Thank You All For Your Advice On The B-36B For FS2000

[casey jones]

After reading all your imputs on converting the FS2000 B-36B to FS9 you are right It is not very possible to

convert it to FS9, I was very attracted to Mr Clawson's B36B for FS2000 I was able to get it to fly including

the panel but no landing gear. I still have FS8 so maybe it might work there.

 

Thank You All

 

Casey

[napamule2]

Casey,

If you watched my video you can see the gear and they retract/extend with no edits to anything (cfg, air). What you need to do is uninstall it. Install with a different name (TITLE= in cfg). Then find a cfg and air file from a FS9 B-36 and use that (change (flightsim.0) section 'TITLE' (name), 'ui_manuf', 'ui_type' and 'ui_variation' to match Clawson's model and you should be good to go. Then when when loading it for first time, and you are asked (in 'popup' window) if you want to '...DISABLE..blah,blah,etc' say NO! NO to NOT 'disable' anything (it's just a 'disclaimer' just in case your sim crashes (it won't) so you won't 'blame' THEM). OK? OK! Go have fun flying it (disregard criticism from others-their OPINION isn't important-having fun IS important).

Chuck B

[jgf]

"...their OPINION isn't important..."

 

Congratulations. You managed to insult the entire rest of the flight sim community with one phrase.

 

Your workaround will function, but collision boxes, CG, proper position on the ground, etc. will not match the mdl files. It will take quite a bit of copy/paste between the two aircraft to rectify all this ...and it would still be a workaround.

[zswobbie1]

Simviation has this.. http://simviation.com/fs2004vintage48.htm

FS2002/FS2004 Convair B-36H PeaceMaker. The development of B-36 was begun as an aircraft that was able to bomb directly to the Europe Continent from an American mainland in the middle of WWII. The hugeness of this aircraft doesn't have the one to exceed this now. However, B-47 of the jet bomber had flown first when the force disposition was begun, and obsoleting became this aircraft. Still, this long distance air performance doesn't throw away easily, and 380 planes were produced for the nuclear attack and the scout under the east and west cold war. Gun turret and bomb bay can open and shut. Moreover, installed XF-85 Goblin can be started. by Kazunori Ito. 2.4MB

[leuen]

I have an OPINION: a prop without props is total rubbish!

[jgf]

Simviation has this...... by Kazunori Ito. 2.4MB

 

Mr. Ito makes some beautiful aircraft. My only issue is that he creates any airplane with a propeller as a turboprop, thus instrumentation and operating procedures are not accurate for piston engine aircraft.

[gwillmot]

I have an OPINION: ..... well, better keep it to myself as I don't care to be placed in "time out" again ..... just say'n

[napamule2]

Ok. Your OPINION is important. Important to YOU (of course). But not important if what is being criticized is an activity done for just for FUN (ie: not to 'show off' or to 'impress' the 'Community'). You are missing the point if you are offended or put-off when anyone (me?) or someone (the OP) is just having FUN. Or learning. Or experimenting. You might say 'well you should know better than to fly an airplane that doesn't show props'. Where does it say it's 'against the law' to do so? No where. Lighten up.

Chuck B

[tiger1962]

I absolutely agree with Napamule2, and would add that one of the best things about FS2004 is that you CAN import add-ons from earlier (and later!) versions of FS and get them working, and nobody needs a reason for it beyond this: FS2004 is like the Borg from Star Trek - All will be assimilated, resistance is futile!

[jgf]

I think it all boils down to how much realism, within the confines of FS, you want. Some people are content to do whatever it takes to get a particular aircraft to fly to their satisfaction, others will dump an aircraft if its fuel consumption doesn't match published specs.

 

I fall somewhere in between; there is no B36 in my hangar simply because MSFS doesn't model mixed engine aircraft so it must be built as either a piston engine or jet engine model, negating what must have been interesting system management procedures in the real aircraft. OTOH, I typically pay no attention to real world regulations - altitudes, speeds, flight plans, etc. - and just fly whatever where ever I want, but I like the aircraft to be modeled realistically.

 

There is no "correct" here, FS is one of those rare games that doesn't limit you with procrustean rules. But to tell someone to ignore all opinions except the speaker's is to imply that person's opinion is the only correct one and all others are rubbish.

[napamule2]

Ok. So how much REALISM does having FUN 'contain' (1 to 10 scale)? YOU want 'real' and I want 'fun'. Perhaps (just to be 'safe') ONLY 'real' topics should be posted in forum? Apparently that seems to be the 'prudent' thing to do. Forgive me Moderators for I am having 'fun' which might not be 'real' (to some). Cheesh.

Chuck B

[gwillmot]

Well, it's only my outlook on this matter ...... but actually I've been "into" REAL FUN for quite some time now. Although getting me in trouble a few times in its pursuit (but that's another topic on another website) .... I have found it the best of both worlds. Does that help?

 

P.S.

Case closed

[old_wombat]

Very difficult to generalize.

 

I recall talking to one guy about flying his vintage WWI plane - and a tail dragger at that - off a nuclear carrier. As I recall, a fake front wheel had to be created in the [contacts] section to allow it to couple to the catapult. Clearly, the "realism" aspect of that is close to zero

 

Another example, looking at Bean's avatar and his intermittent gallery posts, i would bet good money that he has his own airline (perhaps "Bean Air"???). Again, (and I apologize profusely in advance if this is not true), a realism aspect close to zero.

 

My carrier is about 10 years in the future. And thanx to Jim Robinson, I have the Marvin SHIELD Flying Carrier. And I fly fictitious stealths off both. Realism - absolutely zero, obviously.

 

The Harry Potter flying broomstick has had many downloads, so at least some people are flying that. More zero realism.

 

 

 

Should any of these accept any "criticism" of the fictions they have created?

[napamule2]

Or, you could get this B-36B from Virtavia for $25. Any criticism concerning THIS alternative? (hehe).

Chuck B

(SANTA..ALL I WANT FOR XMAS IS MY B-36B...)

[gwillmot]

Too expensive on retirement income.

[tiger1962]

Too expensive on retirement income.

 

Subjective answer, Jury disregard.

[leuen]

Any criticism concerning THIS alternative?

Of course not. It has nice propellers ...

[gwillmot]

Subjective answer, Jury disregard.

 

Overruled!