SSW AV8B II+ Harrier

[UAL066]

If you are looking for an AV8B II+ Harrier whose flight model closely follows the NATOPS, then you may want to check out the Sim Skunk Works Harrier. Not only does it come with complete documentation, including a copy of the actual NATOPS, it also flies as close to the real thing as I've ever seen. Check this demo video I found on You Tube utilizing the SSW Harrier and doing the things a Harrier does:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GhThT0QsMg&feature=youtu.be

The features are too numerous to mention here and the price is very attractive so, if you're interested, you can check it out here:

http://www.simskunkworks.102virtual.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=101

Enjoy!

[Barnes]

It looks a bit Fs9 to me

[jeansy]

pass

[smoky942]

I think it's worth pointing out that the ssw Harrier does'nt look "a bit too fs9" through any lack of skill or ability. The two main developers of the Harrier have put a tremendous amount of work into their products. The commercial developer has made a stunning job of the visual model, and rightly so, they are in the business of selling their models. Ssw, on the other hand make the models primarily for their own use in multiplayer. They optimised the visual model to be able to fly up to 15 aircraft together without any loss of performance. The other most important aim was to get the Harrier to perform as closely as possible to the real Harrier, and they have achieved this to a very high level. There's absolutely no competition between the two developers as their aims are very different. The ssw Harrier is available to anyone who, like them, flies from the cockpit, follows procedures, and wants his aircraft to respond realistically. You really won't be disappointed.

[UAL066]

Here's another video showing the SSW Harrier VTO capabilities: http://www.simskunkworks.102virtual.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15&Itemid=129

Enjoy!

[Rattler]

I love the way it looks, sounds,flys.... This is a Quality product... IMO.... Good job guys,,,, keep up the good work :salute::ernae::salute:

[wapanomi]

I've tested it, that's easy. Impossible to say in what extend it handles like a real Harrier, but it was nice.

But It's true that the apparence is very poor : for example, the texture and the shape of the cockpit are not at today standard. You can say it's not fs9, but it's certainly not fsx. Some people will say that you flight from the inside, but the 3D model is also part of the immersion and the consistency, imho... Not saying that it's a bad add-on, everybody can make his own choice regarding the point he finds important. But to me, the good news for this Harrier would be that SSW is still working on the good basis they have already made...

[jeansy]

the last page sums it

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?68281-SSW-Harrier-D/page2&highlight=harrier

[rcbarend]

the last page sums it

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?68281-SSW-Harrier-D/page2&highlight=harrier

Euhh.. Sums what ?
On that page, I can't read any remarks about the quality (model-wise or flight-wise) of the SSW-Harrier.

Also, it would help to understand a short post like "Pass" if you explain why; otherwise, what's the point in posting such a reply ?

Regards, Rob

[Rattler]

I give it a day before this thread gets shut down.... i`m not saying.... i`m just saying....:ernae::173go1::kilroy:

[PLUTO16]

I've tested it, that's easy. Impossible to say in what extend it handles like a real Harrier, but it was nice.

But It's true that the apparence is very poor : for example, the texture and the shape of the cockpit are not at today standard. You can say it's not fs9, but it's certainly not fsx. Some people will say that you flight from the inside, but the 3D model is also part of the immersion and the consistency, imho... Not saying that it's a bad add-on, everybody can make his own choice regarding the point he finds important. But to me, the good news for this Harrier would be that SSW is still working on the good basis they have already made...


Thank you for the way you explained your questions and remarks.
Now I can tell you that the good news you expect,there will be: we are finishing the F-104 G project,then we will return to the Harrier project to make it look more eye candy.
Yes,we know that texturing and mapping is not at the level of many software houses. But this is the beginning of the trip for us (we started with the F-104 and Harrier,next projects will be Tornado,HH3F,T33,F-84,MB-326,ecc) ,and do not forget that yes,it looks a pretty poor,but it FLIES as is should be.As the manual says.No excuses...For us this point is very important.
Look at the F-104. We started the developing 2 years ago. Now it is what..it should be.It flies as it should be,and it looks very nice. With the G model we are near to complete the family...and the family will expand again.
By the way,you can download our models for free and try them for 10 minutes.
Ok,now I return in the paint house to finish the liveries of the "G" project...shortly it will be available.
Cheers,
/Ale

