Milviz Updates 24 Oct 2010, T-38 Unveiling!

[Roadburner440]

Good evening all. Hopefully everyone had a good weekend. Mine was outstanding as I went to the NAS Jacksonville airshow yesterday. So other than the horrible traffic after the event (took almost 2 and a half hours to get out of there, yikes!) can't complain. An update on things going on at Milviz first before we get to the renders. The F-15E is still in coding and we haven't gotten a first alpha pass like we were hoping to a week or so ago. We remain hopeful to be able to show shots, and give an in depth update on that in the near future though. Others who keep up on the Nemeth's forums know the A-109 has been imported into the sim, and they are hard at work making it function like an A-109 should. No timeline at all on that one as they are hard at work laying basic framework at the moment. In the meantime since the 310 has been released I have been helping them test the SA-2 Samson (known to me just as the flying thing from Avatar). While I was apprehensive at first spending a few hours behind the pit it is very fun to fly. Also it does not do anything "supernatural" like I thought initially when it was unveiled. Look forward to maybe bringing an indepth preview, and systems showing once they give the approval. As for our own team though this is the fruits of their labor with the 310 completed. We will be bringing you both the T-38A and T-38C. These are the T-38A model renders, and the C will follow when the model is completed. You can expect them to be on par with the quality in the 310. I have also been working on my own projects (I know, scary huh?), and look forward to lifting the curtains on those once I am done going OCD on them. As always comments are welcome, and look forward to bringing updates as they become available. (There will be 12 renders in this thread, so if you read before I finish posting them all just refresh.)

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a1.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a2.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a3.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a4.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a5.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a6.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a7.jpg

[Roadburner440]

Part 2!

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a8.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a9.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a10.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a11.jpg

http://i519.photobucket.com/albums/u359/Roadburner426/T-38/t38a12.jpg

[skyhawka4m]

amazing!

[Daveroo]

wow...simply beautiful

[Bone]

I have a flight sim hot button, and you just hit it...and an A model at that!

[peter12213]

That is fantastic looking! However I bring bad news I take it everyone in the UK has heard about the A-109 crash in Ireland, cause still undetermined, apparently clear blue skies and no wind, Horrific, about 4 or 5 people died, just thought I'd let you know! If anyone can find out or hears more info please let us know!

[Roadburner440]

That is ashame about the A-109 crash. Will have to look out for information on that in the coming days. Always sad when we lose an aircraft, but it is even worse when lives are lost with it as they can never be replaced.

[deathfromafar]

WoW! Now you're talking! :salute:

[SADT]

Mamma Mia! :salute: :jump:

[peter12213]

That is ashame about the A-109 crash. Will have to look out for information on that in the coming days. Always sad when we lose an aircraft, but it is even worse when lives are lost with it as they can never be replaced.

Agreed just thought you'd like to know mate, I can imagine it was pilot error just because of the conditions and the fact the photo they showed on BBC1 was one of an imaculate helo and it was the very helicopter that crashed, it looked really nice, White with a blue trim. They were on there way to or from a game of golf when they crashed, eye witnesses said they saw a Helicopter in distress, thats all I know! Very sad!

[Barfly]

Incredible modeling. How detailed will the FM be? The t-38 has a very distinctive approach to stall feel / buffet.

[BOOM]

MMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmm,Me Likes!!!!!!!!:jump:

[skyblazer3]

Thank you Milviz..... Thank you.
:salute:

[Roadburner440]

Better believe we are going all out on the flight model for this one like the 310. We figured after the twin engine GA it would be good to depart in a totally different direction. You can expect things to go very similar to the 310 (hopefully without all the SP's though). We are going to push the limits of what we know is possible, and the paint kit and such will be released same day with it (hopefully a little earlier so everyone can get a head start).

[Rattler]

I just Wet Myself!!!!!

[bstolle]

Incredible modeling. How detailed will the FM be? The t-38 has a very distinctive approach to stall feel / buffet.

The FM is already very much finished concering the 'normal' envelope and I was surprised during the development how easy she slips seriously onto the backside of the powercurve during approach.
(In fact you ARE already slightly on the backside on final)
Still have to do the severe wingrock upon stall etc. and post stall modelling.
The rather unique stick/aileron deflection ratio has been incorporated as well.
As a member of the AIAA I was able to buy quite a few very interesting and helpful documents concering the T-38 aerodynamics.
Nevertheless I'm glad we have a real ex T-38 driver to check the FM so we are in a similar lucky position like with the C310!

