Just Flight Vickers VC-10 released

[Chock 17,769]

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

[signmanbob 592]

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

According to Wikipedia, this aircraft was pretty fast.

[Chock 17,769]

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.

[ErichB 3,643]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

but it will start with Control+E too

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

[jkeye 152]

Does it have ILS autoland capability? 

[pedrotrindade 335]

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

[simbol 5,820]

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 

[simbol 5,820]

52 minutes ago, jkeye said:

Does it have ILS autoland capability? 

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

Simbol 

[Nyxx 6,993]

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^^

[lzamm 143]

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?

[Chock 17,769]

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.

[Beardyman 604]

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 ?

[jkeye 152]

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

[Chock 17,769]

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.  

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. 

 

[flyforever 267]

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.