Author Topic: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft  (Read 145 times)

streakeagle

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« on: August 22, 2017, 04:51:21 AM »
The SimWorks Studios F-4B is outstanding. But despite TacPack, I can't fully enjoy a combat aircraft, especially an air superiority fighter, in an FSX type sim environment. So I was thinking about the strengths of your F-4B versus the limitations/strengths of an FSX/P3D environment. Three aircraft come to mind that I would buy in a heartbeat if they were modeled as accurately as possible both in flight model and systems: RA-5, U-2, and SR-71. All of these aircraft are normally unarmed recon, so flying missions against the limited AI possible with FSX/P3d/TacPack wouldn't be as problematic. The main opposition in the Vietnam era is simply the SA-2 and/or very simple interceptor type missions that can already be modeled to some degree. Of these three, the SR-71 is the most complex and hardest to fly, therefore the most interesting to me. Of course, if you wanted to build off of your previous work, you could go for an RF-4B or RF-4C. But that is too much like what you have already delivered. A fully modeled SR-71 would be irresistible!

P.S. I will stilly buy any F-4 variants you release no matter how similar they are to the F-4B. Likewise, any other Vietnam era aircraft such as MiGs or USAF/USN types will be of equal interest such as your already announced MiG-17.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 04:54:44 AM by streakeagle »
i5(4690K) MAXIMUS VII HERO(16 Gb RAM) HD7970(3 Gb RAM) Win7 Home (64-bit)
OUR MISSION: PROTECT THE FORCE, GET THE PICTURES, ...AND KILL MIGS!

SiR R.i.P.P.E.R.

  • Administrator
  • Test pilot
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #1 on: August 22, 2017, 01:50:25 PM »
We have a number of possible projects on paper right now that we will progressively announce as the time comes. Those are some "interesting" suggestions.

What I'd love to see personally is the combat AI created by FSX@War. This is a very promising turn of events that could turn FSX from an excellent airliner simulator into a decent combat simulator.

This would nullify to some extent one the three advantages of DCS over FSX/P3D, the other two being formation AI and LODs.




Dimus

  • Beta testers
  • Rookie
  • ******
  • Posts: 127
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2017, 05:21:58 PM »
A fully functional SR-71 is under development by Milviz. However, the RF-4B or C is an excellent idea and may not be too hard for SWS to develop, and there is none available so far. U-2 would also be awesome and quite challenging in the FDE part.

dhazelgrove

  • Beta testers
  • Instructor pilot
  • ******
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2017, 07:29:42 PM »
Glowingheat have already got the SR-71 and the A-12 available.

The RF-4B would fit in nicely with the existing offerings here.

Dave

StuB

  • Beta testers
  • Rookie
  • ******
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2017, 12:27:41 AM »
The RF-101B Voodoo would be a great addition to the SimWorks Studios fleet too...especially if it had a working reconnaissance package.
Current System Specs - OS: Windows 7 x64 Professional | Motherboard: ASUS P8Z77-V, LGA 1155, Intel based | CPU: Intel Core i5-3470 @ 3.20GHz | RAM: 12 GB DDR3 1600| GPU: ZOTAC GeForce GTX 980 Ti AMP! Extreme (6GB GDDR5 memory).

streakeagle

  • Rookie
  • **
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #5 on: August 31, 2017, 04:53:56 AM »
RF-101 is an excellent option. As a t-tail aircraft, its high AoA behavior is even worse than the F-4B. Model that accurately and I can have plenty of fun just flying the aircraft. But for any of these recon aircraft to be appealing for flying missions, the recon systems must be modeled to some degree within the limits of available information.

I don't trust any other developers to deliver a model with the overall quality that the SimWorks F-4B has. The Milviz F-4E didn't meet my standards, so I never bought it even when it was 50% off. Milviz has improved the flight model and added TacPack support, but the external 3d model still doesn't look right. Just look at the canopy... too wide/bulbous. The 3d model is really the "easy" part. If they can't even get that right, how can they possibly have the attention to detail to get the flight model or systems right?

To be fair, the SimWorks F-4B still uses the FSX flight model while the Milviz offers an advanced external model, which is the one area where the F-4B really disappointed me. But the Milviz F-4E has slats, which makes modeling high AoA much easier. I would like an advanced external flight model for the hard wing. DCS is going to have a late F-4E, so of course it is slatted. I don't believe Milviz has made and advanced external flight model for their F-4J/S, and the late F-4S was partially slatted, too. So that still leaves the SimWorks Studios F-4B as the best available model of a hard wing F-4 even with the limitation of relying on the FSX flight engine.
i5(4690K) MAXIMUS VII HERO(16 Gb RAM) HD7970(3 Gb RAM) Win7 Home (64-bit)
OUR MISSION: PROTECT THE FORCE, GET THE PICTURES, ...AND KILL MIGS!

SiR R.i.P.P.E.R.

  • Administrator
  • Test pilot
  • *****
  • Posts: 938
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #6 on: August 31, 2017, 12:48:48 PM »
The century series are really getting some love from you guys! I'd really love an F-104, but SSW seems to have covered the market with their S.

What I'd like to see is if/when TP releases for P3Dv4. In my opinion this will be a game changer and personally I'll dump FSX and v3. I get 20-30FPS in v4 which feels like 40+ in v3 and FSX. While most of the engine looks and feels the same, performance is smooth as silk.

Also, to create a bridge with the rest of my post, P3D as of v2 and later supports external flight models natively, presenting it with their UFO example. It's just solving the matter of "when will we dump FSX".

uses the FSX flight model .......vs.........  an advanced external model

Just to clarify perceptions about FSX's "bad flight model" -not specifically about the F-4s, but in general from someone who knows:
  • FSX's flight model is great and can simulate almost any situation, including high AoA. The only thing missing (in the case of the F-4 which is special) is the rudder roll vs AoA table and a couple more behaviours, which we worked around using coding. It is also miscalculating inertia & drag due to external loads, which we didn't work around. Other than that, FSX's flight model can deliver very accurate results. Our F-4 and Aerosoft's F-14 are the best examples of FSX's FD utilization.
  • External flight models, such as DCS's PFM and MilViz's ADV are great if you know exactly what you're doing. They provide you the same capabilities as FSX's flight model plus the chance to work around the bugs without getting out of your way. MilViz has worked their FD very well (I own the advanced F-4E) and DCS modules do too. I dare say that despite some FD bugs, the MilViz Phantom flies more accurately than some DCS modules which we saw, that still miss some scientifically critical points in their FD. What many of them actually do is to follow FSX's table approach, but use more tables to cover certain situations without having to program them (like done in the F-4B).
  • X-Plane probably provides the best approach: unlimited potential with little knowledge. Getting the shapes right in XP can lead to a good flight model in any standard. I'd say you can get the aerodynamic shape's properties more than 90% right, even if you don't have an idea about aerodynamics. Tuning the engine and details is where the knowledge is needed. Legend has it that X-Plane cannot simulate transonic and supersonic flight properly: this has been addressed as of version 9 or 10 to my knowledge, through an update to the FM logic.

To sum it up:
  • FSX gives you a structure, table-based approach to a flight model, which covers almost 99% of an airliner's behaviour and 90% of an unstable aircraft (i.e. fighter) behaviour (in most cases). If you have a skilled enough programmer, you can work around these.
  • DCS and MV's ADV offer you a clean sheet. This means that you write everything from scratch -alas an external flight model. This can lead to results covering the entire crap-to-great spectrum.
  • X-Plane gives you the best of both worlds. It gives you little boxes to work with but doesn't limit you to 60 tables. It doesn't leave you in front of a white sheet like DCS/ADV but gives you the unlimited potential of that approach.

dhazelgrove

  • Beta testers
  • Instructor pilot
  • ******
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #7 on: September 14, 2017, 06:02:43 PM »
If you really want to think outside the box, you might consider the British F4 variants.
Milviz have said they're not interested in doing them, so there would be no conflict of interest.

I believe they'd be a very popular choice.

Dave

Henk Schuitemaker

  • Beta testers
  • Rookie
  • ******
  • Posts: 134
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2017, 06:37:04 PM »
Same here, a decent Spey engined Phantom would be great (I still have the ancient DSB/IRIS models installed).
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 06:38:44 PM by Henk Schuitemaker »

dhazelgrove

  • Beta testers
  • Instructor pilot
  • ******
  • Posts: 400
    • View Profile
Re: Idea for a SimWorks Studios aircraft
« Reply #9 on: September 15, 2017, 11:43:22 AM »
I wonder if they'd manage to get the reheat lag accurately modelled. That's the time between reheats being commanded and their actually kicking-in.
It was an appreciable delay - especially when you were 'ridge-running' and the ground was coming up a little too fast.....

The petals would open, so you'd actually lose power before the reheats lit.
British flying suits were that colour for a reason.

Dave