Released - Bush Hawk XP

[Nick C]

Aerosoft have released their Bush Hawk XP (http://www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/re/iboshop.cgi?showd,,D10847) :mixedsmi:

[Epsillon]

This plane will be mine!!!
Nick, you're screenshots are awesome...:medals:

Stephan

[Nick C]

Shucks, thanks :redf:

It's you guys who are the masters Stephan, I just put them in a frame.

[stiz]

that a coffee stain, mud, or a dried blood stain on the panel there? :costumes:

[CBris]

that a coffee stain, mud, or a dried blood stain on the panel there? :costumes:

Yes :icon_lol:

[Lionheart]

That is one awesome plane!

Thanks for the heads up on its release!

:ernae: :applause: :medals: :applause: :ernae:

Awesome work Chris! Great screenshots Nick!


Bill
LHC

[wombat666]

that a coffee stain, mud, or a dried blood stain on the panel there? :costumes:

More probably a 'skidmark'.....:d

[stiz]

More probably a 'skidmark'.....:d

if that means the same down there as it does up here i REALLY wouldnt want to use the lever :barf: :icon_lol:

[Henry]

if that means the same down there as it does up here i REALLY wouldnt want to use the lever :barf: :icon_lol:
LOL
its probably what caused it in the first place
H

[Tako_Kichi]

Nah it looks more like a coffee stain to me! Maybe the pilot wedged his morning java between the throttle and prop pitch knobs while taxiing and a bump in the field slopped it over the top. :costumes:

[Gdavis101]

Half hour to closing time!!!! can't wait.:applause:

[Bruce Thompson]

LOL, wait till you see the Starbucks Cup rolling around on the floor.:applause::applause:

Brilliant aircraft i'll fly this for hours. I have only had it five mins and I can't turn up the sound, cos everybody went to bed here.:sleep::sleep:

[CG_1976]

Wow, This Bush Hawk is detailed and fps friendly. My hat off to the painter, the kiwis is what convinced me to buy.:d
http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x311/thobin76/2008-10-16_18-29-3-906.jpg

[Killbilly]

Wow, This Bush Hawk is detailed and fps friendly.

What's your FPS compared to the default C172? I heard this bird dropped FPS by 25 - 30%, and I hope it's not true.

[CG_1976]

No hit, I get a great fluid 35fps over FTX and 25 over Aerosoft scenery. Transload FS9 scenery fluid 20fps. So its great Fps friendly AC.

[MCDesigns]

What's your FPS compared to the default C172? I heard this bird dropped FPS by 25 - 30%, and I hope it's not true.

Yep, that was/is my concern also based on what the developer posted.

[CodyValkyrie]

I really don't know where these problems are coming form. I beta tested the bird, and neither I, or anyone on the team had any FPS issues.

[Panther_99FS]

Did anyone with a lesser/marginal system beta test ?

[CodyValkyrie]

I'm only running an E6400 OC'd to 3.1ghz, 2GB RAM, SATA II on an ASUS P5B mobo with a Nvidia 8800GTX 768VRAM. FSX is fairly CPU intensive, and I certainly don't have the fastest processor. I would consider my system medium-high compared to what I see others using out there.

As for the rest of the testers, well, I don't know what they had.

[CG_1976]

Did anyone with a lesser/marginal system beta test ?

P, I just tested this on my AMD 3500 Nvidia 8500 512GT 2 gig ram XP Pro Sp3.

Useing the FTX scenery and John Stinstroms recent KVOK release I got a fluid 20 to 23 fps all sliders right except car traffic as I prefer boats and ships. Overall its still a winner.

[MCDesigns]

I really don't know where these problems are coming form. I beta tested the bird, and neither I, or anyone on the team had any FPS issues.

Hi Cody, didn't say it was a problem, just a question. It was just something that the developer posted at the Aerosoft forums, so naturally, those that have lesser systems (like myself) would/should be concerned. Given Aerosoft's own admission that they would tend to go with loads of detail on their models just because they can in FSX, one would naturally have these kind of thoughts when a new model is released.

Based on all the info in the various forums, FSX runs very differently on many types of systems, there is no magic system spec that guarantees smoothness.. Because FSX allows for more detail than FS9, many developers tend to go overboard or just don't take into account the limited headroom many have in FSX.

IMO the best comparison anyone can give, is how does an addon stack up performance wise against a similar default aircraft considering many of the FSX defaults have quite a bit of detail.

