GotFriends Astro ONE - Released 4/20

[Tom Clayton]

As for the subject at hand.... Hmmmm.... somehow some numbers and names popped up in my mind, i don't know why...Let's see... Microsoft Flight Simulator....,hmmm... the Astro One, a flying lawn mower, or.... anything from what popped up in my head :

T-33
T-2
F-86
F-89
F-100
F-101
F-102
F-105
F-106
F-4
F-5
A-1
A-2U
A-2F
A-3J
A-3D
A-4D
A-20
F2D
F3H
F4D
F4F
F7F
F8F
F8U
F11F
F2J
F3J
B-17
B-24
B-25
B-26
B-29
B-36
B-47
B-57
B-58
C-97
C-118
C-119
C-124
C-130
KC-135
P-26
P-36
P-39
P-47
P-61
P-84
P-89
Lancaster
Halifax
Blenheim
Mossy
Hurricane
A-12 Duck
A-16 Albatross
A-10 Catalina
L-049
L-749
CV-240
CV-440
CV-580
DC-4
DC-7
DC-8
DC-9
DC-10
F-27, F-50
707
727
757
767
Viscount
Electra
Comet
Caravelle

If i'm not mistaking we had just about anything from that list of venerable flying machines in FSX/P3D, FS9, FS2K2, etc and before. Can we wonder what's keeping them from the Mother of all Flightsimulators that is MSFS ? Is it the Astro One's ?... the Lake Skipper's ?.... the JW1's...? the Flying Flea's ?... i.e. the Bugs ???... Do we maybe need a fly swatter here ?

Money, money, money
It ain't funny
In our MSFS world

There is no need to wonder. Back in the FS2k2 and FS9 days, Mike Stone could hammer out a plane in a week. It would meet many people's expectations of freeware and thousands of copies would be downloaded. Payware companies could put together some very nice models with halfway decent systems modeling. But with every new sim, the expectations of the downloading and buying public get higher and higher. Even freeware releases for MSFS are so far ahead of the best of the best from yesteryear, it's ridiculous. The time and effort required to code something for this sim is daunting to say the least. God help any developer that doesn't model every panel screw in 3D. How long has the SWS PC-12 been in the works? They have a team of artists and coders working on that one full-time and we're still waiting for it.

[Javis]

There is no need to wonder. Back in the FS2k2 and FS9 days, Mike Stone could hammer out a plane in a week. It would meet many people's expectations of freeware and thousands of copies would be downloaded. Payware companies could put together some very nice models with halfway decent systems modeling. But with every new sim, the expectations of the downloading and buying public get higher and higher. Even freeware releases for MSFS are so far ahead of the best of the best from yesteryear, it's ridiculous. The time and effort required to code something for this sim is daunting to say the least. God help any developer that doesn't model every panel screw in 3D. How long has the SWS PC-12 been in the works? They have a team of artists and coders working on that one full-time and we're still waiting for it.

I really couldn't tell you how long it took SWS to develop the PC-12, Tom, but i do know that for instance "IndiaFoxEcho" aka Dino Cattaneo, produced superb native MSFS models of the Long-EZ, MB-339, T-45, F-35, Su-31, and M-346 with a Carrier and LHA Ship on the side since the release of MSFS. That's 8 models with, presumably, A-4 and TA-4 in the pipeline. I'd say prove enough that it certainly still can be done. And he's not the only dev that produces quality native MSFS aircraft models on a regular bases of course.

My contribution here was actually a spur of the moment thing. Something like " here we go again, another fairground attraction thingamabob while i and probabely atleast half of the ol' FS pilots club are desperately waiting on the native MSFS version of the A2A B-17 or B-377.....

"Looks like fun to play around with". Sure! But a B-17 or B-25 or F-86 or DC-8 are also fun to play around with. Aren't they ? I always thought that's what flight simulation is all about. 'Flying' the awesome airplanes that you know from the real world and inspired you or maybe flew in yourself.

In short, with every release of yet another what i'd like to call fairground attraction i get a little bit more frustrated about MSFS to see valuable development time and effort wasted on more or less 'easy money makers' while MSFS actually IS the Mother of all Flight Simulators.

I bet that if i put my mind to it i could create a fancy looking flying toaster sporting the latest PBR texturing and flight dynamics technique, dump it on the Marketplace for 12 dollar and buy a second hand Porsche 911 a few weeks later.

Fairground attractions, fine ! But don't forget about the pedigree of Flight Simulator. Don't turn MSFS into a Punch and Judy show, please. That's all i'd like to say. And if that means i have a stick up my butt, fine, so be it.

