Reno Aircraft

[Quicksand]

Hi guys. I'm getting ready to jump over the fence into MSFS. I'm really interested in the Reno package, or at least some of the aircraft. Can someone tell me if the canopies are animated in any of them. I looked thru all the screenshots on the official site, and never saw an open canopy.

[mgr]

Hi guys. I'm getting ready to jump over the fence into MSFS. I'm really interested in the Reno package, or at least some of the aircraft. Can someone tell me if the canopies are animated in any of them. I looked thru all the screenshots on the official site, and never saw an open canopy.

Can confirm that none of them have animated canopies i'n afraid.

Marcel

[Quicksand]

Thanks Marcel. I was afraid of that..😑

[ryanbatc]

Some of them are fun for 10 USD. I bought Red Thunder L39 jet. The interior and exterior bring me back to Mike's L39 (Lotussim). But the operation and systems technical things are fairly basic. Some have different cockpits too so watch out for that.

I bought one of the P51 - Bunny or something. That one is awful...the HSI is totally worthless and you can't even tune a VOR. I wrote a letter to Microsoft about it grrrrr.

[jankees]

I bought the basepack, and the P-51A, because it was the first time I saw that in a sim. The T-6 and the A were nice, but the rest have left my hangar, utterly uninteresting.

[DennyA]

Yeah, I think the only Microsoft/Asobo-developed plane that has opening doors/canopy is the Aviat Husky.

The Aeroplane Heaven P-51 has a sliding canopy.

[Manschy]

I am not surprised - wasn't this addon already only built for Box gamers? Waiting for MSFS addons where you can catch number bubbles for activation code rewards or something similar....

[DennyA]

I am not surprised - wasn't this addon already only built for Box gamers? Waiting for MSFS addons where you can catch number bubbles for activation code rewards or something similar....

No, but that's the kind of PC elitism that accomplishes nothing and harms the potential success of the platform, so, uh, good going if that's what you're going for?

Don't resent the Xbox, be glad it's there to bring a lot of incremental development $$$ that will allow future improvements and enhancements to our sim that might not have happened with a product only sold to the PC gaming market.

Remember, FSX and Combat Flight Simulator were successful, but they died because they didn't make enough money for the MS gaming honchos in the day to want to continue funding development. Luckily Phil Spencer is smarter than those guys were and can see the larger picture. But in the end, MS is a public company that has to make billions in profit every year.

TL;DR: Platform elitism accomplishes nothing but hurts our hobby.

[K5083]

All of the planes in the Reno pack are pretty good looking, and each one has a distinctive cockpit that looks nice and is based on the real individual aircraft.

Some of them have bugs which it looks like will never be fixed. The worst visual bugs are the propeller texture and various shape issues with the P-51A, and the instruments in P-51D Bunny.

The T-6 has a pretty decent flight model apart from the relationship between reported manifold pressure and actual engine output being way off. Ignore the gauge and just go by your throttle position and it's okay.

The next best are the Pitts', which are each individual in performance, responsive and fun to fly.

The L-39 is kind of generic feeling but an OK jet to bop around in. I find that the L-39 actually has the most accurate takeoff and landing behavior. As you can imagine, not much effort seems to have been put into the takeoff and landing behavior of the Reno planes, since the normal use mode is to start and end in the air around the race course.

The P-51 flight models are the poorest, but the hotted-up Strega and Voodoo are good fun, and the P-51A is worthwhile just for the novelty.

I don't regret the purchase and still fly all of the planes occasionally. Though flawed, they are far from the worst payware planes out there.

August

[Quicksand]

Thanks for your input, guys. Much appreciated. 👍 I think I'm going to get the P-51A, because I've never had one for flight sim.

[Bomber_12th]

I tend to fly the various AT-6's the most, and have been doing so with VR. The cockpits on those are as visually real/true-to-life as has ever been made for any flight sim, and so when flying them in the sim, especially in VR, it really is an amazing experience from the cockpits. (They are based on laser scans from the real thing).

