Chock

Just Flight Vickers VC-10 released

Recommended Posts

As per the title, the JF VC-10 is now on sale, so for those of you who wanted the classic British quad T-Tailer for FSX and P3D, the wait is over. Well, sort of, this is the Type 1101 BOAC variant, but two expansion packs are also on the way apparently, one of which 'pros' it up a bit with more systems simulation to make it a 'study sim' although to be fair, quite a lot of stuff is simulated on this initial release; another expansion will add the Super variant and RAF Tanker and transport versions. Apparently there will be a discount on the price of those expansions for those who buy this initial version, so if you wanted the pro version, there's no real reason not to stump up the cash for this one and tart it up later on since the price will be the same as waiting for the full on version. Works in FSX and FSX-SE and all versions of P3D

apN2YFy.jpg

yVcVIhQ.jpg

jXBXrzr.jpg

M7QZmBs.jpg

BIgngBL.jpg

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

What do you think of it Alan?  It looks good from your pictures.

According to Wikipedia, this aircraft was pretty fast.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, signmanbob said:

What do you think of it Alan?

Too early to say to be honest, the above are screenies I took from a quick circuit at EGGP right after having just bought it 20 mins ago, so I haven't really checked out all the system stuff on it. But, I'll give you some initial impressions...

Modeling and performance-wise in P3D, it's about on par with their DC-8 (i.e. not a lightweight on FPS, but not as heavy on frame rates as study sim airliners can be). Personally I think the VC main panel looks a bit spartan although that might actually be accurate for early variants, I'm by no means an expert on the real things so I couldn't say for sure although I have been in the cockpit of the one at Duxford and that thing certainly had more instrumentation, but to be fair that one at Duxford is a later 1151 Super variant which is not what is depicted here, so that might (and probably does) account for the instrument panel appearance

It certainly flies okay and does what you'd expect, i.e. like a lot of Brit jets of that era it is very powerful and easy to overspeed, but being powered by older turbojets, there is some lag in the throttle which you have to watch for and it has the responsiveness of a heavy jet on the ailerons, so it's a bit like the DC-8 and the 707 as far as flying it goes, i.e. nowhere near as maneuverable as modern jets such as the A320 or 737. The FE panel works, so you can use that to crank the engines and stuff, but it will start with Control+E too if you don't want to do that. The engine sounds are very good.

I'd say it was worth a punt for the price, since it is only 24.99, which is pretty cheap for an add-on airliner which works in all versions of FSX and P3D, and it is after all a real classic which was still operational with the RAF as a tanker and VIP transport up until about five years ago. That status as a classic alone is enough to reserve a spot on my HD, because I'm a sucker for all the older jets which were in the skies when I was a kid.

When it gets the pro update expansion available for it next year, it will of course take the price up a bit, but it probably will be worth having that, because I should think if it makes it the study sim they are promising it will be, then that'll be a fun thing to play around with. In the interim, it's nice to have the old girl in P3D and FSX in slightly lighter form, as it does look great in the BOAC paint job.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Chock said:

but it will start with Control+E too

Another perfectly clean aircraft with Control-E start. Pity. 

Share this post


Link to post

Sweet, I love these old birds! I'll wait a bit more to see some opinions before buy it. 

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, ErichB said:

Another perfectly clean aircraft with Control-E start. Pity. 

Erich,

I think  Chock is saying you can start it via the panel and ctrl-e, not a bad thing as a lot of users like this feature (I know.. But we are all different)

Simbol 

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, jkeye said:

Does it have ILS autoland capability? 

The real VC planes never had this, so I suspect NO.

Simbol 

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, simbol said:

Erich,

I think  Chock is saying you can start it via the panel and ctrl-e, not a bad thing as a lot of users like this feature (I know.. But we are all different)

Simbol 

A bit like people using auto land!!!

Autoland = CATIII.....I think people think autoland is normal^^

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

At the risk of having someone allege that climbing out on autopilot is not normal, does it have a real IAS mode (speed on  elevator) or is it the usual MSFS autothrottle cop-out?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ErichB said:

Another perfectly clean aircraft with Control-E start. Pity. 

The reason it will start with Control+E if you like, is because although it features properly modeled fuel, electrical and hydraulic systems on the flight engineer's panel, when it loads up into the sim, it is in 'ready to start mode' with all of the switches set up ready to go, but you can stick it in cold and dark if you like and then use the air starter cart to do all that if you want to.

