Thrust Vectoring

[swordfish1227]

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.

[Daube]

Don't even dream about it  :(
The actual FSX physical engine does not use a "Newtonian" model (as said by another member ), vectors are unknown to him, so we won't see any Harrier, Osprey, Raptor or Super Flanker flying correctly until....we switch to X-Plane  ;D

[Katahu]

Does anyone Know if FSX could possibly support Thrust Vectoring(TV)?

Highly doubtful.

[ashaman]

Does anyone Know if FSX could possibly support Thrust Vectoring(TV)?

You're dreaming, bro.

I'd like it too, but the work needed to change the actual sim engine to one approaching what we dream would be too much for the poor, overtaxed coders in M

[Katahu]

so tired after having had their golf match in the morning.

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.

[x_jasper]

Lmao

You'd think by now that with helo's being well established in the microsoft series, there should indeed be thrust vectoring.

Helicopters in these sims are actually just fixed wing models, with bizarre flight modelling. However they do work, and you can replicate STOL as in the case of the Harrier / AV8B etc. VTOL becomes a bit tricky.

As for X-Plane, personally I wouldn't even go there. Nice quality scenery but thats about it. Downloaded their latest demo, and wasn't in the least bit impressed with the demo cockpit. In-fact it was only half a cockpit lol. (Overrated piece of junk in my opinion )

My advise stick with MS for all it's faults, if you like Harriers etc at least you'll get acceptable STOL which is how the actual aircraft really is flown. The RAF don't like VTOL because of incurred service demands on the engine.

Good thing about the Harrier in MS sims is it's large anhedral on a high wing configuration, this models particularly well. High wing configs do not generally do well in MS sims, the Harrier is the exception.

Jasper

[Katahu]

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.

[x_jasper]

I suspect X-Plane is not all it's made out to be.

Strange lot on their forums too

Out of interest Kat / Sword, I remember a while back we had a flightstick here which had worn out. For one reason or another I re-assembled it without the gimbal spring i.e. fully floating, and as I remember it was practically useless with a fixed wing on landing approach etc BUT: with helos it was damn near perfect. I attributed this to the fact that input  response to aircraft behaviour was almost instantaneous, there being no force to overcome. Also the inputs were of a much finer degree compared to what was obtainable with a spring.

I remember I was getting near perfect helo approaches and touchdowns with that stick.

No neutral obviously, but maybe in a case where the aircraft needs constant input all the time (Harrier) this is exactly what you need.

Jasper

[swordfish1227]

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

[Daube]

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.

Katahu, honnestly, appart from helos, there are no VTOL in FS.
Of course, we have those "super-mega-flaps" aircrafts with their ridiculously powerfull engines (yeah, mach4 Harrier, just for fun, as they say ), but in VTOL operations they are almost out of control, very slow to react, AND you have to be going forward, else you stall and eventually get the physics engine of FS to perfome some funny things like throwing your rotating aircraft through the sky  ::)

VTOL in X-Plane is more difficult because it's realistic. That's real VTOL actually, not a stupid trick like we use in FS.

The only short term solution I would see for FS, since it seems that cannot implement those vectors, would be to allow multiple engine types per aircraft.

At take off, a Harrier would use an "helicopter" engine, to lift vertically, and in normal flight it would use a normal jet engine. In transition phase, it would use both of them, with a percentage power distribution depending on the angle of thrust. Yeah, ACES guys, read that !!!

[Moach]

didn

[Daube]

[quote]didn

[Ashton Lawson]

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?

[Daube]

[quote]Well, space flight is possible in FSX, so i'm assuming there'll be thrusters, which activate with the normal controls.

[Ashton Lawson]

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.