Best regards

Bernt

[Daveroo]

will there be a Beale "BB" Paint for this purddy plane?...

[Roadburner440]

We do not have the release paints planned at the moment. That is Gunnar's department so he may have some idea. Like with the 310R we are going to be releasing the aircraft with a minimal amount of paints, but the paint kit will be released a few days prior/day of. So the community will be able to do with the aircraft what they wish. Our philosiphy is that it takes time (and essentially money) to create a lot of paints to release with the bird. So in order to keep the price point low, and save space on your hard drive we feel this is the best approach. I know my 150GB WD Raptor is getting packed with all the brids/repaints I have. I am sure Gunnar will be doing lots of post release re-paints for this as with the 310R though. Think he is doing every Songbird repaint ever on the 310. All I know is I wish I had that much motivation to texture aircraft.

[clmooring]

I like it! I like it a lot!

[merida72]

mamma mia II la vendetta...


speachless! WOW

[Rattler]

I too hope that some of these Paints will be Made Available for the T-38, I like the First 3 myself
http://flickriver.com/groups/456206@N23/pool/interesting/

[Gibbage]

Whoooo. Shiny. Did they have a sale on reflection shaders? UGH! Post a proper clay render plz. Its hard to make out shapes with so much reflection. When ever I see chrome renders like this, I always think they hare hiding something. Make it shiny enough and people wont notice any errors.

But it does look good. :salute:

[Bone]

Whoooo. Shiny. Did they have a sale on reflection shaders? UGH! Post a proper clay render plz. Its hard to make out shapes with so much reflection. When ever I see chrome renders like this, I always think they hare hiding something. Make it shiny enough and people wont notice any errors.

But it does look good. :salute:

I thought it had that shiney look from being hot off of the show room floor. Looks good to me.

[Peter SWE]

Good going guys! Im really looking forevard to this one.

[Dag]

Whoooo. Shiny. Did they have a sale on reflection shaders? UGH! Post a proper clay render plz. Its hard to make out shapes with so much reflection. When ever I see chrome renders like this, I always think they hare hiding something. Make it shiny enough and people wont notice any errors.

But it does look good. :salute:

Agreed, let's see a semi-matt specular shine.

Thanks

[lifejogger]

Just saw this post and it is amazing.

[Rattler]

Agreed, let's see a semi-matt specular shine.

Thanks

Do you think we can talk Dag into making some Wonderful Paints for thisone.... I wonder!!!:salute::salute::salute:

[centuryseries]

Retractable nose landing light looks a bit off to me.

Just a piece of constructive critque.

[Roadburner440]

Thanks Century. We'll look into it. Also I thought the shinyness of it was a little odd. Plus the VC panels are set to be transparent it would seem. Next preview we will use the "clay" modeling on it. This is the first one that I have seen come through this way, but thought it looked cool in its own way.

[Aviator32]

It does look spectacular but remember guys it is just a render. Renders of FS2002 aircraft could look spectacular too :kilroy:

[Roadburner440]

LOL. I haven't seen the model in person in 3DS myself so I really cannot comment. When I saw the renders last night I was awstriken. The model is done though, and off to paint. So you will see it skinned soon enough. Usually only takes a couple weeks to come back from paint.

[krazycolin]

I will do some greyscale renders tmrw and Steve will post them up.... sheesh, there's just no pleasing people...

[Rattler]

I will do some greyscale renders tmrw and Steve will post them up.... sheesh, there's just no pleasing people...

Been known to Please Myself, LOL:173go1::173go1::173go1:

[krazycolin]

EWWWWWWWW!!!!!

[Roadburner440]

LOL. Colin you have to admit you set yourself up on that one. :jump:

[XLR8]

Here they go again...teasing us . But I like it . Nice work there . Always wanted one for FSX .

[krazycolin]

grey scale pics. Never again will I use a reflective material for renders....

[krazycolin]

part 2

[krazycolin]

oh... i forgot to mention... the landing light isn't fully extended and that's why it looks wierd... sorry about that...

