Cntrl/E pilots please read...

[bazzar]

As we move inexorably toward a new and exciting phase in flight simulation, we, at Aeroplane Heaven, have been thinking hard about how we can continue to have a presence for our brand on “older” platforms like FSX. More importantly, how we can continue to supply and support our loyal and valued customer base, especially in FSX.


We have understood for some time now that there is a sizeable core of flight simulation enthusiasts who feel that they have no need for complex add-ons requiring extensive learning curves just to go flying. Also, an awful lot of people no longer have the budget to pay for this complexity with the ever- escalating prices being asked for such productions.


So, how can we continue to deliver high-quality productions for this sector of the market alongside our continuing schedule of product development and release?


We are very excited to announce a totally new concept in flight simulation:
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=74683&stc=1

Ctrl/Ezy (Control Easy) has been designed to deliver the very same type of high fidelity, high quality product you will find in our regular releases but with some major differences. And because the production timelines for these models are much shorter, we will be able to make more, faster.
The exterior models are produced with exactly the same levels of authentic detail and finish you will find in our “front-line” products.

Each model will have a fully rendered virtual cockpit (in PBR for P3DV4.5) but created with a significant difference.

The cockpits of Ctrl/Ezy models will be driven entirely by stock keystrokes without the need for special coding. Cockpits will not need multiple clickable objects – instead, letting your programmed sticks and quadrant hardware do the heavy lifting!


Think of the old days of FS when 2D panels were the order of the day. Transpose that concept into 3D and you will have a basic understanding of what a Ctrl/Ezy cockpit is all about.


So, now you can enjoy your favourite aeroplane subject to the full, explore the subtle detailing and beautiful finishes of the model and experience the simple joy of jumping into the cockpit and just going flying. No complicated start procedures, no lengthy learning curves and best of all, school’s out -no hefty manuals to study!


Flight dynamics, sounds and effects will be the same as you find in our regular releases – all authored with the utmost authenticity.

Ctrl/Ezy will be produced for FSX and P3D and P3D models will have full PBR materials and textures inside and out.

All Ctrl/Ezy products will have just one single price -$19.95.

It doesn’t matter if it’s a four-engined airliner or a single-engined light aircraft or fighter. The price stays the same.

FSX will cost the same as P3D.


In order to keep things simple, we will have a dedicated Control Easy website where you will be able to purchase all our Ctrl/Ezy products and check for details of upcoming productions, upgrades etc.


The first aircraft in the Ctrl/Ezy lineup is the Argentinian FMA IA58 PUCARA.
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=74682&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=74680&stc=1http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/attachment.php?attachmentid=74681&stc=1

A twin turbo-prop fighter/bomber. Made famous for its role in the Falklands Conflict of the early 80’s, many are still flying today. The design is very “fighter-jet” with a twin-seat cockpit and a varied load-out.


Available for FSX or P3D, it is due for release very soon.

The P3D version (for P3DV4.5) will have full PBR materials and textures and both have incredibly high levels of detail and finish.


We very much hope people will enjoy the concept of Ctrl/Ezy and see in it a way to continue to extend their hobby the way they like it.

As developers we are excited to have an opportunity to bring diversity back and keep FSX in the Flight Simulation picture.

[Sundog]

You know, I like both simple and "some" in depth models. But the idea that this will allow us to have a lot more planes is what makes me most excited. Hopefully, somewhere down the line, you will have a Martin B-10 in this market line.

Having said, that I'm excited for the Pucara. Of course, I just finished flying around South America. It looks like I'll be heading back soon. Great choice Baz!

Ken

[DennyA]

I love this, Baz! I do enjoy study planes, because it's an interesting challenge to learn to really operate them, but I don't need every plane to be a study plane. And I'd love the opportunity to explore more planes, see what it's like to scream over hills low in a Pucara!

Let me tell you, on my T-34B and F-15D flights, engine startup and fuel management were NOT the fun and exciting parts. :)

I used to love the FS9-era Alphasim planes, because even though they had simple cockpits and light systems, they were inexpensive and I got to fly planes like Sepecat Jaguars and F4D Skyrays and F3H Demons that could likely never justify a study sim. So hoping this series takes off (sorry) and you'll be able to put your amazing talents to work on some more old warbirds.

And at $19.95, it becomes an impulse purchase. I never knew I wanted a Pucara, but for the price of McDonald's with my teenager, I'd love to give one a try. Plus, we're not allowed to go to McDonald's anymore. :)

[delta_lima]

Funny, I could have sworn the Pucara had turboprops, not RR Derwents. :running:

Seriously, though, I welcome it. As was said by other posters, I'm happy to dive deep for some aircraft, but a few light ones are good too. Especially if they're off the beaten path, which invariably most of my favourites are.