The reason Just flight have done that, is because they know what sells out of their product line, their F-Lite models sell really well, but so do their models with more realistic systems, so they've done it that way to make it suitable for all of their customers.

Share this post


Link to post

I am also sucker for old and smoky jets, but JF models never touch my heart, those always look 'plain' and 'default' for me.

I cannot find any info about INS, should not be there ?

 

Alan - u said that systems are modelled, are those really modelled or as in CS planes, just dummy lights but no logic behind ?

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Nyxx said:

A bit like people using auto land!!!

Autoland = CATIII.....I think people think autoland is normal^^

http://www.vc10.net/Technical/Autoland.html

The real VC10 had autoland capability which gave it an advantage at the time. 

So I'll pass on this until I'm sure it's modeled

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Beardyman said:

Alan - u said that systems are modelled, are those really modelled or as in CS planes, just dummy lights but no logic behind ?

Well, that's kind of one of those can of worm contention points isn't it? If I turn the light switch on in my bedroom, and a light comes on, and I make a simulation of it, do I need to simulate the electrons flowing down the wire and the switching brass mechanism behind the plastic light switch facade in order to say I've modeled a working light switch? The end result is the same whether I model those wires and stuff, or if I simply write a program which polls a click point and asks, 'has the user clicked this spot?', if yes, load the light graphic, if not, do not load the light graphic.

The logic behind such simulations as these was taken to extremes by Flight Sim Labs when they modeled the electrical and hydraulic and fuel systems in their A320, where they did actually model the entire wiring harness for the A320, and did a simulation of liquids so that simulated fuel would accurately slosh about in the fuel tanks and simulated hydraulic fluid would actually go through simulated hydraulic lines etc and the electrical resistance of the wiring plays a part in the loads the meters and LED  display segments present as a value, and that's cool, but then, FSL knew that loads of people wanted a really realistically simulated A320 and were prepared to pay a lot for it (I think I paid about 120 quid for the FSX version of that), so they knew they could afford to spend the time and money on developing such a detailed simulation and see a return on that investment.

Just Flight did not have that luxury when deciding to model a VC-10, because whilst a lot of people like the VC-10, how many flight simmers like it so much that they'd pay 120 quid for a simulation of one? I'm guessing not that many, certainly not as many as those who would want an A320, which means it has to be done to a price in order to be a viable commercial undertaking. So one cannot realistically expect A2A-level realism of everything when paying less than 25 quid for an airliner, especially one that is compatible with every version of FSX and every version of P3D.

That's just the reality of software development economics, as it is with any commercial venture. So, what Just Flight have to do when briefing a developer such as Aeroplane Heaven, who made their VC-10, is to say: We want it to be at XX price point when finished, which means you can realistically spend X amount of time on developing it, which means you can have enough development time to model X, Y and Z system, but not M, N, O and P systems. Having said that, pretty much every switch in the VC on the overhead, main panel and the FE panel does actually function in some way, so it's not as if it is a completely lightweight simulation by any means.

We can count ourselves lucky that Just Flight do actually consider making such things as the DC-8, Comet, Devon, Dove, Lightning, Meteor, 1-11, HS.748, F-27 etc, as they are one of the few developers who do so, but in doing so they do have to limit the scope of ambition of such projects to see them come to fruition, and this should not be seen as them not having a desire for realism, but rather having a realistic understanding of the economics of such undertakings. Anyone who has their in-house developed PA-28, TB20 or Canberra will know that JF is a serious developer which can match pretty much anyone else out there when they see a market for such a product.

An example of this was their 787 development, which they cancelled after development had commenced, when it became clear to them that the developers they hired for the job would not be able to deliver a product of a satisfactory level of realism at the price point they wanted. This was of course disappointing, but I'd rather there be a developer which has a firm grasp of such realities, than one which announces lofty pipe dreams and then struggles to meet the realities and ends up releasing a half-@ssed product because they have bills to pay and need to get it out of the door without spending any more time and money on finishing what they over-optimistically promised.

Incidentally, to answer another question which cropped up, it will do an ILS approach for those who are complete lightweight pussies who can't fly an aeroplane properly by hand.  :biggrin:

You'll have to disengage the autopilot and flare it yourself, but the autopilot and throttle will track the localiser and the glideslope and handle the speed and fly it for you, you'll just have to drive it yourself for the last couple of hundred feet. However, you'll have to sit in the back on my aeroplane, because there's no place in my cockpit for anyone who can't drive an aeroplane by hand lol, their place is in one of the passenger seats with all the other people who aren't pilots. :biggrin:

 

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post

I suspect that folks like FSlabs and PMDG have the technical expertise with which to address more commercial ventures, like flight schools and the military. The number of software developers who are truly capable of modeling complete aircrafts are few, and they could be working for the real aircraft companies.

