should still be completely compressed when the weight of the aircraft is resting on them. It was designed/utilized this way to prevent the aircraft from bouncing when it landed or hit the carrier deck, by using the full travel of the oleos and only filling the pressure in them so much - when you watch an F4U-1D/FG-1D land, you'll see the fully extended oleos collapse completely as the aircraft settles onto the runway and "squashes down" on the oleos. This also makes the aircraft one of the nicest of warbirds to land - as those who have flown them attest, it allows just about any ham-fisted landing to look good. Those who are familiar with some warbirds, but not the Corsair, often mistakenly think that a Corsair sitting out on the ramp with fully compressed main landing gear struts must not be airworthy, not realizing that that is how they are purposely configured/operated that way. If this was adjusted/fixed, it would allow the aircraft to really have the proper look/stance on the ground.
The only time you ever see instances of the landing gear oleos showing anywhere near as much as you see on the Milviz model, when sitting on the ground, is the earliest examples - the birdcage F4U-1's and early F4U-1A's (which was causing the early issues with the aircraft bouncing too much on carrier landings). Show me a few photos of a wartime F4U-1D or FG-1D, sitting on the ground, with the main landing gear oleos expanded any more than a couple of inches, and I'll show you hundreds of photos of wartime-era (and modern) F4U-1A's/F4U-1C's/F4U-1D's/FG-1D's sitting on the ground with fully compressed main landing gear oleos.
With regard to the Corsair main landing gear oleos/shocks... it would be awesome if the contact points could be adjusted (though perhaps the animation parameters have to as well) so that the oleos completely compress closed, as they should be, when the full weight of the aircraft (even when not fully loaded) is resting on them. The Corsair is unique among warbirds in various ways, and one such way is in how the main landing gear oleos are most commonly setup - on the corsair, even when lightly loaded (no bullets, no bombs, no drop tanks, etc.) the landing gear oleos/shocks should still be completely compressed when the weight of the aircraft is resting on them. It was designed/utilized this way to prevent the aircraft from bouncing when it landed or hit the carrier deck, by using the full travel of the oleos and only filling the pressure in them so much - when you watch an F4U-1D/FG-1D land, you'll see the fully extended oleos collapse completely as the aircraft settles onto the runway and "squashes down" on the oleos. This also makes the aircraft one of the nicest of warbirds to land - as those who have flown them attest, it allows just about any ham-fisted landing to look good. Those who are familiar with some warbirds, but not the Corsair, often mistakenly think that a Corsair sitting out on the ramp with fully compressed main landing gear struts must not be airworthy, not realizing that that is how they are purposely configured/operated that way. If this was adjusted/fixed, it would allow the aircraft to really have the proper look/stance on the ground.
The only time you ever see instances of the landing gear oleos showing anywhere near as much as you see on the Milviz model, when sitting on the ground, is the earliest examples - the birdcage F4U-1's and early F4U-1A's (which was causing the early issues with the aircraft bouncing too much on carrier landings). Show me a few photos of a wartime F4U-1D or FG-1D, sitting on the ground, with the main landing gear oleos expanded any more than a couple of inches, and I'll show you hundreds of photos of wartime-era (and modern) F4U-1A's/F4U-1C's/F4U-1D's/FG-1D's sitting on the ground with fully compressed main landing gear oleos.
Last edited:
Ditto here. The issue about the stiff oleos in early Corsairs is described in Tom Blackburns book "VF-17 Jolly Rogers", and maybe other books. Would be nice if this could be considered, maybe even the physics behind the optics.
Cheers,
Mark
JensOle
SOH-CM-2023
Yoyo,
Sheppards Corsair II looks great! I have researched the BPF and their aircraft for some time myself too and I have two inputs on 136:
-The font used on Royal Navy/JT537 seems too large compared to my reference pictures of RN/BPF Corsairs.
-136 had overpainted East indies fleet type roundel just in front of the later BPF bar type roundel. Also an overpainted tail flash. How noticeable it was is up for individual interpretation, I have made a slightly darker overpainted area on my old Corsair paints.
Sheppards Corsair II looks great! I have researched the BPF and their aircraft for some time myself too and I have two inputs on 136:
-The font used on Royal Navy/JT537 seems too large compared to my reference pictures of RN/BPF Corsairs.
-136 had overpainted East indies fleet type roundel just in front of the later BPF bar type roundel. Also an overpainted tail flash. How noticeable it was is up for individual interpretation, I have made a slightly darker overpainted area on my old Corsair paints.
YoYo
SOH-CM-2023
Yep, I know it but too many sources and no orginal photos.
http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/ACpilot1/media/cGF0aDovSEE4MjA1LmpwZw==/?ref=
http://www.anticsonline.co.uk/2414_1_106977379.html