• 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

What aircraft do you think is missing from FSX?

what is missing from FSX?

  • Total voters
    125
maguireted said:
A very very NICE JU 52 !! Regards Anna
Click to expand...

Now that is something that is seriously needed for FSX. It's uses cover so much time, so many paints and users in so many areas of the planet...

And I'd be happy with payware, freeware, default quality or better. I've tried porting in the FS9 ones on a number of occasions and always ended up deleting them. The Ju-52/53 range is just an absolute classic.

No. I'm not doing it myself, either. I have my hands full doing far too many other things in this hobby. ;)

As Bjoern and Piglet have both said, though, we have lost a massive amount of talent from the industry since the heydays of mid-FS9. I think the complexity and demands of the current sim put almost all potential developers off, though. You have to have a hide the thickness of an Elder Kodo to put up with this hobby/industry these days, without having at least one toys-out-of-pram incident a week.

(Edited to add: Between reprojecting aerial photos, SBuilderX and ADE9x this week, I think I'm averaging one screaming fit per hour at the moment. You might wish to stand clear. :))

Ian P.
 
I'd give anything to see a Martin B-10, the first all-metal bomber. It flew in many variants with many nations. It was the "Flying Fortress" of it's day. It's the first bomber I ever saw.
View attachment 11894
 
empeck said:
Depends. If it would be a nice freeware, like Piglets planes I'd be more than happy. If it's payware, I'd ignore it.
Click to expand...


wow.....I would gladly pay a fee for piglets work and I think he is more than a talent to our community.
 
Kiwikat said:
Note this only applies to payware... and I do vote with my wallet.
Click to expand...

Noted and respected. After all, there's money involved.



Piglet said:
Well, when ya dream, might as well dream BIG! But it won't neccesarily get your fave plane made..
Click to expand...

Who doesn't dream big? ;)

But then again, you'll have to make a break *somewhere* if you've got many other dreams that you want to get done.



IanP said:
I think the complexity and demands of the current sim put almost all potential developers off, though.
Click to expand...

*Scratches head*
Complexity? Demands?

From what I've heard doing stuff for FS9 was a near nightmare, with that 4mm vertex welding limit and the ten minutes MakeMDL needed for compiling...:d

It is true that FSX offers a lot of possibilities, - which I have to admit - can be quite overwhelming sometimes and leave you like a lone bloke in a huuuge desert (barebone SDk documentation be thanked!), but as long as you don't want to make money with your stuff no one forces you to actually *use* the new features.
You can perfectly use most of your FS9 modeling knowledge and do FSX aircraft, the only things different is a FSX compilant materials setup and using a tool to declare animations instead just naming your parts with the animation's name. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is, as I've said, completely optional.



skyhawka4m said:
wow.....I would gladly pay a fee for piglets work
Click to expand...

DON'T give him ideas.

I find the payware/freeware ratio for FSX already fairly bad. No need to tip it off some more.
 
Forces and demands are different things, as I'm sure you're aware, Bjoern. ;)

Reading around the FS sites at the moment, the moment a new aircraft is announced, people are complaining about the size of rivets on bump maps, that the gauges absolutely have to be modelled 3d, not .gau files, absolutely every new technique that any new developer has used... Without a word of a lie, I have seen people demanding that freeware aircraft have Accu-Sim levels of system complexity the day they are announced.

Imagine what someone who is thinking of starting modelling thinks when they see that, and look at how much extra work there is in doing an FSX model compared to the one they started and never finished in FS98, or 2002, or whatever...

You've now got sound cones and modelled lights and inbuilt effects and whereas people were happy with a door that opened in previous versions, they now want the inside of the engine cowling modelled and the cover removable. They want every little ding, dent and air inlet modelled and labelled in massive texture sheets (which they then have to halve in size to run the sim smoothly. ;))

Most of them don't have the amount of drive and dedication that the established developers simply have to have, so they fall by the wayside.

I do think it's a pity, but I know for a fact that it is happening.

The same applies to the payware v freeware argument. A few years ago, you could model an aircraft in a week if you were dedicated or a month if you took your time. Now look at the lead time on even comparatively simple models...