So, in many respects, we are living in the "golden age of simulation", where we can pick from a menu of wonderful aircrafts that we're willing to pay for.

I wish that we could start working on some standards so that users can quickly figure out the complexity of an aircraft.

I think that the term "lite" has pretty much established that for Just Flight.

I'd like to see a more detailed, universal rating system.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, simbol said:

Erich,

I think  Chock is saying you can start it via the panel and ctrl-e, not a bad thing as a lot of users like this feature (I know.. But we are all different)

Simbol 

To be fair, I was a big Control-E fan too at one stage.  

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, flyforever said:

I suspect that folks like FSlabs and PMDG have the technical expertise with which to address more commercial ventures, like flight schools and the military. The number of software developers who are truly capable of modeling complete aircrafts are few, and they could be working for the real aircraft companies.

So, in many respects, we are living in the "golden age of simulation", where we can pick from a menu of wonderful aircrafts that we're willing to pay for.

I wish that we could start working on some standards so that users can quickly figure out the complexity of an aircraft.

I think that the term "lite" has pretty much established that for Just Flight.

 

 

I don't think that applies here to be honest, check out Just Flight's TB-20 or PA-28, they are every bit as good as any other developers work for something delivered at that price point, and I'd go so far as to say those two GA single add-ons are only surpassed by the A2A Commanche (which is twice the price of those JF aeroplanes let's not forget). I'm sure JF's in house team could develop a completely realistic VC-10 with literally everything simulated if they saw there was a market for it, but there just is not a market for a VC-10 to that level.

Just Flight have identified a target market, and they deliver what that target market wants at the price it is prepared to pay. It's not a case of them not having the technical expertise at all, it's more a case of them knowing their market and being aware that you can't spend six years developing an add-on airliner and then sell it for 25 quid, and certainly not with something esoteric that does not have the wide appeal of a 747 or an A320. PMDG found that out to their cost when they made the MD-11, and they should have known better to be honest, because in doing that, they basically repeated the history of the real aeroplane's failure.

And some developers can spend seven years making one and still not get it completely right, as we know. Just Flight are very shrewd when it comes to knowing what to make and how long to spend on making it. People on Avsim sometimes forget that, what is perhaps the most lightweight developer of all -  Abacus - have been going for years making really lightweight aeroplanes and selling them cheaply and doing very nicely out of it, whilst other developers aiming higher have fallen by the wayside for all their lofty ambitions. I'd be willing to bet Abacus could make a realistic 737 if they wanted to, they could even make one which wipes the floor with the PMDG one, they just know it's a more risky proposition to do so and a greater investment before you see a return, so they don't do that. There is literally nothing to stop Abacus from hiring the programmers PMDG or FSL hire, PMDG and FSL are not magic, they just have a different business model, and as noted, they can get it wrong sometimes. Look at how well Virtualcol did with their CRJ for P3D V4 by beating Aerosoft to the draw with something that was an unashamedly lite simulation.

I love lite simulations as much as I love detailed ones, for the different virtues both types of add-ons offer, and I love in-between ones too which have enough simulated to be interesting bu not so much to make them end up costing an arm and a leg, and I would say this VC-10 was an in-between one with a reasonable price that delivers whet it promises.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, Chock said:

Well, that's kind of one of those can of worm contention points isn't it? If I turn the light switch on in my bedroom, and a light comes on, and I make a simulation of it, do I need to simulate the electrons flowing down the wire and the switching brass mechanism behind the plastic light switch facade in order to say I've modeled a working light switch? The end result is the same whether I model those wires and stuff, or if I simply write a program which polls a click point and asks, 'has the user clicked this spot?', if yes, load the light graphic, if not, do not load the light graphic.

The logic behind such simulations as these was taken to extremes by Flight Sim Labs when they modeled the electrical and hydraulic and fuel systems in their A320, where they did actually model the entire wiring harness for the A320, and did a simulation of liquids so that simulated fuel would accurately slosh about in the fuel tanks and simulated hydraulic fluid would actually go through simulated hydraulic lines etc and the electrical resistance of the wiring plays a part in the loads the meters and LED  display segments present as a value, and that's cool, but then, FSL knew that loads of people wanted a really realistically simulated A320 and were prepared to pay a lot for it (I think I paid about 120 quid for the FSX version of that), so they knew they could afford to spend the time and money on developing such a detailed simulation and see a return on that investment.

