Sr-71 vc wip

[Katoun]

Hi,

We are working hard on finishing the paint job on this before xmas so we can get it into code!

Thank you for looking!

Kat

 

[Sundog]

Wow, that's looking amazing. Not that I'm surprised considering the source. Thanks for the preview.

 

[ce_zeta]

Oh my god. Dude this cockpit is amazing!

 

[hairyspin]

My old Alphasim (iirc) is going when this is released: yippee!

 

[SH427]

Milviz is working on a blackbird?!?!
Sold!

 

[YoYo]

Id like too see good SR-71 for FSX.

 

[Roadburner440]

Yes we sure are. This one has been a long time coming now, but we finally are getting going on it. A few lucky ones got to go take a field trip to survey a real one for all of the modeling and texture work. I anticipate this to be the best model yet, but then again the bar always seems to be raised every release. I just hope the flight model doesn't give the coders to much trouble. That is probably going to be the worst aspect of this project since it goes all the way to mach 3+.

 

[delta_lima]

Big fan of the SR/YF-12/A-12 family - have had every single freeware and payware model since FS98 - as well as literally dozens of reference books, journals, and have personally taken hundreds of photos of almost every single Blackbird in North America except #17964 in Nebraska's SAC museum. So I say as a true fan of the family, that I'm keen on it. and it could very well be a winner.

That said, I'm really starting to feel the "Razbam Syndrome" .... many different models keep getting rendered/previewed, as opposed to progress to completion on models further into development. Off the top of my head, we've seen how many models "previewed"? KA350, an MD helo, a Mitsubishi turboprop, a Bell 407 ... I've lost count.

Sure they're pretty teasers, but the teasing has happened so frequently that it's is going from informative to just static noise, to be honest. I'll be impressed when the all three of the promised F-4s get definitively launched. Then the F-100, and then whatever else. Carenado, Flying Stations, Just Flight, and a few other devs come to mind that have mastered the art of pace, and a focus of development previews that are in step with realistic progress. Less sizzle, more steak.

Good luck

dl

 

[fsxar177]

...I'm really starting to feel the "Razbam Syndrome" .... many different models keep getting rendered/previewed, as opposed to progress to completion on models further into development. Off the top of my head, we've seen how many models "previewed"? KA350, an MD helo, a Mitsubishi turboprop, a Bell 407 ... I've lost count....

Not sure I follow you on this one..

The 407 has been released, the MD is out.. the 350 is well under way being tested, coded, painted, and sounds added as I write this...

So I guess I'm not sure where you are coming from? If you don't like it, don't buy it. If I recall, the F4 is a beta.. And it's more accessible than the other dev's F4 that has been "promised".

I'd much rather see previews of the WORK IN PROGRESS, than just a "We're doing this" as said many times by another well known developer.

Just that teaser of the Sr-71 pit alone, resembles at least weeks of work. The least we can do is appreciate the teaser.

- Joseph

 

[delta_lima]

I stand corrected on the MD and the 350 - thanks for pointing that out, fair and square.

The "don't buy if I don't like it" is irrelevant - that only figures into a discussion on an already-released model. There's next to ZERO chance I won't get this model.

What I am saying is in light of the typical time horizons for existing models, it's hard to get excited about model #4 in the pipeline, when model #1 or #2 are still likely months out. (The #'s are relative, and for example purpose only). The nagging thought remains - "what about progress on the other, earlier models?".

I'm not unappreciative of the heads-up. But it might help MV to consider giving customers (esp those who've already bought into the beta of one further upstream) a sense of progress of the earlier models, when giving a heads up/WIP of a subsequent model.



dl

 

[fsxar177]

To this I would agree.

I like your quote from Mr. Elliot as well!

- Joseph

 

[dhazelgrove]

Technical question: How different is the front seat of the SR-71 from that in the A-12?
Could the SR-71 be expanded to include the A-12?

Dave

 

[delta_lima]

Technical question: How different is the front seat of the SR-71 from that in the A-12?
Could the SR-71 be expanded to include the A-12?

Dave

Great question. By front seat, I'm assuming you mean the cockpit/panel ...and not the seat itself... . Like you, I'd love to see additional models - my favourites are the YF-12 and the M-21 ... I wish I was naïve enough to even hope for those ...