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.

Anyway - good on you for a new (old fashioned?) track to some of the finer days of sim periods past.

Look forward to seeing followup projects.

dl

[RS]

Good news :encouragement:...

I´am curious about this Argentinian Pucara bird...

RS

[Cees Donker]

Great initiative Barry!

:applause:

Cees

[wombat666]

Out-Bloody-Standing!!!!!!
:triumphant:

Re that 'Argentinian Pucara bird...'
Back when COIN aircraft were fashionable the Argies built this rather tidy twin turboprop package.
Quite a respectable performance and payload for the price but nothing to be outstanding, except perhaps for its nice lines.
IIRC the bulk of the Pucaras stationed in and around the Falklands fell victim to SAS raids or air strikes, while a couple ended up at the RAE.
Nice looking aircraft and one that I welcome into the virtual skies.

[mjahn]

Congrats, great brand name and great concept! For some unfathomable reason I would have preferred 'Control' to be abbreviated as 'Ctrl', not 'Cntrl', but no matter.

How about an upgrade path for those who, after trying the Ctrl model, would like to get the full version after all?

[bazzar]

I think you're right on the brand. We may make the change before things go "real".
As to upgrades, it is partly why we came up with the concept. If there is sufficient interest in a subject we may produce it as a "full" release. CtrlEzy is a good way for us to test the market with a subject at much lower risk.:engel016:

[xpelekis]

The way I use/fly FSX, running external addons while flying, like FSX@War and FSCAI, plus
AI traffic, simulating combat/military scenarios in FS, this choice of your's is most welcome.
For such flying, cpu/gpu "hungry" planes are not suitable. "Less is more" in this case.

I expect more & more simmers will utilize FS for combat simulation flying in near future,
as programms like FSCAI will become even more efficient and complete.

So my only request (apart of a new F-5 & Mirage F-1C... :) ) would be to consider of
modelling planes with external droppable ordnance (bombs, individual rockets, tanks, missiles),
selection/changing of these weapons visuals to be associated with the payload changes, as user
can change payload before flying (Aircraft.cfg defined).
This is almost the half+ of the work a plane needs to be properly Tacpacked by end users themselves.
Please consider that there is a small but significant in size "community" that buy planes for FS
having that in mind (using with Tacpack).

[harrybasset]

I think it is a great idea! Back to when we could kick the tyres, light the fires and off into the wide blue yonder!

[hairyspin]

I like the idea, Baz, and wish you well with it! :applause:

[edakridge]

I agree with Manfred. Two versions of the aircraft would be the Cat's Meow for consumers and may be another revenue stream for you guys.

[Navy Chief]

Great idea! I vote YES! NC:encouragement:

[dhasdell]

Sounds like a good idea to me. I like having clickable switches in my vintage types where there aren't many more than fuel, mixture and mags anyway, but not with anything much more complex.

I agree about the name - CTRL+E is something reassuringly familar already.

ATB, as one of our old friends would have said.

David

[WarHorse47]

I like it. Count me in.

These days I struggle to find sim time, but when I do I find myself flying older releases and using the keyboard shortcuts a lot. Once in a while I flying "by the book" just to see if I remember how to start the aircraft and manage various systems, but not often.

[SSI01]

Like most very good decisions, arrived at to fulfill more than one identified need or purpose. An excellent idea. I'm an adherent, will be looking for the Pucara!

Thanks to you and yours, Mr. Baz!

[jmbiii]

Just SUPER, Baz ! I'm looking forward to whatever you put forth. :applause:

[Aircanuck]

Now were cooking with gas , bring it on Baz !!

[Priller]

BRILLIANT idea!! Applause!!

Priller

Oh, and the choice of the Pucara is equally brilliant!

[gman5250]

Absolutely brilliant marketing strategy. I like a study level plane as much as anyone else, but the bulk of my flying would fall into the Ctrl+E category. How many times have I spent an hour setting up a flight with live weather, flight bag, check lists and the rest, only to get borked by some sim anomaly or other unforeseen interruption. Too many....

An attractive, affordable and relaxing model with PBR is an option I will purchase every time. Kudos. :very_drunk:

[fsafranek]

Simplified operations and beautiful rendering sounds good to me. Love the pricing as well.
:ernaehrung004:

[MustangL2W]

This is Exciting!!! Can't wait to see what ends up coming off your Drawing Boards!!

[Josh Patterson]

I love this, Baz! I do enjoy study planes, because it's an interesting challenge to learn to really operate them, but I don't need every plane to be a study plane. And I'd love the opportunity to explore more planes, see what it's like to scream over hills low in a Pucara!