[CodyValkyrie]

I'm getting 31-33 FPS in the default Cessna at Plum Island with the engines on and running. With the Bushhawk, I am getting 25-26 FPS according to FRAPS. That substantiates a 5 - 8 FPS drop. Mind you, I also have FRAPS, Sony Vegas 7.0, Skype, Winamp, 5 Firefox browsers open, ActiveSky, FSForce, AVASTE and numeral other programs running in the background, along with the various scenery enhancements. I'l probably gain a good 10FPS ior better if I closed most the stuff down, but alas, I "should" be working lol! :jump:

Sure, there is a small drop, but that is far from a bad one. I would hope that most people see that as a negotiable drop, especially considering the REALLY cool features of the Bushhawk :mixedsmi:

[GeorgeM]

On my system this thing's VC is pretty hard on the frame rate. I have a dual-core Athlon 5200+, 512MB GeForce 8600 GT, 4GB memory, 32-bit Vista, FSX w/Acceleration in DX9 mode. I checked several planes sitting on the tarmac, cold & dark, daytime, fair weather, frames locked at 30. Here's what I got in the VC:

Bush Hawk - 18
Default C172 (steam & glass) - 30
RealAir Scout - 30
ES SR22 Turbo (lots o' glass) - 28-30
Aerosoft Beaver - 28
CS C-130 - 25
A2A B377 - 25
Acceleration F-18 - 25

I'm very disappointed. These were pretty ideal conditions; when you start throwing in all the various parameters of a flight I don't have much headroom. I don't think the Bush Hawk will cut it.

Given the stuff I compared it to I can't imagine what's eating the FPS.

[CBris]

Did anyone with a lesser/marginal system beta test ?

I flew this on less than 10 FPS the whole beta - and it was still flyable.

[CBris]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy! Folks, as long as the visuals are subjectively smooth, your eyes are happy above 15 images per second.

Slagging on the basis of numbers like I am seeing here is just so passé. If it's smooth and the images flow, trust your eyes. Lock your systems at 20 to 25 FPS and forget frame rates for Pete's sake.

Current aircraft developement for FSX is aiming also a bit at the future. Features and details are being added that not even yesterday's models had. The Bushhawk is full of newer details and still leaves room for 'easter eggs' and practical new features. What will tomorrow's planes bring?

The past is past.

[tigisfat]

I thought it was more like 24FPS, Cbris.



Anyway, I'm with him. I don't want products that have ben developed for a year to come out for yesterday's computers. Yeah, I have to upgrade from time to time, but I want brand new add-on aircraft to constantly push the envelope on detail and realism.

Who doesn't want to upgrade? Do we all want the same graphics from the same computer and the same game with no advances 5 years from now?

[gajit]

Hi Guys - I'm thinking of buying this but can you tell me if the VC has any kind of reflection / texture in the windows? I cant tell from the screenshots and I hate flying in products that look like the glazing was forgotten (unless its an open cockpit of course!!)

Your help would be apprechiated.

[kilo delta]

Fantastic pics, Nick........and top notch paints, Chris:applause:
Regarding fps issues that some people are experiencing....
When was the last time that you have done a complete reformat and re-install of your OS? Over time systems will become slower as they accrue large amounts of un-necessary files. Having a 3rd party defrag program is also beneficial...I swear by O&O Defrag Professional....although DO NOT use a defrag program on solid state drives.
As Chris has pointed out....with FSX, even relatively low FPS figures of 10-15 frames can provide a suprisingly fluid sim flight. Even people running extremely high performance rig's should not need to lock their fps at anything over 30 frames.....and running at "unlimited" is a complete waste of system resources imho.
Anyhoo.......enough of my blabbering:d...i'm off to pick up my Bush Hawk:jump::wavey::ernae:

[Nick C]

I think what can be derived from this thread and the one at Aerosoft, is that this plane has a different impact on different machines. That's what I've come to expect from any aircraft. However, on my machine, which is all I can comment on, it performs very well. Certainly well within acceptable limits for my use.

The following comparison on FPS was taken with the airplanes engines running, sat on the runway at Plum Island, all systems good to go. That means that all glass gauges were warmed up too. My settings were set as the images display below, these are my usual settings for regular GA flights. I tried a cross section of aircraft which I hope cover most bases.

