Anyone know of a FSX C-119 or C123??

[Cirrus N210MS]

would be sweet if there was a FSX Native C-119 Flying Boxcar or a C-123 Provider Only onces i know of are FS2004 Though The FS2004 C-119 Flying Boxcar is pretty Nice Model too bad there is no way to convert it to FSX :isadizzy:


C-119 was created by Daisuke Yamamoto

[Jafo]

would be sweet if there was a FSX Native C-119 Flying Boxcar or a C-123 Provider Only onces i know of are FS2004 Though The FS2004 C-119 Flying Boxcar is pretty Nice Model too bad there is no way to convert it to FSX :isadizzy:


C-119 was created by Daisuke Yamamoto

Works well enough in FSX [the C119] can't recall what I may have added [or not] re props etc .....here's a skin I was playing with....;)

78308
...sort-of had to....due to the shape...;)

[falcon409]

V.Zhyhulskiy did a great C-123 Provider for FS9 that flies great in FSX as well. Plug his name into the search box and you'll find quite a few aircraft done by this prolific modeler.:salute:

[stansdds]

V.Zhyhulskiy did a great C-123 Provider for FS9 that flies great in FSX as well. Plug his name into the search box and you'll find quite a few aircraft done by this prolific modeler.:salute:

I was thinking that his C-123 was updated not too long ago to make an FSX version.

[falcon409]

I was thinking that his C-123 was updated not too long ago to make an FSX version.
Yes, right you are.:salute:

[napamule]

Yes is right. I went to Simviation and downloaded a C123 for FSX (which I did not have-last was the 'ver 3' model) which was worked up by Philippe Wallaert. He also did a panel for this bird. I used my own panel. The date of files is 1/6/2013.

Now here is the catch. I was fooling around with my Turbo Prop (2 engines) FDE's and tried them out on the Provider. After fly/trial/tweak/fly testing I came up with a nice set that allows hand flying, auto-pilot, and hi-performance. In fact, it cruises at 295 kts (44% power)! Ha. But I can tame it down for the purists. I re-did a lot of the cfg and used a different air file. In the process of changing it over to TurboProp the props suddenly were 'normal' (I fly port overs with 'solid' props all the time when I am tweaking FDE's and only attempt to fix props when I am done. This time the change from piston to turbo-prop 'fixed' the prop textures. Don't ask me how it happened. It just did. More on this later.

So I can upload the FDE's (TURBO PROP not piston) tomorrow as my day is done now. I flew it all day and made some video clips and will upload a short video to YouTube tonight. So I am pooped. Watched football at the same time and finished day off while eating luch with a Mel Gibson movie on CW channel about Air America and C123 (Vietnam era). Busy day. Phew.
Chuck B
Napamule
Edit: Here is the link to the short video: http://youtu.be/6Wab-W5USfE .

[napamule]

Dead silence? Maybe nobody is actually interested in these FDEs? They ARE 'radical' in that they are actually 'jet' disquised as 'turbo prop' (by having the propellers showing) and using turbo-prop sound. So it's 'cute' and done strictly for performance's sake. Not to go fast, per se. Lots of difference. So here is the cfg and air file to make your Provider (and maybe the C-119?) perform better (ie: you don't have to input +13 of up pitch trim to fly level-you only need +0.9 or so). Take off takes +1.5 or so. Lands on main wheels with +3.0 of pitch trim at 80 Kts. And don't be afraid to give feedback. It's not an ego thing. Just mechanics (ie: they can be adjusted). Enjoy.
Chuck B
Napamule

[CG_1976]

I have a issue with V3 of the C123. Does anyone have a fix for the VC glass?? napamule, i'll guive your FDE a whacking around YZF once I figure out this VC glass or find a fix.

[napamule]

CG,
Well, with less than 8,000 ft of runway the reverse thrust will come in handy. Just leave it where it stops (let the catepillar tow it into the hangar) and walk to the terminal/diner-it will do you good - builds character (ha). I am a 2D panel 'type' so I can't help you with 'vc' prob.