[SADT]

Colin, I think reflective renders look very cool for the exterior model! :salute:

[noddy]

WOW indeed.

[ColoKent]

All I can say is, paint kit and travel pod version (naturally!) please!

Fantastic.

Kent

[empeck]

Impressive.

[Dag]

There we are ;-) Much better !
Pay attention to the lower rear fuselage where the fuselage outer lower corners joins the fwd edge of the skinning of the tail pipes. I believe this area is too tapered/rounded. The aft end should be more squared here and the aft end vents in this area, should be more prominent.
Apart from this, the model looks superb !!!

Thanks

[centuryseries]

oh... i forgot to mention... the landing light isn't fully extended and that's why it looks wierd... sorry about that...

Even if it's not fully extended it just doesn't look right. The light assembly looks too big and the back of it looks sloped in a funny unusal way for what is essential a simple fold out light?!!!

I'm sure you've done your homework, I guess I'd need to see more to be certain.

[Roadburner440]

We will take a look at the landing light. We have a lot of good documentation and photos of this bird. It never hurts to go back and verify. Especially at this stage as it is a lot easier to just go in and change it.

[Bjoern]

Quality work!

But then again, you guys are MilViz. Anything else than to notch is the beginning of the end of the (FSX world). :icon_lol:

[XLR8]

Question for one of the Milviz folks . At the milviz visualization site there are large amounts on models . Are these work in progress for FSX .

[Roadburner440]

No. Colin and his company have done a lot of those models for movies, demo's, presentations, etc. He also does government contract work and such. He also has done various models across the flight sim industry (for companies such as Alphasim, A2A, Iris, FSD, etc.). I came on board when he decided he wanted to try it for himself, and we have managed to get together a good team of people (Bill, Bernt, Gunnar, Ken, and many others!) who love what we do. Some of the models that we have released were re-worked from some of those models you are asking about. Unfortunately that is what led to the really bad frame rates in earlier models (many of them are several hundred thousand poly's)... So now we custom build all FSX models from the ground up in order to help improve the FPS. So many of those models on the website will not be re-worked. We have a couple in the pipeline right now that are being re-done, but the vast majority of stuff we have upcoming (like this T-38) are brand new projects. Hope this answers the question. If you have any aircraft you would like to see we are wide open for ideas. Especially if we already have a model in the inventory as that means we have the necessary research material. It wouldn't be until probably a year from now before we even start though.

[SADT]

How about that E-2C hawkeye or the F-111F aardvark?

[Roadburner440]

The F-111 I cannot talk about because that is a partner project went sour and is most likely dead now. They have moved on and released other birds... As for the Hawkeye well. We will see what the future brings (and I am pushing hard for it), but it is not on the table at the moment. That was going to be the aircraft I learned to do poly reduction on, but I got another project instead. :jump: At some point though I would like to see a C-2/Hawkeye type package. I think they are very cool aircraft, and I am hoping my next set of military orders allows me to go work on them in real life. Right now though we are knee deep in about 5 to 6 projects (obviously the Nemeth's code our helo's, and the F-15 was sourced out for coding as well), so our workload is truly only focused on about 3-4 of those specifically. Once we clear the T-38, F-15, and a couple of these other aircraft from the slate hopefully before X-mas we can then take a pause and get started on next years stuff. That is the plan anyway, and you all know how that goes. :isadizzy: I know with the 310 we had a good timeline for that, but we kept wanting to push it farther and farther which wound up making us push the date farther and farther back.. I think the aircraft turned out very well though, and we learned quite a lot.

[Rattler]

No. Colin and his company have done a lot of those models for movies, demo's, presentations, etc. He also does government contract work and such. He also has done various models across the flight sim industry (for companies such as Alphasim, A2A, Iris, FSD, etc.). I came on board when he decided he wanted to try it for himself, and we have managed to get together a good team of people (Bill, Bernt, Gunnar, Ken, and many others!) who love what we do. Some of the models that we have released were re-worked from some of those models you are asking about. Unfortunately that is what led to the really bad frame rates in earlier models (many of them are several hundred thousand poly's)... So now we custom build all FSX models from the ground up in order to help improve the FPS. So many of those models on the website will not be re-worked. We have a couple in the pipeline right now that are being re-done, but the vast majority of stuff we have upcoming (like this T-38) are brand new projects. Hope this answers the question. If you have any aircraft you would like to see we are wide open for ideas. Especially if we already have a model in the inventory as that means we have the necessary research material. It wouldn't be until probably a year from now before we even start though.

But Does he Know what he is Talking About?:bump:

[krazycolin]

In terms of what I know or don't know... well... I will leave that to others to decide. We (the Milviz team) just want to make the best AC possible for the best price point.

The landing light is correct. We have two (not one but TWO) actual T-38 pilots and both agree that it is correct.

NEXT!!!!

[Roadburner440]

Whatchya mean Rattler?

[c87]

Since you asked, I'd still love to see a beautiful P-40E. I'm sure MilViz could do a superb job on this. I'd like to see one that's of the caliber of some of the latest FSX models that have been introduced lately.

[skyblazer3]

I'll have to say it again...... I would love an F-100C model with no tanks. However, I don't really care what a developer makes, so long as it is a work of love. If the developer is really into the aircraft, then the final product will be enjoyed by all. This T-38 looks first class, I can't hardly wait.
:salute::salute:

Chris

[XLR8]

No. Colin and his company have done a lot of those models for movies, demo's, presentations, etc. He also does government contract work and such. He also has done various models across the flight sim industry (for companies such as Alphasim, A2A, Iris, FSD, etc.). I came on board when he decided he wanted to try it for himself, and we have managed to get together a good team of people (Bill, Bernt, Gunnar, Ken, and many others!) who love what we do. Some of the models that we have released were re-worked from some of those models you are asking about. Unfortunately that is what led to the really bad frame rates in earlier models (many of them are several hundred thousand poly's)... So now we custom build all FSX models from the ground up in order to help improve the FPS. So many of those models on the website will not be re-worked. We have a couple in the pipeline right now that are being re-done, but the vast majority of stuff we have upcoming (like this T-38) are brand new projects. Hope this answers the question. If you have any aircraft you would like to see we are wide open for ideas. Especially if we already have a model in the inventory as that means we have the necessary research material. It wouldn't be until probably a year from now before we even start though.


Thanks for sharing that . So if you start to build a plane than it gos sour,is that it for that plane . Not talking about the model .

[XLR8]

I'll have to say it again...... I would love an F-100C model with no tanks. However, I don't really care what a developer makes, so long as it is a work of love. If the developer is really into the aircraft, then the final product will be enjoyed by all. This T-38 looks first class, I can't hardly wait.
:salute::salute:

Chris


I know what you mean. All I want is a F-22. Hopefully one will come before the end of FSX .

[Roadburner440]

We really do not like to shelve products. Unfortunately the issue for us is not building models. We can build a model in about 3-5 weeks, and then send it off for texturing for about another 2-3 weeks. Our issue is coders. We were fortunate enough to get Bill on board for the 310 to do the hard coding, and Bernt to do the flight model. Without them the 310 would be nothing more than a rendering in 3DS max like the other models... We do not want to make a model and not do it justice. While we do not go as far as modeling oil levels and such. We do like to have a large degree of realism in the numbers, and flight model itself. Bernt has been working tirelessly for about the last week on the F-15's and T-38's high altitude performance numbers, and finally had a breakthrough with that in the last 2 days. The F-111 add's a lot more to that mix being it is a sweep wing, and that completely changes your aerodynamic loading depending on the sweep angle (and about a million other factors it seems). It may come into the pipeline at some point, but that remains to be seen. That is the main reason we started doing models in house ourselves. The F-15's were initially going to be an outsourced project, and that is why they got shelved due to us not having the technical capibilities until recently. So stuff does get picked back up.

[Roadburner440]

Unfortunately with the F-22 the modeler has been extremely sick for some months now (I do not personally know him, but have always wished him well).. When he recovers, and hopefully can resume work on the F-22 we will progress forward with that. The F-15 is going to give us a good base for that, especially with the weapons systems. As far as legacy birds go here is what I would like to see. While the F-100, P-40, and all are good choices. I myself am pushing for Naval aircraft (I guess you can say I am biased :cool:). I would like to see us do a C-2A, E-2C, S-3B, H-60B/F/H, An-225, Tu-95, and Mi-26 (this is my wishlist, not a list of upcoming aircraft by any means). I think everyone will be happy with our upcoming lineup though. The T-38, F-15, A-109, and CH-47 are the tip of the ice berg.

[Naki]

Since you asked, I'd still love to see a beautiful P-40E. I'm sure MilViz could do a superb job on this. I'd like to see one that's of the caliber of some of the latest FSX models that have been introduced lately.

I second that!

Naval aircraft? I see you have a model of a Zero .... a Sea Fury would also be nice

[Gibbage]

The E-2C was one of the 1st models I did for Colin/Milviz, and it would be nice to see it in FSX! I can give you some good tips on poly reduction if ya want. I have found some nice techniques that work good and fast, and also keeps the UVW mapping intact. :salute:

[Gibbage]

a Sea Fury would also be nice

I would love to see a good Sea Fury. I had started one, and even got in contact with the owner of two Reno Fury's and he agreed to let me use them as referances (get in, take pix) but it never went anywhere since I got the job at Aces soon after and I moved too Washington. Would love to pick it up again, but im way too busy with my full time job. That and the F8F/F7F are the apex of piston engine fighters!

[Sundog]

That and the F8F/F7F are the apex of piston engine fighters!

I would have to add the P-51H and F-82 to that list. ;) Oh, how I do wish we had an F-82 as well.

The T-38 looks great. A dedicated FSX F-5E would be great as well, but I do understand the differences are somewhat substantial.

[skyblazer3]

An F-82..... that monster from out of the blue?

Just give me operations.

[SADT]

Well, at any rate, the number of models available to Milviz shouldn't be a limiting factor throughout the next year :jump:

[falcon409]

Back to the T-38C for a sec. . . .I'm only mentioning this as an "is this correct?" question and not something that must be implemented. The last Egress Conference I attended in 2006 featured the folks from Martin Baker and besides the normal stuff they were showing (The JPATS Seat System and the F-35 Seat. . .very plush by the way) they also were recruiting personnel to begin the mods to all USAF T-38's for the new Martin Baker Ejection System. That was to start in late 2006 at Laughlin for about 18 months and then moving from base to base thereafter to complete the remaining Talons. The current seat showing in the early modeling isn't the MB (yes I know that's the "A" model). Will that change for the "C" model?

[krazycolin]

It wasn't planned but... we shall see.

[Roadburner440]

We have a lot planned for the T-38C model. While the ejection seat is not one of the things that has been discussed so far. We are well aware of the re-design of the engine intakes, exhaust ducts, and other changes that were made to the internal/external. Those will all be modeled. I like all the aircraft suggestions by the way.. F-7F and P-51H are definately neglected birds when it comes to MSFS.

[skyhawka4m]

F4u-5N!!!!!

[falcon409]

It wasn't planned but... we shall see.
As I said, not a real big deal, most would never even pay any attention to what the seat looks like, it was just something I knew was being changed in the T-38.:salute:

[Daveroo]

We have a lot planned for the T-38C model. While the ejection seat is not one of the things that has been discussed so far. We are well aware of the re-design of the engine intakes, exhaust ducts, and other changes that were made to the internal/external. Those will all be modeled. I like all the aircraft suggestions by the way.. F-7F and P-51H are definately neglected birds when it comes to MSFS.

are you awhare of the milton and crew built F7F over in the 2004 forum?..it will be FSX as well,and it is also an airtanker as well as the fighter...looks as sexy as it should

[Rattler]

Whatchya mean Rattler?

Incase Anyone Missed it, That was a Joke, I`m Sure He is Very Good At what he Does, I have the B-1B from Milviz and I Am very Happy with that Bird, I am looking forward to the F-15 Set and the forementioned T-38, Again, I was trying to be Funny, I guess It didnt Work.... :kilroy::kilroy::kilroy:

[krazycolin]

er.... we didn't do the B-1B.... that was Alphasim....

oh well.. .back to not knowing...

[Rattler]

er.... we didn't do the B-1B.... that was Alphasim....

oh well.. .back to not knowing...

Virtavia, Oh My, Sorry about that...... I Promise to Buy Something from Milviz The F-15 and T-38 are On the Books For me!!! P.S. Nice Camel toe :bump:

[VaporZ]

Wow !

Any potential release dates for both T-38A and T-38C Talons ?
Will it be a pawware ?
If yes, any price range indications ?

Its already on my "to buy" priority list.

Hoping that "Nasa" and "USNTPS" colors will be chosen for the Milviz
initial package.
:ernae:
VaporZ

[Rattler]

Nasa Paints would be great And All the Training Commands, Beal, Holloman, And Whiteman I think it is, Am I missing Anyothers?

[James]

I would absolutely love to see it freeware. The UKMIL T-38 isn't relly easy on frames for my rig, and I am having some issues with the new FSD T-38. Freeware would make my day!:jump:

[Aviator32]

Yes absolutely. Make it Freeware please.
And then come and clean my house and take the dogs out for a walk :icon_lol:

[Roadburner440]

Everything that we do is payware. We really try to keep the cost low. It really comes down to us paying for the programs we use (3DS Max), and paying to cover all the stuff that we subcontract out (such as sounds to T.S.S., coding, etc). While we have not set a price yet I would expect it to be close in range to the 310. We are going to start selling products straight from our site hopefully starting with the T-38. So that will give us more flexibility in deciding the final prices.

[krazycolin]

The NASA planes are actually substantially different in the VC's... so.. as much as I would like to say yes to that, those will have to be done on the outside.

It will indeed be payware. Pricing is not available at this time. Release date: unknown.

[Bone]

I would absolutely love to see it freeware. The UKMIL T-38 isn't relly easy on frames for my rig, and I am having some issues with the new FSD T-38. Freeware would make my day!:jump:

What new FSD T-38??

[James]

Well, it's not new [sts], but it's freeware now, I think.

[centuryseries]

The landing light is correct. We have two (not one but TWO) actual T-38 pilots and both agree that it is correct.

NEXT!!!!

I wasn't trying to have a dig, it just didn't look right. Funnily enough I have a half built FSX T-38C minus VC, but I will be unable to ever finish it. No point now, seems everyone is going for the same projects! :jump:

Still, yours looks good. Should be a hit. My FSX modelling days are about over now for a variety of reasons.

Kudos to you for getting enough references for the landing light.

[ColoKent]

The T-38 looks smashing! The good thing about the Talon is that there are limited external models required to capture all variants. The only external stores I am aware of are the travel pod for the T-38. And the NASA -A models were stock up until the mid-80s (before the intro of WX radar, and new avionics).

Also, a well done paint kit would allow the community to do a ridiculously huge number of repaints (NASA schemes 1965-1988, as well as 9th SRW schemes are those I would want to do).

Looking forward to it!!!!

Kent

[krazycolin]

We will be releasing the paint kit either before or at the same time as the actual product(s).

[centuryseries]

The T-38 looks smashing! The good thing about the Talon is that there are limited external models required to capture all variants. The only external stores I am aware of are the travel pod for the T-38. And the NASA -A models were stock up until the mid-80s (before the intro of WX radar, and new avionics).

Also, a well done paint kit would allow the community to do a ridiculously huge number of repaints (NASA schemes 1965-1988, as well as 9th SRW schemes are those I would want to do).

Looking forward to it!!!!

Kent

Is that the 9th SRW scheme which is white with a yellow diagonal band? Or the all black with red stencils. Hopefully both!

[Bone]

The T-38 looks smashing! The good thing about the Talon is that there are limited external models required to capture all variants. The only external stores I am aware of are the travel pod for the T-38. And the NASA -A models were stock up until the mid-80s (before the intro of WX radar, and new avionics).

Also, a well done paint kit would allow the community to do a ridiculously huge number of repaints (NASA schemes 1965-1988, as well as 9th SRW schemes are those I would want to do).

Looking forward to it!!!!

Kent

I think the T-38's at the Fighter Lead In course at Holloman AFB had a centerline gun pod.

[Roadburner440]

We will be including a very well done white paint kit so people do not have to worry about deleting stuff from one of our paints before starting on their own. You will simply be able to remove the layers of panel lines, rivets, etc. and get to work on the base. I hope to see a lot of repaints for this one myself (the NASA one would be really cool). As far as weapons go I am unaware of the the T-38 having any (I think that was the purpose of the F-5), but we are concentrating all our efforts in that department on the F-15E. Which has a ton of weapons.