I'd also like to point out that I don't hold much with the "FPS" argument as I also believe that it's about the fluidity of the sim. I seldom check the FPS counter, but do on this occasion simply to show how different PC's handle aircraft in different ways.

My PC:
Intel E8400 Duo 2 Core 3Ghz 1333 Mhz 6Mb CPU, MSI X38 Motherboard, Corsair 2Gb DDR3 1333 (Matched pair), Samsung/Seagate 500Gb 16Mb Cache HDD SATA, 20x DVD Re-Writer ( + & - ) (Lightscribe), Ge-Force 9800 GTX PCie 512Mb Graphics, Creative X-Fi Extreme Audio Card, Dual Gigabit Lan, Deluxe Midi Tower Case with Superior Tagan 900w PSU, USB 2.0 x 8 (2 on front), Windows Vista Home Premium

FPS Comparison:
Default Trike: 30
Default Baron 58 (steam): 30
Skysim BAE Hawk: 30
Default C172SP (steam): 30
A2A P-40: 30
Default C172SP (glass): 29
A2A B-17: 28
Default Baron 58 (glass): 25
Aerosoft Bush Hawk: 25
Eaglesoft SR22G3 Turbo (glass): 22
A2A Boeing 377 Strat: 19
CS Boeing 757: 18

As you can see from the results above, there is a definite reduction in FPS from the default aircraft with the exception of the glass driven default Baron 58. However I'm reaching far better frames with the Bush Hawk that I do with the A2A Boeing 377, which I'd expect, but other users are commenting that the 377 runs at a higher FPS.

So there you have it, you'll each make your own decision based on what you want from an aircraft and from others experiences. Personally I'm very happy, but I may be seen to be biased too, there's nothing I can do about that, sorry.

[IanP]

Giz a copy and I'll tell you how it works on mine! :costumes:

(Seeing as I have to point this out these days, as Nick can attest, THAT. IS. A. JOKE. :ernae:)

Ian P.

[Nick C]

Give me a Porsche then and I'll let you know how it fits me, deal?

[Panther_99FS]

P, I just tested this on my AMD 3500 Nvidia 8500 512GT 2 gig ram XP Pro Sp3.

Useing the FTX scenery and John Stinstroms recent KVOK release I got a fluid 20 to 23 fps all sliders right except car traffic as I prefer boats and ships. Overall its still a winner.

Thanks Trans...

[Panther_99FS]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy!


Did anyone with a lesser/marginal system beta test ?


I haven't done any slagging - All I did was ask a question :mixedsmi:

[kilo delta]

Giz a copy and I'll tell you how it works on mine! :costumes:

(Seeing as I have to point this out these days, as Nick can attest, THAT. IS. A. JOKE. :ernae:)

Ian P.

Developers take note..........

I'll take any and all freebies to test on my system.............and that's no joke!!

:icon_lol::d

[dswo]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy! Folks, as long as the visuals are subjectively smooth, your eyes are happy above 15 images per second.

I don't know that Chris was referring to anyone in particular; I haven't seen any slagging so far. But let me put in a word for worrying about framerates. I write a regular column about freeware for Computer Pilot magazine, and I'm also an AVSIM reviewer. It's very rare, nowadays, to get a payware product that isn't good at something, for something. So by now, I have a lot of add-ons. Which ones do I fly with regularly? One thing -- maybe the only thing -- that they all have in common is good framerates. It's not a fetish with me, just something I've noticed looking back. Low-FPS products tend to stay in the drawer, even if there are other things to like (and there almost always are). Not everyone has the same experience, I'm sure. But if you're like me, you ask before you buy and look for trends in the reporting.

Again, I'm not taking issue with Chris; just putting in a few words for the other point of view.

[gera]

To expensive.......it is getting out of hand, just like WallStreet!!!!!

[Henry]

Using the FPS as an excuse to slag down an addon is so pithy! Folks, as long as the visuals are subjectively smooth, your eyes are happy above 15 images per second.

Slagging on the basis of numbers like I am seeing here is just so passé. If it's smooth and the images flow, trust your eyes. Lock your systems at 20 to 25 FPS and forget frame rates for Pete's sake.



if that was not true i would not use FSX
i do not care what the fps are i dare not look :redf:
if its smooth thats all i need
I do not have this particular plane
but i find that in general
i have not found any problems with any addons free or payware
H

[Lionheart]

I myself being a developer have seen the most crazy frame rate results with FSX. With FS9, you could judge how fast frame rates were by the exact computer specs. But with FSX, you can watch one person with a simple, 2 year old computer, run a huge plane with moderate textures like glass with excellent frame rates, and then another guy runs it (same plane) on a super gaming computer, and it brings it to its knees.