Chuck B
Napamule
PS: I was raised 100 miles south of SA and my parents lived there in the 70's. I relocated to California. And Kelly AFB (where most of my relatives (TONS of them) work/worked) and Lackland (where I got USAF basic training in 1960). Remember the Alamo! GO 49ers!!

[CG_1976]

Actually V3 of Vlads has issues. Seems with your FDE and config only 1 engine running and the other is dead. Vlad changed something. Also with Vlads V3, it will start both engines, but she veers wide ride uncontrolled. I fixed the VC glass using a copy rename trick from his AN26. Props are a easy fix using Falcon's Props.

I'm liking SA so far, but the summer's here are brutal on this native Arctic Canuk of Yellowknife.

Edit: Here's a link to the C123 http://www.avsimrus.com/f/fs2004-aircrafts-40/fairchild-c-123k-provider-v2011v2-41146.html?action=download&hl=C123

This one is the newest one.

[napamule]

Thanks for feedback. I don't have the '1 engine dead' problem. Can't explain it. Will look further into it today. I will start over with original install files (v3 of Vlad's C-123) and go from there. I did notice that the 'sim=' file name is different for the USAF paint. It should be 'sim=C123tpcb'. The 'sim=He219A7.cb2' is a air file I was experimenting with and not turbo prop. Change the USAF 'sim=' name to 'C123tpcb'. Maybe that is the problem with 1 engine dead. But, like I said, I did not get this problem. The reason MIGHT be due to fact that I did not use his panel. I used a different panel (and therefore different gauges). That could be it. Change panels and see. Cheers.
Chuck B
Napamule
PS: Yep. It's hot down there. That is why I live where I live now (zip 93907) and I don't plan on going back except to visit.

[Firekitten]

Thanks for the FDE, its a difference indeed....


As for the C119, if anyone decides they want to take up the modeling mantle... I will throw in as texture artist. Lets get a 119 done! I'm hankering for a nice one.

[napamule]

No Prop


Well you might be thinking that I don't know my C-130 from my C-119 or C-123. Well you might be right (hehe). I didn't even have the Boxcar installed in FSX. (Looks GOOD in FS9). The prop IS messed up like usual and no other 'prop_3.bmp' from any other ac helped. Still it looks good enough to keep in FSX. The prop issue isn't that bad a deal. Here is pic of what I have. Close enough for horseshoes.
Chuck B
Napamule

<fieldset class="postcontent"> <legend>http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/images/misc/paperclip.png Attached Images</legend> http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=80386&stc=1&d=1359938557
</fieldset>
Edit: I posted this elsewhere in FSX forums. Maybe this will help to inspire someone (Mr Yamamoto?) to do a native FSX C-119.

[TeaSea]

Well, until someone does a good FSX representation of these important aircraft that may be as good as it gets.

I would go ahead and enjoy.

I never jumped a C119, but I did jump C123's (loud as hell).

[falcon409]

Another surprising fault I have with the C-123 is that there are no external views from the VC. The wings, engines, etc..all invisible. That's a bit surprising given his FS9 model had them. I really like what he did with the VC, but that old version is looking pretty good now that I see he left out the external portion of the model.

[falcon409]

Actually V3 of Vlads has issues. Seems with your FDE and config only 1 engine running and the other is dead. Vlad changed something. Also with Vlads V3, it will start both engines, but she veers wide ride uncontrolled. I fixed the VC glass using a copy rename trick from his AN26. Props are a easy fix using Falcon's Props.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that V3 is not Vlads. It may be his airplane (Ver3 was released in Aug_2006, for FS9), but it appears from what I've seen, that the V3 Described as being for FSX is another "So-Cal Prop Club" debacle. If you're looking for a reason that Ver3 has problems. . .look no further. Why else would an airplane that's descriptions states it's ready for FSX end up with prop problems, glass that's opaque and whatever else you've found that's wrong with it. I'm surprised the VC is still there. I think all they do is put their name on the readme, add a new description claiming it's FSX Ready and upload it.

As near as I've found there is no FSX version done by the original author.

[roger-wilco-66]

Thanks for the FDE, its a difference indeed....


As for the C119, if anyone decides they want to take up the modeling mantle... I will throw in as texture artist. Lets get a 119 done! I'm hankering for a nice one.