[Barnes]

I think it's worth pointing out that the ssw Harrier does'nt look "a bit too fs9" through any lack of skill or ability. The two main developers of the Harrier have put a tremendous amount of work into their products. The commercial developer has made a stunning job of the visual model, and rightly so, they are in the business of selling their models. Ssw, on the other hand make the models primarily for their own use in multiplayer. They optimised the visual model to be able to fly up to 15 aircraft together without any loss of performance. The other most important aim was to get the Harrier to perform as closely as possible to the real Harrier, and they have achieved this to a very high level. There's absolutely no competition between the two developers as their aims are very different. The ssw Harrier is available to anyone who, like them, flies from the cockpit, follows procedures, and wants his aircraft to respond realistically. You really won't be disappointed.

The more i look the more i stand by my first comment - sorry.

[PLUTO16]

The more i look the more i stand by my first comment - sorry.

Thanks Barnes,there are no problems,no need to be sorry,everybody can explain what is good for him...No problem in this!

[Stickshaker]

Pluto, thank you for your kind answer and for the good news that your products will be developed even further. Realism is number 1 for me, but I am glad that you plan to devote further attention to 'eye-candy'. As Wapanomi suggested, flying from a realistically-looking cockpit also is important for immersion. However, I find your present cockpits entirely convincing, no matter what cockpits of other developers may look like.

[Barnes]

Thanks Barnes,there are no problems,no need to be sorry,everybody can explain what is good for him...No problem in this!


With that attitude you deserve success. Im in PR and know that you cant "win 'em all" but your approach will win many.

[Vox]

It looks quite disappointing and time wasting to see that after so many weeks we are still debating, insulting and thread open/closing about what it is and what is not.
The point is very simple in my humble opinion:

SSW is doing (and will always do in the future) models which may appear not as charming as the competitors' ones from the very external point of view because they took every possible precaution to make them MP friendly. There's no reason to be rude or arrogant about this. They are FS9-ish because they want to be lighter in FPS and in their opinion there's no other way to achieve this.
In addition to this, their models are more than 90% close to the reality described by manuals, performance data and flight experts that provided important info during the development (pilots and technicians). And anyone can verify all this by spending some quality time reading the documents and graphs that they provide and by making tests and comparisons. Plain and simple. No tricks.

On the other hand, the competitors produce models with stunning exterior (and of course interior, talking about the cockpit art) quality but they honestly lack in performance realism and MP capability.

Now, the average simmer is problably a solo-pilot (or perhaps he flies with a friend or two) and doesn't spend a lot of time investigating about the actual realism of the model by searching info or reading manuals (as a matter of fact, most of SSW customers don't do it either) and the fact of having an extremely beautiful model with only an average level of consistency of all the systems/avionics and a heavy load on FPS and MP environment is just a nonessential detail for them.

If all the people who tried both the models in object had made an honest comparison based on the material provided by SSW (not by competitors), they would have surely come to the same conclusions. But they simply don't have the time (and passion) to do it.

Full stop.

Cheers,

Christian

[PLUTO16]

It looks quite disappointing and time wasting to see that after so many weeks we are still debating, insulting and thread open/closing about what it is and what is not.
The point is very simple in my humble opinion:

SSW is doing (and will always do in the future) models who may appear not as charming as the competitors' ones from the very external point of view because they took every possible precaution to make them MP friendly. There's no reason to be rude or arrogant about this. They are FS9-ish because they want to be lighter in FPS and in their opinion there's no other way to achieve this.
In addition to this, their models are more than 90% close to the reality described by manuals, performance data and flight experts that provided important info during the development (pilots and technicians). And anyone can verify all this by spending some quality time reading the documents and graphs that they provide and by making tests and comparisons. Plain and simple. No tricks.

On the other hand, the competitors produce models with stunning exterior (and of course interior, talking about the cockpit art) quality but that honestly lack in performance realism and MP capability.