Somehow though, to say one is terribly dissapointed over 7 framerates difference, comparing it to other planes, and still getting 18 FPS seems a bit... well, I dont know. lol... Funny if you think about it. Wish my rig ran the sky trike at 25 FPS! lololol...

[TimA]

that a coffee stain, mud, or a dried blood stain on the panel there? :costumes:

I suspect coffee. I also suspect it was pre-drunk, and arrived post-turbulence... :barf:

Apropos of nothing, I heard a wonderful story recently from a pilot who occasionally used to transport cadavers for a mortician (you have to be very careful with the 'souls on board' entry in your flight plan!). This particular flight was through the Rockies in a 172. The body was in a body bag, strapped into the passenger seat, since you can't fit a coffin into a 172... It was night, the weather was bad: marginal VMC, rain, lightning, thunder, moderate turbulence - real Frankenstein stuff. Anyhow, there's this huge bolt of lightning; the radios flicker, and the body bag jolts upright! AAArrrggghhh!!!!!!!!!! :censored: Of course it was all pure coincidence, and bodies supposedly do twitch from time to time. but the aircraft seats needed cleaning before the plane could be used again!

[GeorgeM]

Somehow though, to say one is terribly dissapointed over 7 framerates difference, comparing it to other planes, and still getting 18 FPS seems a bit... well, I dont know. lol... Funny if you think about it. Wish my rig ran the sky trike at 25 FPS! lololol...
Put that way, yes, it seems a bit petty. But the 7 FPS difference was from models that on the surface would seem to be much more complex than the Bushhawk. Other single engine props were at the capped 30 FPS and many go a bit higher if I uncap it, so the Bushhawk is closer to being 50-60% of the frame rate of similar planes. Also, that was under ideal conditions. If I throw in some inclement weather and a bit of traffic it slows down close to single digit rates, where other planes stay in the upper teens. For me that pretty much makes it unusable as a bush plane and I do find that disappointing.

Look, I don't want to slam this package. You get a lot for the price; a nice collection of model variants and a good looking set of missions for a great price. But there is a group of people that are having frame rate issues. The good news is that it appears that the developer is interested in trying to identify and solve the issue, and that makes me happy for now. I can't ask for much more than that.

[gajit]

Put that way, yes, it seems a bit petty. But the 7 FPS difference was from models that on the surface would seem to be much more complex than the Bushhawk. Other single engine props were at the capped 30 FPS and many go a bit higher if I uncap it, so the Bushhawk is closer to being 50-60% of the frame rate of similar planes. Also, that was under ideal conditions. If I throw in some inclement weather and a bit of traffic it slows down close to single digit rates, where other planes stay in the upper teens. For me that pretty much makes it unusable as a bush plane and I do find that disappointing.

Look, I don't want to slam this package. You get a lot for the price; a nice collection of model variants and a good looking set of missions for a great price. But there is a group of people that are having frame rate issues. The good news is that it appears that the developer is interested in trying to identify and solve the issue, and that makes me happy for now. I can't ask for much more than that.

Very well put George - Im waiting to see if something can be done before purchasing - I've learned the hardway before :mixedsmi:

[CodyValkyrie]

I can confirm that the development team is looking at solutions. There are a few things on the table now which I cannot discuss... or rather, it is not my place to discuss. Regardless, it is being looked into. Even if us, the beta testers, did not have this issue does not mean it might not exist. I tested on both Vista and XP with no issues, so I am saddened by this news. Have faith though, Aerosoft has a good reputation at looking into this stuff.

[gajit]

Wow - I've just had a look on the Aerosoft forum and amazed at the debate going on - such a shame about a good looking product.

I personnally think that many developers are getting a bit arrogant about the standards us buying simmers will put up with. If they are not careful they will find that the real downturn in the economy will be simulated in virtual-land.

[CodyValkyrie]

Much of that blame about the latest riot over there falls on my hands. There is a specific user that keeps popping up in this, and other forums that I think treats addons unfairly....

Just the other day he was griping about A2A Strat... Oh the stories I could tell you about him.

Anyways, I digress. All will be fixed for those with issues soon.