Just Flight did not have that luxury when deciding to model a VC-10, because whilst a lot of people like the VC-10, how many flight simmers like it so much that they'd pay 120 quid for a simulation of one? I'm guessing not that many, certainly not as many as those who would want an A320, which means it has to be done to a price in order to be a viable commercial undertaking. So one cannot realistically expect A2A-level realism of everything when paying less than 25 quid for an airliner, especially one that is compatible with every version of FSX and every version of P3D.

That's just the reality of software development economics, as it is with any commercial venture. So, what Just Flight have to do when briefing a developer such as Aeroplane Heaven, who made their VC-10, is to say: We want it to be at XX price point when finished, which means you can realistically spend X amount of time on developing it, which means you can have enough development time to model X, Y and Z system, but not M, N, O and P systems. Having said that, pretty much every switch in the VC on the overhead, main panel and the FE panel does actually function in some way, so it's not as if it is a completely lightweight simulation by any means.

We can count ourselves lucky that Just Flight do actually consider making such things as the DC-8, Comet, Devon, Dove, Lightning, Meteor, 1-11, HS.748, F-27 etc, as they are one of the few developers who do so, but in doing so they do have to limit the scope of ambition of such projects to see them come to fruition, and this should not be seen as them not having a desire for realism, but rather having a realistic understanding of the economics of such undertakings. Anyone who has their in-house developed PA-28, TB20 or Canberra will know that JF is a serious developer which can match pretty much anyone else out there when they see a market for such a product.

An example of this was their 787 development, which they cancelled after development had commenced, when it became clear to them that the developers they hired for the job would not be able to deliver a product of a satisfactory level of realism at the price point they wanted. This was of course disappointing, but I'd rather there be a developer which has a firm grasp of such realities, than one which announces lofty pipe dreams and then struggles to meet the realities and ends up releasing a half-@ssed product because they have bills to pay and need to get it out of the door without spending any more time and money on finishing what they over-optimistically promised.

Incidentally, to answer another question which cropped up, it will do an ILS approach for those who are complete lightweight pussies who can't fly an aeroplane properly by hand.  :biggrin:

You'll have to disengage the autopilot and flare it yourself, but the autopilot and throttle will track the localiser and the glideslope and handle the speed and fly it for you, you'll just have to drive it yourself for the last couple of hundred feet. However, you'll have to sit in the back on my aeroplane, because there's no place in my cockpit for anyone who can't drive an aeroplane by hand lol, their place is in one of the passenger seats with all the other people who aren't pilots. :biggrin:

 

I believe the real VC10s had CAT autoland capability for minimum visibility landings which even real pilots have to train to use if needed. 

I think this was introduced earlier in the Trident.

A deal breaker for me and a shame if it's not modelled as it wouldn't do justice to the fine aircraft it was. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, jkeye said:

I believe the real VC10s had CAT autoland capability for minimum visibility landings which even real pilots have to train to use if needed. 

A deal breaker for me and a shame if it's not modelled

As noted, this release is akin to the L-1011, which comes in a form similar to this one, in that it has a 'pro' add-on for it which adds a lot more realiasm. There is a 'pro' add-on for this VC-10 on the way (next year, i.e. not long off). This is again shrewd by JF, because people can buy a simpler version and be happy with that, or I guess regard that as an 'early access' whilst they await the 'pro' add on. I'd put myself in that camp, in that I'd prefer it to have an INS and some more switchology, but since it will have when that add-on comes along, I'll happily throw another 20 quid at it to get that and in the interim I can still drive a nice VC-10 model about and just use the simpler avionics whilst I wait.

I very rarely use autoland, I prefer to fly the thing myself, although in zero visibility with no minimum, I certainly will use it if I haven't got a suitably clear alternate to divert to, so yeah, I'll be happy to see it be able to do a full autoland. Keep in mind this is a model of the early VC-10 variant as well, not the Super VC-10.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Chock said:

As noted, this release is akin to the L-1011, which comes in a form similar to this one, in that it has a 'pro' add-on for it which adds a lot more realiasm. There is a 'pro' add-on for this VC-10 on the way (next year, i.e. not long off). This is again shrewd by JF, because people can buy a simpler version and be happy with that, or I guess regard that as an 'early access' whilst they await the 'pro' add on. I'd put myself in that camp, in that I'd prefer it to have an INS and some more switchology, but since it will have when that add-on comes along, I'll happily throw another 20 quid at it to get that and in the interim I can still drive a nice VC-10 model about and just use the simpler avionics whilst I wait.

