Shrike Simulations (Milviz/Blackbird) Aircraft

I had never heard of that company.
However, they describe themselves as producing cheap and easy to use (jump in and fly) aircraft, which sounds extremely bad to me.
 
It's an offshoot of Milviz/Blackbird, and what they're doing is updating some of the Milviz FSX/P3D releases to work properly in MSFS, but without totally redoing the modeling and textures, and without adding things like EFB's or complex failure modeling.
 
Interested in the PA30.
Does not appear to have an Autopilot from the promo pics I have seen.
Anyone concur, or knows there is one?
T43
 
Depending on what that price point is this could be a good thing.
Some of us are more interested in the budget than others.
If it means not having to wait for constant fixes to ‘study level’ components, even better.
 
pa30_05a.jpg

Not study level, I am all for that although not as important on a GA aircraft. But no autopilot would be a problem, here is an image of the cockpit from the website, I don't see it, wonder if they have hidden it somewhere but that's unlikely as they have other modern avionics in it.
 
Jonathan Beckett has a YT flight/review.
Suggests its taking on Carenado.
Likes the aircraft visuals, but thinks flight model is 'dumbed down' somewhat.
No mention of an AP, hidden or otherwise, so I wonder if the basic keyboard AP works? (ALT HLD * HDG HLD]
T43
 
Having a soft spot for Piper's, I succumbed & am currently somewhere between KEWR & Pittsburgh.
Sounds are good.
It is not fitted with an AP, but will take the keyboard Basic AP of ALT HLD & HDG HLD.
In fact it has a button/light on the dashboard labelled "HDG HOLD", which lights up when you click it & the mouse pointer message when hovering is 'Hands Free Assist'.
It feels heavy on the controls & rocks around a bit in the air. I have turbulence set to Medium & am flying in 10 knots.
Overall, well worth USD17.
T43
 
Twice43 said:
Jonathan Beckett has a YT flight/review.
Suggests its taking on Carenado.
Likes the aircraft visuals, but thinks flight model is 'dumbed down' somewhat.
No mention of an AP, hidden or otherwise, so I wonder if the basic keyboard AP works? (ALT HLD * HDG HLD]
T43
Click to expand...

watched that video - if this is meant to compete with Carenado then 'Shrike' needs to sharpen their pencils.

Also - what is happening with those prop spinners - especially in cockpit view.
Flight model is well below Carenado..as in What is going on with it??
Granted the price is lower than you would pay for a Carenado twin, it's not enough in my view to justify this product in its current state.
If they update it I'll be sure to check those videos out - I definitely want to have more options at lower prices and hope this line of Milviz / BlackBird / Shrike will eventually 'fit the bill'
 
I’m fine with somewhat basic systems modeling (I really don’t find stuff like dealing with circuit breakers and managing fuel systems is the joy of flying), and I can live without texturing that stands up under a magnifying glass. But there is no excuse for not making the flight modeling as accurate as possible. I want to see what it’s like to fly a specific plane when I buy a payware add-on. I hope the flight modeling is decent.

Just checked out the website and saw the reference to “CTRL-E.” Ironic callback to Aeroplane Heaven’s huge P3D misstep with their CTRL-E line, which also misunderstood what add-on buyers are looking for.

My take is that the majority of us actually aren’t looking for study-level simulation of most planes, but we do want the functionality that’s modeled (like, oh, flying) to feel accurate and convincing.
 
I understand that most people might want simpler-to-use aircraft.
Personally I'm looking for addons that have a bit more features than what we used to get in FS9. I'm tired of seeing the same stuff since 20 years.
 
Daube said:
Personally I'm looking for addons that have a bit more features than what we used to get in FS9. I'm tired of seeing the same stuff since 20 years.
Click to expand...

Well said Daube; there are plenty of 1990's and 2000's aircraft which have never been modelled in flightsim.
 
DennyA said:
I’m fine with somewhat basic systems modeling (I really don’t find stuff like dealing with circuit breakers and managing fuel systems is the joy of flying), and I can live without texturing that stands up under a magnifying glass. But there is no excuse for not making the flight modeling as accurate as possible. I want to see what it’s like to fly a specific plane when I buy a payware add-on. I hope the flight modeling is decent.

