• 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

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

The OZX Grumman Goose HD Redux Now Released!

ya know what really sux?? i live 12 miles from three fairly major general Aviation manufacturers, but does the local college off airframe and powerplant courses?? nooooooooooo..
:( it sux..
 
warchild said:
Brett, your numbers work great.. thank you.. :D
Click to expand...


You're quite welcome.. but aside form min/max weights, they're your numbers.. you're the one who poured over the blueprints.. so thank YOU !



One last note on constant-speed props.. and I only keep at this thread-hijacking out of love (honest)..LOL

When we say "prop RPM", it's synonomous with engine RPM (on airplanes like this where the prop is mounted directly to the shaft..i.e..no gear reduction)... I remember many of these discussions where people still walk away thinking that the throttle controls engine-RPM, and the prop-control controls prop-RPM.. That little thing lingers and confuses.

The throttle controls manifold pressure (think of it as potential RPMs).. the prop-control makes the prop "hold" itself (and the engine) at the selected RPM.
 
When we say "prop RPM", it's synonomous with engine RPM (on airplanes like this where the prop is mounted directly to the shaft..i.e..no gear reduction)... I remember many of these discussions where people still walk away thinking that the throttle controls engine-RPM, and the prop-control controls prop-RPM.. That little thing lingers and confuses.

The throttle controls manifold pressure (think of it as potential RPMs).. the prop-control makes the prop "hold" a selected RPM.
Click to expand...
Very well put. You know, some of these discussions should be made into FAQ's on its own or something...that would help a lot of people.
 
This thread is the dogs b****x - almost as good as the Goose itself. Thank you so much all you talented guys n gals for educatin this ere numpy.
:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:
 
Brett_Henderson said:
You're quite welcome.. but aside form min/max weights, they're your numbers.. you're the one who poured over the blueprints.. so thank YOU !



One last note on constant-speed props.. and I only keep at this thread-hijacking out of love (honest)..LOL

When we say "prop RPM", it's synonomous with engine RPM (on airplanes like this where the prop is mounted directly to the shaft..i.e..no gear reduction)... I remember many of these discussions where people still walk away thinking that the throttle controls engine-RPM, and the prop-control controls prop-RPM.. That little thing lingers and confuses.

The throttle controls manifold pressure (think of it as potential RPMs).. the prop-control makes the prop "hold" itself (and the engine) at the selected RPM.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of information that makes people (like me) who think of FSX as a game realize that it is much more. This note, as well as the others, has helped me to fly my FLIGHT SIMULATOR more as a training aid and less as a game.
 
Microsoft did an amazing job on the engine behind fsx. to the best that i can tell, it's a subset of ESP, which is an 800 dollar commercial package ( or was ). The only limitations to what we can do in fsx are between the ears. use of old worn out "good enough" or "close enough" formulas andtheories no longer hold water, and as flight modelers, we can take these planes as far as we want. I've been studying the ESP SDK, and have been getting ideas on how to create include files, and ideas for what i want those include files todo. I just have to apply what i've learned. I think others are doing the very same :)..

i just got through downloadingthis new little experimental aerobatic planementioned in another thread here.When isaw the videos of it,my jaw dropped. i didnt care how it looked. at my age, looks ar a memory, but the way it flew, oh my gods. it's doing stuff FS was never designed to do. Simply fantastic little plane, and i aim to learn a ton from it.. yes, it's the one with the fireworks out the tail.. but you see, people are pushing the envelope out further and further each day and we're just beginning to see what a whole community of crazies can do when allowed to push themselves outside of the standard box.. Killing FSX was the very best thingthat could happen to us as a community because now we can push it to it's full abilities. And it's a happening thing. :)
Pam
 
Well you have a good attitude Pam :)

As for the P-51 you have coming up, considering I'm still at MS and still playing with airplanes, I probably shouldn't moonlight on outside stuff. Good luck with it though.

warchild said:
@Paul.
Thank you.. If the goose hadnt been one of the better aircraft in the fsx package, it's my opinion that it probably wouldnt have gotten chosen as a plane to ramp up by OzX. In truth, i didnt touch the aileron or elevator force's. I did however add in a whole lotta stuff that MS left out ( main wing, MAC, etc ) and therein lies the changes in flight characteristics. The work you guys did was awesome. no doubt there, but i also believe you were working inside of microsofts cacoon and not really able to take the plane as far as you would have liked. Just my personal opinion there.
Over the last year, it's been my sole intention to drive flight models out of the "game" mentality and into real world simulation. The goose is part of that. I also personally believe that with the goose, we have gotten so close to that that it's spawned this whole group of people who want to se it be real. Otherwise, it would just be ignored like so many other planes are. All of this nit picking that you see, is really a complement, not only to OzX myself and the JFTC team, but to microsoft as well. It means, we all did great, but it can be made better, and the folks that are posting in this thread right now; pilots, Flight instructors, you name it; are all just trying to help me make this the very best flying aircraft available to anyone anywhere. And such a deal on the price :D..
I admit, i'm proud, i have an ego, but i try to leave it at the door. We all have the same goal here ( i think ) and it's simply on my shoulders to take what the others offer and apply it as best i can with what i have to work with. In the end, we should have a pretty good plane. What most people forget however, is that planes are not designed by pilots. They're designed by groups of people in closed rooms with slide rules, pencils and a drafting table. I'm really in no different position than they are. like them, i can only take pilot reports and make modifications based on those reports, but in the end. i think we'll have done ok..

OH, btw. I've got a P-51 coming up in the near future.. PM me if you'd like to be in on it :D..
Click to expand...
 
just to let you all know that we are close on finilasing the update package for the Goose, it will be available in the next couple of days.
 
Where's my Goose? Hi all. May I just first say what a beautiful plane your team has presented. I had never flown the Goose, so thought I'd fly the default before I install your package. Much to my surprise I can't find the default Goose on the freeflight page. I look in Simobjects/airplanes and yep, I see the Goose, so the plane is there, just not able to get to it yet. Am I missing something?

Dan
 
Hi ghopper,

If you have the "standard" fsX version you only will have a AI Goose available, the Flyable Goose was supplied with the "De Luxe" version of fsX .................... :redf:
 
Thanks CC_17,
That explains it then. I've got the standard FSX with the Acceleration add-on. So your package won't work until I get the deluxe version then?

Dan
 
OZx Grumman Goose HD Redux updated to v1.20

As there were a few omissions in the original release, Team OZx would like to present to you a couple of things:

1. A new fullsize installer to update the stock Goose that comes with the FSX "Deluxe" version. This file is for new downloaders only. This can be downloaded from
http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=633

2. An update for v1.00 to v1.20 which includes updates for the FME's, the bump map textures, the sounds and some panels in the HP versions. This can be downloaded from
http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=641

3. A bonus pack to add the A2A/Shockwave Lights to the Goose, you must own the original A2A/Shockwave pack for this to work. This can be downloaded from
http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=640

As always we do have to stress when installing the Goose by OZx, ALWAYS BACKUP YOUR ORIGINAL FILES ;)
We hope you have a lovely time with our package and we look forward to hearing from you all!
 
Thanks for sticking with this, guys. I know it's been frustrating--especially for Pam. We really appreciate all you're doing! :icon29::icon29:
 
Thanks Guys and Gals, I know a little bit of how hard this is but you guys have gone above and beyond, Thanks for that!! :applause::applause::applause: :icon29::guinness: :ernae:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top