Page 11 of 12

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2017 12:47 pm
by Skyspin
RE: Osprey

I'm sure Milviz could rise up to the challenge. Again, it would be a monumental addition.
Skyspin

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:00 pm
by CAPFlyer
I doubt they'll do it. The problem is that the amount of programming required would be on the order of Accusim or PMDG's background stuff because FSX does NOT support tilt-rotor operations. All flight models are "derivative" in FSX. This means you set one of a predetermined "base" models (i.e. jet, prop, turboprop, helicopter) and then adjust the flight model to "perform" like the plane you're building. Because of this, it's not possible to have a "plane" hover or a "helicopter" to fly at high speeds.

What you'd have to do is create a way to either swap between the two models (helicopter and flight) or create a wholly external flight model that can operate in both regimes and feed the information into FSX (which is much of what A2A's Accusim does). Either one is a very large investment in programming time and I suspect one beyond any reasonable price point.

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:14 pm
by Krazycolin
It's not just that... it's that it would be for, really, a select few and it's not financially viable in that way.

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 7:35 pm
by Blue
The question really is, who (how many) would buy the Osprey. I personally would for the challenge of flying it. I can imagine that, if sufficient people were interested, the development efforts would be worth it. I have faith in Milviz's ability to deliver the usual quality product.

My 2 cents.

Blue

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:14 pm
by Krazycolin
Honestly, I would be surprised if many did buy it... unless it was relatively inexpensive. That not being possible, it's unlikely it would do better than an equivalently priced ATR... which is the next big plane...

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:25 am
by JonathanBleeker
There is also a very good MV-22B freeware coming out on FSDeveloper although it is not quite to the standard of Milviz payware.

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Fri May 05, 2017 2:16 pm
by endl3ss
Late to the party here as well, but for what it's worth...

Gonna echo a couple of the posters here; would love to see the following from MilViz:
F-111/FB-111 (can't really overstate this one, I'm flying the Virtavia version, but I'm certain MilViz can do a better job)
F-105 (as above really)
As mentioned in a question today, in another thread, I'd really like to see an A-10C (C!, possibly A as well, maybe even the A-10B N/AW even if it's just a "could have been", but mostly the C-version) from MilViz

If talking really big (or at least bigger) stuff, there is one aircraft I'd really love to see MilViz do, and that is the B-1B. Once again, I'm flying the Virtavia version, and while fun and interesting in its own right, once again I'm sure MilViz can do a better job. I'm sure there are tons of details that cannot be implemented due to being classified, but much of the flight dynamics and those systems that are out in the open already could be implemented to make a very rewarding and interesting package. For all I know I might be the only one who gets my noodle tickled by that aircraft, but I'll say as much that me getting into FSX last year, was spurred on by wanting to fly THAT specific aircraft. Everything else I've bought and flown with after that, has been a byproduct of getting into flight-sims again due to wanting to fly that one aircraft ;)

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2017 8:08 pm
by mrpeanutbutter
727-100C!

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:31 am
by endl3ss
Sailor wrote:I'd like to see an A6E Intruder. Long serving plane for the fleet. Most fsx models of it are wanting.
I know, I know, you have a lot of aircraft in the pipe for the next couple of years.
But Sailor got a point here. While I do have the two A-6 packages that are available for FSX, they do leave a lot to be desired, to put it mildly. The systems modeling and visuals is simply nowhere near MilViz standards. Even yesterday, I "tweaked" one of the packages for my own use, to get rid of the "Nickelodeon-look" graphics on one of the cockpit displays. And I never do that, with any other aircraft. But the current A-6 alternatives ticks me off...

If there is one aircraft that really would benefit from some MilViz love, it is the A-6 Intruder/EA-6B Prowler.
Getting an A-6A/B/E/EA-6B package(s) on par with what you've done with the Phantom would be glorious. Even "just" ONE model (I would go for the A-6E TRAM). An aircraft that is screaming for TacPak integration, if there ever was one.

Simply a wonderful aircraft, spanning multiple conflicts and theaters, from Viet Nam to Bosnia. I can remember it from numerous winter exercises in Norway, doing live bombing training into the live fire ranges. It even stayed in active service 1 year longer than the F-4 (EA-6B Prowler exception, it stayed on until 2015, and I personally saw one up close in 2007, with desert camo livery at Baghram airbase in Afghanistan).
So many nice systems that could (possibly/hopefully) be modeled; an all-weather attack aircraft with numerous different radar systems over the years, the A-6E with TRAM, the DIANE system, the A-6B "Iron Hand" setup, A-6C with "Black Crow" and TRIM-pod and LLTV...oh my!

I'm sure it would be a monumental undertaking, but if there is anyone who I think could do it, it would be MilViz. It's asking a lot, to be sure, but for the love of Leroy Grumman, someone has to do it ;)
...and what's not to like about an aircraft that even has its own movie... :)

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:09 pm
by JonathanBleeker
If you can get hold of a set of manuals for the TRAM/SWIP.....

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:27 pm
by endl3ss
JonathanBleeker wrote:If you can get hold of a set of manuals for the TRAM/SWIP.....
Awww...I was sure that you guys had all kinds of manuals around... :oops:
Unfortunately, I only have the A-6E NATOPS and some other A-6 stuff (not the TRAM-version).
The TRAM/SWIP NATOPS-versions seems particularly elusive, although there was apparently one on auction 5 years ago.
But who knows what might pop up... ;)

Having said that, I'd probably be very happy with a non-TRAM version as well, or even an older A-6A/B/C aircraft...

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2017 3:26 pm
by endl3ss
Just throwing out even more "helpful" suggestions here...always on the lookout for exiting new aircraft to fly... :)

Would love to see a MilViz-standard A-26A/B-26K Invader (Counter-Invader) from the South-East Asia theatre, like used by the 609th Special Operations Squadron. Very specialized and narrow, I know, but seems like a fun aircraft.
Another one is the Canberra. Some might feel that it has been done to death already, and I've got Just Flight's Canberra PR9, not a bad package at all. But I think the B-57B with tandem cockpit (and even cooler, the B-57G "Tropic Moon III), once again with a focus on the SEA-theatre, would be absolutely awesome. Very very narrow segment probably, but... ;)

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 1:23 am
by gpf
Martin B-26

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:17 am
by Schröder
Rockwell B1-B (A?) Lancer

Re: next big plane...

Posted: Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:38 am
by endl3ss
I've been falling in love with the MC-130J Commando II lately, because of various reasons...
Since you have a C-130J somewhere in the pipeline (still ongoing, I hope), I was wondering whether it would be possible for you to add the MC-130J to the versions available?
FLIR-turret (I think it is an MX-20, but not sure), INS/GPS navigation systems, configurable external tanks (4 total, the two outboard ones are drogue refuling pods) etc etc. For some low-flying infiltration goodness... :)

Of course, getting the absolute latest enhancements, like the Raytheon AN/APQ-187 Silent Knight terrain-following/terrain avoidance radar, would be EVEN more awesome, although I can appreciate the difficulty in terms of available documentation for that... :?