Upcoming military/warbirds for MSFS?

"doing" mach numbers isn't the real issue. It's how everything else behaves at those indicated speeds that is.:engel016:
 
I almost forgot, I'm also doing the P-47 Thunderbolt, for those big round and noisy fans! I don't really class my Stearman as a "warbird" so I didn't think to include it, but that's also well on the way to release. :adoration:

The sim seems to behave normally at Mach 2, honestly I don't know why they tried to stop us achieving it before, and breaking that barrier, when I actually looked into it, was very easy. There are some other tweaks required to ensure systems stay in line at high-Mach, but generally it all seems to be A-okay. I'm assuming Asobo must have some other reason for holding back developers from supersonic aircraft.
 
Sorry Dean, I can't agree. I truly do not believe that the sim "behaves" normally at all. Example, just for sh##s and giggles I configured a V12 Merin to output 32hp at 48 inches of mercury and dropped it into our Spit. I was able to take off at 40mph and kept climbing at 2000fpm. Some motor!

In 21 years of developing I have never come across so many inexplicable variables. And, as is evidenced by a large number of long-time developers yet to release, neither have a lot of people.

I tend to listen to people like Roy Holmes who have extraordinary skills and experience. Ask him what he thinks of the flight model.
 
DC1973 said:
I don't really class my Stearman as a "warbird" so I didn't think to include it, but that's also well on the way to release. :adoration:
Click to expand...

Good to know, Dean, thanks ! Maybe not a warbird as such but it's deffinately 'militairy'.. :smile:

Said it purely because of your "get myself a bit better established in the new sim" remark. An old biplane with just a few gauges seems a good start, don't you think ? I stuck to that idiom myself when changing my FS9 hangar to FSX with your Stearman's little cousine: NAF N3N Yellow Peril. Now wheeled it in my new MSFS hanger. Certainly a tougher place with all this new equippement and machinery.. :eek:
 
bazzar said:
"doing" mach numbers isn't the real issue. It's how everything else behaves at those indicated speeds that is.:engel016:
Click to expand...

Exactly. The acceleration profile to get to Mach 3 at FL800 in the SR is very precise and in order for it to be authentic we have to be able to fly that profile realistically. Just going full throttle, pointing it up, and levelling off when you get there wasn't the way it was done or even could be done. Another example is that the speed limitation on the bird isn't mach but inlet temperature. So that's got to be calibrated properly. Lots of details!

Our SR isn't ready till our pilot advisor signs off on it so it's not so easy to cut corners!
 
Almost forgot, Big Radials (OzWookiee and co) are working on a P-40B

PMBTiiT.jpg


https://forums.flightsimulator.com/...tomahawk-wookiees-hanger-big-radials/356967/2
 
bazzar said:
Sorry Dean, I can't agree. I truly do not believe that the sim "behaves" normally at all. Example, just for sh##s and giggles I configured a V12 Merin to output 32hp at 48 inches of mercury and dropped it into our Spit. I was able to take off at 40mph and kept climbing at 2000fpm. Some motor!

In 21 years of developing I have never come across so many inexplicable variables. And, as is evidenced by a large number of long-time developers yet to release, neither have a lot of people.

I tend to listen to people like Roy Holmes who have extraordinary skills and experience. Ask him what he thinks of the flight model.
Click to expand...


Not arguing with you there Baz, I was referring to supersonic flight rather than the whole flight model rodeo, which is indeed chaotic compared to what we're used to. But, it can be tamed :)

Roy very much dislikes MSFS's flight model, we have some correspondence from time to time about it. Yet, it seems that MS have no intention of changing things all that much so, for now at least, we have to do what developers have always done, and find a way to make it right...
 
Yeah, for all of the talk about the flight model, I was expecting something closer to X-Plane than what we ended up with. It would be nice if they just allowed the ability to directly control the flight variables from outside the sim. I think many of us could develop a better FDE than what they came up with; Or they could make it so that the old FDE worked seamlessly with the new sim instead of having to switch modes. Anyhow, I love me some P-40B, although it makes their company name false advertising. ;) (Not complaining!)
 
Anyone who has and has read the SDK will know that there is, in there, an extraordinary section on aerodynamics that appears to have been "lifted"directly from an aeronautical sciences textbook. It is so complicated and jam-packed full of symbology, compared to the rest of the document it is laughable. It is hard to believe that these are the workings used by the developer to engineer the flight model. As I understand it, Asobo's experience lies with motorcars, not aeroplanes and this shows in the current offering. Whether you like it or not, XPlane does have its roots in aeronautics and the development materials are better explained and used in that sim.

We have to hope that eventually some of the sillier bugs will be fixed or removed and we can spend our time more efficiently, rather than "in the lab" fixing things ourselves.

Party on.:engel016:
 
It's not a Warbird, but I'm still working on a Bristol 188.

I need to figure out how to exceed Mach 1 in the sim, add reheat and a few more instrument items.

Microsoft Flight Simulator 26_02_2021 20_24_52.jpg Microsoft Flight Simulator 26_02_2021 20_29_12.jpg Microsoft Flight Simulator 26_02_2021 20_24_17.jpg Microsoft Flight Simulator 26_02_2021 20_35_21.jpg
 
bazzar said:
Anyone who has and has read the SDK will know that there is, in there, an extraordinary section on aerodynamics that appears to have been "lifted"directly from an aeronautical sciences textbook. It is so complicated and jam-packed full of symbology, compared to the rest of the document it is laughable. It is hard to believe that these are the workings used by the developer to engineer the flight model. As I understand it, Asobo's experience lies with motorcars, not aeroplanes and this shows in the current offering. Whether you like it or not, XPlane does have its roots in aeronautics and the development materials are better explained and used in that sim. We have to hope that eventually some of the sillier bugs will be fixed or removed and we can spend our time more efficiently, rather than "in the lab" fixing things ourselves. Party on.:engel016:
Click to expand...
I'll have to check it out, as I haven't looked into the SDK lately. Thanks for the heads up. Ken
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top