As to the A-12 cockpit, yes it was quite different. Being a single-seat aircraft, the navigation systems featured heavily in the layout. The biggest and most apparent difference comes from the presence of the Baird-Atomic 6642-1 periscope's scope/hood at the very top of the instrument panel. The artificial horizon, engine gauges, and many other instruments are either of different types and/or relocated. Contrast the two cockpits thus:

SR-71:



A-12:



So, even if MV did a separate A-12 model, I think their high-fidelity credo would likely disincline them from simply recycling the SR-71 VC into the A-12. My personal guess is that's a tradeoff many would be willing to have - but again, that's just a guess - and I'd guess Kat et al could comment on what, if anything, beyond the SR-71 would be feasible. I'd enjoy an A-12 too, and even an SR-71 painted as an M-12 would leave me in hog heaven ...

Kudos to the MV team for taking on an ambitious model. If I was them, I'd be looking to reach out to folks like Paul Crickmore and Brian Shul - the latter the author of "Sled Driver" - for technical input.

cheers,

dl

 

[centuryseries]

Now I don't want to be taken the wrong way as the author of the Glowingheat SR-71, but I need to point out three things that need looking at in the VC shot above.

The rudder pedals do not represent an operational SR-71, they look like the simulators pedals, the operational birds had pedals with four holes in each rather than two so the whole boot would fit on it.

In the shot above there is what looks like a clear cover on the right side panel which also doesn't exist in an operational SR, the cockpit was designed to be used by pilots with gloves, and so an awkward clear cover would be difficult to use.

There appears to be some engine fire warning lamps missing, I'm sure they will be included.

Again, please take these comments as constructive criticism.

I'd like to see each engine afterburner only get used 16 times due to the TEB limit.

 

[Katoun]

Hi Centuryseries.

We will most certainly check the pedals and remove the cover though the cover was there on the operational aircraft that Colin and Diego (and Steve) went to see.

For the fire warning lights, do you have a reference for that? (note that we have not yet finished painting this yet).

For the afterburners, are you sure that it was 16 TEBs for lighting the burners or 16 TEBs for lighting the engines off? The books and reference materials that we have on this are uncertain but heading towards engine lightoff rather than burner light off.

Thank you for your comments.

Kat

 

[RKinkor]

Hi Centuryseries.

We will most certainly check the pedals and remove the cover though the cover was there on the operational aircraft that Colin and Diego (and Steve) went to see.

For the fire warning lights, do you have a reference for that? (note that we have not yet finished painting this yet).

For the afterburners, are you sure that it was 16 TEBs for lighting the burners or 16 TEBs for lighting the engines off? The books and reference materials that we have on this are uncertain but heading towards engine lightoff rather than burner light off.

Thank you for your comments.

Kat

My understanding it was 16 shots each engine for either engine starting or AB light off. There also was a catalytic (I think it was called) system for lighting the ab if they were out of TEB.

 

[centuryseries]

My understanding it was 16 shots each engine for either engine starting or AB light off. There also was a catalytic (I think it was called) system for lighting the ab if they were out of TEB.

No that's not right, the TEB was the catalyst for lighting the engines when starting them, and also lighting the burners when airborne. There was no other means to ignite the burners or indeed start the engines when out of TEB because the JP7 fuel had such a high flashpoint.

Operationally, this could cause major issues especially if the aircraft had multiple unstarts because you only had a limited number of engine starts.

 

[RKinkor]

No that's not right, the TEB was the catalyst for lighting the engines when starting them, and also lighting the burners when airborne. There was no other means to ignite the burners or indeed start the engines when out of TEB because the JP7 fuel had such a high flashpoint.

Operationally, this could cause major issues especially if the aircraft had multiple unstarts because you only had a limited number of engine starts.

I stand corrected, I was just looking it up myself and discovered my error.

 

[Katoun]

Thank you. This will, of course, be implemented.

Kat

 

[centuryseries]

Hi Centuryseries.

We will most certainly check the pedals and remove the cover though the cover was there on the operational aircraft that Colin and Diego (and Steve) went to see.

For the fire warning lights, do you have a reference for that? (note that we have not yet finished painting this yet).

For the afterburners, are you sure that it was 16 TEBs for lighting the burners or 16 TEBs for lighting the engines off? The books and reference materials that we have on this are uncertain but heading towards engine lightoff rather than burner light off.

Thank you for your comments.

Kat

Actually keep the cover, apparently according to one of my books it was used as a hand rest for the pilot when flying the aircraft by the trim wheels just in front of it! Never noticed that before