OK good to know! 

I wait with credit card in hand and bated breath😉

Share this post


Link to post

Just a quick post to clarify a few things:

The Super/RAF Expansion Pack will be a payable expansion (a bit like our livery packs in the past) for VC10 Jetliner and Pro edition. The price (yet to be confirmed) will fairly reflect the amount of work that is involved in modelling and coding these extra variants, whilst taking into account the commonality with the existing Standard variant. The current plan is for the expansion to be released before the Pro edition, but it will work with both versions and you won’t need to purchase it twice.

The Pro edition will be a new/standalone product as it will have significant differences to the Jetliner edition, as well as serving a different market. As with our L-1011 Tristar, there will be a discount for existing owners of the Jetliner edition when purchasing the Pro edition. You will simply pay the difference between the Jetliner and Pro edition, so it won’t cost you any more to purchase and use the Jetliner edition whilst you wait for the Pro edition to be available next year.

This aircraft was a collaboration between the dev teams at Aeroplane Heaven and Just Flight, with our in-house team providing various custom-coded systems/features. Aeroplane Heaven have done a fantastic job with the model as I’m sure you can see from the screenshots and video, and we are confident that the level of systems functionality/complexity will keep you all busy and entertained.

This is by no means an F-Lite product and should have sufficient complexity for most simmers (fuel transfer, crossfeed, realistic engine starts, AP with pitch/bank hold, PFCUs etc). The complexity level is higher than past AH releases and I think it’s fair to say that the modelling/texturing is their best work yet.

A full Autoland capability is not included in the Jetliner edition of the VC10, although the flare approach mode does simulate the pitch up and throttle-to-idle capabilities of that system to a more limited extent.

We are currently developing a brand-new Delco Carousel IV-A INS for FSX/P3Dv1-v4 but that is not included in the Jetliner edition as it’s still in development.

As Chock has explained, you can perform realistic engine starts using a ground air supply and cross-bleed, or you can use Ctrl+E if you want to get into the air quickly (apologies if that is considered sacrilege!).

We’ve provided an explanation of the Jetliner ‘brand’ on the website:

 

What is the Jetliner product range?

Following the success of our F-Lite (highly detailed but simplified systems) and Professional (study sim, complex systems) product ranges, the Jetliner range was introduced to offer aircraft that sit between these two ranges. At the core of all our aircraft are highly realistic and detailed models, featuring numerous animations and accompanied by authentic flight dynamics and sounds. The Jetliner range of aircraft features aircraft and cockpit systems which retain the ease of use of those found in F-Lite aircraft but with greater depth and complexity for key systems such as the autopilot, fuel and engine start systems.

The Jetliner range offers the perfect stepping stone for virtual pilots looking to transition from F-Lite to Professional, as well as being ideally suited to those at any experience level.

 

A demo should be available shortly if the level of complexity/functionality is still not clear.

Thanks
Martyn - Just Flight

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Martyn

Thanks for the clarification! 

Are you able to provide an East African Airways livery? 

The VC10 was their flagship carrier in their heyday.

Thanks

Jay

 

Share this post


Link to post

I have seen all available YT movies + screen shots and honestly,i don't like the way model is done.

There is no bump mapping and whole fuselage looks like polished cast aluminium.

Judging by YT videos, i see that VC textures are of low/medium quality, hope i am wrong here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Beardyman said:

I have seen all available YT movies + screen shots and honestly,i don't like the way model is done.

There is no bump mapping and whole fuselage looks like polished cast aluminium.

Judging by YT videos, i see that VC textures are of low/medium quality, hope i am wrong here.

 

In my opinion you are but then I'm clearly biased :happy:

Despite being slightly compressed and not full-screen, the screenshots on our website should demonstrate the high quality texturing which includes bump and specular maps. The texture clarity is on par with other comparable airliners and features very realistic (IMO) weathering. 

As mentioned above, a demo will be available and I will endeavor to make some higher-resolution screenshots available.

Thanks
Martyn

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now