Hoggggggg

[fliger747]

After they waxed it up they said not to get any bugs on it. So how am I gonn'a flight test it?

[gajit]

Very interesting

[jeansy]

very very very very nice

[stansdds]

Canopy looks really bulged outward, more like a F4U-5/AU-1/F4U-7. Or were you flying with the canopy in the open position?

[Boomer]

:applause::applause::applause:

Lookin sweet dressed up! :ernae:

That'll be on my "must have" list.

[Warrant]

Is that a native FSX Corsair?
Unless i missed a lot i have not been able to find a Corsair properly compliant with or native FSX SP2.

She looks great!

[krazycolin]

It's native FSX but, sadly, still in alpha.....

[chinookmark]

Is that the MilViz Corsair?

[harleyman]

After they waxed it up they said not to get any bugs on it. So how am I gonn'a flight test it?




With a bug free wind tunnel.........:faint:


Looking good.........:applause:

[hews500d]

It's native FSX but, sadly, still in alpha.....


...but still looking mighty sweet in that fresh paint

Darrell

[fliger747]

Yes the canopy is open........ Love the fresh air! I often fly my supercub with the door open!

It is/will be a native FSX aircraft. Still in Alpha but shaping into a very nice plane. I just do the easy part...and have all the fun, making it fly.

Cheers: Tom

[stiz]

just bear in mind folks its a fictional scheme for testing cos i got tired of looking at the white one :engel016:

[fliger747]

Looks fast just sitting there!

T.

[BOOM]

Hello Guy's,New here,fliger747,Can you post some pics of the pit?Is this the Milviz F4U?If so what publisher is going to carry it?

Sorry for so many questions at once,they've been building for awhile and finally I registered to ask,
Thanks
/Patrick/

[MCDesigns]

Hi Patrick, welcome to SOH!! :ernae:

I'd love to see some pit images as well, but since it's an early beta they might not have done the VC yet.

Nice shot Tom!
<-------------me green with envy!!:d

[BOOM]

Thank You Michael,OK that makes sense.
/Patrick/:ernae:

[fliger747]

Not everything is at 100% yet, but the VC is pretty nice. STIZ just did the above "test flight" paintjob as the exterior was in the bare white. It is amazing how complex these projects become.

Cheers: T.

[fliger747]

Colin would be the one to answer any biz type questions, I'm just the hired hand to do the very dangerous engineering test flying!

T.

[krazycolin]

This is indeed the Milviz Corsair. We're almost ready to switch into full on Beta but we're still locking some stuff down and that would include distribution options...

Tom, Stiz feel free to post VC shots... though it needs to be stated that the VC textures are still a work in progress.

c.

[GT182]

Colin, seeing it's so cold up there, I know you guys will stay warm working on her. She looks sweet so far... good job. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v64/GT182/Thumbup.gif

I almost miss living up that way just so I could stop in a visit with yas.

[Scratch]

Tom, Stiz feel free to post VC shots... though it needs to be stated that the VC textures are still a work in progress.c.

Hey! The boss man has spoken and I got my bib on. Show us some Hog centerfold shots!!!!!!!:woot:

[MudMarine]

Oh baby baby! Hose nose centerfold shots!!:applause:

[Scratch]

:bump::ernae:

[fliger747]

More Carrier Qual trials...........

The Ensign Elimenator........

Tom

[MCDesigns]

More Carrier Qual trials...........

The Ensign Elimenator........

Tom

:jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop:

[djscoo]

More Carrier Qual trials...........

The Ensign Elimenator........

Tom
humminah.humminah.humminah:eek:

[BOOM]

Ohhhh,That's SWEEEEEEEEEEEETTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank You sir:woot:
/Patrick/

[MudMarine]

I want to see the deck under the pilots feet. I think it'll be interesting to see how it's modeled? But she's looking very nice! Now all I need is a Wildkitty.........:amen:

[fliger747]

I'd post some pix if the net was uploading them... The deck, not really a deck, more like field privy.... couple of "boards" for your feet....

T.

[srgalahad]

Looks great guys, and I bet it will fly nice once the test pilot fills out the paperwork :ernae:

I might have to think about re-installing "X" but FS9 and stuff is keeping me busy with some sort of race coming up

[stansdds]

I hope the gun sight reticle can be turned off or otherwise disabled. They are a necessity for a combat flight, but I find them to be a distraction in civilian flight.

[empeck]

Will the gun sight collimate? Like in A2A fighters?

[stiz]

Will the gun sight collimate? Like in A2A fighters?

do you mean that fact that they stay on the reflector glass?? if so then no, as its projected straight onto the canopy itself (or so i was told)

few more pics :)

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/Stiz987/fsscr026800x640.jpg

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/Stiz987/fsscr028800x640.jpg


want to see the deck under the pilots feet

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f117/Stiz987/fsscr027800x640-1.jpg

:wave:

[BOOM]

That pit is beautifull!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for showing them off gents:ernae:
/Patrick/

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

<DIR>The gun sight switch and the rheostat for the gun sight light has three positions, "ON," "OFF," and "ALT, alt is for the night version which will be green.

</DIR>

[krazycolin]

It should be stated that HUD's in WW2 weren't actually HUD's at all. They were reflective sights or, gyro controlled sights. There was no such thing as a collimated sight picture in any WW2 aircraft as that type of technology was invented much later.

The actual first HUD was invented by an RAF test pilot by the name of Mike Crosley, who, at the time, tried to sell it, but no one was buying thinking that the tech was useless... so, he let the patent lapse. Silly boy!

So, no, the HUD on the Hog will NOT be collimated nor will it be a HUD at all...

Just to clarify what collimate means : a collimated HUD will allow for the HUD symbology to be projected to appear as about 200 feet away. This allows the pilot to focus always on the outside. As it can take up to 1 second to focus in and out (close and far), and that one second could mean life or death, this system was implemented. As well, the idea behind it was too allow for the pilot moving his/her head from left to right and up and down and still be able to see the HUD symbology clearly. Though, in the real world, this isn't actually possible due to restrictions on lense technology, they do quite well if you don't move your head too much. In flight sims, doing the same thing is extremely difficult and causes a great deal of "pain"...

Aerosoft is the only company to be able to deliver one that actually works. (SO FAR!!!!)

[some1]

I think Empeck asked about this feature:

Blem3FlkaMc NXsVg8F91t8 G7KvpWloagE

If the reflective sight didn't remain stationary regardless of pilots head position, aiming would be impossible without the secondary aiming cue in front of it. So I think they worked this way on every WWII fighter.

[empeck]

Exactly - some1 is right. As far as I know only A2A fighters include this feature, and of course, Aerosoft's F-16.

[MudMarine]

I'd post some pix if the net was uploading them... The deck, not really a deck, more like field privy.... couple of "boards" for your feet....

T.

Rgr. and the empty space under the pilots feet would collect dirt. I've read that some pilots got a face full of dirt during combat turning and burning!

[fliger747]

So that's where sarge left that wrench....

[fliger747]

Tell you what... I'll dogfight the A2A Jug any day in our Hoggggggggggg.

T.

[BOOM]

Ohhhhhhh,sounds like a challenge!!!!!!!

[Scratch]

Tell you what... I'll dogfight the A2A Jug any day in our Hoggggggggggg.

T.

I know we can't have real bullets and damage in FSX, but what about paintball dogfights that leave marks? If possible it would at least be something and it would be alot of fun.
Ok, I'm dreaming again:focus:

[stansdds]

I read a story about an FG-1D that was purchased as surplus, I guess back in the 1950's. It must have been sitting for a while, as the story goes, the pilot was flying it home and decided to do a roll. Dirt, a wrench, and a dead rat all banged around the inside of the canopy.:faint:

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

Exactly - some1 is right. As far as I know only A2A fighters include this feature, and of course, Aerosoft's F-16.

And the both used the same method , more or less with the f16 using a cone and the p47 a highly elongated pyramid , scale up in sub object mode to prevent the spot view getting skewed as well as the selection window and use the materials editor to allow the alpha channel to be seen only from the right angle , a couple of visibility nodes to control it being on and off in power down situations. I can see the use in the case of a HUD but with the reticule in a fighter i find it distracting , fortunately there is an off switch. Not sure its worth the trouble in this case . <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I wonder who copied who ? ....

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

[empeck]

I don't know who copied who, but A2A's Bf-109 i own had this feature long before Aerosoft's F-16 release. I don't care really, both WoP2 planes and Aerosoft's F-16 are stunning.

Personally I don't think it's distracting, even more, I can't look at 'just' textured gunsight glass anymore, fortunately there is an off switch :wiggle:.

[MudMarine]

I know we can't have real bullets and damage in FSX, but what about paintball dogfights that leave marks? If possible it would at least be something and it would be alot of fun.
Ok, I'm dreaming again:focus:

Need a wingman Marine? Death before dishonor!!

[fliger747]

Angels five, Buster!

[Scratch]

Need a wingman Marine? Death before dishonor!!

Oh yeah!!! Let's paint the hell outta them:karate:

[fliger747]

They will be easy to see, just follow the smoke trails.......

T.

[some1]

I can see the use in the case of a HUD but with the reticule in a fighter i find it distracting , fortunately there is an off switch. Not sure its worth the trouble in this case . <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I wonder who copied who ? ....

<o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>

You find one of the most important instruments in a fighter plane 'distracting'? Funny. ;)

Surely a matter of taste, but for me a realistic gunsight is worth the trouble, more than removable pilot and all those extra objects around the airplane when it's shut down and parked. At least I can turn the gunsight on during a flight and play it with Track IR, even if I can't shoot from those damn guns.

Another thing worth noticing is that reticle should be alpha blended, it is not 100% opaque.

Changing topic a liitle - the propeller looks a bit weird on these shots. The propeller hub rotates with the same speed as blades - so why blades are blurred and the hub is not? In real world there is no camera with wich you could achieve such effect on a picture.

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

I find day glow colors distracting , personal taste i guess and perhaps the Vuzix 3D glasses render those aggressively, i remember having the prop discussion with you boys once before , same prop hub also, guess you guys do them differently, i had thought that there was a competitive element to this business, does that mean we all need to do everything the same way , or are differences between designers still allowed ?

[empeck]

I don't know why you are upset, Chuck. Both Corsair and Hellcat looks stunning, these planes are almost perfect. I love how night lighting in Hellcat is done.

I've pointed hub in Hellcat and gunsight here because these are two details which looks wrong (in my opinion) in overall perfect planes.

[some1]

i remember having the prop discussion with you boys once before , same prop hub also, guess you guys do them differently, i had thought that there was a competitive element to this business, does that mean we all need to do everything the same way , or are differences between designers still allowed ?


Definitely not with me, at least I don't remember any discussion on this topic. Please don't take it personal, you'll do as you want.

BTW, I'm writing not as a designer here, but as a possible customer. A little complaints here and there are allowed, aren't they? ;)

[Chuck_Jodry-VJPL]

Hey Guys , whose upset ? i was enjoying the privilege of expressing an opinion , some technical data and soliciting some feedback at the same time,<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
also trying to make a point , that point is that we should embrace the differences between models , not strive to all create the same profile.<o:p></o:p>
Good ideas are worth following , we all try to do the best work possible within the constraints we operate under and with the skills at our disposition<o:p></o:p>
but absolute repetition in every instance of every part is going to make this work begin to all look the same and that’s a shame, it’s also going to raise<o:p></o:p>
polycount’s and draw calls and make freeware production so time consuming as to become prohibitive if the standard expected is raised too high.
Within the payware community there is already a tendency to emulate the latest trend , to some degree the market demands it and those who <o:p></o:p>
build models are then tasked to include the latest craze , the gigantic textures , those cool features into the releases and we call it progress , <o:p></o:p>
but i really do think that we all need to be a leader in our own way and seek our own initiatives to the extent possible.

For what its worth i fully agree that when seen from the side that style of prop hub looks " simulated " , but when it comes to framerates the fewer poly's
being moved frame to frame the faster the animation is calculated by the computer , as mentioned last time the subject was raised i have used
solid propellers in the SR22 G2/G3 turbo models for still and slow rotation but found the animations for full speed props much smoother using a disk.

[ROB]

I invented the coliminating gunsights a long time ago by the He219 for FS2004. Me first.

regards
ROB

[fliger747]

The production of a sim object is a story of many compromises. Features vrs. file size and frame rates is only one of the targets that must be properly located. There has been a tendency for this thread to turn into a "My dog is better than your dog" distraction. The pre release forum discussions over at Ubi for their Pacific Fighters was marked by some rather anoying "Fanboys". Hopefully we can avoid this here.

Each submission has it's own flavor. Not my position as just the guy who makes it fly to make the executive decisions, but my sense of this evolving and building projects is that it will be a pilots plane, one you fly and revel in those skills. It IS (Clintonian emphasis) a fighter and begs to be flown as a fighter, not micro-managed. the Navy (and MARINE) philosophy is KISS. Were here to destroy things.....

Progress is made in a curve derived as a best fit from a rather scattered set of points.

I think you will enjoy flying this bird, especially bringing it aboard ship. I fly with a bunch of Navy pilots and have a pretty good idea of what their skill level is now, and also back then. I believe we have come pretty close to the mark with this one. Not impossible or even that difficult, just unforgiving..... Any day of the week I can go see R2800's flying. Good friends and collegues have thousands of hours driving these around. It's still a pretty reliable powerplant, even if over 60 years of age! Again the Navy's philosophy, even for a single engine fighter operated over water was KISS, just don't do anything stupid and she'll bring you home!

Cheers: Tom