Thoughts on the next project

[John Young]

Many thanks.

John

[Woogey]

I just wanted to add a thought about the carriers. SimWorks studios now has a pretty extensive set of carriers, and a new Ai control system that allows for Ai to operate from moving carriers. Of course they are FSX and P3d only, And also Payware. A factor which seems to turn off some people. It might be worth looking into and getting a hold of Alex the owner of SimWorks to see if he would want to collaborate? At the very least, maybe He would be able to give native compatibility right from the start.

-Preston

[John Young]

Not something I want to do Preston. You can't really mix payware and freeware. I don't want to donate models for a payware developer to make money out of. I don't want to receive money for what I do either. Conversely, a payware developer isn't going to want to give away a trade secret and unique selling point to a freeware developer.

Apart from that, there's enough to do with the Hawkeyes and Greyhounds for the 3 sim versions without trying to hit a moving target.

I've started the modelling though and have the fuselage and cockpit made.

John

[Samuray8726]

Hello Mr. Young,

My name is Martin and before I state my request I need to clarify that this is my first ever forum post of any kind anywhere. I therefore apologize if this post may seem corky or borderline embarrassing . I am big fan and user of your models in my FS9. I have been an amateur, well not developer but at least tweaker of FS9 since 2006. You will not find any of my work anywhere since all of my tweaks and developments have always ended only in my computer.

The models you produce for AI are so detailed that I dare to say many models made to be flown are not at this level. I especially appreciate the level of detail you put to different versions of a single type. This brings me to the reason why I’m writing this post. I would like to kindly ask if you could spend some time and make available a version of your Blackhawks without the takeoff lift animation.

I know, of the fact that in the manual it says these models are not meant for user flying, yet please bear with me for a while longer to explain my reasoning. Your S-70 set besides being awesome concerning the variety of versions is also quite unique when it comes to the versions it encompasses. I like to collect aircraft for FS9 and FSX and I have thousands in my database I’m especially fond of special purpose versions. When it comes to S-70 types there are a lot of versions available for flying on the net, both payware and free. However, I don’t know if that was by design or by chance, you managed to make versions of the Blackhawk and Seahawk which are not available anywhere else. There is a freeware Firehawk and yes there are multiple versions both free and payware of the UH-60A and L models however, you can’t find a MH-60T, MH-60S, VH-60N, HH-60G or MH-60M and UH-60M for either FS9 or FSX anywhere. Same for the Japanese version, all of them! Also the MH-60R, well a long time ago the developer LZ made a payware version of the Strrikehawk, which I have and its nice and detailed however, the model was made so complicated that creating a texture template for the model is not worth the time and the payware model was only made with one texture variation which is, not very accurate at best. Plus the developer has been defunct now for a number of years and the model to my knowledge is unavailable.

To push my point, your Blackhawks and other AI aircraft are very nice and beautifully detailed; don’t even get me started on your Hercs, huge fan! It would be a real shame if some of us whom don’t need opening doors on the exterior model or other over the top details moving would be deprived of a simple not to demanding but accurate version to fly around in. Hell I’m using your hawks to fly; I reworked the flight dynamics completely to make the helicopter fly as realistically as I possibly can in FS, going as far as creating a new air file. Having said that the take off and landing animation – well you can fly the helicopter but it’s … and adding lights and other effects is not possible unfortunately.

Please if it’s possible and not to demanding could you publish a version where the above mentioned animation has been removed or disabled. In addition to also benefit AI packages now and in the future would you be willing to consider the addition of the US HH-60H, the upcoming MH-60W perhaps MH-60M in the DAP configuration + the Japanese SH-60K and Greek S-70B Aegeanhawk.
I promise I’m almost done one other thing and I’m probably pushing some buttons but could we also maybe have a similar chat concerning the MV-22 and CV-22, - especially the CV-22.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Martin

PS: I do apologize if this is not the correct forum to discuss it, this really is my first ever post, Ill get better with time.

[John Young]

Hi Martin,

Welcome to the MAIW forum.

To be honest, I’m overwhelmed by your post, but unfortunately, not in a positive way.

In my post last December, I tried to explain how I have to filter requests and suggestions down to something manageable. As I said, I’ll favour people who contribute themselves, especially scenery designers and painters. Your statement that we won’t find any of your work (from the past 14 years) anywhere but on your computer, doesn’t really encourage me I’m afraid.

Neither is the presumption, since you say that this is your first post anywhere in that time, that you don’t bother to thank any of the developers for the thousands of aircraft you have in your “database”. I know you are not unique in that since about 99.7% of users who download never say a word either. It’s only the 0.3% of users who do that prevent months of work each time being delivered to a “black hole” and help keep the developers going. You seem to appreciate my models and presumably those from other developers here, but have you ever said so at the time you downloaded them?