You don't have to do it all, no. But there are very vocal people out there who demand that you do.

Ian P.
 
IanP said:
Forces and demands are different things, as I'm sure you're aware, Bjoern. ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah yeah, demands and thick wallets are a dangerous combination...

Reading around the FS sites at the moment, the moment a new aircraft is announced, people are complaining about the size of rivets on bump maps, that the gauges absolutely have to be modelled 3d, not .gau files, absolutely every new technique that any new developer has used... Without a word of a lie, I have seen people demanding that freeware aircraft have Accu-Sim levels of system complexity the day they are announced.
Click to expand...

Question number two upon me presenting my freeware Do-328 for the first time:

"Will it have a FMS?"

That'd be the point where I usually tell the asker politely to f+++ off.
Just because it has been done once doesn't mean it's the new industry standard.

Imagine what someone who is thinking of starting modelling thinks when they see that, and look at how much extra work there is in doing an FSX model compared to the one they started and never finished in FS98, or 2002, or whatever...
Click to expand...

That's why people encourage need to be encouraged to start modeling regardless of the quality of the outcome.

There's a ton of addons out there that would fall short of the "quality standard" but the developers do them nonetheless. Because they can and they want to.
And I really respect them for doing "their thing" without any ouside voices throwing them off course.

But there are very vocal people out there who demand that you do.
Click to expand...

As I've said: Insane demand from someone = "F+++ off" from me. ;)
 
So this thread shows the evidence of the relatively young members of SOH. The older airplanes, that is those before WWII, are completey forgotten. We went from the Wright Brothers Flyer to a Beech Debonair or a Lockheed T-33, Not much in between except for WWII fighters that have been done to death.
 
Douglas TBD-1 Devastaror.
Brewster F2A Buffalo
Douglas B-18 Bolo
Vought SB2U Vindicator (a.k.a., "Wind Indicator")

That's all I want.

And a Bristol Beaufort. But that's it.

Ok, all those, a Bristol Beaufort, and P-2 Neptune. But that's all I need, really.

And maybe a B-25C...

(and this lamp...)
 
I would love to see a Stinson Reliant SR-9F. My uncle owns one of these and it really is a gem of a plane.
 
- An updated Piper Meridian with glass panel.
- An updated Mooney Acclaim.
- A payware quality Falcon 7X and Gulfstream.
 
A payware quality Falcon 7X and Gulfstream.
Click to expand...

My number one request as well for sheer performance and long range fantasy globe trotting. Shame the FSD Jetstar bit the dust but an FSX G-5 or Falcon 7x with all the trimmings would fill a big gap. There should be a way to get 'round the silly IP law issues (negotiate a reasonable payware royalty or do it as freeware in another name).

The well known "over done" planes have already been mentioned. There also are many requests for planes that in my own view - this is where it becomes subjective and one's personal preference - that already exist and are probably "good enough."
 
Hi Expat,

The major problem with making the Gulfstream under another name is the that Gulfstream have also trademarked the profile of their jets, so you could make one: it just wouldn't look like a Gulfstream.
 
Hi,

A lot is missing but I sorely miss an F-104G/TF-104G and an F-84E/G Thunderjet or an F/RF-84F Thunderstreak/Thunderflash.

Thanks
 
I know, I have just started the Do 27, but the F-84F is very high on my list. Most probably the next one. In fact if the cockpit wouldn't be that crowded it could have been the first one for FSX....
 
kilo delta said:
Hence "compatible" and not "native" ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry to be a pedant, but if there's a problem ( and there is ), it isn't even compatible. I understand the definition of 'native' and 'compatible' in the context of FSX add-ons.

Milton Shupe's FS9 Spartan and Beech 18 have been worked on to make them 'compatible' with FSX/SP2, and they are flawless as far as I can tell. The Cal Classics C-46 has the usual prop disc texture problem, so by definition is not compatible.

Still the best C-46 yet, however, and one of the aircraft that has me remembering FS9 with great fondness

View attachment 11965View attachment 11966View attachment 11967
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top