Posts by Indiafoxtecho

    Hi Guys

    sorry for the late reply... I've not been very active here in several months.

    I am still considering porting some of my aicrafts in Aerofly FS2... will try to do that in future, if time allows. While I love all of them, not all of them are suitable for a quick port to AFS2... we'll see.

    @DE

    At least on my system, all the instruments in the front panel work with following exceptions:

    - cabin pressure indicator

    - fuel quantity indicator

    - volt-amperometer

    - oil pressure indicator
    - hyd pressure indicator

    Ray

    Actually the USN training scheme is very close to the second JPATS livery (...well...obviously) so I am not too keen on doing that.

    @All

    I've spotted a couple of glitches in the animations (e.g. parking brake lever, missing speedbrake actuator etc.) which are easy to fix, so I'll fix them at the earliest occasion.

    Jan


    Thank you very much for the upgrades. I will update the files on my blog, too.

    Ray

    I have plans to fix a couple of bugs in the FSX/P3D payware version... I typically add a repaint or two when I do this. I'll see if I can find the time to give a try making the livery you mentioned as it is awesome.

    Hi Ray, they happen to have a similar retraction mechanism of the landing gear. But apart from that a lot of the gear is different....

    I'll try to add that to both aircraft.


    @Indiafoxtecho do you mind if I re-upload the S-211 to my personal web-page after I've made the changes to the landing gear? I would like to add it to the download section: https://www.aerofly-sim.de/download/download-aeroflyfs2

    And I'll upload it to the forum's download section as well if you are ok with it. Will give you full credit of course.

    Hi Jan

    I have no problems with re-uploading the files after the landing gear modifications - once they are done, I will also update my own link and archieve the modification in the change log.
    Let me know if you need anything from my side.
    Aside, once the gear is fixed, probably it should not take that long to convert the M-345 too.

    Hi there

    Definitely that is not the same in FSX/P3D - thing is, in FSX/P3D, the gear dynamics are completely different - and much easier to implement - also graphically it is much easier to implement it.
    On the other hand the mechanical simulation in AFS2 is a theoretically superior approach. As I said, I would have gladly implemented a better landing gear...but found it was very difficult to implement it without a graphical tool.

    ...so, given that I though that the aircraft was flyable (and not particularly hard to land IMHO) I left it with the "rigid" retractable gear kindly provided by Jan.
    Hopefully I'll have the time to improve it in future.

    I am sorry that the gear dynamics are not satfisfactory - frankly I did not find it particularly hard to land, but user have the final word.

    As I said, without a graphical tool, developing some parts of the .tmd files (such as the gear dynamics) is really time consuming.

    Well, here are my two cents after this first experiment (which by the way may not be the last!) with Aerofly FS2...

    First, let me say that whenever I needed help Jan from IPACS was very kind and quick in providing support - and I understand that IPACS is not Microsoft, nor Lockheed Martin. The following notes, which I already sent in an email to IPACS, are just meant to make things better/easier for developers and are not meant to criticize IPACS work.


    Second, keep in mind this was my first effort. I have a long experience in FSX/P3D development and a little in XP11 development - so this was brand new to me.


    So here we go:


    - Frankly the SDK leaves a lot to be desired. It does not contain all the information needed and forces you to peek into the stock planes and "guess".

    - From the conceptual stand point developing aircraft for AFS2 is not particularly difficult. However the approach is quite different from FSX/P3D and XP11. It requires you to undestand, for example, how a mechanical multibody simulator works (which I do as I am a mechanical engineer) and MANUALLY create objects and linkages. This is a lot of work, it is very easy to make mistakes, and could be avoided with a graphical tool.

    - Speaking of a graphical tool, having something like XPlane11 Plane Maker would be awesome. Actually it is almost necessary as browsing and manually editing the .tmd file is a PITA. The S-211 was doable as it is not much different from the MB-339 and I copy pasted quite a lot. But I could not work my way through the landing gear mechanics on my own. Ideally such graphical tool should be able to compile at least a part of the .tmd file automatically.

    - A number of AFS2 updates broke the compatibility with add-on planes (that is why I abandoned the MB-326...just frustration) - required changes were not clear, and again you had to go and check stock planes and work your way to understand what had changed.

    - Having to manually edit the .tmd to create animations is time consuming. Also, even when you understand the general approach of the sim, having to manually create sequences to support animation that could be done with keyframe (e.g. the gear doors) seems a waste of time.

    ...again, I do not want to criticize IPACS - however my concern is that without better tools for developing aircrafts, there is a good chance that we may not see many new aircrafts for this SIM. Which, by the way, is WONDERFUL - especially in VR.

    In the last few days I realized I'll never have the time to complete it...let alone having the time bring it to bring it to the quality level of my payware releases for FSX/P3D.
    But given that the aircraft is flyable (and looks pretty cool in VR) I have decided to release it "as is" for free. You can download it from my blog:

    https://indiafoxtecho.blogspot…-211-for-aerofly-fs2.html

    Just let me know if it works - I have only tested it on my PC.

    Hi Jan

    I am not sure I have understood... or maybe I am missing something.

    I have copy-pasted the radio display geometry from the DR400 model and put it into my model. I have only slightly moved it forward to be in view. Exported OK, I could see the textured geometry in the sim.

    Then I have copied the attached code from the DR400 - expecting it to work, as the target object geometry and UVW was the same (just moved the object). Geometry is now replaced by a number of rectangles (where the digits should be) - textured ad the backdrop.

    Should that work or am I missing something important?



    dr400code.txt



    I just wish I had more time for flight simming ;-)
    Will keep you posted with the progress. It is already flyable.

    As for why I did the S-211... reason there is one at the local airport and the owners granted me access to it, and then the Frecce Tricolori will switch to the M-345 (a S-211 derivative) in future.

    Jet-Pack - I will surely need your help in order to make some of the systems in the S-211 work.
    As for the STOVL problem is that the F-35 uses a highly automated system...which I assume it is difficult to simulate.

    Thanks for the appreciation guys.

    When I said "the best way" to distribute this, I meant that it is still to be determined whether it will be payware or freeware. Those who know my works in FSX/P3D know that I have a (small) registered business for flight simulation products (IndiaFoxtEcho Visual Simulations) and the S-211 model is from a payware FSX/P3D project (including also the M-311 and M-345). But rest assured that, if it will be payware, it will be inexpensive.

    For the record, I also have started the conversion of the M-326 package and the F-35 (A version only...unless AFS-2 will suppor STOVL) but they are both in a very early stage.