Classic British Flight Sim

DaveB wrote:I won't be spending the extra £9 on the expansion pack as I'm not that serious about my flying experience in it. Has anyone else forked out yet??

As far as I can tell, you're paying £9 for 4 new liveries and some very slightly different missiles. Hardly seems worth it, to me. The only model in the expansion pack I'm particularly interested in is the clean one, for display flying. But I can't justify an extra tenner just so I can have the missiles removed from the Italian model... the base pack was hardly cheap in the first place.

At least I have the power to talk with my wallet!

I have replied to Dan's and Phil's comments over on AS... I don't mind people defending their work and at least Phil didn't swear at me or delete my post. Seriously though I took Phil's comments in the spirit they were intended and I did notice that the other points have not been addressed yet. It is clear that real effort has gone into the external model... it is very good but perhaps at the expense of some other but important elements. I don't have time tonight but I'll give it another go tomorrow - first impression is that it flies a little like a GR1/4 at low level but I need to take it up a bit to see what high altitude performance is like. Also yaw in the roll is a problem, it is significant and even a lightly loaded Tonka can do better than that.

Your mention of the old DOS based Tornado sim brings back memories Dave - I think that was one of the hardest sims of its era to master, very unforgiving of incorrect wing or flap settings!

Regards,
Chris

Regarding flight dynamics, just some observations over the years.

MS Flight sim doesnt seen to model transonic envelopes very well.
MS Flight sim seems to be taylored for heavy iron or GA flight envelopes.
MS Flight sim doesnt appear to model swept wing envelopes very well.
Very few developers tackle transonic aircraft in general, those that do will illict greater negative feedback especially from the commercial quarter.

Regarding the Tornado.

Looks nice.
Has a few faults.

Regarding Alphasim

Same old same old, its not going to change chaps.

Good point Michael. I'm considering deleting this one and getting a refund. Had another go last night and given the price there are just too many issues with the FM to persevier. Still I can use the money for something else so every cloud etc etc.

Unless of course one of our very own gurus can do something with it?

Regards,
Chris

ChrisHunt wrote:Good point Michael. I'm considering deleting this one and getting a refund. Had another go last night and given the price there are just too many issues with the FM to persevier. Still I can use the money for something else so every cloud etc etc.

Unless of course one of our very own gurus can do something with it?

Regards,
Chris

I think the biggest ( I was going to say mistake but its not a mistake per se' ) draw back is that they have crammed too much into one product, there are too may variables between Mks for one FDE to become effective, it is very easy to get drawn into the must add more to the package to make it more appealing, the end result is a massive work load in making sure each version is just so and each cockpit matches each exterior and all the variable load outs as well.

I cannot knock it as I've done it myself in the past with the Seaking, you think its your only chance to add all those fringe variants when in reality joe public only wanted a RAF SAR and a USN variant, it takes great discipline to stop overloading a project.

If they had stuck to one RAF variant it might have been easier to bend MS Flight sim into accepting a swing wing transonic aircraft, a swing wing is the worst of all worlds, in one form its a plank winged sub sonic turn and burn, the next a delta punching great big holes in clouds at high speed. Matching real world numbers for even a large proportion of the envelope probably isnt going to happen veary easily or even at all.

Best

Michael

Hi Michael,

I think that AS are getting a little carried away with fringe issues and eye candy (reflective gauges - nice idea sh:t in reality) and forgetting the basics - get at least the external model, the FDE and (dare I say it) VC right (even if it doesn't have reflective gauges) then it will be there - mind you that is pretty much the entire thing. Notwithstanding the external model the quality of the remainder of the package is way below acceptable for the money. Perhaps AS are trying to do too many different models?

Regards,
Chris

ukmil wrote: the F2 had the auto system, but it proved to be very unreliable, and the tolerances at which the movements happened were wide, so the wings would constantly shunt back and forwards randomly which scared a lot of pilots, especially in the landing sequence

On the subject of auto sweep - is this a real or fake shot - and - if it's real - couls a Tornado manage flight in this configuration?

It's definitely a real image, I think it was the second F-14 prototype that suffered the failure. It landed quite safely although I'm guessing a little fast.

that picture is real. it was a test to see if the flight systems could handle this sort of wing sweep failure. the tornado cannot have this situation due to the fail safe systems in incorporates in the wingsweep system. if it detects an assymetry issue between the wings, it simply locks them where they are. they should never get more than a few degrees apart

Cheers Guys

That must have been one scary test :o