Does anyone Know if FSX could possibly support Thrust Vectoring(TV)? It would be nice to have an SU-37 that could pull true reverse flight and a harrier(V-22, Eagle Eye, etc.) that went straight up.

Quote:


Highly doubtful.

Quote:


Actually, it's just Bill Gates who takes the morning off to play golf. I doubt the ACES team is any good at golf considering they're computer nerds like us.

I like flying VTOL in the FS series because it's more controllable campared to flying VTOL in X-Plane [which is less controllable]. I tried flying the V-22 Osprey in X-Plane and all I kept getting is a wild aircraft whenever I hover. It gets worse as I transition to level flight because of the twitchy pitch controls.

Thanks guys, i guess we will all have to wait a while for thrust vectoring in msfs is a reality.

didn´t someone develop a gauge for fs9 that produced, as he called it, "True VTOL" dynamics?

there´s an addon aircraft out there somewhere that works with this gauge me thinks...

that being the case, anyways, i think it´d be rather easy to migrate that gauge into FSX

Well, space flight is possible in FSX, so i'm assuming there'll be thrusters, which activate with the normal controls.  When FSX is released, try making 3 harriers.  One with a normal, realistic config, for normal flight.  One with the engine facing 45 degress, with thrusters, and one with the engine facing straight down, with thrusters.  If they all work well, why can't ACES make a function which just rotates the engine?

Well, no, no engine vector settings.  But in gMax, you make the entire model, and rotate so it faces straight down, or at a 45 degree angle down.  Then just set the contact points.

In FS, slew the harrier to an upright position, and takeoff.

Keep in mind, the harrier engine power, and lightest takeoff weights must be put in.

I don't see why it shouldn't work.  If it does, then ACES have got the easy job of rotating the model, and contact points around the model's center. It'll be like adding more concorde visor controls.

Quote:



aaaaaaaaaah just call it microsoft or MS!

Quote:


I understand your idea, unfortunately this would not let you control the aircraft at low speeds. The result would alway look like those first missile tests during the war, you see ? When they get motor failure just  1 or two seconds after launch, and the rocket just fall horizontally to the ground 

Setting an additionnal helo motor would allow controlling the aircraft at low speeds and hover. Then, when pilot decrease the thrust angle, the power applyed to the helo rotor would decrease, and the power applyed to the jet engine would increase...

Yep, that would be great. AND it doesn't seem too complicated to implement, just a change like processing every types of motors at once, instead of processing only one of them depending on the aircraft type...

Damned, now I wish an ACES programmer would come here and discuss this topic with us, would be extremely interesting 

HEY! Shut up ! Let me dream 

Well, that's not entirely accurate...

There are three ACES developers who quite frequently post at avsim.com and simflight.com...

Mike G. (aka tdragger)
Jason W. (aka pixelpoke)
Brian A. (aka brian@ms)

But it is most certainly true that they cannot be "everywhere" else they'd have no time for actual work...

They may not 'appear' to have anything to do with this site and others like it, but actually they DO keep an eye on us.

Jasper

Quote:


FMC can be produced by third parties, just like it as ALREADY been done for the FREEWARE iFly 747.

Real thrust Vectoring cannot be added by third parties.

So I'd rather have thrust vectoring than FMC in the default game

Quote:


The defualt FS airplanes have an FMC in real life, not thrust vectoring. Why would they leave holes in the defualt aircraft and model features that the defualt aircraft don't even use?

Without an FMC the defualt aircraft are not complete. This is why nobody flies the defualt planes. You have to install a billion add-ons to make FS any fun.

Thrust vectoring can be added by 3rd parties. You can have animated thrust vectors and tweak the airfile for more manouverability. How many people in the world know how a SU-37 is supposed to fly? Who cares if it not 100% accurate. Get X-Plane if it matters to you that much. X-Plane focuses more on flight dynamics and military jets. I want accurate systems simulation in civilian planes, that's why I like FS.

Quote:


No, third parties cannot add thrust vectoring. Thrust vectoring has to be part of the main FS physics angine, and cannot be implemented externaly.

For the FMC, it's not the lack of FMC that prevented user to fly the default planes, else nobody would have ever used FS before the iFly 747 or the payware addons.