And I wonder why some teams don't want me being a spokesperson? :costumes:

[Lionheart]

Apropos of nothing, I heard a wonderful story recently from a pilot who occasionally used to transport cadavers for a mortician (you have to be very careful with the 'souls on board' entry in your flight plan!). This particular flight was through the Rockies in a 172. The body was in a body bag, strapped into the passenger seat, since you can't fit a coffin into a 172... It was night, the weather was bad: marginal VMC, rain, lightning, thunder, moderate turbulence - real Frankenstein stuff. Anyhow, there's this huge bolt of lightning; the radios flicker, and the body bag jolts upright! AAArrrggghhh!!!!!!!!!! :censored: Of course it was all pure coincidence, and bodies supposedly do twitch from time to time. but the aircraft seats needed cleaning before the plane could be used again!


LOLOL.... Thats too funny Tim.


George,

What I am saying about performance and computers is that these days, alot of people are having issues with products and its their computers and not necessarily the products fault all the time. Sometimes, yes, but with FSX, things have changed. I dont know why or what it is, perhaps some sort of chip designs, perhaps fiber languages or memory types or motherboard technology differences, but now, alot of planes are running differently on rigs of same specifications.. Some are saying that the F-18 Hornet in Accelleration is smooth and fast, but it would barely run on my computer.

EDIT: And I am not blaming FSX either. Computers seem to be the culprit alot these days.

Bill

[GeorgeM]

What I am saying about performance and computers is that these days, alot of people are having issues with products and its their computers and not necessarily the products fault all the time.
Which is exactly why I don't envy your job as an FS developer. I have experience in software development and I understand all too well the headaches that can come from all the various possible system configurations.

Kudos to the Bushhawk developer who seems open to communication and appears willing to work to find a solution. I give him a lot of credit for that; it would have been easy to say "tough luck, none of our beta testers had this problem".

Fingers crossed.

[Roger]

I'm happy with it. This shot is in Alaska and I have no intention of taking it to Tokyo New York or London.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/rogera/BushHwk-1.jpg

[stiz]

i was thinking, seeing as how the bushhawk frame rate impact seems to variy a lot .. has anyone tried removeing the textures from the texture folder of the plane and seeing if that helps?? you will get a black aircraft but it will at least show if the problem is with the model file or the textures. Also how many seperate textures does it have?? FSX's performance really goes down if a plane has load of textures (so an identical bushhawk with 8 textures would perform loads better than one with 12).

I'm not registerd over at the Aerosoft forum or have the plane but if the plane has loads of textures it might explain it, if theres 4 1024x1024 textures then putting them on 1 2048x2048 texture would improve performance without any loss in detail. I know its a bit more work for the developer but if there isnt tons it shouldnt take more than a few days to do (well thats how long it me anyway).

i dont have the plane so feel free to ignore but its just an idea :wavey:

[TimA]

I'm getting between 17 and 19 fps (locked at 20), which I regard as pretty good, on my laptop (T7600 @2.33 GHz, 4GB, 7950GTX Go, Vista 32) I certainly don't see any performance hit compared to other planes (subjective - I don't normally look at the fps counter)

[GeorgeM]

i was thinking, seeing as how the bushhawk frame rate impact seems to variy a lot .. has anyone tried removeing the textures from the texture folder of the plane and seeing if that helps??
I tried exactly that and it had minimal impact on FPS. I've converted the textures to DDS and that too had minimal impact. I'll probably reduce some of the texture sizes as discussed on the Aerosoft forums, but I don't think that's what's gonna produce the big win.

[CBris]

I am rebuilding a lo-res texture set as you write. My fellow beta testers are tearing it apart for me, so give us a bit of time. I can reduce a texture folder considerably - the master texture is currently down to 25 MB instead of 100.

I am really disappointed in the moans though - after all, I watch something like a dozen fora and the majority of new users are happy with the model, but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate.

Anyway, it looks like I will be able to squeeze a few frames out for you. Give me a day and I'll submit them to the boss.

