A couple of issues with V4 |
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Author | ||
Mr Paul Michael Rose
Check-In Staff Joined: 01 May 2013 Location: Kent UK Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Posted: 30 Jan 2019 at 1:26pm |
|
Hi Guys
I had a conversation with one of the JF guys at Cosford and he said if I do a full reinstall maybe that will work. I did and alas no change, when trying to access the flightplans from the rear seat it dies. I know this isn't an issue for everybody but if you guys need a beta bod to test different configs I am happy to be the guinea pig. Looking forward to the update but If I can be of any help I am happy to be. Paul |
||
Mr Paul Michael Rose
Check-In Staff Joined: 01 May 2013 Location: Kent UK Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hi Guys
Possibly a silly question, any news on the Tornado update??? Is there any chance of it before or even for Xmas. I have jusat got Marham working perfectly and the working Tonka would be wonderful. Coningsby too for the F3. |
||
Craig.Haskell
Just Flight Staff Technical Support Joined: 08 Jun 2017 Location: Bournemouth Points: 22 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
The F3 is still in development and as previousy stated by Rich, when the time comes the GR1 will have its overhaul at the same time. Be assured it has not been forgotten about. |
||
Mr Paul Michael Rose
Check-In Staff Joined: 01 May 2013 Location: Kent UK Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hi Guys
Do we have any news on the Tonka GR-1 update. I have left it a few months but am really curious if its a dead issue now? |
||
Herky
P1 Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Location: Great Britain Points: 792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Yay! Looking forward to it. Fix the navigation systems, specifically waypoints displaying or not displaying correctly and the rear seat displays. The Terrain Following would be nice. If you can do something similar to SSW Terrain Following that would be super. Although I know they use their own terrain maps and that's keyed in to their simulation. Seemingly the P3d/Orbx terrain read straight from the simulator, is a bit difficult to program in. In my opinion, the VRS Superbug reigns supreme in the P3d combat jet league(Tacpack). Then I believe the Aerosoft F14 would be up there, but I haven't bought it (Yet!). Definitely on the list. I do have the SWS F-4. I am disappointed in that, mainly because its not compatible with P3d Simdirector, so I cant script any mission scenarios...Nothing to bomb you see? Their support is great, but not much I can do with it without Simdirector, but that's just me. Happy simming. Best regards David |
||
You Tube at HERKY231 or David Herky
|
||
kevinh
P/UT Joined: 12 Nov 2008 Points: 211 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hi Paul,
I have reported it and supplied screenshots to show the problem. When flying manually pitch attitude is normal. If you engage autopilot in RA or TFR mode, pitch attitude is several degrees nose down in comparison. I understand the problem you have with variable sweep, but for the same weight and speed, pitch attitude in level flight should be the same whether AP is engaged or not. This is in addition to the pitch oscillations that occur in these modes but which don't affect vertical flight path. The GR1 pitch oscillates but VS is zero and altitude is rock solid. I don't know what is going on, but it doesn't feel right. Cheers, Kevin |
||
Delta558
First Officer Just Flight FDE Developer Joined: 10 Jun 2012 Points: 383 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well, as that hasn't (to the best of my knowledge) been reported, it certainly hasn't made its way back to me, perhaps it is something that can be looked at. Regarding your comment about something being fundamentally wrong, please remember that this simulator only allows for one wing shape. That is defined within the fde, it is specific and does not allow for alteration of wing shape at all. The Tornado effectively has 4 wing positions, so 4 different wing shapes. The following is from memory, so may not be exact but is not far off: With the Tornado, there is a defined change of attitude based on wing sweep angle (because the CoL shifts rearwards) as well as speed. I think that attitude is 3 degrees for each main sweep movement - fore to mid, mid to aft. That balances itself as the speed alters, so you have two items affecting the pitch of the aircraft, rather than the more usual one (speed) which the sim is set up for. The change of pitch with wing sweep has been created within the fde, and as an initial thought I would suggest that maybe the AP is bypassing that. Something to look at, certainly, but when you create things the sim wasn't intended to account for there is always the risk of finding an unwanted side-effect. Paul. |
||
kevinh
P/UT Joined: 12 Nov 2008 Points: 211 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well if so it’s about time. TFR was heavily trailed in the GR1 pre release hype. Successive SP’s failed to address it. All this time later it still doesn’t work, any more than RA hold works. I wonder if they’ll fix the nose down attitude problem flying at low level in autopilot compared to manual flight. The last problem leads me to suspect there is something fundamentally wrong with the flight model. |
||
Delta558
First Officer Just Flight FDE Developer Joined: 10 Jun 2012 Points: 383 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
But the Vulcan does have TFR, though not as complex as the one in the Tornado (giving indications to the pilot rather than actually flying the aircraft). However, for sim purposes the avoidance of terrain is the main issue, and with the fact that both Tornado systems and TFR are being looked at this year I would think it likely that it will be addressed!
|
||
kevinh
P/UT Joined: 12 Nov 2008 Points: 211 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Possibly but as the F3 doesn’t have TFR, that probably still won’t get addressed. Come on Just Flight, the GR1 isn’t complete without TFR. It was the main reason I bought it. |
||
Rich
Just Flight Staff Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Planet Earth Points: 8543 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Sorry for the delay in answering.
