Area 51 C-17 released!

[MDIvey]

No as far as I know its native... I just dont have self shadowing switched on... Just personnal preference... because I dont like it and it seems to have a performance hit. The model I think has bump mapping or some kind of specular finish but I cant say about the self shadows as I dont use them. Sorry to not be of more help on that.

Matt

[Felixthreeone]

Does the HUD work?

[awj112]

Some screen shots then? Just curious.
:ernae:

Warhorse posted some in the FS2004 forum.

[MDIvey]

I checked the model and it does seem to have self shadowing, and it does look to me to be bumped but checking the DDS textures I cant see any normal maps or anything that I'm familiar with... but anyhow it looks good to me however they've done it.

I just tried switching the HUD on and it works but if you want more details you'll have to get more info from someone more expert than me... at least it seems to show the usual info about airspeed and altitude etc.

Matt

[paul day]

There's a Area51 Canadian repaint on Flightsim already.

Regards Paul Day.

[luftwulf]

I'm no screenshots artist but here are some for those interested. very pleased. I have Virtavia and now the area 51 and I like both but maybe these might help some of you make up your minds about the area 51 one. Frankly the shots on their site do not do it justice. Only three paints but all done superbly and very fine detailed. Enjoy.

Matt

If you had to purchase one, which would you prefer? It appears that the <meta charset="utf-8">Virtavia VC looks better, however which one is more functional? External on both looks nice as well.... THANKS!

[MDIvey]

Sorry but I'm not going to advise others what to buy... there are enough pics out there now and as they get used more feedback will flow and people can make their own minds up as to what they want to buy. I dont regret buying either as I find the C-17 a fascinating aeroplane and my butt is firmly stuck on the fence

Matt

[Warrant]

Does the HUD work?

Second that question.
I'm very curious about experiences regarding this beauty.

[fsafranek]

screen shots here

http://area51sim.com/blog/index.php

Thanks. Are those cockpit shots from FS9 or FSX?

[WarHorse47]

Hi all. Thought I would sneak over here from the FS9 forum to share what I've learned on the Area 51 C-17.

What is not showiing in some of the screenies are the various popup windows for radio, flight planner, etc.

With my install there was no manual. Not a big deal, but it may be challenging for a newcomer trying to figure out how to access the various other panels. With some there are the usual icons, but with others they are activiated by clicking on various parts of the panel.

The hud has two switches on mine. One is for on/off. The other is for light intensity. The 2D is the clearest. The VC is so small I hardly use it (yet) and rely on the MFD.

The sounds are great, and the models and textures are no problem on my old box with FS9. Results may vary, and I can't respond to how it performs on FSX.

The interior model is VC only on my install. IN other words if you go beyond the rear bulkhead, you have no visible support.

Hope that answers some questions.

:ernae:

--WH

PS: I just downloaded that new Canadian paint, so that's what I'm flying tonite.

[Naismith]

Why would Qatar need a C-17? It's an aircraft bigger than their entire nation, well nearly.

[dvj]

What a strange market this is. Can it really support 2, C-17 models?

[WarHorse47]

Thanks. Are those cockpit shots from FS9 or FSX?

Hard to tell. Other than resolution, they look like mine from FS9.

Here is the 2D with various subpanels from FS9:

Attachment 43178Attachment 43179Attachment 43180

:ernae:

--WH

[Merlin216]

The exterior looks nice to me, VC not so much. It doesn't look terrible, and I am not trashing A51, but it just doesn't seem to fully match a real C-17. It is a nice simple VC though, and for 30 bucks that is not a bad deal. I am curious how it flies though, any input from the owners on the flight characteristics?

[Odie]

What a strange market this is. Can it really support 2, C-17 models?

I would think so...I've got a corral full of Mustangs in the hangar of all types and flavors...the most common is the D-version. :mixedsmi:

[Mark W]

I have both the Virtavia and Area 51 C-17's and after reading these forums for a long time, finally updated my membership to post replies, as I finally have something to contribute.

The two C-17's are quite different interpretations of the same airplane and unique enough in their own right that I don't (yet) have a preference for one over the other.

As a basic run down -

External models

Area 51 models the current external C-17 where as Virtavia models the earlier Block version. Both are stunning. The only issue with the Area 51 model is that the paint scheme for the USAF version (Charelston) has a different tail number painted on the nose than what is painted on the tail (and a third tail number on the flight deck placard).

Internal models

The Virtavia 2D panel is visually better than the Area 51 2D panel, although the Area 51panel is more photo real. The Area 51 VC is in some respects visually better than the Virtavia VC... I find the Virtavia VC to be closer to 2D panel in a static 60 degree aircraft commander sitting position (slewing around is a different matter) whereas the Area 51 VC is very 3D in the same position and includes items missing from the Virtavia VC (ie oxygen masks, window slides etc). The window frame work and perspective is also more realistic with the Area 51 model.

However, the Virtavia VC has better MFD modelling than the Area 51 VC, which has static MFD's, and they are generic (ie not C-17 specific) in nature. The Virtavia VC (and 2D for that matter) allows you to switch all MFD's to different functions, including an aircraft status function and three different engine paramater displays. Also, the Virtavia VC models the EPR system. The Area 51 VC has the EPR "picture" but it is a blank screen.

The HUD is good on the Area 51 VC but the Virtavia HUD (from version 2.3 on the a/c commanders side) has a slightly better and more realistic aspect and has the DCLT function (where no such function is modelled in Area 51).

The Autopilot on both models is the same in functionality however, the Virtavia C-17 VC autopilot works differently than the 2D autopilot ie on the 2D panel you can pre set the MCP and when airborne, engage the Autopilot master then select HDG, SPD and ALT and your pre set HDG, SPD and ALT are engaged. In the VC, when you engage the Autopilot master, selecting HDG, SPD and ALT cancels your pre set settings and engages the current HDG, SPD and ALT you are flying through. The Virtavia C-17 2D autopilot also has a THR/PTCH function for the AT whilst the VC does not replicate this function. Area 51 does not model THR/PTCH at all.

The Area 51 VC does have slightly more clickable systems (ie door functionality) and it also has a range of pop up 2D panels for specific functions. Unlike the main VC panel (ie with generic MFD's), the overhead panel is much more closely aligned to the real C-17 overhead panel. where as the opposite is true in the Virtavia model!

The Area 51 cargo compartment is superb... the Virtavia cargo compartment is more generic in comparison.

In essence, the interior model of the Area 51 model does look as if it all belongs together where the Virtavia 2D/VC model does look like it was built by different people at different times (which it was).

If I was to summarise the modelling of the VC flight decks, I would say that the Area 51 "framework" is much better but is let down by the MFD gauges whilst the Virtavia "framework" is not quite as good (and it is hard to describe why) but it has much better MFD functionality and its comm suite is much more aligned to the RW airplane (where as Area 51 offers a default FSX comm suite).

Flight Dynamics

There is a difference here; I thought the flight dynamics were good on the Virtavia model (which I have had since it was first released on Day 1 as V 1.0 with the default B744 2D panel in 2009) however, even though I have had the Area 51 model for all of 14 hours it behaves much more like a premium MSFS heavy jet (ie the LDS B767) than the Virtavia model.

So, Virtavia is good, Area 51 is very very good.

Sound

The Area 51 models sound is superb inside (I must admit that I have not really listened to it on an outside view nor have I done a cold dark start yet ie listened to a start up). From taxi to take-off, to climb, cruise, descent, final and reverse thrust, it is exactly like the real airplane and there is nothing I want to change except some system alarms ie autopilot disengage (as I have the real sounds on a CD).

The Virtavia models sound is very good too however I personally have always found it to be not quite right (inside) on take off, climb and descent (I have been able to modify it to sound correct in cruise). But its (inside) sound on the ground, including start up, is perfect.

Having said all of that, if you don't have any personal experience with a C-17 in flight, I think most people would enjoy the Virtavia sound set better, as it is much more "throaty" and "powerful" in sound (and loud compared to the RW).

Wrap Up.

I have the ISG Smiths FMC with LNAV and VNAV installed in my Virtavia C-17 which after a lot of tweaking, performance file creating and redefining the aircraft.cfg ISG file, works perfectly. I'm waiting for the ISG 1.8 update, which will install ISG's C-17 MFD's into the Virtavia C-17.

All in all, the Virtavia model is a good model but unlike a LDS 767 or PMDG 747 (I have both and you dare not tweak these), the Virtavia model is an add on that requires some personal love and care to take it to the next level. And I'll probably slave the Area 51 sound file to the Virtavia model now to see how that goes.

The Area 51 model is also a good model on its own merits but I have not had it long enough to determine whether it requires any more love and care to take it the next level, other than dropping in the ISG Smiths FMC with LNAV and VNAV. I am not very good at doing repaints so will be relying on others to supply a "fixed" Charelston, and a repaint to replicate all other USAF bases and the RAAF for Area 51.

As I said at the start, they are quite different interpretations of the same airplane. For ISG users, the Virtavia model may be the better way to go, as ISG is adapting its software specifically for the Virtavia airplane (ie MFD's, FMC, etc) and ISG users get the update for free, thus offsetting the higher Virtavia cost.

For people who are not ISG users, then you have a choice! And choice is good.

[Warrant]

Well written and clear review there, Mark. Thanks!

[WarHorse47]

Nice review, Mark. I don't have the Virtavia version because the specs were a little too much for my machine. The Area51 version is just right for FS9 on my old box.


Attachment 43406Attachment 43407Attachment 43408Attachment 43409


I do hope that we see some more repaints, like one from McChord AFB.

:ernae:

--WH

[doublecool]

ya gotta love the paint

[Cag40Navy]

Do both AR51 an Virt -17's have Dover Paint's?

[Mark W]

No, neither come with Dover textures although Dover, along with Altus, Charleston, Edwards, Elmendorf and Travis for Virtavia are available on Avsim (Virtavia models the rest incl Canada, Australia, etc).Area51 has three textures - Charleston, Raf and Qatar. A Canada repaint is on Avsim.I encourage painters to populate!

[WarHorse47]

No, neither come with Dover textures although Dover, along with Altus, Charleston, Edwards, Elmendorf and Travis for Virtavia are available on Avsim (Virtavia models the rest incl Canada, Australia, etc).Area51 has three textures - Charleston, Raf and Qatar. A Canada repaint is on Avsim.I encourage painters to populate!

..and now there's another Area51 repaint for the RAAF..
:ernae:
--WH

[Hanimichal]

it's lovely

[strykerpsg]

Great scenery, is it stock? Admittedly don't fly much to South America, but will re-think that strategy if the stock scenery is like this.

it's lovely

[Hanimichal]

Great scenery, is it stock? Admittedly don't fly much to South America, but will re-think that strategy if the stock scenery is like this.

Yep. Default scenery (Rio de Janeiro)