Thrust Vectoring

[flymo]

TV haha

a simmer can dream.... a simmer can dream....

[machineman9]

[quote]
overtaxed coders in M

[Daube]

TV haha

a FS simmer can dream.... a FS simmer can dream....

Just edited so that it makes more sense  ;D

[Daube]

[quote]Well, no, no engine vector settings.

[Katahu]

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

Developers don't normally visit any forums for good reasons.

1. There are internet trolls that tend to pop out of nowheresville and veir off topic with speculation and stuff like that just for the heck of it.

2. A topic can easily be flooded by a sea of other topics. As a result, other reader who aren't around at the time wouldn't have a chance to see the topic posted by the developer unless the reader is patient enought to sift through pages of topics all day. Because of this, the same developer would then have to post the same information over and over again for months at a time.

3. A blog is more useful as the information is never flooded like the forums therefore allowing the newcomers to read on the spot.

4. SimV is one of the biggest forums in the FS community. We're talking sections upon sections of discussions. A reader can spend a lifetime reading everything in this forum.

Why do you think I post my project's development on my own website rather than here? Besides, you can read the sim developers' progress through this link:

http://blogs.msdn.com/tdragger/default.aspx

This is just the blog of one such developer in the ACES team. Others' blogs can be found in the section where it says "FS Team Blogroll".

[Fr. Bill]

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...

[Katahu]

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)

Well, I don't visit those forums so I couldn't have known.

[x_jasper]

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

[cheesegrater]

I rather have that FMC than thrust vectoring.

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.

That's what they want you to think.

[Daube]

I rather have that FMC than thrust vectoring.

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

[Fr. Bill]

Well, I don't visit those forums so I couldn't have known.

True enough... I visit 20 different forums and over 40 newsgroups on a daily basis.

[cheesegrater]

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

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.

[Fr. Bill]

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.

Every single ATP rated pilot I've ever spoken with has consistently told me that the single, most frequently used feature of an FMC is... the "Direct To" function.

What might 'float your boat' is programming a simulated computer to fly a simulated flightplan with a simulated aircraft to a simulated airport...

...but to many others that's about as exciting as watching paint dry...  :o

To me, the most challenging and enjoyable aspect of flightsimming is landing!  Manually! At dusk! In not-quite-IMC conditions!  8)

The second most enjoyable aspect is creating the models and gauge systems...  ;D

[Daube]

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.

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...

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.

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 !

X-Plane focuses more on flight dynamics and military jets.

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.

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?

- 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 ?

[John_Murphy]

Does anyone remember the POGO tailstander X-plane of the 1950's?  That bird was one of the first VTOLs, and it transtioned from vertical to horizontal flight and back by using aileron/elevator/rudder input from propwash!  Tricky devil to land, but it did it using Nutonian Phisics!  Now, if somebody could figure out a guage which would "pivot" both thrust (propwash) and elevator/rudder functions to vertical mode while the aircraft "model" stayed horizontal.....