As Herky has correctly stated, we have an F3 in the works at the moment. It's currently still being modelled, but when the time comes for coding work the plan is to give the GR1 an overhaul at the same time.
|
||
Herky
P1 Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Location: Great Britain Points: 792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I read they are working on an F3. Perhaps the Bomber will get fixed along with the Fighter? Not much active service time left now, before the powers that be "retire" it.....like the Harrier? |
||
You Tube at HERKY231 or David Herky
|
||
Mr Paul Michael Rose
Check-In Staff Joined: 01 May 2013 Location: Kent UK Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
@ the JF guys
Any idea for when either a patch or workaround is either due or being worked upon. I know that you guys are really busy. I love the Tonka and I have waited so long to fly one in VR and the SSW just doesn't have the feel yours does and therefore i am loath to hanger queen her but the problems we have at the moment are really affecting the feel of the product. The flight plan info is essential to navigation and for me the TFR issue is a bit of a killer. I always had a dream of a VR flight on TF through the lake district. Can someone just reply with a yes we will look at it or there is something due to happen, I think people are just getting a tad tetchy as nothing is ever heard. I hope someone answers. Paul |
||
Herky
P1 Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Location: Great Britain Points: 792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
+1 My Tonka is in the hangar. Seems like its not going to get any better? Regards David |
||
You Tube at HERKY231 or David Herky
|
||
Mr Paul Michael Rose
Check-In Staff Joined: 01 May 2013 Location: Kent UK Points: 11 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Guys are there any updates with the Tonka
The big ones for me are the kamikaze TFR which initiates a death dive as soon as engaged and the CTD when flight plan is selected in rear pit I'm sure there are others but these are the ones killing it for me. |
||
Herky
P1 Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Location: Great Britain Points: 792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Just an update on my crash to desktop issue upon loading a flight plan?
Today I loaded the Tornado and was able to load a flight plan without any CTD? Trouble was after taking off the aircraft struggled with all the auto pilot functions. Also the 15 waypoints were not visible on the navigators screen in the back? Selecting altitude hold caused a roll and dive into the deck? The terrain following feature did not work whatsoever. So I don't understand what's going on with the 64 bit version if this sim. Regards David |
||
You Tube at HERKY231 or David Herky
|
||
Martyn
Just Flight Staff Development Manager Joined: 31 Mar 2008 Location: Huntingdon, UK Points: 7615 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Hi Paul,
Please download the latest installer from your account and then check to see if the gauges are still missing. If you are using FSX or P3D v1-v3 then you'll need to enable the rear seat using the configuration tool. If you have the simulator open then you'll need to restart it before the changes take effect. The Tornado uses its own custom checklist panel so you can ignore the default checklist/reference kneeboard tabs. Thanks Martyn
|
||
Martyn
Just Flight Ltd |
||
paul day
Check-In Staff Joined: 19 Mar 2017 Location: South Wales Points: 4 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
I have the same problems as many other posters on this forum ie
1) No HUD 2)No functuality in the rear cockpit 3)See through airspeed gauge in the rear cockpit 4)Attitude indicator gauge missing in the rear cockpit 5)Gauge to the right of the HUD not working Also could somebody explain why in the CFG for the German liveries the kb_checklists=Eurofighter_check Regards Paul Day.
|
||
paul day
|
||
Herky
P1 Joined: 05 Jul 2009 Location: Great Britain Points: 792 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Seemingly we are of like mind here. Good plan to provide incremental development models as per Milviz F4. I would pay FSLABS or PMDG prices for a fully developed and TacPack enabled Tornado. If done incrementally, the developer should have some security in that he will not have all the eggs in one basket, so profits will always be there in the sale of the model range. I paid $90 for the Tackpac + Superbug, as a Christmas present to myself. This was money well spent! The systems in the F/A 18 E are well modelled. The overall level of immersion is deeper (for myself) than the PMDG or FSL aircraft. The aircraft can be enjoyed without TacPack, having the full range of navigation avionics. However, adding TacPack brings a whole new level of complexity, interest and challenge. We have precious few advanced military simulation models for Prepared V4. The Monopoly of DCS (they make devs sign a contract to not sell on other platforms) means that we will not be seeing aircraft like the Metal to Mesh Mirage 2000. So aircraft like the Superbug and hopefully JF Tonka, will be our current modern military jets. Regards David |
||
You Tube at HERKY231 or David Herky
|
||
Panny
Check-In Staff Joined: 18 Nov 2013 Location: United Kingdom Points: 8 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
|
Well I think the way to solve these issues is to take the approach that Milviz has done with their F-4s.
Considering how long they've been available for they give the equivalent to DLCs within the F-4. Say the initial F-4E release was in July 2015(so two and a half years old) and costs $60. Thereafter about a year and a bit ago they released Tacpack with it which costs $15 and then finally more recently the ADV version of the F-4E which adds more functionality, costing another $19. In essence, if you bought bit by bit, it would cost $95 for the finished product, which I personally think is fair as it has all the bells and whistles. However if you wait, the whole bundle is $80 for the base and expansions. I think these days functionality and systems complexity is the name of the game, and for top tier military addons to be effective they should do what Milviz has done here. With a base pack you can provide an intermediate finished product, and then over time add more functionality to it. Considering addons from PMDG and FSLabs push up to $140 these days I find it somewhat pedantic people get uppity on costs of the FS fighters. I would pay $140 for a PMDG standard Tornado for sure, and I believe that it is similarly complicated. Peter
|
||
Post Reply | Page 12> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |