I second that. I fly a C182T in real live sometimes and it is an amazing machine.
We have never been good about talking about projects in development
- Piper_EEWL
- Chief Master Sergeant
- Posts: 4544
- Joined: 26 Nov 2014, 14:14
- Location: Germany
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
B377&COTS, J3 Cub, B-17G, Spitfire, P-40, P-51D, C172, C182, Pa28, Pa24, T-6 Texan, L-049&COTS, Bonanza V35B
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
I don't post much on here, however I can say without a doubt that I know the wait will be worth it. I know you guys are working hard to make the best simulation of a Comanche that you can. You haven't let me down yet and I can't wait to re learn the aircraft in MSFS. Been waiting to get back into the sim until it is released, because nothing beats Accusim.
Here's to hoping the beta goes smoothly!
Here's to hoping the beta goes smoothly!
To invent an airplane is nothing. To build one is something. To fly is everything.  Otto Lilienthal
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Thanks for the wonderful and passionate update. The A2A Comanche in P3D is a long time favourite of mine. The new one for MSFS in the making will make a league of its own. It looks wonderful, and will be a wonderful plane with Accusim, I have no doubt, and look forward to what we may see in a few weeks or months from now. Best of luck now with beta testing and the last essential steps before release.
- jeepinforfun
- Technical Sergeant
- Posts: 537
- Joined: 06 Dec 2013, 23:58
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Well this is great news and thanks for ending the long wait for an update, hopefully Dudley's meticulous nature won't delay the move to beta.
If I may, one question I have is will you be able to use more or less of the base sim compared to FSX and P3D as far as Accu-sim coding goes?
As long as I am here, I vote for the C182 also which I use for shorter flights and sightseeing, the Comanche will be for those longer flights. I think these two planes will be a perfect couple in the GA market to start.
If I may, one question I have is will you be able to use more or less of the base sim compared to FSX and P3D as far as Accu-sim coding goes?
As long as I am here, I vote for the C182 also which I use for shorter flights and sightseeing, the Comanche will be for those longer flights. I think these two planes will be a perfect couple in the GA market to start.
Take care, Brett
SWLights/AccuFeel/Cub/Mustang/Skyhawk/Cherokee/Skylane/Comanche/Thunderbolt/Spitfire/FlyingFortress/Stratocruiser
SWLights/AccuFeel/Cub/Mustang/Skyhawk/Cherokee/Skylane/Comanche/Thunderbolt/Spitfire/FlyingFortress/Stratocruiser
-
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1657
- Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 03:39
- Location: Southern Germany
- Contact:
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
I guess a "wow" is all I have.. fantastic news, Scott!!Scott - A2A wrote: ↑05 Dec 2022, 13:30The new Accu-Sim engine is so impressive it can tell us how an airplane will fly before we even fly it. Just by building the actual airplane, prop and engine. To give an example, the first time we built the Comanche using the new physics tech I added full power and the nose went way up. And I thought "that's not right." Now keep in mind, I've flown this Comanche since 2012, over 1000 hrs. It's like a nice broken in pair of shoes. However I learned something, that we as pilots do things in the cockpit subconsciously. When a pilot adds power in an airplane, he or she naturally and without consciousness, applies forward pressure on the yoke. It's just pure habit and instinct because, after many hours of flying the brain automates this action. So I took the Comanche up to test this so I could "tune it" in the sim. It turned out it was exactly correct. Speed, attitude, climb rate, ball deflection and rudder required were spot on. No tuning required. Just to get this right before required about 100 sim load/tweak/load actions. This new tech, right out of the gates, spot on.
Same exact thing happened later with the flaps. In the Comanche, with it's unique manual flaps, the nose goes up and down as if it's connected to the flap lever and stops. But in the sim after the initial nose down, the nose went up after and I thought again "this isn't right." So I went up again, hands off the yoke, dropped the flaps. Immediate nose down as I remembered so well, but when I kept my hands off the yoke, immediately after the nose went up, down, up, down, etc. until it settled. Then put the video up and played it, counted the oscillations and pitch movements, exactly the same in Accu-Sim. I know some here may thing "OK, so..." but for me, this is nirvana. It's completely changed the game for us. The extra year+ of developing this new system now seems like a bargain in comparison to what it is giving us back.
So if we did make a B377 again, this new Accu-Sim engine would give us interesting insights into how that plane actually flies without us ever flying it ourselves. At this point however we are only interested in Accu-Simming airplanes we have full access too. Not just for flight physics, but many other things too. Doing airplanes we never flew (or can't fly) is something down the road.
Scott
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Also wondering that. It sounds as if Accu-Sim is a completely external flight model. Ideal for portability between sims, but then you have to think of the interaction with the weather and air mass simulation which happens 'inside' the sim with the various 'elements' that make up the aircraft surfaces. I don't know enough about it to know what's currently in the art of possible, but I hope we get the best of both worlds - the custom flight model (out-of-sim if possible) combined with the air mass simulations effects from MSFS (where one wing can be experiencing totally different wind speeds and directions from the other giving rise to natural turbulence effects, for example).jeepinforfun wrote: ↑06 Dec 2022, 15:38If I may, one question I have is will you be able to use more or less of the base sim compared to FSX and P3D as far as Accu-sim coding goes?
In FSX, to me Accu-Sim felt like a layer full of extra variables including the wear and tear, temperature simulations and so on. The flight models, while meticulously tuned, still felt like FSX flight models - but maybe that was the lack of the air mass simulation. With MSFS I was expecting it to be the same arrangement, but now I'm not so sure. I dare say I shall never really find out, but I'm curious to know more
-
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1837
- Joined: 26 Aug 2013, 22:03
- Location: Perth, W. Aust
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Ooh. An update.
Am I on the right forum????
Seriously, though, it's so good to see some progress on this, and I do hope that the new Accu-Sim engine will allow a return to the good old days of two releases a year. And I also hope that the warbirds will be on the development radar soon too.
It will be great to get back into some proper simming. I still have P3D on my system for that, as I've only got 100 hours up on MSFS in two years. It's still MSFS for sight seeing and P3D for simming, though the use of P3D has declined since I bought the Honeycomb yoke and throttle set. They don't play well out of the box with P3D whereas it's brilliant in MSFS.
Very much looking forward to learning to fly a more accurate Comanche in MSFS. Still my favourite GA plane.
Cheers,
Mike
Am I on the right forum????
Seriously, though, it's so good to see some progress on this, and I do hope that the new Accu-Sim engine will allow a return to the good old days of two releases a year. And I also hope that the warbirds will be on the development radar soon too.
It will be great to get back into some proper simming. I still have P3D on my system for that, as I've only got 100 hours up on MSFS in two years. It's still MSFS for sight seeing and P3D for simming, though the use of P3D has declined since I bought the Honeycomb yoke and throttle set. They don't play well out of the box with P3D whereas it's brilliant in MSFS.
Very much looking forward to learning to fly a more accurate Comanche in MSFS. Still my favourite GA plane.
Cheers,
Mike
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
I love it ! Wonderful, you have to be patient to have this one so well doneThis new system is light years ahead of what we had before and will carry us 10 years or more into the future
Thanks team !!
- Jorge Bach
- Airman First Class
- Posts: 71
- Joined: 01 Aug 2015, 18:02
- Location: Galicia - Spain
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
I'm sure the result of A2A work will be awesome as never was seen before. As Comanche fanatic I thik the new accusim will surprise us. "Rome don't was made in a day".
-
- Senior Master Sergeant
- Posts: 1657
- Joined: 27 Jun 2009, 03:39
- Location: Southern Germany
- Contact:
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Rome lasted many hundreds of years though and the city is still thereJorge Bach wrote: ↑07 Dec 2022, 13:38 I'm sure the result of A2A work will be awesome as never was seen before. As Comanche fanatic I thik the new accusim will surprise us. "Rome don't was made in a day".
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Thank you for the update!
The new tech certainly sounds exciting. It sounds like the holy grail of flight simulations: accurate flight dynamics "simply" based on the actual aircraft geometry instead of simplified cylindric shapes or approximation by tinkering with interdependent variables. If you pulled that off (and better than X-Plane) it would be a great leap forward.
I guess the wait was worth it after all and I'm more than happy to eat my words!
The new tech certainly sounds exciting. It sounds like the holy grail of flight simulations: accurate flight dynamics "simply" based on the actual aircraft geometry instead of simplified cylindric shapes or approximation by tinkering with interdependent variables. If you pulled that off (and better than X-Plane) it would be a great leap forward.
I guess the wait was worth it after all and I'm more than happy to eat my words!
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Welcome back Scott, great to hear you all are still pushing forward on the Comanche. Rest assured, this will be a day one for anyone who knows A2A from the past and tons more will learn the love from all the praises given for the quality you all input into your projects..
Regards,
Pivot
i9-10900k * 64Gb Ram * MSI RTX 2070 G7 * Steel Series Arctis Pro Wireless Headset * Win11 Home x64 * Oculus Rift-S * TrackIR 5 * TM Warthog Combo, Honeycomb Alpha & Saitek Pro-Rudders
Pivot
i9-10900k * 64Gb Ram * MSI RTX 2070 G7 * Steel Series Arctis Pro Wireless Headset * Win11 Home x64 * Oculus Rift-S * TrackIR 5 * TM Warthog Combo, Honeycomb Alpha & Saitek Pro-Rudders
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Day One? I'll preorder right now without even asking the price.
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Milviz created "Blackbird Simulations" to be able to better serve the recreational market. Sure wish A2A would do something similar.
Re: We have never been good about talking about projects in development
Aircraft Factory.
Difference is that Milviz became Blackbird. It's not an arm like AF is/was.
Cub, Cherokee, Comanche, Civvie 'stang, P-40, B-377 COTS, Spitfire, Connie, T-6, C-172, C-182, D-III, Anson, F4U
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 50 guests