My hopes are rising...
A native C-119 or C-123k for FSX/P3D would be awesome.

Cheers,
Mark

[mjahn]

Don't you guys remember anything?

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?58704-C-119-Flying-Boxcar-payware-model-for-FSX-anywhere

Look at the posts by Crazykarolin ...

It's true I had to run a google on "c-119 outhouse" to find it again.

[warchild]

It seems to me that every few months. someone mentions c-119s or T-37s and theres a flurry of talk and promises and then... nothing..
It would be wonderful to see either of these planes, but i feel a lil jerked around by insincere promises over the years, and perhaps too many band-wagoners making the same aircraft as everybody else, instead of making different aircraft..

[Firekitten]

I completely agree... I'm not a modeler, and without a new model... I'm only so good... I've worked on the existing one, but its got its limitations...

Lets find someone to model it...

I'll say now, with you all as my witness, I will texture this aircraft if we do it.

Can we find a modeler?

Pam, you feeling a hankering for some flight dynamics mayhaps? :P

Other than that its gauges and sound...



Lets end the cycle and do it.

Manfred: as for KrazyColin's posts, 2011... its a year late if they are doing it, and Its not remotely mentioned on their beta tester forum.

[falcon409]

It seems to me that every few months. someone mentions c-119s or T-37s and there's a flurry of talk and promises and then... nothing..
It would be wonderful to see either of these planes, but i feel a lil jerked around by insincere promises over the years, and perhaps too many band-wagoners making the same aircraft as everybody else, instead of making different aircraft..
Amen! The problem is. . .I think many members, maybe unfamiliar with what's truly involved in building any aircraft for FSX, think in "months" before they get to see a beta and a few months after that, the final release (and get down of your soapboxes before you even step up on em'. . .I didn't say ALL Members). Developers on the other hand, work in "years". . .and not that one aircraft would take years (although I suppose some could), but a requested aircraft finds it's way onto the list and then it has to work it's way down to being a reality. If there was anyone who could seemingly work miracles with aircraft from pencil sketches to reality. . .it was Piglet. He was very adept at being able to produce amazingly detailed aircraft in less time than anyone else I know. Probably why he's no longer here. . .that had to take a toll on him.

I know there are developers who are outstanding with certain Warbirds and the meticulous care they take in producing those airplanes is much respected and very sought after. Personally I think there are enough P-51's, P-47's, P-40's, P-38's to last a lifetime but they'll keep on coming because they're popular aircraft and the end products are amazing to behold. Yet, unfortunately, as Pam mentions, there are aircraft out there equally deserving of being modeled to FSX standards that, for whatever reason, don't get a second look. . . .they get promised, but they don't really. Aircraft like the A-37 Dragonfly, a major contributor to many successful campaigns by the VNAF against the Vietcong. The F-100 Super Saber, the first Fighter in our inventory to achieve Supersonic speeds in level flight, spent 25years as an active Fighter/Bomber and the only "Century Series" aircraft I can think of that get's snubbed when mentioned. . .oh it get's promised. . .but again. . .not really they both take a back seat to yet another Cessna 172, 182 and Beech Bonanza and any number of other GA aircraft that seem to permeate the Flight Sim skies...

Well, as it turns out, I guess I'm the one on the Soapbox. . .so I will step down and go get a drink to cool off. No, I don't know how to design aircraft, but I do know what it takes to put one together both in the RW and in flight sim. They all take time, expertise from many different experts and endless hours of testing and correcting. I get all that. But like Pam and probably others who never speak about it in the forums, there are aircraft that "should" be done, but won't. .either because the developers who can build them are so far behind they'll die of old age before ever getting to them, or because these airplanes we speak of aren't airplanes they feel will be popular enough to warrant the time needed to see them through. . . . .because otherwise we would have seen them or heard of them being worked by now.:salute:

[warchild]

Pam, you feeling a hankering for some flight dynamics mayhaps? :P



Ask me again in a week.. At the moment i'm running a rather high fever and having a hard time breathing.. Cant afford a doctor soo, we'll have to see what happens in the next week or so..
Also, i'd like us to find a Visual modeler first. I just dont have a lot of faith in the community at this point..