[stiz]

but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate.


actually it depends on the eyes, for me the limit is around 28/30 anything lower and i can tell, yet others cant tell the difference down to around 10, the reason why people cant really tell in the movies is that they use motion blur to smooth it out, FS doesnt. Also if the human eye cant see more than 24fps, whys HD done at 60 :)

[GeorgeM]

I am rebuilding a lo-res texture set as you write. My fellow beta testers are tearing it apart for me, so give us a bit of time. I can reduce a texture folder considerably - the master texture is currently down to 25 MB instead of 100.
Excellent, thanks! I'll wait for the master. :ernae:

I am really disappointed in the moans though - after all, I watch something like a dozen fora and the majority of new users are happy with the model, but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate.
I understand you're close to the project, but please don't dismiss those of us with problems as moaners. I'm not normally an FPS junkie, but when I first loaded up this plane and looked around the VC with TrackIR, the panning was not smooth. My eyes differentiated a problem. If I try to fly this plane in conditions I regularly fly in I'll dip down close to single digit frame rates. That's very noticeable, and unenjoyable for me; others have different thresholds.

I own more add-on planes than I care to admit, and this truly stood out performance-wise. I was just trying to understand why. The developer's posts over on the Aerosoft forum have been enlightening, and I understand the issue better. Maybe the answer is to shelve this and wait till I have better hardware, but I'm really hoping you and he can combine on an alternative. This is a really sweet looking package.

[CodyValkyrie]

Well, there is hope. Other than my graphics card, my PC is not that amazing. Having a good FPS is critical for my work, being that I make promotional videos. There is light at the end of the tunnel for some of you guys that have issues.

[Panther_99FS]

I am really disappointed in the moans though -

Now....just imagine how the folks at AlphaSim feel - they experience moans with every release..;)

From what I can tell, they're valid issues (moans).....If this were freeware, it would be completely different..

Any who - As stated earlier, I'll most likely purchase this Bush Hawk after version 1.x is released :)

[CG_1976]

Is there a way to get the Kiwi texture onto the Amphib version?

[Epsillon]

On my computer, this plane is hard on framerate...

Aerosoft DHC-6 on floats at Interlaken: 22-24 fps
Maule M-760 at Interlaken: 24-27 fps
Bush Hawk XP at Interlaken: 12-14 fps

...but it is a beautiful plane and I hope that problems will be resolved soon.
My 2 cents...

Stephan

[bkeske]

Question: looks like the GPS has 3D knobs...any chance of 'stuffing' an RXP unit it it?

[MCDesigns]

OK, I just read thru this thread and checked the one at Aerosoft. I see no slagging on this addon, just concerns from those that are noticing an impact on their performance, no matter the FPS, they can tell.

Chris, with all due respect, I just don't agree with your perceptions. If you are happy with performance below 20fps, that is great, but why get upset with others that feel differently. I have mine locked at 30 (I find heli rotors don't spin smoothly under 30fps) and depending where I am flying I rarely even check the FPS counter unless I am having an issue.

I am not sure how to take this

I am really disappointed in the moans though - after all, I watch something like a dozen fora and the majority of new users are happy with the model, but "ye of little faith" make the most noise despite getting more FPS than the human eye can differentiate. since I have not seen any posts from any moaners, only concerns from customers and would be customers.

One thing I learned in FS9, all the neat extras in the world don't make up for poor performance, which is why certain addon companies lost business from me.

I hope any concerns get ironed out and everyone is happy in the end!:ernae:

[glennc]

Brian,

How goes it?

I tried the FP GNS430 - no joy. The panels are built into the model. With some tweaking, the 2D pop-up can probably accept the FP and maybe the RXP units. Not so for the VC. Although I did a swap with FSPS, the unit rode over both the GNS and transponder but behind the knobs and everything else. It was a mess. I understand the 2D unit a bit better now. It's OK for my purposes with this airplane.

Other thing I've seen - this airplane is very sensitive to fuel imbalances. Switch tanks frequently.

Glenn

[Killbilly]

Low-FPS products tend to stay in the drawer, even if there are other things to like (and there almost always are). Not everyone has the same experience, I'm sure. But if you're like me, you ask before you buy and look for trends in the reporting.

Exactly! It isn't moaning to question before you buy, and it isn't just the "numbers" or being "of little faith". It's what's associated with the numbers. The reason FPS-heavy addons sit unflown isn't because I fly around with the framerate showing and whine when the number drops or because I have a "super eye" that can tell the difference between 35 FPS and 25 FPS. It's because the FPS-heavy birds steal resources from other parts of the sim. On my machine (which I have locked at 25), if a plane drops my FPS more than 6 or 7 frames (average - not just momentarily), I start getting blurry scenery textures, increased mesh "popping", and a kind of flickering in the water textures. Sure, it's still smooth and stutterless, but the experience is damaged anyway. I love eye candy as much as the next guy (and I'm sure many people are fine trading FPS for easter eggs and more detail), but I fly the sim to enjoy flying, not to be pulled out of the experience by blurry scenery.

