Cntrl/E pilots please read...

[InDeepSchit]

Well this sounds like it's right up my alley!

Hope some Cold War "weirdos" get some consideration - I'd give my left something or other for an FJ-4 or an old U-2. A spruced-up F4D would be lovely too.

I second this notion! Especially the Skyray!

[pilto von pilto]

Load outs wise for this and the next one which is also military ( it's on fb it's a little faster than a pucara - and we arent only focussing on mil stuff for ctrl-ezy )... will be visual only. Ctrl+E for me anyway is just that. I dont want to fiddle with weight based loadouts ( certainly dont want to code it! ). I foresee ( and I think baz does too ) you check you have fuel- one of the switches will be a "add 100 % fuel switch " - hit an autostart switch on the "panel" or use CTRL+E, throttle forward and you are gone. The single page brochure will be a panel familiarisation and a note about any special simple things that we may add.

So loadouts wise we're thinking a knob - on the pucara we're going to use the arming knob on the left side- that will let you cycle through the loadouts. I dont know how tacpack works but if you as a user can retrofit it to an empty loadout then you're golden.

Also we need to keep an eye on the code base. We're wanting to make it "one code- both simulators " sort of thing so FSX specific stuff like blends in materials cant be used as it doesnt work in P3d PBR and vice versa.

Whilst Ctrl-ezy is hopefully good for the community it actually is good for us. To be able to model certain subjects that otherwise wouldnt have been released is really great. We've got a number of semi-started subjects which for a few reasons have remained as semi started and now they will see life under ctrl-ezy. Some appear on lists of "aircraft that are still not in the sim" type of threads for example. Some will get the "WTF are they thinking?" type of response.

I'll let baz answer the multiple options with CE ( ctrl ezy ) and AH versions of the same plane... but do we need a full HD westland lysander ? Do we really? ( we dont have plans for a lysander )

[Odie]

Most excellent news!

[YoYo]

Personally I prefer As real as it gets option, never Ctrl+E. So this line maybe not for me but Ill try Pucara, we’ll see.

[bazzar]

If you are into full-depth, systems rich simulations then this concept is not for you. It is specifically designed for those who don't want a) a steep learning curve to go flying and b) want to pay for it. Also it is our way, we think, of extending the FSX franchise in particular, little further into the future than otherwise may be the case.

[Josh Patterson]

Load outs wise for this and the next one which is also military ( it's on fb it's a little faster than a pucara - and we arent only focussing on mil stuff for ctrl-ezy )... will be visual only. Ctrl+E for me anyway is just that. I dont want to fiddle with weight based loadouts ( certainly dont want to code it! ). I foresee ( and I think baz does too ) you check you have fuel- one of the switches will be a "add 100 % fuel switch " - hit an autostart switch on the "panel" or use CTRL+E, throttle forward and you are gone. The single page brochure will be a panel familiarisation and a note about any special simple things that we may add.

So loadouts wise we're thinking a knob - on the pucara we're going to use the arming knob on the left side- that will let you cycle through the loadouts. I dont know how tacpack works but if you as a user can retrofit it to an empty loadout then you're golden.

Also we need to keep an eye on the code base. We're wanting to make it "one code- both simulators " sort of thing so FSX specific stuff like blends in materials cant be used as it doesnt work in P3d PBR and vice versa.

Whilst Ctrl-ezy is hopefully good for the community it actually is good for us. To be able to model certain subjects that otherwise wouldnt have been released is really great. We've got a number of semi-started subjects which for a few reasons have remained as semi started and now they will see life under ctrl-ezy. Some appear on lists of "aircraft that are still not in the sim" type of threads for example. Some will get the "WTF are they thinking?" type of response.

I'll let baz answer the multiple options with CE ( ctrl ezy ) and AH versions of the same plane... but do we need a full HD westland lysander ? Do we really? ( we dont have plans for a lysander )

The use of an in cockpit knob sounds good. I like the next one in the queue as well!

[awstub]

If loadout is just one model part, then it won't work for Tacpack.

All that is needed (on a model) in order for Tacpack to work visually, is for the individual stores to be assigned their own separate payload station weight. It's not really all that complicated in the overall scheme of things.

