Should A2A create an Official Military Trainer line of aircraft with a different focus than our traditional airplanes?

[alan CXA651]

(on the other hand... military aircraft are not 'perfectly' maintained, as some might think. They have personalities too, and forever have issues with some sub-optimally designed part that just needs to be kept going. I used to work with a guy who maintained F-111s and Tornadoes in a previous life. You might not believe the stories...)

Hi.
I strongly disagree with this statement , as an ex RAF avionic engineer for 9 years , the aircraft where maintained to a high degree , just as much as the aircraft i maintain for BA after i came out of the armed forces .
regards alan.

[Mickel]

Oh, Alan, don't get me wrong. It wasn't an indictment on those who keep these sorts of things going (and I work in the second or third tier of just that). It's just the harsh reality that everything has limitations, particularly as they age.

[Daube]

OK let's try this again, as I don't think my wording of the original question was accurate.

Let me explain to you what we have done for the T-6a and the T-38a. I put both aircraft through a rigorous Accu-Sim flight test. However, instead of bringing it to our normal flight standard, which is higher than any other flight sim developer, the military asked for even more.

We had to match numbers using 1/4 degrees. I cannot stress enough to everyone here the professionalism and standard by which the United States military trains on. No simulator comes close to what they require in terms of physics, including the multi million dollar simulators. We took the challenge and worked harder on engine and flight physics than ever before. So what we have is an aircraft that is hyper focused on it's flying qualities because this is what the military needed. Also all of the new knowledge we gained from these flight tests have fueled these products.

We've discussed in the past the "bucket" theory, and that is every product is limited by how much this bucket can hold. Basically, the bucket is time and resources. So I would ask again, what if we released this line of Official Military Trainers, that would have the following:
- Top level PBR modeling
- The highest level of flight physics
- Brand new turbine and turbo prop physics
- Accu-Sim sound
- Military manual approved for the public

What won't fit in this bucket will be:
- In depth manual with history
- Maintenance Hangar
- Walk around

Scott.

I could do without the walk around, not a big issue for the military planes.
Same for the missing manual/history, it would be just fine.
However, the lack of maintenance hangar is a real problem. It means we would just get a "complete overhaul" button like with the older Accusim planes, right ? Having to make the plane factory new again just because I blew a tire would be quite frustrating... We don't need any fancy interface, but at least an option to replace only the damaged stuff would be nice, keeping the rest intact.

But ok, let's be realistic: even without a maintenance hangar, I would be quite happy to buy a military aircraft made by your team. Frustrated, but happy nevertheless.

My only remark would be the follwing: for FSX/P3D it already takes A2A several months/years to release a single aircraft.
I can imagine it will get even worse in future.
For us military plane lovers, when was the last time we got a nice *new* military plane ? It was the Texan, and it was already incomplete (no walk around).
Before and after that, A2A had to release civilian/GA planes, which were complete.

So in the end, only GA planes are complete, and military planes are both incomplete AND rarely released.
I'm not really interested in getting MORE incomplete military planes.
I wish we got more COMPLETE military planes.

But the reality will surely be otherwise: more GA planes, and maybe, once every 4 or 5 years, an incomplete military plane... I don't hope so of course, but I became quite pessimistic in the past few years...

[Hook]

Scott, I guess you better give up on making a Constellation. If it doesn't have a maintenance hangar, no one will buy it.



Hook

[AKar]

My opinion on the maintenance hangar question is rather simple: I think it way beyond the scope of simulation when simulating a complex airplane operated by an organization, not by something like a pilot-owner or a flight club. I don't mind it missing. It would, however, be of great interest to me to still have a chance of failing stuff, and having an option to set up various failures. Indeed, this is something that is currently missing in the "most complete" products, the GA range, as well.

-Esa

[Hook]

While I'd rather have a maintenance hangar than not have one, I'd rather have an aircraft without a maintenance hangar than not have the aircraft at all.

I'd be surprised if the military specifications didn't include the ability to introduce failures.

Hook

[Jarek]

Turboprop is completely different animal. It is much more reliable, but you need to have multiple numbers in your head to deal with it properly. Just an idea, but I believe it would be more useful than hangar to have something like internal black box component and scoring printout at the end of your flight. It will tell you that you for example: exceeded ITT on startup, on climb, on cruise etc etc. so you can improve your skills over time. Having such feature is essential for self-paced trainer, as normally in FS world, an instructor is not sitting next to me and it is the sim that should tell me what I did wrong. This way I would be able to apply corrections next time.