I love Aerosoft. I still fly the Beaver more than almost any other plane. It has wonderful detail and has zero effect on my FPS (or on any other part of the sim experience). I fly the beautiful Twotter constantly because it is an amazingly good-looking model with excellent detail. It has only the slightest FPS hit (1-3 frames every once in a while). I think the Bush Hawk is incredible. I am impressed by all the designers' talent in creating such a visually stunning addon. If I were just going to look at the model and enjoy the detail, I wouldn't care about FPS at all. I only asked the question about the Bush Hawk to find out if I was likely to enjoy flying it enough to justify the money. I'm sorry if anyone's feelings are hurt by questions like these (and I don't know what's going on in other forums), but calling people names and labeling innocent customer inquiry "moaning" doesn't seem appropriate. :kilroy:

[Roger]

I'm enjoying the aircraft. Here at Nordeney dock.

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y203/rogera/BushHwk-2.jpg

[bkeske]

Brian,

How goes it?

I tried the FP GNS430 - no joy. The panels are built into the model. With some tweaking, the 2D pop-up can probably accept the FP and maybe the RXP units. Not so for the VC. Although I did a swap with FSPS, the unit rode over both the GNS and transponder but behind the knobs and everything else. It was a mess. I understand the 2D unit a bit better now. It's OK for my purposes with this airplane.

Other thing I've seen - this airplane is very sensitive to fuel imbalances. Switch tanks frequently.

Glenn

Hey Glenn, thanks for the answer.

Me thinks I'll pass on this for a while given all the other issues going on right now. Perhaps by the time UT Alaska comes out......:mixedsmi:

Thanks again.

[LTCSZ]

Some folks have had a problem with the plane turning right...A small part of this is the fuel tank load, but, if you put a passenger in the rear seat behind the pilot that weighs about the same as the pilot, it really cuts down on the tendency to turn right...Cheating maybe, but it works for now...

Steve in Kansas

[glennc]

Steve,

Good point - I checked that. It does help to even out the weight for a while. But, it is still very sensitive to a fuel imbalance. A tank switch is still necessary every 10-15 minutes. Performance seems to me OK in most of TahitiX, at least in broad daylight. I tried a sunrise take-off in the VancouverX area - that got pretty painful.

Glenn

[Lionheart]

Yep, gotta stay on Aileron trim with planes that have single selection wing tanks. The Mooney is one of them. When you start to feel the wing get heavy, just swith that fuel tank selector over.

Looks like a sweet plane! Well done Chris!

:ernae: :applause: :ernae:



Bill

[azflyboy]

Steve,

Good point - I checked that. It does help to even out the weight for a while. But, it is still very sensitive to a fuel imbalance. A tank switch is still necessary every 10-15 minutes. Performance seems to me OK in most of TahitiX, at least in broad daylight. I tried a sunrise take-off in the VancouverX area - that got pretty painful.

Glenn

The imbalance issue is probably due to the fact that FSX does a horrible job of modeling uneven fuel loads in wing tanks.

In the real world, flying an airplane like a Piper Warrior with a 5 gallon fuel imbalance between the wings (switching tanks every 30 minutes) is almost undetectable by the pilot, but trying the same thing in FSX makes the airplane act like one of the passengers decided to go sit on a wingtip or something.

[CBris]

Nope... the imbalance is good...

Not a rant or a grumble here, just some experience with the sim-Bushie being passed on - take or leave as you will.

The real Bushhawk does not have a cockpit trim trim control to balance the plane about it's longitudinal OR vertical axis either. That is: no aileron or rudder trims. The real plane has a manually adjusted rudder trim tab at the rear, which the owner will probably adjust to his or her flavour. Of course - it is set by the factory too.

Without any tab, the plane has a tendency to fly like the Maule - if you leave the Maule untrimmed. Try it. The Maule will fly in left hand circles. But of course, this is caused by the engine torque and prop wash in flight.

If you know your flying, you'll also know that tail draggers need a touch of right rudder during start and untill you get the tail up...