So, in the example below, if a 250 lb bomb (the name can be whatever, but I'll use "250_lb_bomb") is to given a "weight" value of 25 and you want it to be visible on station 1, the modeldef entry to give it the visibility would be:
(The station number is in bold font)

<PartInfo>

<Name>250_lb_bomb_01</Name>

<Visibility>

<Parameter>

<Code> (A:PAYLOAD STATION WEIGHT:01, pounds) 25 == </Code>

</Parameter>

</Visibility>

</PartInfo>

If you also had a 500 lb bomb that could be displayed on the same station, you would have a separate entry, with a different weight value, for that:

<PartInfo>

<Name>500_lb_bomb_01</Name>

<Visibility>

<Parameter>

<Code> (A:PAYLOAD STATION WEIGHT:01, pounds) 50 == </Code>

</Parameter>

</Visibility>

</PartInfo>

If the parts are set up in this way, then all someone needs to know in order to get it to work with Tacpack is which weight value goes with each part, so that they can add them to the appropriate entries in the Tacpack.ini file.

Otherwise, the only way to do it is to use ModelConverterX to separate the parts and then recompile it with the new modeldef entries.

I'm no rocket surgeon, but if I can figure out how to add Tacpack visually to a model, I would expect a professional developer to be able to do it without even breaking sweat.

I really like the idea of "Ctrl-Ezy" and I like the airplane too, but I'll probably not get it if I can't easily add Tacpack to it.

[bazzar]

We wish to retain the "purity"of this concept. If Tacpack is your bag, then this is probably not for you. We don't Tacpack our aircraft, whether they are main-line productions or Ctrl/Ezy. That's our choice and has little to do with how simple or otherwise it is to do.

[tommieboy]

Kick the tires and light the fire! YEAH!

[c87]

I think this is an outstanding idea. It satisfies the eye-candy junkie in me while going easy on the time and money budgets.

[awstub]

Obviously it comes down to your choice.

To be clear, I wasn't asking you guys to add Tacpack to anything. I was just saying that if you guys could add the stores to your models so that they are each a separate part with a visibility condition tied to a station weight....people that wanted to make it work with Tacpack could do so very easily.

Do whatever makes you feel good.

We wish to retain the "purity"of this concept. If Tacpack is your bag, then this is probably not for you. We don't Tacpack our aircraft, whether they are main-line productions or Ctrl/Ezy. That's our choice and has little to do with how simple or otherwise it is to do.

[YoYo]

Obviously it comes down to your choice.

To be clear, I wasn't asking you guys to add Tacpack to anything....

It will be nice idea - simply model (avionics) but full combat ready, something like "Flaming Cliffs" for DCS, I hope, someone will do mod for TacPack .


VC of IA58 Pucara (from AH FB):

We thought to give you an idea on how the 3d panels work in sim. These 2 images are straight from the simulators at the same airfield ( Reeve in New Zealand ). Both sims are stock. In P3D you get dynamic lighting and shine as well as working mirrors. Other than the P3D perspective, they're pretty close. This is also the locked off camera view.
Yep we're working on a rudimentary gunsight at the moment

[Sundog]

OMG, I love the other one you have in the works as well! Thanks.

[YoYo]

This is also the locked off camera view

In this line we will have full Virual Cockpit 3D/6DOF but not all will work (like all switches, knobs ect) ?
Im correct?

btw. nice wallpaper for Pucara fans:

[pilto von pilto]

In this line we will have full Virual Cockpit 3D/6DOF but not all will work (like all switches, knobs ect) ?
Im correct?

btw. nice wallpaper for Pucara fans:

No you are incorrect. It is a front view only 3d panel with clickable switches which control the plane. If you remember fs2004/2002 days of 2d panels then it is a 3d representation of that. To get an idea.

1. Jump in to your favourite plane in fsx/p3d
2. Do not use your hat switch/vr headset/trackir but look straight out.
3. That's exactly it.

So if you do try to use your view hat/trackir/vr headset you will see nothing. Literally nothing. In the latest shots online of the vc's what you see is exactly what we have modelled for the interior.

[DC1973]

This is fantastic, and mirrors my own business model for DC Designs - bringing back the fun to flight simulation. Brace yourself for various comments along the lines of: "It's a poor man's VRS/Milviz/PDMG" ( delete as applicable ) from some users, but other than that the community I think loves the idea of alternatives to the study-level aircraft that have dominated for so long. All of mine are coded almost entirely from stock code, although I'm avoiding PBR now until FS2020 as I think it'll look better then than it sometimes does in P3D. Good luck with the new range!

[dhasdell]

No hat switch? I can't see that catching on.

[YoYo]

No you are incorrect. It is a front view only 3d panel with clickable switches which control the plane. If you remember fs2004/2002 days of 2d panels then it is a 3d representation of that. To get an idea.

1. Jump in to your favourite plane in fsx/p3d
2. Do not use your hat switch/vr headset/trackir but look straight out.
3. That's exactly it.

So if you do try to use your view hat/trackir/vr headset you will see nothing. Literally nothing. In the latest shots online of the vc's what you see is exactly what we have modelled for the interior.

Ughh.... so no fun for me if I can't look around .
I use only VR mode from few months so it will be disaster.
I was thinking about whole VC but with limited avionics and systems.
Pity for me.

[bazzar]

The whole point of this concept is to bring basic simming back for those that just want to fly at an affordable price. The very second talk begins of full VC cockpits, weapons systems and more, "hey presto" we're back to where we started. And all for $19.95? No, I don't think so.

You can pan in the cockpit using the hat switch, it's just that there may not be much to look at, dependent on the subject.
No, YoYo, you probably won't buy so don't worry about it anymore mate. Obviously not for you.

[Sundog]

I didn't realize there wouldn't be a VC. I'll have to find a way to link VC's from other models to these then. I can't fly without a VC. I was expecting K.Ito or Piglet level VC's in these. I don't think I've used a 2D panel since FS9. Just saying.

[YoYo]

Thx Bazz. Now its very clear .

Please think about whole VC with limited avionics/systems as option for the future projects.
It could be a little more expensive but the immersion will be more deeper (many use Track IR also). Just idea only, something like Flaming Cliffs addons for DCS.
So Im waiting for C-47 without interference .

[falcon409]

Unfortunate, I was not aware that there was no VC since the first images showed a full VC (apparently for the external view only). I can't fault Baz for taking this step as it will fill a niche (still amazed at how many folks still fly with a 2D panel or fly from the external view). We are a diverse group that's for certain. I wish Baz all the best and much success with this new undertaking.

[bazzar]

Thx Bazz. Now its very clear .

Please think about whole VC with limited avionics/systems as option for the future projects.
It could be a little more expensive but the immersion will be more deeper (many use Track IR also). Just idea only, something like Flaming Cliffs addons for DCS.
So Im waiting for C-47 without interference .

There is no point in the whole VC albeit with limited avionics/systems. For two reasons. 1) That is not what ctrl/Ezy is and 2) It would actually be a third product because once we have a whole VC we might as well populate it and code it and release the full version.

ctrl/Ezy aircraft will have a 3D VC. It is just that it will be mostly visual and just cover the forward view to around 60-75 degrees either side. You will see exterior wings and engines etc. Look down, you will see a basic generic seat and a basic generic flooring.

Let's take a 747 airliner for example, do you really think we would make a complete VC for one of those with functioning details and put that together with a 100 octane exterior and sell it for $19.95? hmmmm....

Guys I think everyone will just have to wait for the Pucara so we can better demonstrate this concept.

[pilto von pilto]

I didn't realize there wouldn't be a VC. I'll have to find a way to link VC's from other models to these then. I can't fly without a VC. I was expecting K.Ito or Piglet level VC's in these. I don't think I've used a 2D panel since FS9. Just saying.

That's ok like yoyo you're probably not the target market.

To all :

Seems like there is a misconception here.

This is not a 2d panel. It is not a bmp. It is the vc. you can pan at the most 75 degrees either side of straight ahead. I think a youtube video will help this but at present we are still finishing up the exterior.

I have a few questions though if anyone is up for it. If you are or arent the target market thats ok it's all good research.

1. With the prices of addons being what they are and the move away from FSX by devs, How do you think we were able to rationalise the speed at which we developed, exterior features etc and still keep it to under $20?
2. What were you expecting in a vc where other than a loadout switch , lighting switch , auto mixture, autostart/shutdown switch there are no other switches? What do you need to interact with ?

Ctrl-Ezy is meant for ctrl+e people. Those people ( and we believe there are plenty out there ) dont need to interact with a vc. Rarely if ever need or want to check under the seat to see if we have the correct type of rivets holding the canister for the ejection seat ( tip : we dont ). They are looking for exciting and different planes at a cost that is easier on the hip pocket but still are (exterior wise and cutdown vc wise) current generation. They are looking to extend FSX for another year or 2 ( 2020 will be a reckoning me thinks but that is a topic for another thread ).

In the meantime... I hope everyone is safe and ready for whatever your country is doing for these trying times.

[xpelekis]

For people like me that are on the fun side of FS flying (goal oriented flying as opposed to procedures oriented),
this concept will serve that purpose very well I believe.
I'm in for the Pucara for some Falklands combat flying...