With regard to the Mustangs, I really want to like them, and generally I do. The external shape/contours of the P-51D models in particular are quite exceptional - better than most other flight sim versions released to-date. Though there are a few areas that could be improved, the overall look is quite convincing, with the wings/wing airfoil, canopy and windscreen, and radiator scoop all really well done/accurate. Once again, they are fantastic from the cockpits with VR, all with the right proportions and design of every aspect/part throughout. (They are based on laser scans from the real thing).

The sound sets for both the AT-6's and P-51D's are really exceptional/outstanding, though unfortunately the P-51A uses the same Merlin soundset as the P-51D's.

From a critical perspective, these are some of the issues I've spotted with the Mustangs. You can see that some of the variants have more/less issues than others:


P-51A ‘Mrs. Virginia’:

• The wing airfoil, at present, is incorrectly portrayed as a standard airfoil rather than the correct laminar flow airfoil it should be. The wing airfoil and thickness should be identical to the P-51D (which is very accurate on those models). The only significant three-dimensional difference between the A and D wing is the leading edge (not considering the difference in landing gear doors and wheel well shape).
• The upper and lower portions of the inboard wing sections are distorted when viewed from the front and back, with a ‘kink’ where they start out at one angle from the fuselage, and then stops and starts a new angle out toward the wing tip. With the wings, when viewed front and back, it should be a straight line across the top and bottom of the wing, with a constant taper from the fuselage to the wing tip joint.
• Right now there is a prop issue with the P-51A, where the still prop, slow spinning prop, and fast spinning prop models/graphics all show at shared times, rather than individually at the right times
• The landing gear clam shell door animation is currently faulty
• There is a little model artifact that shows up just outside the left side of the cockpit in external view, when viewed from certain zoom/distance (an LOD-related issue I believe).
• The rudder trim placard is wrong. It should be no different than the aileron trim placard and just like the P-51D rudder trim placard. ‘0’ should be dead center, with 5 and 10 degree positions both left and right.
• The max manifold pressure setting for a stock Allison engine, running today’s fuel, is 52"-MP - that’s the takeoff setting red line. Unfortunately, right now it maxes out at only 38-inches manifold pressure. However, the performance has been over boosted to compensate, so the performance of the aircraft doesn’t match the manifold pressure settings - thus, for normal climb and cruise performance, you also must use lower manifold pressure settings than what it is in reality.
• The engine manifold pressure to RPM ratio is well off the mark right now too. The RPM gets up to 3,000 too early, when only powering up to 27-28-inches of manifold pressure. In reality, with the prop lever full forward/high RPM, the following Manifold Pressure to RPM should be seen (noted from real Allison V-1710 operation):
  2000 RPM reached at about 22-in MP
  2300 RPM reached at about 26-in MP
  2500 RPM reached at about 30-in MP
  3000 RPM reached by about 40-in MP

All P-51D Models:

• The horizontal stabilizers have a slight negative dihedral, which of course they shouldn't have (neither negative nor positive).
• The main landing gear legs on all of the P-51D models are currently bowed outward when viewed head-on. They should however, when viewed head-on, be straight up and down, forming a 90-degree angle with the ground (not with the wing dihedral, as is at present).
• The tail wheel strut/arm is reversed 180-degrees from how it should be.
• The pitot tube is not modeled accurately/correctly (on some models it is not even connected to the wing).
• Some have the fuselage fuel tank coded/programmed-in, where as they don't have the tank in reality.

‘Base/Stock’ P-51D

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.
• The “button” tip of the flap handle is missing.
• **It would be nice to have the stock/original antenna mast on the rear fuselage spine.**

‘Goldfinger’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.

‘Voodoo’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.

‘Wee Willy II’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle animation is reversed/opposite to the function.
• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.
• Diameter of the main wheels is too large.

‘Bunny’

• The emergency hydraulic release t-handle is not select-able.
• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The textures are not displaying correctly for several of the gauges.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.
• There is a leftover/partial section of a modern VHF antenna, behind the left main wheel well, that shouldn’t be present.

‘Lady B’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The landing light position and animation is faulty - it’s not displaying correctly, and sticks through the left landing gear doors when gear is up.

‘Man O’ War’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The parking brake handle does not animate.
• There are two doubled-up VHF antennas displaying at the same time, behind the main landing gear wheel wells.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.
• Diameter of the main wheels is too large.

‘Miss America’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The “button” tip of the flap handle is missing.
• The angle of the landing light is wrong (facing toward the nose, where as it should be facing out to the left).

‘Dolly’

• The fuel tank selector visually chooses between the right and left drop tank selections rather than the correct left and right internal main/wing tank fuel selections.
• The “Landing” decal/stencil on the emergency hydraulic release t-handle is not connected to the animated handle.
• The wheels only display as spinning, even when sitting still.
• The landing light doesn’t extend.

‘Strega’

• The angle of the landing light is wrong (facing toward the nose, where as it should be facing out to the left).

P-51D and AT-6 Flight Models:

The base/“stock” P-51D’s (generic paint schemes) and base/“stock” AT-6’s (generic paint schemes) have quite accurate to real life performance vs. engine settings. You set 50-55" Manifold Pressure/3000 RPM for takeoff power in the “stock”/generic P-51D’s (standard takeoff power in today’s world), and the level of acceleration and top end speed is very accurate. The same goes for the “stock”/generic AT-6’s, running 32" MP/2250 RPM for takeoff power (standard takeoff power in today’s world), and the level of acceleration and top end speed is very accurate. You can fly these aircraft, using the right true-to-life power settings, and they perform quite accurately in free flight mode.

The inaccuracies really arise with some of the racer P-51D’s and all of the racer AT-6’s. Unlike what is portrayed currently in free flight mode, these should all have essentially the exact same level of acceleration and very, very close to the same top end speed as the stock examples, when running the exact same engine settings (within 5-20 mph of each other, depending on airframe modifications). The inherent problem with the flight/engine dynamics of the racing Mustangs (namely “Voodoo” and “Strega”) and the racing AT-6’s (all but the generic/“stock” examples) in free flight mode, is that they are accelerating way too fast and the top end speed is way too high, while using normal power settings (Manifold Pressure and RPM). In reality, the only reason why the racing Mustangs and racing AT-6’s are going at those much higher airspeeds is because the engines have been modified to allow much higher Manifold Pressures and RPM’s. That, however, is not depicted in the flight/engine dynamics of these aircraft. For instance, flying the P-51D “Voodoo”, using the normal top-end power setting of 55" Manifold Pressure and 3000 RPM on takeoff shouldn’t result in much of any difference at all in acceleration or top end speed than what you get in a stock P-51D using that same power setting (the top end speed would be expected to be only slightly faster, due to the airframe modifications) - however, it rockets away, unrealistically, because it has been magically boosted to reach much higher airspeeds, even though this is not reflected in any difference in engine settings. There is some “magical”/unnatural performance boost added to the MSFS flight dynamics for the racer Mustangs and AT-6’s, so that they have a crazy high level of acceleration and top end speed, even though the engine parameters/settings remain no different than the stock P-51D and AT-6. The major downside of this is that, in order to operate these aircraft in free flight mode just for a normal flight, you have to use much lower power settings than is accurate/what you would be using in reality, just so as to keep the acceleration and top end speed realistic/accurate. With the racer Mustangs and AT-6’s, there needs to be changes in the engine parameters so that the speeds we’re getting are only reachable by using much higher engine power settings, as per reality - and, when using stock power settings, they should be performing with very near the same level of acceleration and top end speed as the stock examples. No matter if the aircraft is fully stock or modified in some way for racing, the P-51D’s should all use 50-55" MP and 3000 RPM on takeoff (today’s power settings), and this should result in all of them accelerating and getting up to near the same top end speed, no matter which P-51D it is, and then using 34-36" MP and 2300-2400 RPM for cruise, all getting fairly close to the same cruise speed (with marginal differences based on airframe modifications/differences). Where one P-51 would be capable of being much faster than an another is when the Manifold Pressure and RPM, on a racing-tuned Merlin, is capable of being pushed far higher than stock (up to 145" MP, rather than 55" MP, and up to 3500 RPM, rather than 3000) - this is not replicated in the sim at this time.

