FCS Sunderland available for Pre-Order

[AndyE1976]

http://www.firstclass-simulations.biz/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=FCS%2DSUND

Looks like a nice model, although no interior shots yet. Not sure of the release date, but looking forward to seeing this.

[Roger]

Been keeping an eye on this for a while now. It's right up my alley but I'll wait for some more screenshots before I commit my credit card.

[Tako_Kichi]

I will have to see more/better screenshots too. The shots provided on that page are pretty poor and the panel lines/bump mapping make the fuselage look like it's built from concrete blocks! :isadizzy:

[Ian Warren]

The RNZAF were the last to operate the Sunderland , Mk 5 powered by more powerfull P&W twin wasps - aircraft phased out in 1967 , I do have both the FCS Wellington and Lancaster , both cockpits 'VC' really make you feel your in the types , I have two very good friends in who were aircrew , they will be pleased to hear the news , no hesitation i,m in .

www.nzff.org


<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

[Naki]

aha - I was thinking of you when I saw this Ian.

[SADT]

This is one of those releases I would like to get - but I am also hesitant because it is not an FSX native model AFAIK and there are not enough screenies............

Though, it is the first payware Sunderland AFAIK........ :jump:

[OleBoy]

Boy, do they want to sell this? Can't tell by the (lack of) detail in the pictures. They may have well put thumbnails!!
....FCS better donate a few to get some exposure!! Ridiculous.

[peter12213]

Can't wait for this but I agree with what's said and I'm also somewhat reluctant to preorder aircraft!

[Paul K]

I will have to see more/better screenshots too. The shots provided on that page are pretty poor and the panel lines/bump mapping make the fuselage look like it's built from concrete blocks! :isadizzy:

My thoughts exactly. And its FCS, so caveat emptor.

I think even the most ardent Sunderland enthusiast will wait and see with this one.

And are they right in stating the Sunderland was the first aircraft to sink a U-boat ? I believe that honour goes to a Blenheim Mk IV of No. 82 Squadron, sinking U.31 in the Schillig Roads on 11 March 1940.

[Ferry_vO]

it is not an FSX native model AFAIK

It is.. Look at the shadows in the first shot.



The shots provided on that page are pretty poor and the panel lines/bump mapping make the fuselage look like it's built from concrete blocks!


Those panel lines look way too wide and deep for a realistic look imho!

Guess I'll join the long line waiting for better screenshots. :kilroy:

[AndyE1976]

Yeah, FCS quality is a bit hit and miss, so I'd like to see a bit more before committing, it's also been advertised in PC Pilot for the last two issues, so not sure what the status is.

I have the wellington and lancaster which are entertaining, but I'd like to see more pictures as well.

[OleBoy]

I have the Lancaster. A little too much shine overall. But generally speaking I'm happy with that one as it's nicely done in my eyes.

[CavOk]

At first I was quite excited at the thought of a Sunderland and then I read FCS. Oh dear, their Lancaster was never finnished and the Wellington's colour schemes were completely up the spout e.g. roundels in the wrong location wrong size wrong colour I think you get the picture. They seem to rush half decent models onto the market and then abandon them when not quite finnished. I will be extremely cautious with this one as even some of the reviews of the Lanc and Wellington were misleading and left me wondering if some of these experts actually knew what they were talking about.
FCS - must try harder.

[AndyE1976]

Their follow up is an issue, the Wellington has that VC issue where you can see the prop-spinner, but not the rest of the engines/wings - that has never been addressed.

The Lancaster at least took that on board and was better, but there has been no real follow up on any of the issues reported with that (well one patch, but it only tackled minor stuff).

If the Sunderland looks good out of the box then it will be worth getting, but if not I wouldn't expect them to improve it anytime after release.

I would like to get this and given the availability of Sunderlands in FSX I'd settle for Lancaster quality as that actually flies quite nicely.

[Paul K]

Yep, as expected from FCS, all our fears are realized.

