Where and when is the next warbird?

shotgunshack

shotgunshack

SOH-CM-2023
What will be the next warbird to hit the streets for MSFS? Have developers stopped building and decided to wait for MSFS 2024? WWII stuff is so charismatic, even the Tomcat from Heatblur I found a little boring after a while but I still loveflying the Spit IX, P-38, Hellcat, Bf109 etc.
 
Oh, why don't we give 'em a hand. Here's my list in order of Most Wanted :

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress
North-American B25 Mitchell
Avro Lancaster
Hawker Hurricane
DeHavilland DH.98 Mosquito
Republic P-47 Thunderbolt
Grumman TBM/TBF Avenger
Douglas SBD Dauntless
Curtiss SB2C Helldiver
Grumman HU-16 Albatross
Grumman J2F Duck
Bristol Blenheim
Focke-Wulf Fw 190
Messerschmitt Me 262
Messerschmitt Bf 110
Mitsubishi A6M Zero

In that order please, thank you ! ;)
 
Flying Iron works on a B-17, DC on a P-61, Flight Replicas on a Spit mk.V, Paul Domingue was busy with a Grumman Duck, among others
 
I have the same thing with the A2A Comanche. I just can't be excited about it. Now, if they just brought their P-47 to Mfs...
 
jankees said:
Flying Iron works on a B-17, DC on a P-61, Flight Replicas on a Spit mk.V, Paul Domingue was busy with a Grumman Duck, among others
Click to expand...

Yes i know, particularly can't wait for the FI B-17. They make wonderful stuff. It's in good hands no doubt ! :encouragement:
 
Daube said:
I would be happy with a DC-3...
Click to expand...

To quote Manuel from the Filthy Towels hotel : "QUE !!??"

What's wrong with the AH Dak, Daube ?...

Ohh... it's a C-47, right ? But the DC-3 is not so much WWII while the C-47 *is*...

Isn't it like or couldn't it be like that Barry and friends/AH are working on a DC-3 derived from their C-47 ?
 
Javis said:
Things that are perfect usually are boring. That's their prerogative. :)
Click to expand...

The DCS Heatblur F-14 combined with the 3x campaigns created by Reflected Simulations is probably one of the greatest experiences in all of desktop simulation. Hardly an objective statement, I know. But, flying warbirds of any generation in MSFS is like having a fully built rally car and then only being able to perform doughnuts in a parking lot. Without mission there is no purpose to push an airframe (noting that the best two aforementioned campaigns are training rather than deployment). Without a purpose to push an airframe there is no outcomes driven refinement of a pilot through airframe management and situational awareness. If your brain happens to crave change, an absence of feedback will pivot to desire for novelty.
 
Flying Iron works on an FW-190, AH is working on a Lancaster.

Didn't John Terrell start work on a B-25 for MSFS? Don't know if that is ongoing, though.

Really excited for the FI B-17, too, though.
 
Javis said:
To quote Manuel from the Filthy Towels hotel : "QUE !!??"

What's wrong with the AH Dak, Daube ?...
Click to expand...

The default DC3 (or C47, I don't really care actually, both are lovely) looks really nice both inside and out, and would be pleasant to use.
Unfortunately, the size (scale) of the virtual cockpit is wrong, it's way too small, like less than half the real size. You can't see it on a regular 2D screen, but in VR it becomes obvious.
Even on a 2D screen, if you look closely at the pilot's seat, you will realize that the yoke is actually touching and going through the base of the seat, which means there isn't space for anybody to seat in there, the left leg wouldn't fit at all.

At the end, in VR this plane is simply un-usable. So I wish somebody would either rectify the size or model a new DC-3/C-47 with correct size.
But this will probably never happen, since the issue affects only VR users, which is a minority.
 
JohnC said:
The DCS Heatblur F-14 combined with the 3x campaigns created by Reflected Simulations is probably one of the greatest experiences in all of desktop simulation. Hardly an objective statement, I know. But, flying warbirds of any generation in MSFS is like having a fully built rally car and then only being able to perform doughnuts in a parking lot. Without mission there is no purpose to push an airframe (noting that the best two aforementioned campaigns are training rather than deployment). Without a purpose to push an airframe there is no outcomes driven refinement of a pilot through airframe management and situational awareness. If your brain happens to crave change, an absence of feedback will pivot to desire for novelty.
Click to expand...

Hehe, i'm sure you are right, Sir, and have a valid point but what you are saying is above my pay grade i.e. i don't know what the heck you're talking about. ;) (English is not my native language..)

I have DCS and i think that particularly the Carrier Operations are absolutely brilliant and a far cry from what we get with MSFS in that respect (IMHO nothing as unrealistic as a Carrier (or a whole task force if you will) floating there still in the water like a dead duck or a flock of dead ducks). Then again MSFS is for flying not sailing, right ? Likewise not for military missions neither. That's all DCS and no doubt superbly done too.

I just like the looks of jetfighters and propfighters and every other kind of flying object, identified or unidentified. And when it comes to jetfighters the IFT/E/Heatblur F-14 (is it IFT or IFE ??...what does 'Foxt' mean anyway ?..) is THE Crème de la Crème, and ,ridiculously enough, i do enjoy tremendously to pretend i'm flying an F-14 in MSFS and be happy with that. I do spend just as much time in the VC as with the External view so i really have no time for missions or anything like that and difficult enough to land that thing on a Carrier without ending up in the Barricade Net.

So, yeah, compared to DCS, we're just fooling around with jetfighters here, enjoying the looks inside and outside and trying to master the flightdynamics which, in more cases then we care for, have us on the top of our skill already to have time and care about any sort of mission anyway. And we DO get to see much and mucho much more than a Parking Lot ! Mucho much more than in DCS too !

May i say DCS has you flying a mission, MSFS has you flying The World ! Be it in an F-14, a Spitfire or Stearman, i love 'em all ! ;)

DCS is amazing but i haven't loaded it up for almost a year. That says a lot, doesn't it. Besides we're slightly off topic here with DCS and jetfighters, John, so we'd better leave it at that.
 
Daube said:
The default DC3 (or C47, I don't really care actually, both are lovely) looks really nice both inside and out, and would be pleasant to use.
Unfortunately, the size (scale) of the virtual cockpit is wrong, it's way too small, like less than half the real size. You can't see it on a regular 2D screen, but in VR it becomes obvious.
Even on a 2D screen, if you look closely at the pilot's seat, you will realize that the yoke is actually touching and going through the base of the seat, which means there isn't space for anybody to seat in there, the left leg wouldn't fit at all.

At the end, in VR this plane is simply un-usable. So I wish somebody would either rectify the size or model a new DC-3/C-47 with correct size.
But this will probably never happen, since the issue affects only VR users, which is a minority.
Click to expand...

Aha !(pun intended), i think i see what you mean. I did one circuit in VR with the AH C-47 and left it at that. I was too occupied with the flying to notice the scale of the VC but quickly realized i don't like VR in 'big' cockpits where gauges become more or less blurry and unreadable. The real DC-3 cockpit is pretty cramped, more or less big pilot guys are literally sitting shoulder to shoulder. But indeed the VC of AH's Dakota is even more cramped than the real one. Physically we wouldn't be able to go sit in the seats without severly hurting our backs. The seats in the real thing can be moved forward and backward there simply isn't room enough to that in AH's VC. Otherwise the VC does look very nice indeed. The thing is though that because of the magnificent PMDG DC-6 i kinda lost interest in the DC-3 more or less. That's of course also because i spend years of creating DC-3's for FS, in fact it was my first go at FS aircraft works by updating John Kelley's 'default' DC-3. You could say the first ' Local Legend', as it was third party created but still came with the FS edition for that time. I think it must've been FS4 or FS5. So it's not like 'Local Legend' is a first in MSFS.... :)

As a result Kenneth Kerr, an FS legend himself, of VIP fame, created the first ever third party panel for FS specifically for....drumroll.......the DC-3 ! ( you need to realize that we were obliged to fly John Kelley's DC-3 with the Cessna 172 panel and sound !.:dejection:... )

So that's a bit of FS history for you particularly regarding the DC-3... :)

Let's hope AH will gives us some more room in their DC-3/C-47 VC sooner or later, Daube !
 
Brings back memories indeed ! Although my first experiences in downloading / installing addons in FS was in FS5 and especially later in CFS1 and FS98...
I had a short go at FS4 on a friend's computer and FS3 (I believe) on another friend's Atari 512 ST :D but no messing with addons at that time ;)

Concerning the DC6, I still have to buy that one. I have absolutely no doubts about the quality level of that addon, but... it will never have the same magic as the DC3.
Still, it might be my only alternative for a while. Thanks for the reminder, Javis !
 
That's not to say I'm not extremely happy with my current collection. The GAS Stearman has had me in raptures since it came out, I can be seen every day flying it from Kermit Weeks facility(super freeware) in Florida.The two cats likewise from Santa Barbara,ORBX, the FI Spitfire from Duxford for its accurate flight model, the P-38 from Edwards. I was a big fan of IL2 1946 and all its spin offs but realised I would never make an ace so thought just give me a high fidelity flying and visual representation and I would be happy. Flying in a beautiful world at peace with itself is the icing on the cake. Just give me more classic fighters, money is burning a hole in my pocket. Oh, and a decent camera system.(pigs will fly first)
 
Is Flying Iron still in business ? I only ask because their FW-190 seems a little overdue. Then again, they might be letting the Me-109's novelty value wear off a little, before tempting us with a shiny new toy. Sound marketing, I would say.

Most of all, I'd like to see some proper WIP shots of their B-17.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top