Just checked out the website and saw the reference to “CTRL-E.” Ironic callback to Aeroplane Heaven’s huge P3D misstep with their CTRL-E line, which also misunderstood what add-on buyers are looking for.

My take is that the majority of us actually aren’t looking for study-level simulation of most planes, but we do want the functionality that’s modeled (like, oh, flying) to feel accurate and convincing.
Click to expand...

I agree with DennyA. I find myself buying fewer and fewer aircraft. Why? because, I don't want to have to learn all the systems, just to fly a few patterns. However, when I do fly those patterns, I want the airplane to fly and feel like the real one. I do expect the switches to be in the right places and the basic functions, like VORTAC/INS/AP to work. I am limiting myself to a few aircraft, such as the SWS PC-12, that I really enjoy.

My preference would be for a two-stage model. A basic, kick the tires and light the fires, that I could jump in (figuratively) and fly patterns to see how it flies. Then, a more study level ability for the ones I want to spend time learning the systems. I know this would probably const me. I would be paying for systems I might not use. However, to me it would be worth the additional cost.
 
I enjoy systems modeling, but not failures. In fact, I'd love to have a plane with an APU and a bleed air requirement for starting. But the problem is that every last one that fits that description also has a $&#**^% FMS to go with it.
 
I do enjoy the failures, but only if they are not purely random or scripted.

For example, flying the A2A Spitfire was very exciting, not only because of the excellent flight model and sounds, but also because you really had to handle the engine with care, and in a way that actually MADE SENSE. The fear of long taxis to the runway with the risk of overheat that went with it, the oil consumption with its visual effects that evolved based on engine temperature, and its actual consequences on the engine startup.... This was so cool.
 
Tom Clayton said:
I enjoy systems modeling, but not failures. In fact, I'd love to have a plane with an APU and a bleed air requirement for starting. But the problem is that every last one that fits that description also has a $&#**^% FMS to go with it.
Click to expand...

I don't know about a bleed air requirement for it, but I know that Maryadi's MV-22 has a APU. I am impressed with the complexity of the systems that are modeled into that aircraft. NC
 
I also do not have the time or patience to learn all the in-depth operating requirements of every aircraft I want in my flightsim hanger.
Often you might just want to take a look at a scenery with an appropriate plane, for a nice screenshot maybe.
A CTRL-E/no failures model would do fine.
It needs to look right, with authentic handling characteristics is all.

Don't knw if anyone has done this, but it must surely be feasible to buy a Lite Model at a reasonable price.
If you like it, and want the Real Deal, a further payment unlocks all the rivets and oil changes.
 
I like light twins and want to support the concept of putting out lite planes at this price point, so I got the Twink.

From the moment you spawn until you are lined up for takeoff, it is lovely. Interior and exterior modeling are fine, sounds are nice, and systems depth is totally adequate, even if you do want to go through the procedures.

Then you take off and try to turn to your departure heading and you're like, "Whoa! Did I leave the control lock on? This thing handles like a brick." Aileron response, in particular, is more sluggish than the DC-3, and a lot more sluggish than the B-314 Clipper, which errs in the other direction.

Performance actually is not bad, although I haven't checked all the power settings and speeds against the book values.

I looked at the flight model cfg and I see that a lot of the scalars in the flight_tuning section are set to all kinds of values, which, with an conventionally configured plane like this, is usually a sign that the flight model was built with incorrect parameters, then patched and band-aided using the tuners until it flies more or less properly.

The visual and audio model justifies someone going through it with real data and rebuilding the whole flight model. However, for my purposes, I found it sufficient just to correct the roll response, which really kills the enjoyment of it for me.

My new values for two parameters in flight_tuning are:

aileron_effectiveness = 1.5
roll_stability = 0.15

With these tweaks, I think it rolls more or less realistically and I am now quite happy with the plane, especially for the price point. It isn't the Black Square Baron or the Milviz 310 but it's enjoyable.

August
 
Thanks for the tweaks!

I really like this. The model looks great, nice panel, and it's priced right.

I hope Shrike can do a better job upscaling textures on future P3D conversions. The only real complaint I have (and I'm usually the last guy to complain about textures) is that the stripes on the nacelle are jaggy, and the underlying texture is blotch. This could likely be improved just by using a better upscaling app.

Hoping we eventually get a few repaints for the Twin Comanche; that will likely address this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top