Mp design studio - sikorsky s-55

[Manschy]

Excellent news, Conver, thank you very much Looking very forward to the Westland Gazelle as well

[WarHorse47]

I'm interested how do you like effects on Sikorsky S-55? Did you notice exterior sound when windows are opened ?

No. The sound remains the same with the windows open or closed. What should I be hearing, different sounds or change in volume?

How do you like LTE (Lose of Tail Rotor Effectiveness) when you hover with moderate tail wind for instance?

Cool. Challenging to fly smooth.

Do you like that that cockpit vibration effect characteristic for piston engine helicopter?

Definitely. I also noticed the rotating drive shaft from the external view.

VRS ?

Vortex ring state? Like the Gazelle? Again, nice effect.

Question. Is there a keyboard command for the windows, or is that just activated by mouse hotspot? And can the hoist be lowered and raised?

[jeansy]

can someone please confirm the texturing is the same as the old fs2004 format?

no bump mapping, no spec maps and in 32bit bitmaps?

[milence]

Despite the challenges of fly you are the most important textures?
Why would never interest in model,flight dynamics?
No texture are not at the level FS2004,they are at the level of FS95!

[Cees Donker]

Despite the challenges of fly you are the most important textures?
Why would never interest in model,flight dynamics?
No texture are not at the level FS2004,they are at the level of FS95!

From what I see on the screenshots this is utter nonsense!

Cees

[milence]

Hi
What specifically do you think?

[jeansy]

Despite the challenges of fly you are the most important textures?
Why would never interest in model,flight dynamics?
No texture are not at the level FS2004,they are at the level of FS95!

I take it English is not your main language by means of your fs95 remark or your confused which is the most current platform and what abilities it offers

yes textures are important, like the gazelle the model lacked modern day capabilities, from the 2 texture folders from the S55 someone sent to me the other day, I was asked to do a repaint, i noticed there was no spec mapping again, and no bump mapping again and all textures are in a outdated format, I have question all the hype about the advertising of HD and realistic textures that are on the product page

making a outdated format and talking it up, from what ive seen, its an expensive fs9 or older portover, for nearly 21USD its a little incomplete by early fsx standards

[milence]

No disrespect please!
I have not offended you by anything!

[jeansy]

no your right, Im not having a go at you as a person, only the product

just your posts are somewhat confusing as you are going backwards several versions of it being fs95 rather than fs2004

and Cees' post is somewhat defending the product, (correct me if im wrong Cees)

hence why I questioned your native tongue

[milence]

The product consists of many elements and not only on the texture,so that I would not have dared take out the flat-rate assessment of the product by looking at only one segment!
Did you fly on it?
I am,and I am satisfied!

[Ferry_vO]

I take it English is not your main language by means of your fs95 remark or your confused which is the most current platform and what abilities it offers

Or you just don't get his sense of humour....

[jeansy]

Or you just don't get his sense of humour....

true..........

[jeansy]

The product consists of many elements and not only on the texture,so that I would not have dared take out the flat-rate assessment of the product by looking at only one segment!
Did you fly on it?
I am,and I am satisfied!

so do a lot of good quality fs9 products but that doesnt make them quality fsx products, they make them expensive payware portovers as they lack all the platforms full capabilities

[spatialpro]

My impression, being in communication with the modeller, is that this model was developed from scratch and is not a portover. I hope I'm right.

I haven't bought it, as I'm waiting for the Westland Whirlwind(s), but it appears to be a good mesh with good flight model, but with BMP format textures and lacking bump and specular materials (I note this was the case with the Gazelle, which I did purchase)?

If this is correct, would users regards it as a good all-round model for FSX/P3D if the textures were DDS and bump and specular maps were included?

[milence]

so do a lot of good quality fs9 products but that doesnt make them quality fsx products, they make them payware portovers as they lack all the platforms full capabilities

You know how it is like in humans!
Everyone has their qualities and disadvantages!
The only question is with whom,want to socialize.

[jeansy]

My impression, being in communication with the modeller, is that this model was developed from scratch and is not a portover. I hope I'm right.