Let me tell you, on my T-34B and F-15D flights, engine startup and fuel management were NOT the fun and exciting parts. :)

I used to love the FS9-era Alphasim planes, because even though they had simple cockpits and light systems, they were inexpensive and I got to fly planes like Sepecat Jaguars and F4D Skyrays and F3H Demons that could likely never justify a study sim. So hoping this series takes off (sorry) and you'll be able to put your amazing talents to work on some more old warbirds.

And at $19.95, it becomes an impulse purchase. I never knew I wanted a Pucara, but for the price of McDonald's with my teenager, I'd love to give one a try. Plus, we're not allowed to go to McDonald's anymore. :) I agree with this! Could a simplified Caravelle be requested. I was really waiting for that one and was disappointed when announced it was P3D only. Which I still may get into one day in which case the Caravelle is a frontline buy along with JF's 747 classic. Not that I'm an airliner guy, I normally go for prop and jet warbirds but I do like vintage stuff and airliners with pure turbojets are scarce nowadays! (Oh, Convair 880/990 while I'm wishing!)

[Josh Patterson]

I think you're right on the brand. We may make the change before things go "real".
As to upgrades, it is partly why we came up with the concept. If there is sufficient interest in a subject we may produce it as a "full" release. CtrlEzy is a good way for us to test the market with a subject at much lower risk.:engel016: After buying your other products I'll risk my wallet on the Pacura. A nice fit with Piglet's Bronco and Mohawk! If it doesn't include a loadout editor would we be able to remove stores on a weight condition through the FSX fuel/loadout screen?

[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? :playful: ( we dont have plans for a lysander )

[Odie]

Most excellent news! :encouragement::encouragement:

[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.:engel016:

[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? :playful: ( 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 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWy74AbMFMo), 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.:engel016:

[tommieboy]

Kick the tires and light the fire! YEAH!

:encouragement::encouragement:

[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.:engel016:

[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):

http://i.imgur.com/kquaUzPh.jpg (https://imgur.com/kquaUzP)

http://i.imgur.com/PvCwQPNh.jpg (https://imgur.com/PvCwQPN)


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.:very_drunk:

[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:

https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/016/989/986/large/alex-klichowski-pucas-malvinas-02-fx.jpg?1554232216

[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:

https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/016/989/986/large/alex-klichowski-pucas-malvinas-02-fx.jpg?1554232216

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 :dejection: .
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.:engel016:

[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 :sentimental:.

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 :very_drunk: .

[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 :sentimental:.

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 :very_drunk: .

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. :engel016:

[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...

[DaveWG]

I think I'll have to wait and see just how much the VC is "cut down". I don't mind default systems etc, but a reasonably good VC is important to me being mainly a VR flyer.

[andy277uk]

Hi Bazzar,

As a VR pilot, operating complex aircraft is difficult so its about the feeling of being in, rather than operating, the aircraft. So from that point your concept is right up my street.

What I look for is an aircraft that behaves as I expect it to, through the flight envelope.

Limited resolution means that detail does not need to be as extreme and is generally wasted on me anyway.

But, as I enjoy doing display flying, looking over my shoulder when repositioning is normal. This doesn't mean I need the detail, just the feeling of enclosure.

Perhaps some of the extreme detailing around the airframe could be simplified to provide a full bucket cockpit? Aft of the throttles doesn't need much detail as I don't look down there, and behind the seat can be blanked. The seat itself doesn't need detail, just to be in the correct place so that I can get the correct datum point for my head.

Just my opinion, but don't understand why the modelling has become so detailed. While it is incredible and admirable to look at, isn't flight simulation about flying the aircraft rather than looking down their air intakes and in the gear bays? Not criticizing the people who enjoy this but it adds pressure on developers and increases development time immensely. I'd rather be in the cockpit sooner for less money.

Kind regards

Andy

[UnknownGuest12]

For years now wanted something like this and posting about it...GREAT NEWS and yes Bazzar, thanks. Have no need at all for complex, expensive products.
Great...

[bazzar]

Hi Andy,

ctrl/Ezy is designed for a specific purpose and a certain segment of the simulation community. I am more than certain that as a concept, it will polarise people but I am not concerned over that.

Think of it another way... if you enjoy plastic models and only like say, 1:24 scale, the chances are you will not be that interested in building in 1:72. That's your bag (sic) and nobody is going to change that.

If people like or prefer more of whatever turns them on but can't find it in a ctrl/Ezy product, never mind. There are plenty of alternatives out there to suit them better. We're not going to be hurt or worried.:engel016:

[falcon409]

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 think that's an excellent idea and will clear up the "look straight ahead, don't use VR, Trackir", nothing to see, ". . . .and just cover the forward view to around 60-75 degrees either side" conundrum. . .those two statements are conflicting and simply muddy the water. So a quick video (we don't need a slick production with music and dancing girls, lol. . .just a 15 or 20 second sampling is sufficient) to show what we can or cannot see will answer everyone's questions about what to expect.

[jankees]

I think it is a brilliant concept, and I will most certainly try the Pucara.
In the past I have actually deleted aircraft because they would not start with ctrlE, just saying...

[Sundog]

Think of it another way... if you enjoy plastic models and only like say, 1:24 scale, the chances are you will not be that interested in building in 1:72. That's your bag (sic) and nobody is going to change that.


Have you been listening in on the hobby club I belong to? It sounds like you have LOL. Our quarter scale guys are die hard about their scale. I, on the other hand, have limited space. So I'm 1/32 on the WWI planes (Wingnut Wings!) 1/48 on the WW2 stuff, unless it's the big bombers, and 1/72 on the modern jets. Those kits all fit in approximately the same space. I do make exceptions though, on price deals (1/32 Hasegawa Shoki for $20USD)[<= a good subject for Ctrl-Ezy, think of all the paint schemes! And the Ki-61/Ki-100 too] and the 1/32 Zoukei Mura Ta-152H, because it's an excellent Ta-152H kit. If I had known that was going to be released in 1/48, I would have waited. ;) Just saying. :very_drunk:

[gavinc]

I think it is a great idea as well. I'm definitely a Ctrl-E guy and spend most of my flight time outside the aircraft gawking at the scenery.

The Pucara isn't my personal cup of tea but I can't wait to see what else pops down the pipe.


Gavin

[tommieboy]

The VC as it has been more clearly explained will not hinder my support for this new concept / product line. I'm just trying to squeeze the life out of my FSX Steam install for another year or two, along with an ever declining hobby related budget.

:encouragement::encouragement:

Tommy

[pilto von pilto]

The VC as it has been more clearly explained will not hinder my support for this new concept / product line. I'm just trying to squeeze the life out of my FSX Steam install for another year or two, along with an ever declining hobby related budget.

:encouragement::encouragement:

Tommy

This. Tommy is the exact target market we're aiming for.

VR wise ctrl ezy wont be the product for you. The cutoff view angle is a bit like this. Accurate cockpit front from 0 -> 10 degrees either side of front then generic cockpit ( check fb for a shot of that ) from 10 degrees -> 70 degrees either side of front. After that... wild open expanse!

Ctrl -ezy whilst built for " " look straight ahead, don't use VR, Trackir", nothing to see, ". . . . " can be panned around but only up to a certain point and VR wise I expect it to be too jarring. Side note I'm one of those types that gets sick with VR so even if I could afford it I cant test it!

[tommieboy]

This. Tommy is the exact target market we're aiming for.

VR wise ctrl ezy wont be the product for you.



Actually, VR wise ctrl ezy WILL be the product for me! I'm fine with it.

:encouragement:

Tommy

[falcon409]

Actually, VR wise ctrl ezy WILL be the product for me! I'm fine with it.
Tommy
Agreed, Actually no reason that Trackir or VR couldn't be used. I have a lot of freeware airplanes that have nothing more than eye-candy once I look away from the main panel. . . . .components on the side consoles are nothing more than nice art. . .doesn't concern me at all. If I can view 60 to 70 degrees from center that's plenty.

[Aircanuck]

Plenty for sure .... It's $20 people !

[pilto von pilto]

Actually, VR wise ctrl ezy WILL be the product for me! I'm fine with it.

:encouragement:

Tommy


Sorry Tommy the VR comment wasnt meant for you forgot to put a To All: on the VR part. Your initial comment is almost word for word what the boys here at AH were saying. :encouragement:

To all

I dont know about VR Personally I wouldnt like to be whipping around 70 degrees and suddenly see absolutely nothing. That would drop me out of the immersion pretty quickly.

We have made a locked off camera view. It is in the CFG and you can disable it but it perfectly mirrors what a 2d panel used to do, the older simmers will know what this was. But since the Sim defaults to the VC if you dont want to use it then you never need to. and of course you can delete it if you want.

[Priller]

I think it is a brilliant concept, and I will most certainly try the Pucara.
In the past I have actually deleted aircraft because they would not start with ctrlE, just saying...

Couldn't agree with you more.

And in these times of soaring prices for addon aircraft, this price range is a good idea. Especially since this hobby has a large user base on a fixed income/pension.

I think this initiative is very commendable!

Priller

[wombat666]

It is a really good idea and one I certainly welcome.
Like Jan I've several brilliant subjects that are either too hard start or take more starting time than flying time.
While I certainly acknowledge the depth and detail of certain subjects available, to a simple suck like me, I just want to go flying.
Looking forward to the upcoming projects Baz!
:encouragement: