VFR Simulations, Seeking consumer input for the Cessna 170B

[MBKHOU]

Hello,

il88pp & mrzippy. Thank-you for your responses.

 

It is clear, via the website, that this is an on-going project. Nobody is going to purchase this, and then wonder to themselves, where is the product? These items are pronounced very clearly.

 

The intent of the project is fairly clear, but nothing about the actual product is

clear, being as nothing exists yet.

It's one thing to make claims about the proposed quality, but with nothing to

actually look at...

Most all aircraft makers claim the highest quality, detail, etc, etc, but as we

know, the actual products we see vary all over the map.

So I can see how some could be skeptical. I know myself, I would never pay

money up front for software that hasn't been completed yet. But that's just me...

It's hard enough to pull money out of me for even existing high end stuff... :p

 

 

The purpose of this thread is to invoke discussion on the project development. - Joseph

 

Nothing wrong with that. What would I want to see in such an airplane if I were

interested in that model Cessna? This is fairly easy to answer.. Just check the

A2A Cessna 172 and 182, etc.. I consider those to be among the best of the pay

Cessnas. The 182 Skylane in particular.

If I were going to buy a FSX/P3D Cessna right now, the A2A 182 Skylane would be

my first choice. Apply that level of detail and quality to your 170, and there you

have it. I believe that plane normally sells for about $50 for a single sim platform,

in order to gauge the quality vs price. Good luck with the plane!

[il88pp]

...... Could have left the link to his site for another time and just solicit suggestions.

 

Actually, the link is in his signature.

Now, even if you come across an old thread that he made it is in there. So it looks like the site existed then already! Even though the site is brand new.

The vfrsim site was registered one month ago, and expires in one year.

info from here:

https://www.woorank.com/en/www/vfrsim.com

[fsxar177]

I'll ask this;

 

When was the last time a developer submitted screenshots of his code, Or of any part of the FDE and systems programming. Or of any part of gauge programming. Or of documentation. PIREPS? Audio files? Any of that?

 

No, product previews are model+textures. That's It. Unless it's product video, which might include some aspects of the above.

 

So what's being said is this;

You don't have 20% of the product available to show us. (model/textures). Therefore the product doesn't exist, and may never exist.

 

This is my full-time endeavor right now. I'm 28, am married, and am pursuing my P.P.L.

I have been developing for FS for 14+ years. I promise if you've been around FSX for any length of time, you've flown an aircraft that had my work put into it. Sure it's been licensed and sold for another company. Big deal.

 

I offer a post for the community to share. Not interested in the 170? Move along. Not interested in contributing.. move along. At what point does it strike the mortal person to attack the new guy? Really? I expect more than that from you folks, I really do. This is a small community, a very niche group. I expect more. I expect a private message asking questions, if you are really concerned. Rather, a frontal attack on not only the product, but a person.

 

Some things to think about.

 

- Joseph

[il88pp]

Well, this talk of "the company" has been giving me the creeps.

 

It seems clear now that this is a one man job.

fsxar177 and his Dream of creating an aircraft one day.

 

It is good to have dreams, and I think if he had asked in the forum for help with creating the aircraft, he would have gotten it.

 

But he is trying to sell us his dream. For cold hard cash.

Saying it is a product, and calling himself a company.

With nothing to indicate that he can even create an aircraft.

 

I think that is going way too far.

It shows very little respect for his fellow simmers.

He is right, we are a tightknit community. We look out for each other.

 

fsxar177, create a plane, then sell it. Not the other way around.

 

 

Ps: Be honest, if someone else posted something like this, you would like a heads up as well.

[lnuss]

But he is trying to sell us his dream. For cold hard cash.

Saying it is a product, and calling himself a company.

With nothing to indicate that he can even create an aircraft.

 

While he provided a link to a website, there was NOTHING in his post that even mentioned money, nor did he say that you needed to go to the web site to answer his question. I'm having trouble understanding what is getting people so worked up.

 

From where I sit (and no, I didn't go to the website, nor do I care what is or is not there, since I didn't have to use that site to answer his question), people are trying to create the semblance of a scam with no evidence, other than a preliminary website (I presume) that isn't showing something that hasn't been developed (how could he -- artist's conception???). He's just asking what we want.

 

Also, why can't he have incorporated (many companies have other family members as the board and officers) in order to prepare to do business?

 

And what indicates that he CAN'T create aircraft?

 

Or perhaps someone can show where the scam actually is (that hasn't yet been done here). This reminds me of a pack tearing away at one of their number for who knows why.

 

 

 

I'm truly puzzled -- what's the real beef?

[mgh]

I'll ask this;

 

When was the last time a developer submitted screenshots of his code, Or of any part of the FDE and systems programming. Or of any part of gauge programming. Or of documentation. PIREPS? Audio files? Any of that?

 

No, product previews are model+textures.

 

But where are your model+textures?

 

It is clear, via the website, that this is an on-going project. Nobody is going to purchase this, and then wonder to themselves, where is the product? These items are pronounced very clearly.

 

Your website also just as clearly clearly states it is solicting card card payments for a for a non-existent prodect. Why does it state that unless you want to get money? Alfter all you deliberately chose to do thaand this dicussion would have been avoided if you hadn't chosen to asked money.

 

Your Terms and Conditions also very clearly state there will be no refunds even for a Pre Order that isn't delivered.

 

Also, the customer understands that sales are final at the time of payment. We have a zero-return policy. Orders are subject to cancellation until the time of payment, or when payment is received by VFRsim. Estimated date of delivery of the product or service to the customer is not guaranteed. VFRsim will make every effort to meet the expected delivery dates.

https://www.vfrsim.com/terms/

 

Remember FSXGenius who also sold non-exsting FSX products? He got a 12 month prison sentence earlier this year.

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/crime/computer-flight-simulator-fraudster-jailed-for-12-months-1-7043704

[evm]

- Damage modelling, not only physical damage due to pilot error, metal/rubber fatigue or stress, but also systems failures/damages - especially for the engine

 

- Combustion engine accurately modeled - mistreat your engine and you are rewarded with fouled plugs, failing cylinders, bent crankshaft, fire, black smoke, oli splashing the windshield

 

- Accurate electrical load. Leave the blinky light on for too long and bye bye electrical starter.

 

- Working circuit breakers

 

- fuel fouling (water, oil)

 

- Accurate wind sounds, especially from the propeller (needs to change when you open the window/door etc.)

 

- Accurate modelling of the effects of temperatures, especially low ones - starter problems, windows fogging/freezing, brakes failing, weak battery

 

- Modelling of broken (or frozen) flight controls (stuck rudder, elevator or aileron)

 

- Can this thing be started by hand? By turning the propeller?

 

- A passenger (remember Heidi?)

 

- Persistent aircraft state - even when sleeping in your hangar it ages.

 

Afraid the list goes on ;)

[fsxar177]

- Damage modelling, not only physical damage due to pilot error, metal/rubber fatigue or stress, but also systems failures/damages - especially for the engine

 

- Combustion engine accurately modeled - mistreat your engine and you are rewarded with fouled plugs, failing cylinders, bent crankshaft, fire, black smoke, oli splashing the windshield

 

- Accurate electrical load. Leave the blinky light on for too long and bye bye electrical starter.

 

- Working circuit breakers

 

- fuel fouling (water, oil)

 

- Accurate wind sounds, especially from the propeller (needs to change when you open the window/door etc.)

 

- Accurate modelling of the effects of temperatures, especially low ones - starter problems, windows fogging/freezing, brakes failing, weak battery

 

- Modelling of broken (or frozen) flight controls (stuck rudder, elevator or aileron)

 

- Can this thing be started by hand? By turning the propeller?

 

- A passenger (remember Heidi?)

 

- Persistent aircraft state - even when sleeping in your hangar it ages.

 

Afraid the list goes on ;)

 

 

 

Thank-you. This is what I am after!

 

I'm getting these reports elsewhere also.. Folks would like Accu-Sim type behavior.

 

We're going a step beyond that. Maybe a couple steps...Actually, several steps.

 

I appreciate the feedback. Very good. I like most of these ideas. In fact, several are already being coded.

 

The broken controls idea doesn't sound too good, however. FSX/P3D was never intended as a pre-flight simulator. Frankly, I'm not interested in that. Student pilots need to actually pre-flight aircraft, with the owner and with their instructor. Anything even resembling control surface damage is going to keep you on the ground. And let's face it, nobody want's to stay grounded in flight sim.

 

Regarding the rest of the thread.. I'm going to respond to replies that are on-topic. The rest of the conspiracy is just that. And it's weak conjecture, at best.

 

- Joseph

[evm]

Didn't mean broken control surfaces on preflight - I meant broken in the air. At least those failures you can actually recover from, but maybe also those you can't. Like freezing rain or fog, breaking or stuck control wires/cables/rods (negligence?).

 

I think you may need something "extra", know what I mean? Even if it is as realistic as can be, as an airplane addon the little Cessna will not appeal to many simmers. Not with what else is already out there.

[fsxar177]

...I think you may need something "extra", know what I mean?...

 

I'm going to smile, and *wink for now. I think you'll be pleased, sir.

 

- Joseph

[mgh]

Regarding the rest of the thread.. I'm going to respond to replies that are on-topic. The rest of the conspiracy is just that. And it's weak conjecture, at best.

 

It isn't a conspracy that you are soliciting money for an non-existing product - or is it?

 

My last words are still BE WARNED

[Billd]

You should offer a demo version of your product once it is ready.

[inky160]

Is this the type Cessna you're talking about? I've been watching this thread but haven't seen a baseline or sample of the 170B that the OP is offering. Especially the instrument panel, differences between the 170, 170B etc.???

Ron

[okbob]

Joseph, what I like to see in new aircraft are 2-d panels. I know some think them archaic. Nevertheless, I prefer 2d to the VC panels for a couple reasons.

 

Primarily because I like to customize the panels of my aircraft to make them more "flyable" in the FSX simulator. To me, although the VCs are nice to see the moving prop arc and to incrementally look around and up and down (albeit SLOWLY), the gauges and switches on VC panels are too small to see and reach easily. I can modify a 2d panel to easily read the gauges that I need, hide the gauges that I don't need for normal flight, and easily reach and click the switches I use without having to scroll. Oh, in 2d I can instantly look left and right (no slow scroll).

 

Also, while historical and/or actual instrument panels are nice to have and very interesting to see, FLYING them in FSX is much more difficult that flying the real airplanes. FSX lacks almost ALL of the sensory inputs that help me to fly. And so, I find that FSX and FS9 are more useful for practicing instrument procedures where I focus on the instruments anyway while trying to ignore sensory inputs. I find 2d panels, especially my private-customized panels, much more convenient.

 

I do go into VC mode some, when I want to look outside for a bit. But this accounts for a very small amount of time.

 

I bought some payware that came without 2d panels, and I've had to develop my own 2d panels for them from scratch. I enjoy doing that, but if I had a 2d panel to start from I would be more encouraged to spend some money on more payware.

 

Thanks for asking what potential customers like to see in aircraft.

[fsxar177]

Is this the type Cessna you're talking about? I've been watching this thread but haven't seen a baseline or sample of the 170B that the OP is offering. Especially the instrument panel, differences between the 170, 170B etc.???

Ron

 

That's it, essentially..

 

The B model was started in 1952, and quickly became the most popular, with more sales in '52 than any other year. It featured increased dihedral, and 40 degrees of semi-fowler flaps.

 

The first of your 3 photos looks like a '55 model, notice the squared off rear window, and it's updated tailwheel with cable type steering.

 

The second photo looks like the panel from a '52. I'm Guessing.

 

Third photo looks like a Lycoming conversion, a 53 or 54 model, judging by the cowling and gear, which appear to be the late B model gear, referred to as 'Lady Legs'.

 

- Joseph

[fsxar177]

Joseph, what I like to see in new aircraft are 2-d panels. I know some think them archaic. Nevertheless, I prefer 2d to the VC panels for a couple reasons.

 

Primarily because I like to customize the panels of my aircraft to make them more "flyable" in the FSX simulator. To me, although the VCs are nice to see the moving prop arc and to incrementally look around and up and down (albeit SLOWLY), the gauges and switches on VC panels are too small to see and reach easily. I can modify a 2d panel to easily read the gauges that I need, hide the gauges that I don't need for normal flight, and easily reach and click the switches I use without having to scroll. Oh, in 2d I can instantly look left and right (no slow scroll).

 

Also, while historical and/or actual instrument panels are nice to have and very interesting to see, FLYING them in FSX is much more difficult that flying the real airplanes. FSX lacks almost ALL of the sensory inputs that help me to fly. And so, I find that FSX and FS9 are more useful for practicing instrument procedures where I focus on the instruments anyway while trying to ignore sensory inputs. I find 2d panels, especially my private-customized panels, much more convenient.

 

I do go into VC mode some, when I want to look outside for a bit. But this accounts for a very small amount of time.

 

I bought some payware that came without 2d panels, and I've had to develop my own 2d panels for them from scratch. I enjoy doing that, but if I had a 2d panel to start from I would be more encouraged to spend some money on more payware.

 

Thanks for asking what potential customers like to see in aircraft.

 

Thank-you for your input. I value it highly.

 

This is my second request for included 2D panel.. Interesting. While I'm committed to providing some 2D functionality, with radios and such, I'm a little surprised.

 

I'll have to look into it more.

 

Out of curiosity, what resolution do you fly FSX in?

 

I agree, with the VC usually everything is too 'far away' so to speak. I'm trying to eliminate some of that feeling. It's tough.

 

Best to you,

- Joseph

[fsxar177]

You should offer a demo version of your product once it is ready.

 

Not a half bad idea. I'd consider it.

 

- Joseph

[okbob]

Joseph, my FSX display setting is 1280 x 768. I make most of my 2d panels at 1024 x 768 (Microsoft's default I guess). A few are widescreen, especially if there is only a panel on the bottom and no structural members in the front view (such as most Cessnas). I do this because it is difficult for me to size a panel widescreen AND to show structures at the top as well (aka the J3 Cub, for example; or see the panel I posted for the Great Lakes -- 2tpanel.zip). It is easy enough for me to just drag and stretch a 1024 panel a little wider on my monitor.

 

And there is another feature that I forgot to mention, not related to panels. That is how the aircraft flies with respect to stall, slips and even spins. That may be called the FDE or air file or the aircraft config? Anyway, I do not like to fly an aircraft that does not in fact stall at the proper speed, or even stall at all. And there must be enough rudder control to slip into the wind in a cross-wind landing, at least to the extent that real general aviation aircraft do. My favorite payware in this regard is A2A's J3 Cub, it really flies well and pretty accurately.

 

Thanks again for listening, and happy day to you. Bob

[fsxar177]

Joseph, my FSX display setting is 1280 x 768. I make most of my 2d panels at 1024 x 768 (Microsoft's default I guess). A few are widescreen, especially if there is only a panel on the bottom and no structural members in the front view (such as most Cessnas). I do this because it is difficult for me to size a panel widescreen AND to show structures at the top as well (aka the J3 Cub, for example; or see the panel I posted for the Great Lakes -- 2tpanel.zip). It is easy enough for me to just drag and stretch a 1024 panel a little wider on my monitor.

 

And there is another feature that I forgot to mention, not related to panels. That is how the aircraft flies with respect to stall, slips and even spins. That may be called the FDE or air file or the aircraft config? Anyway, I do not like to fly an aircraft that does not in fact stall at the proper speed, or even stall at all. And there must be enough rudder control to slip into the wind in a cross-wind landing, at least to the extent that real general aviation aircraft do. My favorite payware in this regard is A2A's J3 Cub, it really flies well and pretty accurately.

 

Thanks again for listening, and happy day to you. Bob

 

Thank-you for more information!

 

These days, most folks are running a considerably higher resolution. I would suspect that your hardware limitations would be keeping you from making the most of a Virtual Cockpit. We'll keep this in mind, that there are folks with lower settings, that could utilize a 2D panel.

 

With regard to the Flight Dynamics (FDE), they are programmed primarily in the .air, .cfg, and also with other coding, per the SDK.

 

Every aspect of the C-170 flight envelope is being carefully evaluated, tested, and rigorously held to a very high standard. I have multiple real-world 170 pilots on my Beta list. The Flight model must fully satisfy them, in every regard.

 

The A2A cub is surely a delight to fly. However, many things have been learned since the Cub's release, that will be utilized in this 170.

 

- Joseph

[fsxar177]

To those following, and or interested in this project. We've posted a few updates, to detail some of what's involved in the development. You can ready about it on the homepage. Click on 'Project scope & details'.

 

- Joseph