Btw, Tom, i never cared much for Mike Stone nore Ito models... They did turn them out like falling leaves drifting by the window though ;-) https://youtu.be/ZEMCeymW1Ow

[DennyA]

Well, I think this looks super fun and even though i want every plane on the list posted uptopic, I'll likely enjoy this too.

https://youtu.be/g-Q5VbaTbmw

The Got Friends also guys have an F4F Wildcat on the list. And it's been delayed because doing a historic fighter with the level of detail that MSFS users demand takes a lot of time. If it doesn't have actual R-1830-86 Twin Wasp sounds, for instance, the forum dwellers will scream that it's a lazy money grab. It's still in the works, but I can't imagine doing the fun Astro ONE is going to delay the Wildcat.

But it might fund a trip to an airshow to record a real one.

Big picture, folks. We can have our candy and our history together.

[DennyA]

It's out. It's fun. If you have crash detection on, it's a good test of piloting skills.

[Daube]

I really couldn't tell you how long it took SWS to develop the PC-12, Tom, but i do know that for instance "IndiaFoxEcho" aka Dino Cattaneo, produced superb native MSFS models of the Long-EZ, MB-339, T-45, F-35, Su-31, and M-346 with a Carrier and LHA Ship on the side since the release of MSFS. That's 8 models with, presumably, A-4 and TA-4 in the pipeline. I'd say prove enough that it certainly still can be done. And he's not the only dev that produces quality native MSFS aircraft models on a regular bases of course.

My contribution here was actually a spur of the moment thing. Something like " here we go again, another fairground attraction thingamabob while i and probabely atleast half of the ol' FS pilots club are desperately waiting on the native MSFS version of the A2A B-17 or B-377.....

"Looks like fun to play around with". Sure! But a B-17 or B-25 or F-86 or DC-8 are also fun to play around with. Aren't they ? I always thought that's what flight simulation is all about. 'Flying' the awesome airplanes that you know from the real world and inspired you or maybe flew in yourself.

In short, with every release of yet another what i'd like to call fairground attraction i get a little bit more frustrated about MSFS to see valuable development time and effort wasted on more or less 'easy money makers' while MSFS actually IS the Mother of all Flight Simulators.

I bet that if i put my mind to it i could create a fancy looking flying toaster sporting the latest PBR texturing and flight dynamics technique, dump it on the Marketplace for 12 dollar and buy a second hand Porsche 911 a few weeks later.

Fairground attractions, fine ! But don't forget about the pedigree of Flight Simulator. Don't turn MSFS into a Punch and Judy show, please. That's all i'd like to say. And if that means i have a stick up my butt, fine, so be it.

Btw, Tom, i never cared much for Mike Stone nore Ito models... They did turn them out like falling leaves drifting by the window though ;-) https://youtu.be/ZEMCeymW1Ow

While I fully agree with your general feeling about the lack of historical and/or attractive aircraft modelled for MSFS (or the low speed at which they come), I disagree with the last part of your message, because it sounds like you consider this "Astro One" as a fictitious, arcade aircraft. This addon is modeled based on a real aircraft, and a kind that didn't exist in our sim yet (well, excepted for that default drone that I never ever selected...). It's nothing to be compared with a flying toaster with PBR textures, don't you think ?
Now that I think about it, that addon might in fact be more realistic than any of the modern military jets we currently have in the sim (since these have classified performance, and we never get any weapon systems anyways ).

But yes, just like you, I also wish talented devs would invest their time into the development of my favorite planes. Currently, I have good hopes that A2A may release their next addon (not the Commanche, that would should be ready in the next 10 years or so) before I need to wear diapers again... with no guarantee it won't be yet-another-cessna172...

[JohnC]

It should be good to remember that this is a free market above all else. We influence the free market through dollars and actions, not words. You can vote with your wallet and/or you can help create content. For the latter, you can create supplements such as liveries for aircraft you feel are particularly good....and as a former developer, I can tell you that a strong set of external liveries does boost sales. You can also go off the deep end and develop an aircraft that meets your standards. The highlight of the 20+ aircraft I have worked on was leading the development of the Aerosoft F-14, which took the better part of four year. And it turns out the real highlight were the outstanding people I was fortunate enough to work with, cool as the Tomcat is.

It's also fine to have split preferences. I am still yearning for a high-fidelity DC-3. What you ask? Well the flight model may be somewhat authentic in the recent release, but the control response if off because the flight control linkage is not properly simulated. It's relatively easy (and free) to dig up NASA documents with neatly presented plots that clearly show seconds of lag between control input at the yoke and control response at the actuators associated with early hydraulic systems. If you've ever seen a cockpit video with the pilot repeatedly yanking on the controls to get the aircraft to nudge and course correct (particularly on approach), this is why. And this is a major short-coming to me, not because hydraulic fluid isn't modeled to the liter, but because one of the fundamental pilot interactions is measurably off. Yet I can still purchase and enjoy the aircraft for what it is.

DennyA gave a nice and succinct review. Go vote with your wallets however aligns with your values.

[Navy Chief]

I bought it and am having a lot of fun flying it! I got interested in flightsimming because I want to have fun! When it ceases to be enjoyable, then I will be done with it!

NC

[Spook48]

To each his own , i guess.
But i agree about having fun.
So this is my kind of fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob60...nel=JustFlight

[Javis]

To each his own , i guess.
But i agree about having fun.
So this is my kind of fun.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ob60...nel=JustFlight

Yup, this is about the quintessence of my contribution here in this thread. A lawn mower on steroids or a Vulcan. To each their own.

[JohnC]

To my understanding the Astro is available for purchase now while the Avro Vulcan is a ways off. Both philosophically and practically, it's easy for a person's life to include to be Astro AND Vulcan. To my understanding flight sim add-ons do not require monogamy. I am also quite excited for the Vulcan.

[Javis]

It's nothing to be compared with a flying toaster with PBR textures, don't you think ?

Well, that's all a bit tongue in cheek of course, Daube. Not really that serious, grain of salt, that sort of thing.

And sure, i know that Astro One thing is real. I saw atleast two videos about it. And i would've kept my fingers off of the keyboard if we'd have, say, 30% of the, to us, well known militairy or civil aircraft from that list to enjoy as native MSFS models. But atm we have exactly non. That's why the release of this lawn mower on steroids feels pretty ironic to me. Like we all couldn't sleep anymore waiting for its release. That's all really.

[JohnC]

When I was developing; the second flight model I worked on was a Duo Discus. It was particularly cool, because I was given open access to an airframe and allowed to design several test flights to tease out the aircraft's velocity-specific control response, and static/dynamic stability. After nailing the flight mechanics after hours in the air, a beta tester reported that the aircraft was jumping around the runway like a 4-year old on a trampoline. After some fiddling and testing, it turned out that realistic moments of inertia for a lightweight glider were below what FSX could manage for ground interactions. The MOI values had to be artificially increased and the entire flight mechanics re-written. I don't remember the exact time scale, but a ~6 month development turned into a 12 month development (and that wasn't the last 6-month slip when working with FSX).

When the aircraft release was announced here at SOH, the first poster responded with "not my cuppa'. I wanted to pour (cold) water on them.

I fully understand the desire for high-fidelity and historically significant aircraft. I watched the link above on the Vulcan, the whole thing, with enthusiasm. But, try to remember that this is a thread to discuss the release of a new air vehicle. And an add-on with custom-scripting to overcome limitations of our current simulator that could not have come easily. When a development group starts writing their own code, it can lead to great things over multiple product cycles. So, rational as I try to be, I would rather bias towards supportive language in their thread.

[DennyA]

From what I hear from dev friends about the relative sales of the kinds of planes we all like around here (military, period) compared to yet another freaking GA plane with a G1000 in it, we shouldn't be using sales potential or popularity as arguments for what should be developed, or y'all will be in a sea of Pipers, Dahers, and Cessnas.

At any rate, if anything's going to take away from development time of a Vulcan or F-111 or F4D Skyray, it's going to be one of those damn survey-level GA planes. I'm confident the Astro One came together in about 2% of the time that's being spent on the (yawn, unless I buy the real plane) Accu-Sim Comanche 250.

So, rational as I try to be, I would rather bias towards supportive language in their thread.

So much this. I can tell you, having been in involved with sims and gaming since the 90's, that the constant negativity "the glass is 1/3 empty" grates on you over time. And the people who greet a new release with the 5 things they can find wrong with it while ignoring the 972 things that are absolutely right about it... There's a reason TK makes sims for phones now, the Jane's Combat Sims guys all moved on to other things, and so many freeware developers don't develop freeware anymore.

[Tom Clayton]

But, try to remember that this is a thread to discuss the release of a new air vehicle. And an add-on with custom-scripting to overcome limitations of our current simulator that could not have come easily. When a development group starts writing their own code, it can lead to great things over multiple product cycles. So, rational as I try to be, I would rather bias towards supportive language in their thread.

And the people who greet a new release with the 5 things they can find wrong with it while ignoring the 972 things that are absolutely right about it...

So much both of these!!!

This board may have a majority membership of warbird and vintage enthusiasts, but just look in the screenshot thread one time and you'll see just about everything represented at least a little. Personally, I'm obsessed with current-era GA. My two favorite addons are the Kodiak and the steam Turbo Porter. For the defaults, I love the TBM and the DA62 with the "X" mod installed. I'm also tempted by the updated C337. Will I get this though? I honestly don't know yet. It looks like fun, but it's not really the kind of flying I normally do. But it might be fun to run it down the Grand Canyon!