Have a look at this...

http://www.simshack.net/images/sunderland-flying-boat-fsx-fs2004-9.jpg

No, its not a brick wall painted white and fitted with wings...this is supposed to be an aircraft.

Still, never mind eh ? More money for other things.

[Stratobat]

I know the write up on the website states that it is supposed to be a Sunderland Mk. III but that looks more like a Sunderland Mk. V.

Could anybody else confirm?

Regards,
Stratobat

[OleBoy]

The last shot does indeed look like a brick wall to me. Who's going to stick their neck out and buy it so the rest of us can yey..or ney the opinions? Not seeing anyone post pictures thus far does not surprise me.

[allcott]

Fin's wrong for a Mark III, aerials are too short, top turrent is too big, and underwing blisters say Mk V, not Mk III. Not sure about this at all.

[Stratobat]

Hi Allcott,


Fin's wrong for a Mark III, aerials are too short, top turrent is too big, and underwing blisters say Mk V, not Mk III. Not sure about this at all.

That's what I thought :banghead:

Regards,
Stratobat

[AndyE1976]

Wow, that looks terrible - I don't remember the Sunderland looking anything like that. The colours look wrong too, the camo green looks too light.

Think I'll save my money and get the Aerosoft Catalina instead.

[Paul K]

Wow, that looks terrible - I don't remember the Sunderland looking anything like that. The colours look wrong too, the camo green looks too light.

Think I'll save my money and get the Aerosoft Catalina instead.

And in that, you would be going from the ridiculous to the sublime. If you don't like the Aerosoft Catalina, you don't really like aeroplanes.

[Gibbage]

Yep, as expected from FCS, all our fears are realized.

Have a look at this...

http://www.simshack.net/images/sunderland-flying-boat-fsx-fs2004-9.jpg




Ow dear god! I havent seen a payware this bad since.... Ever!

Now, following my rule of critique (cant complain without giving helpfull advice) here is my helpfull advice to the people selling this.

#1, scrap the model. Its bad. No saving it.

#2, scrap the artist. They dont know aircraft

#3, scrap whoever said "Ya, this is good enough, lets sell it"

Back in FS95 or earlier, this may have been acceptable, but now? No. When I first saw this, alarms went off when the web page only had VERY SMALL pix. If your proud of your work, you show it off. That should of been everyones first clue. If your hard up for a good floater, get the Aerosoft Catalina. Its one of the best floaters on the market, if not THE best.

[OleBoy]

And now you've heard, the rest....of the story

[PRB]

Ok, we get the point now. Anymore is sort of "piling on", isn't it?

[Paul K]

Ok, we get the point now. Anymore is sort of "piling on", isn't it?

Not really, PRB, any more than endless posts of 'OMG' and 'Awesome' is piling it on about a good product.

Okay, the opinions here are less than complementary but they are no less valid for that.

Besides which, some people may yet buy the Sunderland and leap to its defence ( cough). And this will be the thread in which to do it. :)

[DX-FMJ]

If it was freeware, I would consider this "piling it on" and not fair because its free, but its not, its payware and not cheap payware.

You do realize that they are asking about $39? ($31 w/sale) But the normal price of most of there addons is the same, which it way too high IMO.

We are the ones spending the money, so bring out all the critics and pile it on I say!

[PRB]

If it was freeware, I would consider this "piling it on" and not fair because its free, but its not, its payware and not cheap payware.

You do realize that they are asking about $39? ($31 w/sale) But the normal price of most of there addons is the same, which it way too high IMO.

We are the ones spending the money, so bring out all the critics and pile it on I say!

I agree with that, more or less. I'm just detecting a hint of unnecessary incivility starting to creep into this thread, which I am attempting to head off.

[OleBoy]

I didn't respond earlier but now I will.

The way things happen in the world is a two way street. You either agree or disagree. I'm member to the usual and better known forums. I do a lot of reading and, generally keep quiet. I noticed first thing that when something is good, it gets praised and others build on that. That's fine. But when someone jumps in with derogatory thoughts, they immediately get banished, and/or advised to rethink before posting again. In other words, intimidating them to douse the heat.

We all hear the good. Why not hear the bad too (if any) and give a real opinion of our thoughts. Some here get away with voicing opinion on a regular basis. Most, do not because they get jumped by the majority that do like it and the subject fades away. That's ludicrous.

While not directing this to any developer in particular. It's simple. Support what you sell. Take the good. Take the bad. If there is negativity that can be fixed, fix it and grow from it as a developer or, move on.

I'm not sure how many here were, or are into radio control flight as a hobby. Like any hobby there are usually many publishers of magazines in relation. All the articles praise what's advertised within, and negativity scarce. Then come a publisher of a magazine that laid things on the line and told hobbyists the real story. The name of the magazine, R/C Reports. If it was good, they told you. If it was bad, they also told you that. There was no padding. Anyone ever listen to Paul Harvey. The same applies here in this hobby. It's not cheap by no means and opinions should be shared...good or bad.

I would love to see a section on any forum called Flightsim Reports that gave the true and unbiased opinion of products throughout the market

[TeiscoDelRay]

Yeah RC Reports was a lone wolf and always to the point. I did a couple plane articles for it, you might remember my Balsa USA Stearman report with the two Red Barrons on the cover.

As far as this payware is concerned, as a texture artist I could not let that bump mapping and coloring go as a final.. It looks like the bump map and main textures were done on a 1024 size and should be 2048 for todays computers and graphics cards. The brick wall lines are attempts to bump map the panel lines but way overdone. I know the bump mapping can be toned down, a lot. Just use a plain blue layer over it and change layer properties until you get the look you want. As far as the incorrect colors you can always do more research and re color. These things should be done before release

[Gibbage]

I have been a 3D and texture artist for almost 20 years and have worked for almost all the 3rd party dev's in one form or another, Aces, and even Oleg Maddox/IL2, so I would think that qualifies my openion on aircraft models. I have never really "bashed" ANY product, but I have given critique more then a few times ;) This is one of those few occasions, as a professional, I felt I just had to say crap was crap. If we could prevent someone from making the error of paying money for this, we did a good thing. Never reward bad products, or you get more bad products.

I know out there the artist that did this is feeling a little hurt from the negitive reviews its getting, but thats part of the job! I have delt with that for years, and I get it all the time even today. The good artist's will accept the negitive, and work harder to make things better, and the bad artist's will sit in a corner and sulk, maybe quit, but thats what seperates the good from the bad. Not everyone can do this job, and its best to filter out the bad early. Culling the hurd if you will ;)

I understand the admin's wish to keep things civil, and maybe shelter someone's feelings, but sometimes you need to just call it like it is, and hopefully save someone some money and regret from a bad purchase. Whats more important? Saving an artist's feelings, or saving your members money?

[AndyE1976]

If this could be raised to the standards of the FCS Lancaster then that would be something, that's no A2A acu-sim bird, but it's a fun plane to mess around with and convey's a reasonable feeling of flying a lancaster.

The Lancaster improved upon the Wellington, but this seems like a step backwards in the state that it appears.

FCS is not a small time developer and there are at least 2 Sunderlands in the UK that you can get extremely good access to (Duxford and Hendon), so there is really no excuse for putting out a model that looks like this and asking top money for it.

As far as I know it's not actually been released, so hopefully they will address the issues before that happens.

[stiz]

FCS is not a small time developer

its not a big developer either, its a publisher :)

Also the wellington and lancaster where done by the same person and i think the sunderland is done by a different person.

[Gibbage]

As far as I know it's not actually been released, so hopefully they will address the issues before that happens.

We can only hope, but its always good to let them know that there are issues to address before they release it. I hope nobody pre-orders it untill we see something a lot better then this.