Aircraft at Greenwood Lake?

  • This aircraft is just a static model, and will likely remain that. Unless one of you talented aircraft designers care to tackle it...

    IPACS Development Team Member

    I'm just a cook, I don't own the restaurant.
    On behalf of Torsten, Marc, and the rest of the IPACS team, we would all like to thank you for your continued support.

    Regards,

    Jeff

    Edited once, last by drhotwing1 (IPACS) (March 22, 2017 at 7:00 PM).

  • [...] a Tilt Rotor.[...]


    Tilt rotors can be done easily already. It's just that the hovering physics wont be as accurate, same issues that is still present with the helicopters (R22 that was teased). But yeah, tilt rotor or thrust vectoring is not really difficult in the Aerofly FS 2.

    The engine or propeller can be attached to any body, you could tilt that body like you can pivot the landing gear, there is no limitation here, really. I bet you could even do a boomerang in the Aerofly FS 2 physics and it would come back to you, just because I think the physics engine actually could be that good. (I should actually give that a try some time)

    Regards,
    Jan

  • Tilt rotors can be done easily already. It's just that the hovering physics wont be as accurate, same issues that is still present with the helicopters (R22 that was teased). But yeah, tilt rotor or thrust vectoring is not really difficult in the Aerofly FS 2.

    The engine or propeller can be attached to any body, you could tilt that body like you can pivot the landing gear, there is no limitation here, really. I bet you could even do a boomerang in the Aerofly FS 2 physics and it would come back to you, just because I think the physics engine actually could be that good. (I should actually give that a try some time)

    Regards,
    Jan

    Good news. I had rather you spend the time on a Tilt Rotor prototype with poor hovering than on a boomerang, but that's just me. I could learn to hover less and fly more while it is being tweaked.

    Regards,

    Ray

  • .... because it will probably take quite a long time before they are finished. Right now it looks like we will expand the system depth further before adding more aircraft. To me it looks like deeper not wider at the moment but that might change and we could probably relase quite a number of simpler aircraft in the future... (as always just my point of view here, I can't promise either direction)
    But I feel you guys want to do more with the existing planes, so I'd rather improve on those. But I'd like to hear your opinions on that matter, too!

    Regards,
    Jan

    I'm guessing hardcore flightsimmer want the deepest possible - "system depth further before adding more aircraft."

    But I strongly supports Aerofly FS2 good intentions, when they said:

    "Our goal is to involve our player community as much as possible in the evolution of the game, and we think the best way to achieve that is to get the game in the hands of players as early as possible."

    I think it also means: - "to get the new aircrafts in the hands of players as early as possible."

    Some parents want their children when they are fully developed. But I think most of us want to follow our children throughout their development (which creates fellowship) - even if it means that everything is not fully completed from day one.

    Have the opportunity to join the journey, creates greater enthusiasm - than wait for that everything should be completed some day - before release.

    That means: - I'm ready for the Q400 before the "child" are fully grown. :)