When the C-17 came out, I immediately bought it, becuase I had been following this project for more than two years on the forum. I was so excited to finally have a good looking C-17 for my FS since it's one of my favourite planes. As many others, I'm very disappointed now, because to me the VC is a key part of any add-on and above that, I never would have paid so much for what we have now.I tried to contact Virtavia (all I was asking for was a statement on the status of the project), but I didn't get a reply. Pathetic.Anyway, I'm still hoping ;)

I too have been trying to get information about an Alphasim product I purchased. Not too easy.Anyone have the Alphasim B24 Liberator running with CH (or other) hardware throttles?Seems the turbo chargers don't like that setup.

Ever since Phil Perrott's Alphasim sold trading rights to Virtavia and ceased all operations, nothing has been going right for some of Alphasim's now finished products.

AFAIK Phil owns Virtavia, so no change in ownership, as far as I can tell Virtavia is a sort of reorganizing of Alphasim , changing its focus etc.I think we'll see some more of the original Alphasim product line there eventually.But we all know Phil can be very tight lipped, its hard to determine what his plans are for Virtavia.Regards.Ernie.

Ernie,Is there a reason you haven't started your own development house yet? I think if you were at the reins, you might be able to control the productive use of your talent better. I see a pattern where your work for others is somewhat wasted when those projects are not optimally managed.Just a thought.

Either way you're taking a risk. There's a reason why there aren't that many dev houses. Plus its not that easy getting the talentto stock your house with, and even harder to keep it. Regards.Ernie.

Don't get me started on the HU-16...

Oh no, I'm not going with that one...The plane that had a large hole on the LDG gear bay. I emailed Alphasim during its last days about this but they never responded. Dave.If you see my signature down there, you'll see the number of Alphasim aircraft I have right now, and with all of them, they are all disappointing. It's spiced up with interesting eye candy but flying dynamics and VC functionality are worse than most freeware. The FS KBT F/A-18 and even Tim Conrad's F-5E had better functionality to say the least.Dave.

When the C-17 came out, I immediately bought it, becuase I had been following this project for more than two years on the forum. I was so excited to finally have a good looking C-17 for my FS since it's one of my favourite planes. As many others, I'm very disappointed now, because to me the VC is a key part of any add-on and above that, I never would have paid so much for what we have now.I tried to contact Virtavia (all I was asking for was a statement on the status of the project), but I didn't get a reply. Pathetic.Anyway, I'm still hoping ;)

Then get back to the freeware C-17s by UKMIL and Mike Stone AFAIK. It's better than having to sit with a payware C-17 that have airliner panels from the 747-400 that wastes money and flight sim experience. Dave.

Anyone have the Alphasim B24 Liberator running with CH (or other) hardware throttles?Seems the turbo chargers don't like that setup.

It works okay with my Saitek Cyborg throttle and my BU0836 custom throttle (The Alphasim B24 is the same as the Flight 1 B-24, right?). Good FS aeroplane actually, nicely detailed and a fair bit of VC functionality too, although not approaching the realm of A2A's B-17G, but even so, it's still a rather nice add-on.With regard to Alphasim going belly up, I do think that's a shame in the grand scheme of things, quality-wise their stuff is something of a mixed bag, which as far as I'm aware is down to the nature of how their various products were sourced, i.e from a lot of different people and places, and thus a lot of different approaches/skills. But it doesn't strike me as a dodgy in the wider sense, on the contrary, with the recent financial crisis, I wasn't surprised to see anyone go under, especially since the company I worked for was one which did!As far as not getting a VC for the C-17, I think that's a bit of a caveat emptor scenario really. I've bought beta versions of software to show support on occasion (Mount and Blade and the forthcoming DCS A-10 Thunderbolt II amongst others), but I'm always aware that there is an element of risk in doing so, for example, the just released current version of the DCS A-10 is pretty much unusable LOL, so I guess we'll see if they get it sorted, but where Alphasim's partially-finished C-17 was concerned, I personally thought it was a bit of a risky proposition, although I'm not entirely sure exactly why I thought it so, just a kind of feeling I got.Al

With regard to Alphasim going belly up, I do think that's a shame in the grand scheme of things, quality-wise their stuff is something of a mixed bag, which as far as I'm aware is down to the nature of how their various products were sourced, i.e from a lot of different people and places, and thus a lot of different approaches/skills. But it doesn't strike me as a dodgy in the wider sense, on the contrary, with the recent financial crisis, I wasn't surprised to see anyone go under, especially since the company I worked for was one which did!