The same problem applies to the racer AT-6’s. Because the performance on those has been over boosted, while the engine parameters/settings have not, you have to use much lower power settings than you would in reality just in order to operate them with realistic acceleration and top end speed in free flight mode. In reality, with any AT-6, modified or not, you takeoff using 32" Manifold Pressure (36" MP, if you don’t care about the length of engine life), and 2250 RPM, and no matter what airframe it is, it is going to accelerate and get up to speed essentially the same as any other, stock or otherwise modified. Unfortunately, though, since all of the racing AT-6’s have greatly boosted “magical” performance, without any tie-in to greater/higher engine power settings, you have to use much lower engine power settings with the racer AT-6’s in free flight mode to maintain realistic/accurate acceleration and speeds on takeoff and cruise. For instance, I’ve found that with the racer AT-6’s, to maintain realistic and accurate acceleration on takeoff, the power has to be kept down to 20-22" MP, and then even lower in cruise, and that shouldn’t be the case. No matter if the aircraft is fully stock or modified in some way for racing, they should all use 32" MP and 2250 RPM on takeoff (today’s power settings), with all of them accelerating the same and getting up to near the same top end speed, no matter which AT-6 it is, and then using 24-26" MP and 1850-1900 RPM for cruise, all getting pretty much the same cruise speed no matter which AT-6 it is. Unfortunately, this is not true of the flight/engine dynamics as currently portrayed with the racer AT-6’s and Mustangs. Where one AT-6 would be much faster than an another is when the Manifold Pressure and RPM, on a racing-tuned R-1340, is capable of being pushed higher than stock.

[Quicksand]

Thanks for that info, John. You are definitely our resident Mustang guru. 🙂👍

[dcc]

P-51A ‘Mrs. Virginia’:

• The max manifold pressure setting for a stock Allison engine, running today’s fuel, is 52"-MP - that’s the takeoff setting red line. Unfortunately, right now it maxes out at only 38-inches manifold pressure. However, the performance has been over boosted to compensate, so the performance of the aircraft doesn’t match the manifold pressure settings - thus, for normal climb and cruise performance, you also must use lower manifold pressure settings than what it is in reality.
• The engine manifold pressure to RPM ratio is well off the mark right now too. The RPM gets up to 3,000 too early, when only powering up to 27-28-inches of manifold pressure. In reality, with the prop lever full forward/high RPM, the following Manifold Pressure to RPM should be seen (noted from real Allison V-1710 operation):
  2000 RPM reached at about 22-in MP
  2300 RPM reached at about 26-in MP
  2500 RPM reached at about 30-in MP
  3000 RPM reached by about 40-in MP

using a simvar monitor I noticed that the mp and engine hp actually seem ok but the gauge is reading low, and the offset is not constant but varies with mp. The vertical speed indicator is off too.

I doubt they'll ever fix most of the issues you've identified. As you know we may someday see a prop animation fix. But I doubt we'll see anything after that. The novelty of the Reno package is fading and there's likely no ROI on updating these models.

FWIW I too really want to like this model (I love the look of the early Mustangs, despite being taildraggers!) and have actually had some luck tinkering with a few things. I'm sort of using the A as an experimental platform to learn more of the SDK as I (hesitatingly) dip my toes back into the waters of FS development. So far, I've managed to bypass the encrypted flight model and replace it with one I'm working on. I have the engine getting to 3000 rpm a bit slower (based on your comments I might add), added an autopilot for cross country flying, improved cockpit lighting so I can see the gauges better during the day and cockpit details at night, etc. And, most importantly, I added an Allison V1710 sound set from sounds I recorded from an Allison powered P-40 at Oshkosh many years back when I was doing sound sets for CFS2,FS9, etc.

Maybe some day some professional developer will do a B/C with a Malcom hood. That would be a good day

- dcc