Now, the average simmer is problably a solo-pilot (or perhaps he flies in couple with a friend or two) and doesn't spend a lot of time investigating about the actual realism of the model by searching info or reading manuals (as a matter of fact, most of SSW customers don't do it either) and the fact of having an extremely beautiful model with only an average level of consistency of all the systems/avionics and a heavy load on FPS and MP environment is just a nonessential detail for them.

If all the people who tried both the models in object would have made an honest comparison based on the material provided by SSW (not by competitors), they would have surely come to the same conclusions. But they simply don't have the time (and passion) to do it.

Full stop.

Cheers,

Christian

Chris,I think the points you are talking about were considered by many customers. All the SSW team is doing his best to give their friends (yes,as you know we consider our customers as friends,that is one of our basic rules) as best as we can. Same thing are doing other teams that develops add-on,everybody is moving in their directions in different ways. We want surely to leave the freedom of choice for FSX users. Many reasons can make you decide for one direction,many others let you decide in a different way. There are a lot of informations that can help to make the choice,and if something is missing there is the possibility to ask.
Cheers
/Ale

[Vox]

I know it Pluto16, and I know that you know it :icon_lol: but I don't agree about the way customers made their choice. The evidence is in their words.
I was only trying to point out that it's silly to fight when two different approaches (both valid) are involved.
As much as it's quite silly to write a model off just by saying "It looks a bit Fs9 to me" or "Impossible to say in what extend it handles like a real Harrier".
First because you clearly show that you are interested only in the cosmetic side of it and secondly because SSW gives all the info and details to make an honest comparison with the real plane.
Taste is subjective, of course, but judgement should be honest and not so cheap.
I'm not saying that one is better than the other, I'm just saying that too many people out there are ready to judge years of hard work just by an external or superficial look!
It's disappointing because they call themselves "enthusiasts" but I see only passion for photography in their quick quick judgement.

[JIMJAM]

Well I just read Raz is done with their vtol module so I will give your Harrier a go. I have been told by their dev and some posters I just need to practice,practice ,practice. I have been in aviation for 30 years doing everything from dragging banners,pipe line patrol in helis, weed eradication and overwatch for vips. They all took practice. After spending 3-4 hours trying to come up with a repeatable procedure for getting around its FSX "limitations" I have concluded its more like shaking a vending machine to get your chips to fall kinda practice. They are though going to impliment realistic engine damage. Well I guess overheating and killing the engine is one way to cure the vtol issues. Just freaking limit the time you can try and hover and if they persist just kill the engine and crash em lol.

I have put off buying the ssw Harrier seeing that I just spent 40 bucks on the rax and have a Justflight Harrier collecting dust flown maybe 2 days. Also you guys seem to have a poisoned rep around here. I do not even want to know the details. 20 more bucks is not going to break me so I will give it a go. Starting it seems simple enough but I must admit if I have to thumb through a 400 page manual and learn 3 dozen keystrokes to fly it it will not be on my HD long.
In a perfect world the beautiful harrier would have the vtol module that the F35 has. But the Harrier to me is a one trick pony,a novelty and I am quickly losing my interest in it already.
I am on call this long weekend but later I will buy it. I will call it as it is and if I get frustrated I look forward to going back to warbirds when planes had props and you had to thump the gauges to make sure they were working.

[Vox]

Starting it seems simple enough but I must admit if I have to thumb through a 400 page manual and learn 3 dozen keystrokes to fly it it will not be on my HD long.
You don't need to learn 3 dozen keystrokes because you can make your own, but for sure you need the manual.
If this is your approach, I honestly don't see why we are all here discussing realism and accuracy.
What do people expect from a sim-product, then? How do people think a realistic sim-plane should be made, then?
Let's be honest and delete that stupid "SIM" word from everything!

[JIMJAM]

I flew all the IL2 sims, LOMAC F-15 and the Dcs series Blackshark,A-10.. Spent more time setting up the hotas than flying and I had pages of keystrokes taped on my monitor. Loved it!
Also all the FSX system heavy monsters. I could cold and dark the PMDG 747 to taxi in minutes. I still on accasion enjoy these types but I no longer obsess myself with one specific aircraft. I use a basic, one size fits all HOTAS arrangement. I do not mind changing a few for nozzles ect but if any aircraft, not just this ssw version required me to totally rearrange my setup and/or I needed all ten fingers to fly it I probably would pass. Again nothing at all wrong with by the book,systems heavy aircraft or sims, love em.

[cortomalteseit]

I flew all the IL2 sims, LOMAC F-15 and the Dcs series Blackshark,A-10.. Spent more time setting up the hotas than flying and I had pages of keystrokes taped on my monitor. Loved it!
Also all the FSX system heavy monsters. I could cold and dark the PMDG 747 to taxi in minutes. I still on accasion enjoy these types but I no longer obsess myself with one specific aircraft. I use a basic, one size fits all HOTAS arrangement. I do not mind changing a few for nozzles ect but if any aircraft, not just this ssw version required me to totally rearrange my setup and/or I needed all ten fingers to fly it I probably would pass. Again nothing at all wrong with by the book,systems heavy aircraft or sims, love em.


Hi Jimjam,
no special assignments are needed for this wonderful aircraft: i've just assigned on my X52 rotary switch the nozzle command. And, for my choice, the radar buttons. But a moderate knowledge of the manual is mandatory, to understand all the systems of the Harrier, and appreciate the functions implemented in this model. No headaches, but just fun and interesting reads, i can swear! ;)
:salute:

[PLUTO16]

Hi Jimjam,
no special assignments are needed for this wonderful aircraft: i've just assigned on my X52 rotary switch the nozzle command. And, for my choice, the radar buttons. But a moderate knowledge of the manual is mandatory, to understand all the systems of the Harrier, and appreciate the functions implemented in this model. No headaches, but just fun and interesting reads, i can swear! ;)
:salute:

I am using X-45 together with T16000,these are my assignments: on the throttle: Speed brakes,flap selector and landing gear control. On the T16000 pushbuttons: relase droppable objects,radar range,radar target selector,steering enabler,inertial navigation stations switcher. On the T16000 grip: trims nose up/down,wheelbrakes (in flight this keystroke is used for rocket/cannon/air to air missiles) Because of we use the same key combination for the F-104 ,S&G,you will have the same features in both airplanes.Obviously,with the Zipper there is no need to use the prop pitch control for the nozzle orientation.
Again,it's useful if you have a rotary switch to control the nozzles,better if you invert the axis. The best way should be to have a throttle controller with two levers,one assigned for the engine,one for the nozzle control...But it flies well also with a rotary switch control.

[JIMJAM]

To be honest your 104 now has my attention. The old Cloud9 104 was one of the most difficult to master aircraft I ever flown and I enjoyed every minute of it. A rocket with wings added as a afterthought where the standard operating procedure for stall recovery was to eject. Thats my kind of bird.

[PLUTO16]

To be honest your 104 now has my attention. The old Cloud9 104 was one of the most difficult to master aircraft I ever flown and I enjoyed every minute of it. A rocket with wings added as a afterthought where the standard operating procedure for stall recovery was to eject. Thats my kind of bird.

About this,I think you will be satisfacted.The G version is born after two years of developing,we are very happy of the final result,hope you will too.

[Maverick377]

Hey guys,

I recently downloaded both aircraft and they look great. However I can not get my rudder to work at all. I twist my joystick to turn my rudder and the rudder does not work. I cannot taxi because the nose wheel will not turn. Any help?
Sincerely,
Maverick377

[andrea6811]

Hey guys,

I recently downloaded both aircraft and they look great. However I can not get my rudder to work at all. I twist my joystick to turn my rudder and the rudder does not work. I cannot taxi because the nose wheel will not turn. Any help?
Sincerely,
Maverick377

Don't forget to activate nose weel steering before taxi.

To engage/disingage steering assign a key stroke or joystick button (preferred) to “TOGGLE LAUNCH BAR” FSX event .

[Maverick377]

Thanks. Any idea on how to get the harrier to takeoff vertically