crl848

I also have a Lightning and Buccaneer (you can see Sea Vixen FAW.2, Mig 21 PFM and Hunter F.4 L-R). Cost - like all collectables - depends on rarity, condition and when you acquired. Also size as smaller cockpits are more desirable for storage in the average garage. Hunters in good condition go for about £5,000 at the moment. The other two, less. Happily most of the collection came together back when prices were lower. I think that metal prices have increased scrap value. Other home truths: cockpits in pieces will always be worth more than together, as collectors can buy the bits. E.g .ejection seats, instruments, grips go for big money on eBay. Same goes for cockpits versus whole aircraft. Easier to store and protect, so there is a constant movement to cutting these things up which is sad. Also cost is much more than acquisition: think about transportation, storage etc. which can easily exceed the actual cost of buying the thing in the first place. Then there's restoration. Would love to get a Phantom but they're like hen's teeth in this country.

Some of my collection, back together after new trailers for the two at the back. Sorry for bad iPhone shot.

If TK is serious then I agree that SF becomes a zombie sim kept alive by sites like this. I'm not sure whether this means inevitable payware mods. I suppose we'll have to enjoy SFNA as a last hurrah.

If you're going to be insulting you ought to explain yourself. Although frankly I don't see what prompted this sort of language. Mods? Oh, forgot, you are one.

Now I was a shocked as anyone to hear that EXP2 lost money because of the mission editor and feature creep. But now TK keeps dropping hints that he will move to other platforms, i.e. iPad and build in less complexity. This strikes me as a mistake, and not just cause I'm a PC gamer. I'm happy to game on other platforms, but the game must be appropriate. Fact is, flight simming on the iPad is crap. The only good one is the Shuttle sim, where all you have to do is glide and land. X Plane is pretty bad, and COMBAT in X Plane is rubbish. It's impossible to get situational awareness in a fight with one view that you can't move easily, and hitting the fire button is a chore when you have to find it on the screen and not press something else by mistake. Also, I get the feeling that TK misjudges his market when he talks like this. I don't fly SF because I like easy, light and fluffy "games". I fly it because I like aircraft from the 1960s and 1970s. I also like the fact that some of the more boring controls are simplified (e.g. turning on the engine), 'cause I like dogfighting and moving mud, and especially moving between aircraft easily. On the other hand I want the important things to feel real: the FM, cockpit, etc. Extrapolating from my views (dangerous I know), I'm willing to bet that many or most SF flyers are similar. I reckon that people who want simple flying games prefer shiny new aircraft and are well catered for by HAWX etc. Sometimes I think that TK just says these things to wind people up or ratched down expectations for new products. Why does he produce so many versions of the F-4 and Hunter cockpits, for example, when basically one would suffice in a "light and fluggy game"? I'm hoping that at heart he remains committed to the PC and his unique niche in the sim marketplace. But some of his recent pronouncements are worrying. BTW I considered posting on the TW boards but decided I'd rather avoid the politics and see what the most committed user base of SF products thinks over here.

Best of luck. Nice to see some real businesses being created in this country.

Funnily enough this is about the best flying scene in Sailor, the rest of the programme is mostly about the workings of the fishheads inside the carrier. Which while interesting is not exactly what we are looking for.

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but it's a lovely sequence from the 1970s BBC documentary "Sailor". The Phantoms and Buccaneers land on during their first workup near the Cornish coast. An RAF Buccaneer pilot narrowly avoids being sent to St Mawgan by Wings and manages to hook on. Some nice sequences from flyco and from the back seat of a Buccaneer (though the view always switches to the deck before landing, boo). And no Rod Stuart tunes!

Right; on normal mode, in the original flight model the excess roll inertia is there, and the rudder yaws the aircraft in the correct direction - but there is no roll effect with rudder at all. With the revised model with the two edits as suggested above, the roll effect is muted as before, and the rudder is the same. I don't know whether the roll effect of rudder is "turned off" in normal mode, I don't normally fly it. It would be nice if the rudder did roll the aircraft at high AOA, as this was required in real life due to the adverse yaw effects. See here, an article by a test pilot at the Bucc's "home base", HOSM: http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1971/1971%20-%200064.html

OK will do.

Yes.

OK, weird one. I tried this with Ravenclaw's edit, and although it now rolls with the rudder in straight & level flight, it rolls strongly opposite rudder under g/alpha. Any ideas?

@Ravenclaw, I've tried your edit and it certainly works to reduce roll inertia to something much more manageable. On the other hand, I've noticed another issue which my previous clp edit had been masking, which is that using the rudder rolls the aircraft very smartly in the wrong direction to the rudder input (i.e. right rudder, rolls left etc.). With your new edit you can now actually roll the aircraft faster with opposite rudder than with ailerons . Seeing as the Buccaneer IRL had severe adverse yaw issues at low speeds it would be good to be able (required?) to use rudders to roll in the right direction!

I think the main issue is roll inertia, not roll rate (I see I could have worded my initial post better, sorry). Most aircraft should stop rolling when control input is stopped, otherwise it is very difficult to aim the weapons. Currently, the plane exhibits a lot of roll inertia, i.e. it keeps on rolling for ages after you center the stick. Here's an extract from Andy Bush's old SimHQ review of SFP1's original flight model (which has since been corrected for the stock planes): "Roll performance is the next problem area. Roll inertia refers to the plane’s tendency to resist the initiation of a roll…and its tendency to continue a roll when the aileron is neutralized. Initial roll rate is good. These jets roll at rates that approximate real life. No problem there. The problem comes in when we want to stop the roll. Both of these jets exhibit too much roll inertia. This simply means that they continue to roll when the aileron input is taken out (neutralized). In real life, these aircraft tended to stop rolling quickly, particularly if a little opposite aileron was used to counter the roll. This flight model feature was necessary to achieve the ability to point the jet quickly at a target. The roll axis needed to be easily controlled. Not so in this sim. Both jets will over-shoot the roll out point unless the aileron input is taken out early in the roll. The tendency to continue rolling is likened to a pendulum effect…once the roll is established, the roll will try to resist an attempt to stop it. The result is typically an over-banked attitude that the pilot must then correct. This is both irritating and a waste of time when time is often critical. The only correction for the simmer is to moderate roll inputs so that the pendulum effect is minimized." See here: http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_030b.html Whether my edits or something else works best to sort this out is a moot point. Feel free to post other solutions.

The main problem is waiting for SF:NA to do some proper anti-ship missions with it

I tried this, and it does improve the "out of control" feeling of the original FM, but still leaves the plane with a roll rate that feels way too fighter-like to me. I'm going to stick with my trial and error clp edit which IMHO provides a nice balance between heaviness and controllability.

Yes. For example, I changed the rolldamper setting from 0.4 to 2, with no discernable impact at all. That's why I searched the forums, found the post I linked to above where Fubar discussed the inputs to roll, saw that clp is something to do with roll damping, and hey presto, sorted it out. As a quick test, load up a default Bucc, fly straight and level at c.500kt without ordnance. From wings level, roll with full stick input until 90degs (wings pointing up and down), then let go of the stick quickly. You will end up at about 220degs, i.e the aircraft will have rolled another 135degs and be inverted past the 180. With my edit, you end up at about 112degs, i.e. the aircraft rolls about 22degs more. You'll find that this is much more controllable and in my view realistic. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, try it out.

Fubar, I'm afraid all that's beyond me. I got the idea from your original post, that's how I know you said it ;). Until someone posts a better "solution" to this "problem" (a matter of opinion) I'll stick with mine. Thanks.

Well, what I did works for me, no unintended consequences so far. I'm not imposing my solution on anyone else. In fact I didn't post it before, and only did today because someone at SimHq was complaining about the roll rate and I thought it might help them. And, er, not to be a smart alec but didn't you call the clp parameter "roll damping" in a previous post? http://combatace.com/topic/49522-change-or-roll-rate/page__p__355437__hl__clp__fromsearch__1#entry355437

I have found the Buccanner too sensitive in roll for a large heavy strike aircraft, and made some simple ini edits to the roll damper settings a while back to sort this out to my satisfaction. I was prompted by a simHQ thread to post them there and thought it might be useful here too. It's the only thing I thought was off in a really excellent mod, so if the twitchy roll is getting in the way of your enjoyment of this magnificent aircraft, feel free to give this a go. Please note that this is my personal view, and if you're happy with the original flight model then I'm happy too. If you want to try it out, make the following changes: In the aircraft data.ini, comment out the clp entry for the wings and replace as follows. [LeftWing] //Clp=-0.0142 Clp=-0.0468 [RightWing] /Clp=-0.0142 Clp=-0.0468 [LeftOuterWing] //Clp=-0.0519 Clp=-0.1286 [RightOuterWing] //Clp=-0.0519 Clp=-0.1286

The good thing about having used SimHq before is that I've more than 100 posts and so can partake in this Black Sea business if I choose.

Good stuff guys.

Hi, Can anyone point me in the direction of a good UK jet pilot skin? I've been and searched but no joy. Thanks.

Bad moon rising over Port Said.

LOMAC has CCRP.