I haven't bought it, as I'm waiting for the Westland Whirlwind(s), but it appears to be a good mesh with good flight model, but with BMP format textures and lacking bump and specular materials (I note this was the case with the Gazelle, which I did purchase)?

If this is correct, would users regards it as a good all-round model for FSX/P3D if the textures were DDS and bump and specular maps were included?

I agree its not a port over from fs9 however its a current model mapped to fs9 standards and implemented into FSX

its the same as the gazelle from what ive seen, with no spec, no bump and all in bmps, however its more of a HD bmp textured model than the gazelle

As for the mesh, cant say as ive only seen the contents of all the texture folders and videos sent to me, I wont buy something thats mapped like that, it has no life or dual purpose

sadly Im getting reports that converted textures to dds are having an effect on the FPS with the model with frames jumping up and down when looking at it

But I agree with your last statement 110%

[JensOle]

My view on the topic (I don't have the model):

We are a small community, and I'm suspecting we are getting smaller and smaller for each year. I personally applaud all the designers, freeware and payware, doing the lesser known types.

The real question here is for me; do I want a S-55 in the sim? There are really no other options out there as the old Alphasim model is very dated by todays standards. If you want to have a S-55 in your sim, then this is most likely the only decent model you will ever get for FSX.

And on general basis I'm quite sure you can call a model which use bmp textures for a FSX model as long as it is exported in the FSX format. And what is all the fuzz about bumps and specs, if they are not there it is an simply mod in MCX to make it. We are after all a modding community..

With payware it should of course be top notch standard out of the box, but these days I'm just glad people are doing these models. We have few designers, but many of us which can do the simpler mods. This forum is full of these joint forum updates.

[milence]

My view on the topic (I don't have the model):

We are a small community, and I'm suspecting we are getting smaller and smaller for each year. I personally applaud all the designers, freeware and payware, doing the lesser known types.

The real question here is for me; do I want a S-55 in the sim? There are really no other options out there as the old Alphasim model is very dated by todays standards. If you want to have a S-55 in your sim, then this is most likely the only decent model you will ever get for FSX.

And on general basis I'm quite sure you can call a model which use bmp textures for a FSX model as long as it is exported in the FSX format. And what is all the fuzz about bumps and specs, if they are not there it is an simply mod in MCX to make it. We are after all a modding community..

With payware it should of course be top notch standard out of the box, but these days I'm just glad people are doing these models. We have few designers, but many of us which can do the simpler mods. This forum is full of these joint forum updates.

I totally agree with you!

[Manschy]

My view on the topic (I don't have the model):

We are a small community, and I'm suspecting we are getting smaller and smaller for each year. I personally applaud all the designers, freeware and payware, doing the lesser known types.

The real question here is for me; do I want a S-55 in the sim? There are really no other options out there as the old Alphasim model is very dated by todays standards. If you want to have a S-55 in your sim, then this is most likely the only decent model you will ever get for FSX.

And on general basis I'm quite sure you can call a model which use bmp textures for a FSX model as long as it is exported in the FSX format. And what is all the fuzz about bumps and specs, if they are not there it is an simply mod in MCX to make it. We are after all a modding community..

With payware it should of course be top notch standard out of the box, but these days I'm just glad people are doing these models. We have few designers, but many of us which can do the simpler mods. This forum is full of these joint forum updates.

+1

I totally agree. Regarding lots of so-called "FSX" products sold by AS (chiefly sceneries, their aircraft are fine) or something, which had to be fixed by upgrade patches or by the users themselves (if fixing is possible anyway...). I for one appreciate designers (no matter if freeware or payware) who design invigorating models which are rare and/or extraordinary. It bores me to see the 40th model of a Cessna 172, 737 or Piper. I acted from necessary when I bought the Wilco Harrier GR3 just because there had been no choice (there isn't another one), even it is partly horrible designed.
Once in a blue moon you get a highlight like the MV F-4 or most of Dino Cattaneo's fantastic work, mostly freeware btw.
The bottom line is to decide if I will pay for features I need - to decide I pay for the IDEA, the motivation, the courage to design a product that might not be perfect but as written it's rare and finally maybe an aircraft awaited for a long time by some of us.
A Westland Lynx? Northrop F-5 Tiger? Such a great wishlist here
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforum...shlist-for-FSX
Of course, time changes and we got a lot of new innovations (bless god) but I would rather pay for a S-55 that wouldn't be perfect (same with Wilco Harrier) than a maybe real flyable Cessna 172. Why? Because it's rare and has been designed!

[JimmyRFR]

I just wanted to say that I don't even fly FSX/P3D the majority of the time anymore (XP user), but I definitely wanted to mess about with a S-55. And since it's labeled on simmarket as being P3D V4 capable, I decided that this would be my first purchase for that platform. I should note, this was my first aircraft purchase for FSX/P3D in almost a year.

Anyhow, in the order it matters for me:

- So far, (keeping in mind that I have zero real world experience to draw from) the flight modelling seems decent enough for FSX/P3D. Definitely not as nuanced as what I'm used to in XP and a fair site easier to fly (at least for hover / taxi / liftoff), but that's not always a bad thing.

- The soundset has a noticeable 'static' loop in it in V4. Otherwise decent, but that is a bit annoying.

- The interior mesh / modeling is quite nice.

- The interior textures are decent enough on the panels / seats / details, but the rest of the interior is rather 'flat'. Wish it had a bit more weathering / fine detail.

Overall, I'm pleased with it. It's enough of a curiosity that to me, it was worth the money.

[MDIvey]

Been using and enjoying the s55 quite a bit but have noticed one minor problem....

I haven't been able to get the hoist to work on this conver.... looking at the cfg entries it seems the entry that ties it to one of the doors is missing and its start position coordinates are in the centre of the helicopter rather than offset over the right side door as it should be. I tried copying the hoist entries from another helicopter which worked but I just couldn't get it positioned correctly despite much trial and error. If you could fix this would be great as its an enjoyable feature of fsx heli flying.

Matt

[conver]

@WarHorse47:
Yes, you should hear an exterior sound and increase in volume when you open a window during flight.

@MDIvey
You are right. We will include and this fix in our update for sikorsky s-55. For now, in aircraft.cfg of helicopters which are equipped with Hoist and Sling replace this:
Sincerely apologize...


[Sling.0]
hoist_extend_rate = 5 //Feet per second
hoist_retract_rate = -5 //Feet per second
position = -0.75, 4.56, 2.00 //Feet from datum
max_stretch = 2.0 //Max stretch distance at ultimate load
damping_ratio = 0.6 //0 for no damping to 1.0 for critically damped.
rated_load = 600 //Characteristics tension of cable in pounds
ultimate_load = 2250 //Breaking force in pounds
tolerance_angle = 45 //Angle, in degrees, used to determine lateral breaking force limit
auto_pickup_range = 8 //Max Range, in feet, for auto-pickup
auto_pickup_max_speed = 8.5 //Maximum speed (feet per second) for auto-pickup
hoist_payload_station = 4 //Payload station in which the hoist will load in and out of. 1 is first station.
hoist_door = 1 //Door associated with hoist. Must be open for use.


[Sling.1]
position = -0.75, 4.56, 2.00 //Feet from datum
max_stretch = 2.0 //Max stretch distance at ultimate load
damping_ratio = 0.75 //0 for no damping to 1.0 for critically damped.
rated_load = 1000 //Characteristics tension of cable in pounds
ultimate_load = 25000 //Breaking force in pounds
tolerance_angle = 70 //Angle, in degrees, used to determine lateral breaking force limit
auto_pickup_range = 12 //Max Range, in feet, for auto-pickup
auto_pickup_max_speed = 10 //Maximum speed (feet per second) for auto-pickup

[Dutcheeseblend]

I think the addon looks nice

[MDIvey]

Thanks Conver

BTW can someone point me in the direction of some lighter loads like the one you show Conver... the Humvee, generator and large pallet I've managed to use so far with placement using AI carriers are just too heavy for a vintage Heli like the S-55

Matt

[Cirrus N210MS]

i am enjoying the S55