You are also forgetting the nature of what we do here – we concentrate on AI aircraft. I don’t produce flyable aircraft because it’s a different ball game. It’s not just a case of removing unwanted animation, some other parts might need re-configuring and the LODs need to be removed. As you have discovered, the flight dynamics are usually completely different and will generally need re-writing and testing. Then there's the need for relevant cockpits - where do they come from? I’m not even clear which versions you are asking for – is that FS9 and FSX or both? That might double the work.

Finally, I just can’t grasp the magnitude of what you are asking me to do in terms of conversions to flyable aircraft and the precedent you are setting.

I'm really sorry to shoot you down like this on your first post, but It’s just way too much and I have to say no unfortunately.

John

[Samuray8726]

Hello Mr. Young

Thank you for your swift reply. I did warn that the post will be weird, hope I didn't disappoint
You are right In what you say that he developers are more often then not unappreciated, I do understand that I certainly have my share of that never even getting myself to say thanks till now. Well hopefully at least for myself things will change in the future. Im starting to like this posting thing .

Concerning my request I take it as a solid no which is as shame but well... To clarify I don't care FS9 or FSX which ever would take less work, and no cockpit required.

Warning, more weird stuff coming. As I mentioned I have been keeping all the tweaking to myself however that was mostly stuff which I had to mod or create because It was not available, sceneries, flight plans, textures, the occasional panel. I think maybe Im ready to star sharing this work however as you likely noticed, no modeling. I found out very early that I simply don't have the skills for modeling so all I do is moving retexturing and repurposing stuff from other developers, majority is scenery based. Now I know that permissions are needed and the majority of the developers provide permission for use automatically as long as it remains non profit based. My point here is and that's also a question for all the other moders here would it be acceptable to submit a package where all the models are done by someone else then me, where my contribution is just combining the works of others re-positing, flight plans and textures?

To keep at least a little bit on topic "Thoughts on the next project" My question here is the types which were not included in your Blackhawks package like the HH-60H Rescuehawk and the Japanese SH-60K Seahawk as a future project.

Alternatively something exotic like the Yak-38 and Yak-141. The first scenery from my database I would love to share as there currently isn't anything like it available, pending the acceptance by the community, would be a global scenery of Russian Navy shipping, past present and "what if". I have more then 158 Russian boats all around the world, AI aircraft and helicopters included, however for some carriers I do miss the right aircraft type for AI traffic. The two Yaks would be great for that.

Thanks

Martin

PS: Ill work on the length of my post and their weirdnes

[John Young]

Hi Martin,

I'm more than happy for you to call me John.

Yes it was a bit of a "weird" post. It's not a question of "disappointment", it just took 90 minutes of my time while I was deep into writing a manual, trying to understand what you were asking for and drafting a response. I'm glad though that you have found some benefit from it and potentially want to stay involved on the forum. There's a great bunch of people here who are glad to help and assist, myself included.

With regard to your understanding of copyright:

Now I know that permissions are needed and the majority of the developers provide permission for use automatically as long as it remains non profit based. My point here is and that's also a question for all the other moders here would it be acceptable to submit a package where all the models are done by someone else then me, where my contribution is just combining the works of others re-positing, flight plans and textures?

No, alas, you can't assume that you have blanket permission to incorporate other people's work into your uploads, even as freeware. You need to get specific written permission to do that.

You've made two interesting suggestions for future models. I think only two YAK-141's were produced - as prototypes, so there is limited scope there. The YAK-38 (143 examples) might be better and I'll keep the suggestion here should I develop the interest to make them. I'm not though really interested in returning to the Blackhawks at the moment to fill in gaps. Apart from the considerations I've already mentioned in respect of requests and suggestions, I like to vary what I do from project to project and to avoid going back over old ground. That said, I'm happily working on C-130 W2 "Snoopy" at the moment. I like variety and new challenges to keep me going.

Hope that helps,

John

[TimC340]

[snip]....That said, I'm happily working on C-130 W2 "Snoopy" at the moment. I like variety and new challenges to keep me going.

Hope that helps,

John

Hi John. Just noticed this. The last captain of XV208 is a very good friend of mine and a current pilot at Virgin (though furloughed and back flying the C130J just now). I know there's lots of photos online, but if there are any details you need, let me know.

Tim

[John Young]

Thanks Tim. I'm OK at the moment, but I may well need some information in a few days time. I have the probe and the top radome made and I've blocked in the main colours on the texture sheet. There are few detailed bits that I still need to add and that's when I might start scratching my head. I'll shout if I need you.

Thanks again.

John

[TimC340]

Actually, the pilot from Marshall's who flew it when it became the A400M engine test-bed is also an old mate of mine, though I've lost direct contact with him these days. But I guess you're not planning to do that version of 208!

[John Young]

I think I'll just stick with the DERA "Snoopy" before the aircraft transferred to Marshalls Tim.

John

[md11driver44]

Good morning.
I wanted to ask you if you have ever done the C-130B model or H model for the United Nations. I have the United Nations flight plans and they include the C-130 aircraft for the following countries. Bangladesh Air Force UN Titles, Canadian Air Force UN Titles and Danish Air Force UN Titles. Or by chance do you know if anyone has done these aircraft.

Thank you

Robert P. Armstrong

[jetrange]

The UN Aircraft for the Bangladesh C-130B is in a Bangladesh C-130 package I made. You'll see it in the Library.

[Philippe]

Hello all,

Has any one of you repainted the two KC-130J that French AF has received very recently ? I have seen some repaints for the two C-130J-30 but not for the two tankers. These four aircraft are based at Evreux AFB along with the future German AF ones as they will be regrouped in a single joint squadron. Thanks ! Philippe

[bvanhout]

Hello all,

Has any one of you repainted the two KC-130J that French AF has received very recently ? I have seen some repaints for the two C-130J-30 but not for the two tankers. These four aircraft are based at Evreux AFB along with the future German AF ones as they will be regrouped in a single joint squadron. Thanks ! Philippe

https://militaryaiworks.com/download-ha ... ai-updated

[Philippe]

Many thanks ! I missed those ones when they were released ...

[John Young]

I've just been through the suggestions in this thread again and also the "Most Wanted" at the Owl's Nest, trying to decide on what to make next.

There are downsides to quite a few of the suggestions, but one I think is quite doable. That's the helicopters derived from the Sikorsky S-92A, particularly the H-92 Superhawk/CH-148 "Cyclone" and the VH-92 Presidential helicopter replacement. This is what I have in mind should I pursue the option:

S-92A - the 12 HM Coastguard examples.

H-92/CH-148 - the 16 examples of 12 Wing RCAF at Shearwater (CYAW). 1 Wing RCAF also has several examples but I think they are dispersed.

VH-92 - the 4 examples (+ 2 on order) of HMX-1 Presidential Flight at Quantico (KNYG).

Apart from Quantico, which we have already, I'm not sure yet what to do about scenery. The default Shearwater scenery in FS9, FSX and P3Dv4 is reasonable but I'll need to remove the great big power station that Microsoft placed at the end of the runway in error in all versions.

I'm not clear whether there are any USAF/USN examples of the H-92 in use. I found an early camo photo but couldn't identify who owned the aircraft.

If I were to go ahead with this, are there any other users of this helicopter that people here really, really, desperately, want please? Bear in mind that we need scenery to put them in, ideally for all 3 sim versions.

John

[jgowing]

I think it's well worth pursuing, there are quite a few military, government and civilian operators around the world, including a number servicing the oil industry.

Also, I for one will be grateful for the helicopter itself, whether or not many sceneries are produced. Maybe the community can be inspired a little: if say, someone does a particular repaint, it can prompt others to help with FPs or ADE's.

I don't know about how many model variations there could be, but maybe a generic one could find application with existing sceneries. I'm thinking for example of examples operated in Japan by the Tokyo police, or other examples that could fit into third party scenarios with a simple ADE adjustment.

Jon G

[airplanedoktor]

Hi John,

For the CH-148 Cyclone, they are split between Shearwater and 443 Sqn Pat Bay (CYYJ, Victoria, BC) for a total of 28. 443 falls under 12 Wing with 406 (OCU/OTS) and 423 Sqns in Shearwater.

1 Wing operates the CH-146 Griffon (B412) and CH-147 Chinook. You are correct, the Griffons are dispersed throughout the country, some are SAR, and some have been civilized into trainers. The Chinooks are all based in Petawawa.

There is an excellent scenery for YYJ by Don Grovenstine at stuff4fs.com. There was a bgl file on avsim or fltsim.com to remove the nuclear plat next to Shearwater, but it's been a while since I've looked at those sites.

As far as I know, the H-92 never went into production for the USAF/USN. It was entered into some competitions, but I don't think a contract was ever awarded. For civil operators, there is Cougar Helicopters, Canadian, and Bristow I believe and probably more, so I'm sure a civil variant would be welcome.

Cheers,

Darren

[John Young]

Thanks Darren, I've just downloaded Don's scenery of CYYJ and it's brilliant. Best of all, there are versions for FS9, FSX and P3D, I've also collected some really good quality photos of the CH-148 and some decent 3 view plans. I'll continue researching the other two variants.

John