June 24, 2010 Milviz Updates- Agusta 109 and Chinook screens.

[Roadburner440]

Good afternoon everyone. With work, and coding well underway on the Skycrane and the project steaming ever closer to release modelers have been busy working behind the scenes on other aircraft. We announced the 109 project a little bit ago, and there isn't much in the way of textures or anything to report as we have been going through and optimizing the model/correcting discrepancies. With the Chinook it has been in work for a little while longer. The external model for the most part is finished, and work will commence on the VC before it gets sent off for coding. Other than that we are still plugging away on the Skycrane beta optimizing it and ironing out bugs. The Cessna is still in alpha while we adding features to the aircraft. Although I think we are nearing a point where the aircraft can go into beta testing. So stay tuned here in the upcoming weeks for news on the 310! Now on to the screens of the 109, and Chinook. As always they are works in progress, but please critisize and comment as it is easer to fix at this stage of the game than later. Thanks for taking the time to look.

Agusta 109 Model
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Agusta%20AG-109/109_e.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Agusta%20AG-109/109_d.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Agusta%20AG-109/109_c.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Agusta%20AG-109/109_b.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Agusta%20AG-109/109_a.jpg

Boeing Chinook
http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Chinook/chinook_a.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Chinook/chinook_b.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Chinook/chinook_c.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Chinook/chinook_d.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/Chinook/chinook_e.jpg

[guzler]

That Chinook looks stunning, don't fly many helicopters, but that's a must.

[Bone]

I like flying real life choppers, but FS choppers bore me to tears. HOWEVER, that Chinook would do the trick for me.

[peter12213]

Hope we get an RAF spec one, those American army ones are just so basic!

[Roadburner440]

Thanks for the comments everyone. As far as features/functionality go nothing has been set in stone yet with these models. So we are still exploring options as to the final direction.

[bruce448]

Was around these buggers (the Wokka) during both Gulf Wars and the fwd gearbox doesn't quite look right, I don't know if it's the angle the model is shown at, but the fwd gearbox is tilted fwd and lower than the rear gearbox, the only clean way of entering the rotor disks when the blades are turning is from the rear if you want to keep your head even with the tail down stance, static blade clearance at the front is 10ft 11inch then you subtract lots due to the blade sail and the relitively slow rotor RPM.

Bruce

[Roadburner440]

I think it is the angle (I am not the modeler so do not have access to it). I know what you mean though about keeping your head. These had full articulated rotor systems? I know on the H-60 are blades can drop as low in front as 4ft to the ground (sometimes lower depending on where the pilot has the cyclic/collective sticks).. You always enter at a 90degree from either side and stay as close to the nose as you can while ducking to get to the other side to pull out chocks.. We will get some different renders up. Thanks for the input though. Front pylon looks huge on this one (granted it is a newer model) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/MH-47.Chinook.jpg .

[Bone]

Hope we get an RAF spec one, those American army ones are just so basic!

LOL. When I was married to an English woman, we were on the road betweet Christchurch and Salisbury when we stopped at a country Inn for afternoon "tea"...which was food and not tea, of course...anyway, we were sitting there on the patio eating lunch, and this RAF Chinook comes over a ridge and just hovers about 200 yards away. He hovered there for about 30 minutes, and it was the coolest thing to watch while having "tea". So, the RAF has great paint jobs AND they're entertaining. Random thoughts, back on topic...

[crashaz]

Chinook hell yeah!:jump:

[raptor19]

Chinook, yes please! RAF- definitely include it in the pack!

[spatialpro]

Hope we get an RAF spec one, those American army ones are just so basic!

I second that! An RAF-specific model would be a must in order for me to part with my cash...

I'm very excited though. Looking great!

[Ian Warren]

The Chin Chin chin .. nook wont get a back seat but the Agusta 109 ..Umm more closer to my home , Christchurch , ... over here .. New Zealand :wavey:<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[SADT]

Hi,

On the subject of the Chinook, how well does it (Other FSX Chinooks, not this one as not in FSX) fly compared top the FSX. Accel. EH-101? I find the EH-101 is the easiest heli for me to fly in X but still I find it hard. BTW those pics look amazing.

[krazycolin]

Well, given that the Chinook isn't even IN FSX yet, it's hard to say what it's FPS will be.

On the subject of an RAF version, if someone would send me a set of pics or URLS depicting the exact differences, that will make it easier for us to decide if we're doing it.

Please note that we are only doing a steam gauge version of this chopper. No glass screens will be included....

Thanks,

[CheckSix]

There goes the more modern RAF variants :(

[krazycolin]

Glass kills FPS... sorry guys...

[UKMIL]

here are 2 shots of it, hopefully will show the front gearbox height a bit better

[empeck]

You guys HAVE to talk to Fred Naar who makes HTR addon for FSX and make alternative HTR flight dynamics for Chinook.

http://www.hovercontrol.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?act=SF;f=53

Pretty please :wiggle:

[ryanbatc]

What is HTR? Is that better fde for default helicopters?

[UKMIL]

maybee i never made myself clear, those pics ARE the milviz one, I am on board with Krazycolin to help

[Rezabrya]

Then I completely apologize. My bad.

[empeck]

What is HTR? Is that better fde for default helicopters?

Yes. This thread should answer some of your questions:

http://www.hovercontrol.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=53;t=17769;st=0

[peter12213]

RAF chinooks don't have glass pits only they are being upgraded, but most of them are still steam gauges!

Look In Afghan...

http://www.boeing.com/Microsites/IDS/2009/chinook/issue_01/images/international_s5_p3_g3.jpg

[ryanbatc]

Yes. This thread should answer some of your questions:

http://www.hovercontrol.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=53;t=17769;st=0

THanks would you recommend it for default B206?

I also own the Cerasim Bell 412P - have they made new fde's for that bird yet?

[empeck]

THanks would you recommend it for default B206?

I also own the Cerasim Bell 412P - have they made new fde's for that bird yet?

I don't have Cerasilm Bell, but I'm using default Bell with HTR 1.05beta, and I love it.

Sorry for hijacking your thread Roadburner440.

[krazycolin]

I will talk to Fred about integration but, in all honesty, if we have to license yet another software, the costs will go up!

[michael davies]

One of the hard parts of helo FDEs with twin rotors, either on the same axis (Ka-50) or two axis (Ch-46/47) is modeling zero rotor torque, its a bear to get rid of, certainly in FS9 and FS9 derivative file formats in FSx, ie ones with rotor parameters in the air file. Additionally, correctly weighted FDEs for helos are a hand full as well, the sim really does prefer that all helos are about the weight of the Bell 202 LOL.

Having said that the Merlin introduced in Accel offers a new FDE format which does model engine power and thus more accurate airframe weights can be modeled, doesnt make it any easier to fine tune the flight envelope though !.

[empeck]

I will talk to Fred about integration but, in all honesty, if we have to license yet another software, the costs will go up!

HTR is freeware software, I believe all you'd have to do is to make additional config file. Of course it will take some time.

[michael davies]

It might be freeware but I doubt it'll be allowed in a payware product, generally it is bad for for payware vendors to ship freeware developers skills and tools in a payware product, in fact some freeware developers forbid payware developers to even use their items, either in the final product or development, that is their choice and must be adhered by. One of the few exceptions from times past was Martin Wright who freely gave every one permission to use his tools for what ever use they required.

There is nothing stopping any one adding HTR once they have purchased the model themselves, maybe even offering the revised cfg for others to enjoy, but I suspect it will be seriously frowned upon if that source is the payware developer.

I may have it all wrong, but thats generally how things work viz payware/freeware, or else every one just doesn't like me LOL.

[empeck]

It was just a suggestion. HTR dynamics are much better than default. I guess it wouldn't hurt to ask Fred Naar what he thinks about it.

[michael davies]

Ohh I agree, not tried HTR but anything is better than default to be honest, even default can be made quite nice, certainly nice enough for those who generally fly fixed wing, to soft and docile for the hard core rotor wing fraternity but nice enough for casual rotor wing flyers.

There in also lies another conundrum, who do you taylor the FDE for, hard core rotor fans or casual rotor fans, which ever you pick will upset the other, and from a commercial point of view, it seems theres more casual rotor simmers than hard core, certainly FDEs set up for that market attract less criticism, probably because its not dificult for the hard core to modify the FDE to suit their personal preferences. Going the other way, ie casual simmers trying to tone down accurate rotor FDEs is much harder.

Best

Michael

[flyingip]

Looks fantastic!

[Roadburner440]

Don't have to apologize as it is not really hijacking the thread. Just making suggestions about how to make the flight model better. Unfortunately I will have to agree with the consensus that using freeware in a payware product is bad. Is why we like to ask permission from respective developers before even talking about anything like that. As it is their hard work they ultimately decide what/who uses it and how. Although I may have to try this program myself on some helo's and see how it changes the dynamics. I always get upset when helo's keep basically wind vaning trying to go back to the original heading like it is a fixed wing bird. In a no wind environment should be able to put it at X heading and put enough counter torque in and it should hold the heading. We will be working very hard on this though, and I feel the Skycrane's model is as good as one will get without the HTE program. So hopefully everyone will be happy with the flight dynamics once that bird is out. Then we will be able to go from there.

[michael davies]

Some weather vaning should be present at speeds above translation, but no more than say 2.5 oscilations before yaw stability is returned. You simply cannot have a large slab sided airframe that does not automatically want to weather vane back to the intended heading, helicopters by their very design nature are one big weather vane, in fairness turns should be carried out like an aircraft, ie roll and pitch with pedlas used to counter side slip, helicopters when at cruise speed behave much like aircraft, except for power ! :).

Additinally at cruise there should be no or very little torque yaw present, designers go to extrodinary lengths to remove this, from tilting the rotor mast to induce a natural roll to counter torque (Seaking and Hind), tail rotor speeds that match main rotor + a little more to remove the torque input and in the case of the CH-46 a curved rear tail rotor fairing to kick the back out to counter what little torque yaw there is in that twin rotor design. The Seaking also uses a tail boom strake which impinges on the down draft and presents a slight thrust to the left, to counter the tail trying to go right all the time, however that little device from Westland is more prevalent in the hover than at cruise.

However, model a helo with out torque yaw and you'll be shot to pieces, sometimes accuracy is not what people expect, especially in more modern helicopters that have auto controls and devices to counter such forces.

Anyway, enough digression.

Best

Michael