• 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.

SSW AV8B II+ Harrier

U

UAL066

Members +
If you are looking for an AV8B II+ Harrier whose flight model closely follows the NATOPS, then you may want to check out the Sim Skunk Works Harrier. Not only does it come with complete documentation, including a copy of the actual NATOPS, it also flies as close to the real thing as I've ever seen. Check this demo video I found on You Tube utilizing the SSW Harrier and doing the things a Harrier does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GhThT0QsMg&feature=youtu.be

The features are too numerous to mention here and the price is very attractive so, if you're interested, you can check it out here:

http://www.simskunkworks.102virtual.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=101

Enjoy!
 
I think it's worth pointing out that the ssw Harrier does'nt look "a bit too fs9" through any lack of skill or ability. The two main developers of the Harrier have put a tremendous amount of work into their products. The commercial developer has made a stunning job of the visual model, and rightly so, they are in the business of selling their models. Ssw, on the other hand make the models primarily for their own use in multiplayer. They optimised the visual model to be able to fly up to 15 aircraft together without any loss of performance. The other most important aim was to get the Harrier to perform as closely as possible to the real Harrier, and they have achieved this to a very high level. There's absolutely no competition between the two developers as their aims are very different. The ssw Harrier is available to anyone who, like them, flies from the cockpit, follows procedures, and wants his aircraft to respond realistically. You really won't be disappointed.
 
No problems here

I love the way it looks, sounds,flys.... This is a Quality product... IMO.... Good job guys,,,, keep up the good work :salute::ernae::salute:
 
I've tested it, that's easy. Impossible to say in what extend it handles like a real Harrier, but it was nice.

But It's true that the apparence is very poor : for example, the texture and the shape of the cockpit are not at today standard. You can say it's not fs9, but it's certainly not fsx. Some people will say that you flight from the inside, but the 3D model is also part of the immersion and the consistency, imho... Not saying that it's a bad add-on, everybody can make his own choice regarding the point he finds important. But to me, the good news for this Harrier would be that SSW is still working on the good basis they have already made...
 
I give it a day before this thread gets shut down.... i`m not saying.... i`m just saying....:ernae::173go1::kilroy:
 
wapanomi said:
I've tested it, that's easy. Impossible to say in what extend it handles like a real Harrier, but it was nice.

But It's true that the apparence is very poor : for example, the texture and the shape of the cockpit are not at today standard. You can say it's not fs9, but it's certainly not fsx. Some people will say that you flight from the inside, but the 3D model is also part of the immersion and the consistency, imho... Not saying that it's a bad add-on, everybody can make his own choice regarding the point he finds important. But to me, the good news for this Harrier would be that SSW is still working on the good basis they have already made...
Click to expand...


Thank you for the way you explained your questions and remarks.
Now I can tell you that the good news you expect,there will be: we are finishing the F-104 G project,then we will return to the Harrier project to make it look more eye candy.
Yes,we know that texturing and mapping is not at the level of many software houses. But this is the beginning of the trip for us (we started with the F-104 and Harrier,next projects will be Tornado,HH3F,T33,F-84,MB-326,ecc) ,and do not forget that yes,it looks a pretty poor,but it FLIES as is should be.As the manual says.No excuses...For us this point is very important.
Look at the F-104. We started the developing 2 years ago. Now it is what..it should be.It flies as it should be,and it looks very nice. With the G model we are near to complete the family...and the family will expand again.
By the way,you can download our models for free and try them for 10 minutes.
Ok,now I return in the paint house to finish the liveries of the "G" project...shortly it will be available.
Cheers,
/Ale
 
smoky942 said:
I think it's worth pointing out that the ssw Harrier does'nt look "a bit too fs9" through any lack of skill or ability. The two main developers of the Harrier have put a tremendous amount of work into their products. The commercial developer has made a stunning job of the visual model, and rightly so, they are in the business of selling their models. Ssw, on the other hand make the models primarily for their own use in multiplayer. They optimised the visual model to be able to fly up to 15 aircraft together without any loss of performance. The other most important aim was to get the Harrier to perform as closely as possible to the real Harrier, and they have achieved this to a very high level. There's absolutely no competition between the two developers as their aims are very different. The ssw Harrier is available to anyone who, like them, flies from the cockpit, follows procedures, and wants his aircraft to respond realistically. You really won't be disappointed.
Click to expand...

The more i look the more i stand by my first comment - sorry.
 
Pluto, thank you for your kind answer and for the good news that your products will be developed even further. Realism is number 1 for me, but I am glad that you plan to devote further attention to 'eye-candy'. As Wapanomi suggested, flying from a realistically-looking cockpit also is important for immersion. However, I find your present cockpits entirely convincing, no matter what cockpits of other developers may look like.
 
PLUTO16 said:
Thanks Barnes,there are no problems,no need to be sorry,everybody can explain what is good for him...No problem in this!
Click to expand...


With that attitude you deserve success. Im in PR and know that you cant "win 'em all" but your approach will win many.
 
It looks quite disappointing and time wasting to see that after so many weeks we are still debating, insulting and thread open/closing about what it is and what is not.
The point is very simple in my humble opinion:

SSW is doing (and will always do in the future) models which may appear not as charming as the competitors' ones from the very external point of view because they took every possible precaution to make them MP friendly. There's no reason to be rude or arrogant about this. They are FS9-ish because they want to be lighter in FPS and in their opinion there's no other way to achieve this.
In addition to this, their models are more than 90% close to the reality described by manuals, performance data and flight experts that provided important info during the development (pilots and technicians). And anyone can verify all this by spending some quality time reading the documents and graphs that they provide and by making tests and comparisons. Plain and simple. No tricks.