The thing is however, is that the core source of Alphasim's eventual downfall was this same old tradition of re-using older FS2004 products (some of them are now freeware, including their much favoured Blackburn Firebrand, which is still better than some of their payware ones) and remodelled them with GMAX just to make them better, and even a simple re-compiling to FSX just to take advantage of the features it had, without caring about FLIR systems or even IRIS-T simulation, and the weapons are mainly cosmetic, without meaningful use other than being eye candy just to add the pleasure of each combat aircraft. Had they created a new model completely from scratched and researched their aircraft thoroughly, this wouldn't have happened. I even preferred Mike Stone's B-52s, C-141 Starlifters (Alphasim's model is now freeware), and now the complete C-17 package, of which in these classes Alphasim let themselves down. Even the B-52 was just too easy to modify, as the VC was especially disappointing. Mike Stone didn't even try to make a VC for these aircraft and people didn't have complaints about that. Alphasim promised good VCs on these ones but the outcomes are something that is exactly the opposite of what is advertised.Dave.

Well, that's true, but to be fair, all the weapons in FSX combat aircraft are essentially cosmetic unless you script a mission to have them do stuff which works around the fact that it is not a combat-enabled simulation, and like their simulated counterparts in FS, the vast majority of military aircraft spend most of their time with the weapons doing little other than adding to the drag, so I don't really regard cosmetic details for weaponry on an FS aircraft as a minus point myself.I do agree that it is kind of fun to 'fire' the guns on things such as the Just Flight Spitfires and Mosquitoes etc which i have, but it is only a bit of eye candy, and I'd have bought the things just the same even if they did not do that. If I want to fire the guns on a combat aircraft, I'll use a sim that is aimed at combat. After all, you can't drop high explosives and napalm out of the A2A B-17G, nor fire the guns, and that's the best-simulated combat aircraft you can get for FSX.Al

Well, that's true, but to be fair, all the weapons in FSX combat aircraft are essentially cosmetic unless you script a mission to have them do stuff which works around the fact that it is not a combat-enabled simulation, and like their simulated counterparts in FS, the vast majority of military aircraft spend most of their time with the weapons doing little other than adding to the drag, so I don't really regard cosmetic details for weaponry on an FS aircraft as a minus point myself.I do agree that it is kind of fun to 'fire' the guns on things such as the Just Flight Spitfires and Mosquitoes etc which i have, but it is only a bit of eye candy, and I'd have bought the things just the same even if they did not do that. If I want to fire the guns on a combat aircraft, I'll use a sim that is aimed at combat. After all, you can't drop high explosives and napalm out of the A2A B-17G, nor fire the guns, and that's the best-simulated combat aircraft you can get for FSX.Al

I know, but it's better than leaving them static on the plane, of which I think is downright boring. Honestly, the VRS Superbug may be scripted to do this, as they have a simulated weaponry system. However, even with the missiles being available for firing there won't be any explosions with the target. The only 'explosion' was this sonic boom reached after exceeding Mach 2. Dave.Edit - Sorry, double post

Well, I take your point that fun is fun, and if a combat aircraft in FS can be made to at least look like it is firing stuff, then that adds a bit of value, but it would doubtless also add to the price too with the time and effort taken to create such effects, particularly for modern weaponry rather than a simple muzzle flash effect placed on the wing coordinates in the config file and a wav file of a gun when you press the 'lower the concord visor' or 'wing fold' command in lieu of no real combat commands being present to harness in the sim. And one thing you can say about Alphasim stuff is that they were never really on the especially pricey side, for example, the VRS Superbug F/A-18 can do some of that stuff, but it costs over twice what the average Alphasim affair did, and rightly so for the effort that has gone into it.Case in point with something about the same price point: I have the Area 51 Bell UH-1Y, which doesn't do any fancy firing effects at all, even though the real thing can carry a fair set of weaponry. I would say it is about on par with the average Alphasim product, i.e. it costs roughly fifteen quid, has a partially clickable VC that is okay rather than spectacular as far as included system modeling is concerned, and a fairly okay rotary-winged flight model that is no Dodosim killer, but not bad. So I think that's just about on the money for what it is. But the better Huey models which I have for FSX, such as Cera's Bell 212 and the Nemeth's UH-1H cost a little more, yet still don't do any firing effects, which I suspect is because the cost is in the flight modeling and more detailed fully clickable VCs with flight systems that are simulated in greater detail. For the price, I'd rather it be justifying that kind of detail than the time taken to create a fake SNEB rocket effect or some such, since for me, FS is exactly what is says in the name, that is, about flight rather than fight.As it happens, I can fly a working armed version of the UH-1Y in Arma 2, which is not a flight sim on par with FS, but good enough given that it is not its main focus, so that's cool if I'm in the mood to blow some pixels to smithereens. But I still bought that Area 51 version for FS because I like the aircraft and was prepared to accept that FS isn't really about letting rip with rockets, but will instead let me fly that bird around some realistic locations. So by the same token, if I wanted to drop a B31 tactical nuke on something with an F/A-18, I'd probably fire up good old Jane's F/A-18 rather than use the VRS one and simulate it in a less than ideal fashion, good as the VRS Hornet undoubtedly is, whereas if I wanted to practice completely realistic navigation and carrier traps, I'd choose the VRS one for sure.Al

At least with all the aircraft mentioned above you got a VC with it :Waiting:I couldn't give a rats hoot about weapons in FSX, its a civvie flight simlulator and that's what I use it for

Actually it's not a civilian flight simulator, it's just not a combat simulator. Apart from the very first two Sublogic versions of FS, it has always had military aircraft in it. But in any case I agree, I like having military aircraft to fly in it, but I'm not bothered if they cannot fire missiles or drop bombs.Al

Well, I take your point that fun is fun, and if a combat aircraft in FS can be made to at least look like it is firing stuff, then that adds a bit of value, but it would doubtless also add to the price too with the time and effort taken to create such effects, particularly for modern weaponry rather than a simple muzzle flash effect placed on the wing coordinates in the config file and a wav file of a gun when you press the 'lower the concord visor' or 'wing fold' command in lieu of no real combat commands being present to harness in the sim. And one thing you can say about Alphasim stuff is that they were never really on the especially pricey side, for example, the VRS Superbug F/A-18 can do some of that stuff, but it costs over twice what the average Alphasim affair did, and rightly so for the effort that has gone into it.Case in point with something about the same price point: I have the Area 51 Bell UH-1Y, which doesn't do any fancy firing effects at all, even though the real thing can carry a fair set of weaponry. I would say it is about on par with the average Alphasim product, i.e. it costs roughly fifteen quid, has a partially clickable VC that is okay rather than spectacular as far as included system modeling is concerned, and a fairly okay rotary-winged flight model that is no Dodosim killer, but not bad. So I think that's just about on the money for what it is. But the better Huey models which I have for FSX, such as Cera's Bell 212 and the Nemeth's UH-1H cost a little more, yet still don't do any firing effects, which I suspect is because the cost is in the flight modeling and more detailed fully clickable VCs with flight systems that are simulated in greater detail. For the price, I'd rather it be justifying that kind of detail than the time taken to create a fake SNEB rocket effect or some such, since for me, FS is exactly what is says in the name, that is, about flight rather than fight.As it happens, I can fly a working armed version of the UH-1Y in Arma 2, which is not a flight sim on par with FS, but good enough given that it is not its main focus, so that's cool if I'm in the mood to blow some pixels to smithereens. But I still bought that Area 51 version for FS because I like the aircraft and was prepared to accept that FS isn't really about letting rip with rockets, but will instead let me fly that bird around some realistic locations. So by the same token, if I wanted to drop a B31 tactical nuke on something with an F/A-18, I'd probably fire up good old Jane's F/A-18 rather than use the VRS one and simulate it in a less than ideal fashion, good as the VRS Hornet undoubtedly is, whereas if I wanted to practice completely realistic navigation and carrier traps, I'd choose the VRS one for sure.Al

Uh....who's this Jane person? I'd be looking for her F/A-18 albeit having not seen this thing in FSX. Dave.

On the offchance you are serious, that would be Fred T Jane: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s_Information_GroupAnd this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane%27s_F/A-18Al

Then get back to the freeware C-17s by UKMIL and Mike Stone AFAIK. It's better than having to sit with a payware C-17 that have airliner panels from the 747-400 that wastes money and flight sim experience. Dave.

The Alphasim C-17 has a 2D-panel. And I think Alphasim's exterior model is better than the others. Nevertheless I'm not using the C-17 right now..