AND a LOT of people are flying the default planes, just because not everybody cares for the FMC, not everybody like liners, not everybody like fully automated stuff, etc...

Quote:

Who cares ? Everybody looking for realistic flight, that is a HUGE percentage of the simmers out there. If you don't care, go fly ace combat...

And the tweak of airfile for added manoeuvrability sucks !!! It just gives the world worst fly models of the sim !

Quote:

X-Plane is off-topic. We're talking about FSX here, and it's general lack of flight realism. You are only interestes in the gauges, I am interested in all the rest.

Quote:

- because they have a lot of other things to implement as well to improve the flight environment
- because the FMC are already allowed by the sim, it can be fully implemented while thrust vectoring cannot.
- there will always be holes in the default aircraft. I think not every single button of any aircraft can be used, right ? PMDG makes you pay 35 euros just for ONE SINGLE PLANE. Knowing that FSX will have more than 20 planes, can you imagine how much it would cost to have real complete planes ?

Quote:


Yeah, if  I remeber correctly, the Pogo project was abandoned mainly because flying it boarded on suicidal, particulatly the landings.  

Quote:


The ACES team surprised everybody when they:

1. Announced the release of the demo.

2. Mentioned that they will release the beta [which is different from the demo].

3. Were allowed to post the progress of FSX in their own personal blogs.

4. When they allowed more people [particularly the press like AvSim] than usual to test out product.

At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they are hiding something that will make us all jump with joy at the last moment.

What is it with you guys and thrust vectoring ???

Besides, this is meant as a genuine observation but have you noticed MS sims do seem to conveniently forget British aircraft. VTOL being one of ours

This trend was also noticed in CFS3 where, there is no Meteor despite it's active service during WWII.

Strangely a P80 was put in, although it saw no service in WWII.

Conversely a number of German aircraft were included which never even flew.

In-fact the entire sim was dated 1943 on, which is why you don't get a MkI Spitfire.

So, basically unless it's something which the mass U.S. market identifies with, it won't be included. Which is also why you guys don't get thrust vectoring, because it is always associated with the Harrier.

If it was down to me I'd give you thrust vector tomorrow, complain to MS.

Jasper

Quote:

Possible AND ridiculous. This gauge is nice but it's not real VTOL at all.

This pogo is perfectly real vtol because its forward movement is up, so fs doesn't care. the plane goes straight up with enough throttle.

Quote:


I feel I should point out one or two facts on this:

The Meteor DID see action in WWII over occupied teritory, Holland to be exact.

In  duel against a 262, the Meteor would have been the victor without question. This is generally recognised as factual by many experts and for these reasons- Firstly, the 262 could not be flown in quite the same way by an enormous margin by virtue of the fact that axial flow turbines were still in their infancy. The 262 engine was seriously prone to cavitation in the inter stages. It was also seriously prone to bursting. The requirement to obtain power from the 262 engines very gently, and very slowly was a serious handicap. German pilots by this time were much below par.

The Whittle engine on the other hand was far more superior in terms of reliability and strength. Power availability by comparison was instantaneous.

The 262's engine weakness was known and it certainly was recognised at the time that it could even be possible to down one without firing a shot. Just force a flame-out.

Most agree that German 'AXIAL' turbine technology was ahead of it's time, but then they didn't do much with centrifugal compressors either. If they had followed the same principles as Whittle the story might have been different since the Whittle engine was far simpler to manufacture and was an infinately better engine in service.

The 20 hour service life of the German engine really settles the argument of who had the better technology. Maybe also remember the whittle engine produced a third more thrust.

262's were generally destroyed on the ground, crashed because of cavitation induced flame outs, and even mid air engine explosions.

I am of the view (as are many others) that in a dogfight with something of a similar speed capability a 262 simply wouldn't be responsive enough or even safe ! Mustang's could, and did get them.

I think I am correct in the belief that three P80's went to italy, but saw no combat because one or two got damaged, another totally destroyed. Something along those lines but basically none flew.

You have Mr Tucker Hatfield to thank for the rather biassed and twisted portrayal of historical facts. His unbelievable explanations for the CFS3 line-up can still be found on the net.

Jasper