Also... remember this plane has a tank capacity of 100 US gallons in two 50 gallon tanks. That's something like a light adult sitting on each wing about five feet from the centreline (Correct Flyboy). When you climb in to the Bushhawk, the tanks are full and the right hand tank is selected. I hope you guys are flying for more than ten minutes at a time before you get worried about imbalance, because this plane will stay airborne for 10 hours if you loiter (five, if you forget the tank switch :d ) Pilot instructors that I have heard and read, say to change tanks regularly to keep the levels balanced. If you're flying solo, that means technically to drain the left hand tank partly first.

Of course, this is a bush plane for bush pilots. A pickup truck, not a Cadillac. No automation here, it's a working plane, not an Academy Night limo.

Darn City Slickers :costumes:

The fact that it happens faster in sim than in real life is probably the modelling be MS as Flyboy says above, or it might simply be the developer man. The imbalance is noticeable sooner - or is it? In real life, you fly VFR and watch your target. You subconsciously correct and the forces involved aren't noticeable or visible. The physical layout of your computer cockpit is simply not "As real as it gets".

[Devil's Advocate mode on]
Perhaps MS or the dev deliberately made the imbalance more noticeable? So that you get used to the fact that planes with separate tanks and no crossflow will swing? After all - it is a real world drill to regularly monitor the tanks.
[Devil's Advocate mode off]

But I know that both the GEM and the Fuel monitoring gauge could have been better placed by Found Aircraft. Two such useful and functional tools, so far away... I just love using the GEM to get my mixture right and watching the fuel flow follow the manufacturer's settings almost perfectly.

[CBris]

Yep, gotta stay on Aileron trim with planes that have single selection wing tanks. The Mooney is one of them. When you start to feel the wing get heavy, just swith that fuel tank selector over.

Looks like a sweet plane! Well done Chris!

:ernae: :applause: :ernae:



Bill

Thanks Bill - but remember, I only painted her.

[glennc]

Chris,

Me, a city slicker? If you ever saw the top of my head, you'd know the truth of part of it :d. Yep, if I'd wanted a limo, I do every so often, I'd be flying an Epic or a Cirrus. Switching fuel tanks is just part of the mechanics of flying.:applause:

Glenn

[Lionheart]

Thanks Bill - but remember, I only painted her.

Roger that Chris. You and Thorsten did an excellent job!

:ernae:



Yep, if I'd wanted a limo, I do every so often, I'd be flying an Epic or a Cirrus. Switching fuel tanks is just part of the mechanics of flying.:applause:

Glenn


Thanks GlennC for the kind word on the ole Epic. (Its actually a left or right only, but I changed it for FS. :d oops).



For those of you bothered by the 'left/right' fuel selections, remember that you can go into the Aircraft.cfg file, go to the Fuel section, and bring the tanks closer to center. As a matter of fact, you 'can' set the tanks to X-Axis=0 so that it will never turn the plane.

Here is a typical fuel section entry;

[fuel]
LeftMain = 0, -10, -1, 144, 0
RightMain = 0, 10, -1, 144, 0

Here is one with the tanks relocated to dead center on X axis;

[fuel]
LeftMain = 0, 0, -1, 144, 0
RightMain = 0, 0, -1, 144, 0

Thus, if in reality, the tank levels are not properly portrayed in FS, you can then at least 'tune' them by bringing them farther in. (Cant see the config file in the VC :d ).

For guys that are bothered by it, its an easy way out of the constant turning. (I am weak.. arrghh).




Bill

[gera]

Roger that Chris. You and Thorsten did an excellent job!

:ernae:



Thanks GlennC for the kind word on the ole Epic. (Its actually a left or right only, but I changed it for FS. :d oops).



For those of you bothered by the 'left/right' fuel selections, remember that you can go into the Aircraft.cfg file, go to the Fuel section, and bring the tanks closer to center. As a matter of fact, you 'can' set the tanks to X-Axis=0 so that it will never turn the plane.

Here is a typical fuel section entry;

[fuel]
LeftMain = 0, -10, -1, 144, 0
RightMain = 0, 10, -1, 144, 0

Here is one with the tanks relocated to dead center on X axis;

[fuel]
LeftMain = 0, 0, -1, 144, 0
RightMain = 0, 0, -1, 144, 0

Thus, if in reality, the tank levels are not properly portrayed in FS, you can then at least 'tune' them by bringing them farther in. (Cant see the config file in the VC :d ).

For guys that are bothered by it, its an easy way out of the constant turning. (I am weak.. arrghh).




Bill

Thanks Bill..............................neat.:kilroy: