WWII Trainers?

[Kiwikat]

Why haven't developers made a new T-6 or T-28 yet? None of the current offerings come close to meeting my expectations. A good one would sell very well. They are among the most repaintable planes too.

A2A? Vertigo? :wavey:

[stiz]

we got a brilliant tiger moth .. what more could you want!! :icon_lol:

[stansdds]

Uhhhh... Wozza (Warwick Carter) did a really nice (and complicated) freeware T6 for FSX.

[Kiwikat]

Uhhhh... Wozza (Warwick Carter) did a really nice (and complicated) freeware T6 for FSX.

What I said in my first post covers that one too. I want one that is like A2A or Vertigo Studios quality.

I know there's interest in these two planes. The Texan was one of Alphasim's best sellers. I would think it would sell better than most if not all of the more obscure WWII planes that have been coming out lately.

[Felixthreeone]

What I said in my first post covers that one too. I want one that is like A2A or Vertigo Studios quality.

I know there's interest in these two planes. The Texan was one of Alphasim's best sellers. I would think it would sell better than most if not all of the more obscure WWII planes that have been coming out lately.

I agree 100%. It is a gaping hole in FSX aircraft of that era. I particularly like the new racers myself, but am an all-around fan of the WWII trainers...

[fliger747]

BTW the T-28 isn't a WWII era trainer. One of my (now retired) Naval Aviator friends had that as his first aircraft at Pensacola in the early 70's.

I know a guy in North Pole Alaska that has one, though at $5:65 a gallon not sure he flies it much.

WOZZA's T-6 is pretty nice!

T

[Kiwikat]

BTW the T-28 isn't a WWII era trainer.

Maybe so, but I want a T-6 more anyways. It is my favorite aircraft. I would be happy with a T-28 though too.

Nothing against Wozza's freeware model, I just want a high quality payware version. For some reason there's no larger scale plastic T-6 model either... :mixedsmi:

I just find it very odd that neither of these planes have been redone in high fidelity for FSX.

[X_eidos2]

There's a very simple answer to your question.

To make a high-end FSX model of the T-6 is not worth the effort because even if sales were really good, you'd only get back a small fraction of what you put into it.

I've been working on the SkyUnlimited Texans and Harvards for FS9 and FSX since 2006. I'm in the process of recovering from a very bad virus attack. Some key modeling files were lost and need to be re-created. Once that's done I hope to add the custom sounds I put into the FS9 versions into our FSX models and offer it as a free upgrade. Once that's done it's wrap up time.

Overall I'd have to say the last 5 years as a developer have been pretty disappointing. While we were spared being the victim of a flame war or a smear campaign, we never got any support for our efforts at being innovative either. Our efforts to honor the WASP pilots and help their museum went belly up with the change of museum directors. Our FS9 texture painting contest was such a flop we never bothered with trying for a FSX version. Comments like,"None of the current offerings come close to meeting my expectations." are anything but motivating.

John MacKay
aka X_eidos2

[mfitch]

For me the best part of the Sky Unlimited Texan/Harvard was the carrier. I think that is pack 2. Of course I enjoy the carrier operations. I rarely even see outside models of planes anymore.

[fliger747]

M. Fitch:

Thanks for your ships over the years! I learned everything I knew about the C-130 from a Jim Fitch in Anchorage, sadly no longer with us.

Cheers: Tom

[skyblazer3]

John,

Your Sky Unlimited Texan was the first payware aircraft I ever bought. I had just come back to flight sim after being away since 1998. I spent a lot of time flying IL-2 and LOMAC.......

I wanted to learn to fly FSX in the aircraft that my father learned to fly in, so I bought your Texan. Payware was something new to me, but I was totally satisfied with it. My first 50 or 60 hours in FSX were in that beautiful Texan, and it really helped me get back into the sim. This was before I flew online.... and I can still remember the satisfaction of completing cross country flights in an empty sim-world with that aircraft. It was beautiful, it flew right, and it sounded great. It just felt like a Texan should feel.

I've never flown a T-6 in real life, but I do have 9 hours in a PT-17 Stearman, and I've been around Texans, and I think your T-6 was great. Having flown the Stearman, your T-6 felt like I imagined the next step of pilot training should feel.

Thanks for a wonderful aircraft. I'm afraid that was several hard-drives ago, and although I still have install files kicking around somewhere, I have not tried putting it in the sim in many years -- perhaps I should give it a go again; it was a joy to fly.

Keep your head up, and keep flying aircraft that you love.... This last friday I got to hang out with Korean war double-ace Ralph Parr.... he told me, "keep flying, it is a worth-while pursuit."

Cheers,

Chris

[X_eidos2]

Thanks for those encouraging words Chris. I never knew folks were having that kind of experience with our work.

I spent Friday visiting with Merle Fister, the subject of one of my aviation videos. Seems every time I talk with the man I learn something new about him. He was telling me about the Tuskegee airmen flying top cover for him on many of his missions.

[Prowler1111]

..We are converting one of Top Flight Simulations Vultee BT-13 into a full FSX add on, enhancing and adding features, it´s a work in progress with NO release date..

43114

Best regards

Prowler

[jdhaenens]

Ahhh...the old Vultee Vibrator. It'll look good on Sharpe Field in my Tuskeegee Practice Fields Scenery. The government did some bomber training there for a while, but I don't believe any bomber squadron from Tuskeegee was stood up during the war.

PT-13's were used at Moton Field.

Jim

[Bjoern]

None of the current offerings come close to meeting my expectations.

Solution: Make your own.

[Kiwikat]

Solution: Make your own.

That's why I'm a paying customer... I work on computers for 9 hours a day at work. I'm not going to spend the rest of my day working on computers too. Those of you who do, all the power to ya.

There have been far more obscure paywares released lately, so I was just curious why nobody's targeted these ones. :mixedsmi:

[delta_lima]

That's why I'm a paying customer... I work on computers for 9 hours a day at work. I'm not going to spend the rest of my day working on computers too.


How fortunate that the majority of the FS dev community, even the payware folks, operate on a cottage industry basis, on their spare time.

Let me go on a limb and suggest the issue is not a shortcoming with the aforementioned models and instead misplaced sense of entitlement. The frequency of the I/my personal pronouns in the above quote speaks volumes.

Put another way, how is it that the guy who flies 747s for a living can find his T-6 simulation "expectations" met, but the guy on a computer keyboard cannot?


dl

[Rich]

I agree with most of what has been said by a few people here the only way you will get something to your standards is to do it your self.

Many developers including some payware people do it as a hobby and do models that they WANT to do so it does'nt matter whether you are paying or not.



Solution: Make your own.

[Naki]

Thats all very well if you have the spare time . I have 3 kids, wife, work etc. The little spare time I have is devoted to actually flying in the flight sim or picking up on the latest sim news on my favourite flight sim fourms. I haven't had my FSX opened for at least a week due to work/family pressures (I'm typing this a long way from FS PC). I am not sure even if I have the skill and patience (plus my own expectations are probably too high) to even build a flying shed.

Maybe if I keep away from fourms and flying my sim I might find time to build a wing by 2014, although I would probably need to refer back to forums to ask what , how etc

Somebody here has to be the customer or there would be no payware add on industry

..back to topic and yes I would love to see a very high quality T-6/Harvard but it have to be good to better Warick Carter's T-6. A FSX native T-28 (and Chipmunk - yes I know not WW2, but close enough) would be great too.

Don't forget that Piglet is coming out with a PT-19 and John Terrell was/is working on a PT-22.

[Kiwikat]

I agree with most of what has been said by a few people here the only way you will get something to your standards is to do it your self.

That is just plain wrong. I have paid for and am COMPLETELY satisfied by many payware products. :mixedsmi:


I don't understand why people are so touchy about wanting payware versions of planes that have been done by freeware authors. Some people want to pay the money for a better simulation. :kilroy:

[Rich]

Possibly your best bet then is deal directly with your preferred payware modelers with your requests/demands and not publicly derate other developers who get frustrated and stop developing.

I am quite happy with a lot of the obscure WWII aircraft being released and with the work put into them.

There are many pensioners and low income people on this forum who cannot afford what you are suggesting which seems to point at high quality payware.

[TARPSBird]

I've been a fan of the T-6/SNJ ever since I built the old Aurora plastic kit way back when. So not surprising that I have grabbed every decent FS rendering of the plane that's come out, and I like 'em all. :) And... I have enough of 'em.
Kiwikat, you may want an even more detailed version than what's been done so far and you're willing to pay for it, but probably the vast majority of flight simmers are quite happy with the selection that's already available. Once the market is saturated, it's not worth it for a payware modeler to spend the time and creativity to even re-work a previous product, let alone create a brand-new version if nobody buys it.
Let's see what happens with the two payware versions of the C-17 now available. I should hope one of the two (or both) would satisfy most of the cargo-hauling simmers out there, but ya never know.

[OBIO]

I just had Wozza's freeware T-6 Texan up in FSX. Now, I'm not a real pilot, have never sat in a Texan. But 10 days ago I stood inches away from a real life T-6 Texan....for a good 30 minutes. The Texan is my Number 1 favorite aircraft of all time....hands down, no questions asked. I spent a lot of time studying that real Texan and have done the same thing to Wozza's Texans (which I have been flying for a while now...started with his CFS2 version, then his FS9 version...which I still fly the most....and now his FSX version). His FSX version is, to the best of my ability to judge, SPOT ON visually.

Complicated? Yeah...it takes me at least 10 minutes to get the bird started so I can fly it.

Is it payware quality? I would say YES. I only have 3 payware birds in FSX. Lionheart's Dynamic and Skylark packages and the GAS Lockheed L-12. So, the pool of payware that I can compare it to is limited...but I would say that it is on par with the payware that I do have.

If I were a payware developer (I am not, just saying), I would be hesitant to produce a Texan package knowing that a superb freeware package is already out. I can't see what more could be done to make a payware Texan that much better than Wozza's freeware one. A2A could do an Accu-Sim work up on a Texan. Vertigo Studios could do up a Texan with authentic WW2 clothing on the pilot. Maybe a payware package could have some oil dripping from the engine or something...but really, there isn't much room for improvement over Wozza's Tex. Yeah, from my point of view (as a non-developer mind you), I would not spend the hundreds and hundreds of hours needed to develop a payware Texan just to get meager sales because...let's face it...there's a superb freeware Texan readily available.

OBIO

[jp]

I know I have a tendency to bash, but lets stop this nonsense. Some people can't make their own aircraft, and thats just the way it is. I lack that particular skill set too, but I am going to try my hand.
Lets return to civil discussion here.

[N2056]

The original question is one I've seen many times in many forums. Frankly it's one for which I feel there is no real answer to as we all have different opinions regarding what we feel is a good product. There has been some friction here. Please don't let this turn into a thread I have to kill.

[fliger747]

As the graphic abilities of the computer flight sim have improved, what is possible has increased. However the perfect is the enemy of the good, to achieve cutting edge quality work has increased the work load to the edge of what is financially possible even for very dedicated developers.

FSX incresaed the standard, but there are fewer offerings due to the present level of expectations.

Regards to all: T

[wombat666]

For some reason there's no larger scale plastic T-6 model either... :mixedsmi:.

Nothing wrong with the slightly elderly 1:48 Monogram offering, and the T6/Harvard series was done to death in smaller scales.
If you are hoping for something ridiculous like 1:32 or 1:24 it will be a long time coming .......... :173go1:

[fsafranek]

Nothing wrong with the slightly elderly 1:48 Monogram offering, and the T6/Harvard series was done to death in smaller scales.
If you are hoping for something ridiculous like 1:32 or 1:24 it will be a long time coming .......... :173go1:
I don't know if it was intentional but that's an excellent analogy to the flightsm aftermarket as well!
:ernae:

[stansdds]

Nothing wrong with the slightly elderly 1:48 Monogram offering, and the T6/Harvard series was done to death in smaller scales.
If you are hoping for something ridiculous like 1:32 or 1:24 it will be a long time coming .......... :173go1:

I built the Monogram 1/48 kit shortly after it was introduced. It is a really nice kit.

[Kiwikat]

Nothing wrong with the slightly elderly 1:48 Monogram offering, and the T6/Harvard series was done to death in smaller scales.
If you are hoping for something ridiculous like 1:32 or 1:24 it will be a long time coming .......... :173go1:

1:48 is just too small. I would LOVE a 1:32 scale T-6 to put on my desk at work.

As you said, they've overdone it in other scales. It is definitely time for someone to release a larger scale version. My dad said there is a vacuform and resin large scale T-6 out there but I'm not quite ambitious enough to try building a kit like that yet. :mixedsmi:

[wombat666]

My dad said there is a vacuform and resin large scale T-6 out there but I'm not quite ambitious enough to try building a kit like that yet. :mixedsmi:

Have a go at it, you won't see anything from anyone like Tamiya or Trumpeter.
:kilroy:

[dharris]

1:48 is just too small. I would LOVE a 1:32 scale T-6 to put on my desk at work.

As you said, they've overdone it in other scales. It is definitely time for someone to release a larger scale version. My dad said there is a vacuform and resin large scale T-6 out there but I'm not quite ambitious enough to try building a kit like that yet. :mixedsmi:

How many do you want??

http://www.amazon.com/American-Aviation-Single-engine-Advanced-Aircraft/dp/B0043CPSN0
(http://www.amazon.com/American-Aviation-Single-engine-Advanced-Aircraft/dp/B0043CPSN0)
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?pq=t-6&hl=en&cp=14&gs_id=n&xhr=t&q=T-6+1:32+scale&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1920&bih=955&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15320843546717605676&sa=X&ei=sWUfTsv3Gsr40gHB96CgAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ8wIwBg
(http://www.google.com/products/catalog?pq=t-6&hl=en&cp=14&gs_id=n&xhr=t&q=T-6+1:32+scale&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1920&bih=955&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=15320843546717605676&sa=X&ei=sWUfTsv3Gsr40gHB96CgAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQ8wIwBg)
http://www.texanflight.com/texanflightstore.html
(http://www.texanflight.com/texanflightstore.html)

http://www.warplanes.com/model-airplanes/t6-snj-texan-model-airplane

[Kiwikat]

How many do you want??

I'm talking about a highly detailed model that can be built. I've never really liked those pre-built scale models.