On the other hand, the competitors produce models with stunning exterior (and of course interior, talking about the cockpit art) quality but they honestly lack in performance realism and MP capability.

Now, the average simmer is problably a solo-pilot (or perhaps he flies with a friend or two) and doesn't spend a lot of time investigating about the actual realism of the model by searching info or reading manuals (as a matter of fact, most of SSW customers don't do it either) and the fact of having an extremely beautiful model with only an average level of consistency of all the systems/avionics and a heavy load on FPS and MP environment is just a nonessential detail for them.

If all the people who tried both the models in object had made an honest comparison based on the material provided by SSW (not by competitors), they would have surely come to the same conclusions. But they simply don't have the time (and passion) to do it.

Full stop.

Cheers,

Christian
 
Vox said:
It looks quite disappointing and time wasting to see that after so many weeks we are still debating, insulting and thread open/closing about what it is and what is not.
The point is very simple in my humble opinion:

SSW is doing (and will always do in the future) models who may appear not as charming as the competitors' ones from the very external point of view because they took every possible precaution to make them MP friendly. There's no reason to be rude or arrogant about this. They are FS9-ish because they want to be lighter in FPS and in their opinion there's no other way to achieve this.
In addition to this, their models are more than 90% close to the reality described by manuals, performance data and flight experts that provided important info during the development (pilots and technicians). And anyone can verify all this by spending some quality time reading the documents and graphs that they provide and by making tests and comparisons. Plain and simple. No tricks.

On the other hand, the competitors produce models with stunning exterior (and of course interior, talking about the cockpit art) quality but that honestly lack in performance realism and MP capability.

Now, the average simmer is problably a solo-pilot (or perhaps he flies in couple with a friend or two) and doesn't spend a lot of time investigating about the actual realism of the model by searching info or reading manuals (as a matter of fact, most of SSW customers don't do it either) and the fact of having an extremely beautiful model with only an average level of consistency of all the systems/avionics and a heavy load on FPS and MP environment is just a nonessential detail for them.

If all the people who tried both the models in object would have made an honest comparison based on the material provided by SSW (not by competitors), they would have surely come to the same conclusions. But they simply don't have the time (and passion) to do it.

Full stop.

Cheers,

Christian
Click to expand...

Chris,I think the points you are talking about were considered by many customers. All the SSW team is doing his best to give their friends (yes,as you know we consider our customers as friends,that is one of our basic rules) as best as we can. Same thing are doing other teams that develops add-on,everybody is moving in their directions in different ways. We want surely to leave the freedom of choice for FSX users. Many reasons can make you decide for one direction,many others let you decide in a different way. There are a lot of informations that can help to make the choice,and if something is missing there is the possibility to ask.
Cheers
/Ale
 
I know it Pluto16, and I know that you know it :icon_lol: but I don't agree about the way customers made their choice. The evidence is in their words.
I was only trying to point out that it's silly to fight when two different approaches (both valid) are involved.
As much as it's quite silly to write a model off just by saying "It looks a bit Fs9 to me" or "Impossible to say in what extend it handles like a real Harrier".
First because you clearly show that you are interested only in the cosmetic side of it and secondly because SSW gives all the info and details to make an honest comparison with the real plane.
Taste is subjective, of course, but judgement should be honest and not so cheap.
I'm not saying that one is better than the other, I'm just saying that too many people out there are ready to judge years of hard work just by an external or superficial look!
It's disappointing because they call themselves "enthusiasts" but I see only passion for photography in their quick quick judgement.
 
Well I just read Raz is done with their vtol module so I will give your Harrier a go. I have been told by their dev and some posters I just need to practice,practice ,practice. I have been in aviation for 30 years doing everything from dragging banners,pipe line patrol in helis, weed eradication and overwatch for vips. They all took practice. After spending 3-4 hours trying to come up with a repeatable procedure for getting around its FSX "limitations" I have concluded its more like shaking a vending machine to get your chips to fall kinda practice. They are though going to impliment realistic engine damage. Well I guess overheating and killing the engine is one way to cure the vtol issues. Just freaking limit the time you can try and hover and if they persist just kill the engine and crash em lol.

I have put off buying the ssw Harrier seeing that I just spent 40 bucks on the rax and have a Justflight Harrier collecting dust flown maybe 2 days. Also you guys seem to have a poisoned rep around here. I do not even want to know the details. 20 more bucks is not going to break me so I will give it a go. Starting it seems simple enough but I must admit if I have to thumb through a 400 page manual and learn 3 dozen keystrokes to fly it it will not be on my HD long.
In a perfect world the beautiful harrier would have the vtol module that the F35 has. But the Harrier to me is a one trick pony,a novelty and I am quickly losing my interest in it already.
I am on call this long weekend but later I will buy it. I will call it as it is and if I get frustrated I look forward to going back to warbirds when planes had props and you had to thump the gauges to make sure they were working.
 
JIMJAM said:
Starting it seems simple enough but I must admit if I have to thumb through a 400 page manual and learn 3 dozen keystrokes to fly it it will not be on my HD long.
Click to expand...
You don't need to learn 3 dozen keystrokes because you can make your own, but for sure you need the manual.
If this is your approach, I honestly don't see why we are all here discussing realism and accuracy.
What do people expect from a sim-product, then? How do people think a realistic sim-plane should be made, then?
Let's be honest and delete that stupid "SIM" word from everything!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top