[patful]

Scott, I guess you better give up on making a Constellation. If it doesn't have a maintenance hangar, no one will buy it.



Hook

I bought it, but there are currently birds nesting in the nacelles. That wouldn't happen with a hangar.

[luvtofly]

I vote yes, because It is A2A
luvtofly

[ClipperLuna]

Scott, I have a question before voting.....does "no maintenance hangar" mean that I can just firewall the throttle with no consequences? Or does it mean that if it breaks, it is fixed next flight?

A BIG difference to me.

THIS ^^^ I assumed with no hangar that there is no gradual wear and tear on the aircraft, brand spanking new every time you get in it.

I third this question! It’s a major difference. It might, just might, mean the difference between a “no” and a “yes, why not” for me...

I fourth (or is it fifth now?) this line of inquiry. Without consequences if you mishandle it--that might be getting a little to close to "video game" territory for me. I don't think I could vote one way or the other without knowing.

[Hook]

Turboprop is completely different animal. It is much more reliable, but you need to have multiple numbers in your head to deal with it properly. Just an idea, but I believe it would be more useful than hangar to have something like internal black box component and scoring printout at the end of your flight.

Thanks for putting that into words. The turbine engines are going to be a paradigm shift (just like they were in the real world) and you can't think of them in the same terms you've always thought of piston engines.

I agree completely on the "black box" idea.

Hook

[patful]

Adding the black box would be just as much work as adding the maintenance hangar, and it's giving out similar info. I think they're only asking if we would buy as is.

It's not going to diminish the brand, they don't need a new company name, folks aren't going to abandon the company because of these releases. Sheesh! Should they release them? Of course! Make some money, it's silly not to when you have a great product just gathering dust. 100% respect for all they do.

Will I buy them? Probably not, but I'm horribly picky. I'm still debating the upcoming Cub, and the Aerostar is likely not in my future plans.

[Medtner]

Here's the deal:

If A2A don't release a "true" AccuSim Texan II (or whatever they are concidering), who is?
We will be "forever" cheated of that one possibility. It's not like they are subsequently, down the line, going to make another model of the same plane, is my thinking.
It's either now, or never.

(and I'm so very much hoping to be wrong about this - please show me that I'm wrong, and I'll change my mind - and I'll vote yes with cowbells and sugar on top)

[Piper_EEWL]

Here's the deal:

If A2A don't release a "true" AccuSim Texan II (or whatever they are concidering), who is?
We will be "forever" cheated of that one possibility. It's not like they are subsequently, down the line, going to make another model of the same plane, is my thinking.
It's either now, or never.

(and I'm so very much hoping to be wrong about this - please show me that I'm wrong, and I'll change my mind - and I'll vote yes with cowbells and sugar on top)

I think the issue is this. We won’t get an accusing Texan II no matter what. But we do have the chance to get a military trainer simulation from A2A of that aircraft. I think this is how you have to view it as far as I read Scott’s post.

It honk we’d all rather have a full Accusim version. But if it’s between none and what’s available now I’d rather take what’s available now.

Just my understanding of the situation

[Skyfox]

I am down for this release. First it will be epic for VR....I have to experience this.

Can this airplane have normal GPS that I can fly from normal locations etc? Does this plane do ILS, especially being modern airplane - I would assume all the bells and whistles are there for navigation. This part is a must.

What about failures? will it simulate like the engine is way too high rpm etc and flying in icy weather etc - I know we can not do Maintenance hangar....but at least have all the mechanical issues - so the best is to land the aircraft or restart the sim. This will be like having the whole airplane without hangar (it will be just all other simulation company products).

With Prepar3d v4 we can use its panel serialization features that way we can save the airplane at its exact engine state it is.

I want this product...infact you guys should even charge higher if you want to release hangar to it? etc.

Walk around isn't needed as in Air Force, they have their team fixing these birds. Pilots do not focus on it.

And let the community work on writing up manuals from public info and flying experience. This will be a win win for us all.

Please take my money and release this bird.