[Bone]

As far as weapons go I am unaware of the the T-38 having any (I think that was the purpose of the F-5)

The ones at Fighter Lead In were called AT-38's. I'm just throwing in a little FYI, not advocating weapons or anything.

[Roadburner440]

I always thought they were just trainer (sorry if I came off like I was pointing fingers and smacking down a request).. I meant it as just a general statement. I do not know a lot about the USAF fighters other than the big ones. I always kind of looked down on trainers to be honest (and I get annoyed whenever the Navy T-45's come buzzing around my base making all the racket).. During the research phase on this I learned a lot about it. Plus I saw one live in person at an airshow last weekend flying around and stuff. They are pretty impresive and capable little birds. I wondered why they never put weapons on them to use as small interceptors, but you saying they at least mounted cannons on them means it had the potential. I think it would have made a good "fuel efficient" fighter to intercept GA birds and such instead of scrambling the more expensive F-15's/F-22's over minor stuff.

[krazycolin]

The AT-38 is, again, not the same as the T-38. Not very different but different enough!

The T-38A has no weapons and no weapons capabilities. It was used merely as a trainer for maneouvering etc etc. We will have the travel pod.... (with panties in!)

The T-38C however, has a HUD and an MFD. In the MFD and HUD are CCIP and CCRP systems. they are VERY BASIC compared to a "real" weapons system but there ya go. We will be TRYING to implement all of those systems.

There ya go!

[Bone]

The AT-38 is, again, not the same as the T-38. Not very different but different enough!

The T-38A has no weapons and no weapons capabilities. It was used merely as a trainer for maneouvering etc etc. We will have the travel pod.... (with panties in!)

The T-38C however, has a HUD and an MFD. In the MFD and HUD are CCIP and CCRP systems. they are VERY BASIC compared to a "real" weapons system but there ya go. We will be TRYING to implement all of those systems.

There ya go!

No worries, I'm good with just a flying T-38 and not a shooting T-38. When your T-38 "guys" get to testing it, can you make sure they do a formation phase? I think since it's used for so much form work, it should be tested in that regime. Let me guess, your T-38 specialists are JMIG and Ken Stallings?

[Sundog]

I wondered why they never put weapons on them to use as small interceptors, but you saying they at least mounted cannons on them means it had the potential. I think it would have made a good "fuel efficient" fighter to intercept GA birds and such instead of scrambling the more expensive F-15's/F-22's over minor stuff.

Actually they did. It's called the F-5E and F-5F, although I've got it sort of backwards. It was the F-5A/B, then the T-38, Then F-5E/F IIRC. The ultimate development being the F-20, which was originally called the F-5G. But your idea, simple and low cost, is the reason these birds were built. That's also why the T-38 replaced the F-4 for the Thunderbirds during the energy crunch in the 70's.

[Roadburner440]

Never knew the F-20 was a related development. Does look similar though. I can only imagine about the F-4 though. I saw one for the first time in my life this weekend at the airshow here. I have never heard such a loud aircraft, and it sure can move air. Certaintly interesting information on the F-5/T-38/F-20 though.

[skyblazer3]

I would be more than happy to beta test the T-38 in formation flight when it gets to that point. Formation aerobatics in FSX is my specialty, and nothing bothers me more than an aircraft that is supposed to be great in formation... but isn't in the sim.

Cheers,

Chris Eells

[Rattler]

I see the Nasa T-38`s everyday, Nasa Has a Hub here in El paso Tx, And The Super Guppy is Stationed out here aswell, But the T-38`s are Great Little birds!!!, you can Go out by the Airport and Watch them Doing Afterburner Take offs at Night!!! What a Sweet Sight!!!! Not Sure I would Want a T-38 with Weapons on it Anyway, I can Always fly the F-5 for that, the 38 is meant to be a clean Sleek rocket, IMHO.... :salute::salute::salute:

[Bone]

I don't mean to quible, but I believe the NASA T-38's are all F-5B's that were just redesignated as T-38N's.

I personally like the clean look of the T-38. I just mentioned the AT-38's only because it was remarked that the 38 was never weaponized.

[bstolle]

NASAs T-38s are 'real' T-38s (just check the air intakes)
In 2000 they started upgrading them to N standard (e.g. the new MB seats)