Milviz Corsair?

[Nyxx 6,993]

55 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

CANOPY OPEN for instance, triggers a stress crash above a certain speed. Wich is incompatible with a warbird, usually taking off and landing with it opened. Dont see a problem with folded wings, but the VARS might be INOP as some others are.

 

In the Milviz you can have the canopy open all the time, as I do sometimes, flight speed 300kts. Even the FI spit canopy open is not a problem. Also I have not got crash detection turned off. Thats why I was crashing on takeoff in the P-40. The FG and spit do not have that problem.

Hence why in the PDF I sent you, it read close canopy on hold short/line up. 😉 folowing your leads to Crash on takeoff, unless you turn off crash detection.🙂

Edited May 7, 2021 by Nyxx

[Milviz 919]

We usually use custom vars for this type of thing as the SDK right now... well... it's not the best.  We've had multiple issues using it so....

Anyway... I can't say which are used and which are not.

You're free to try it if you wish... but we take no responsibility if you break it...

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

4 hours ago, Milviz said:

We usually use custom vars for this type of thing as the SDK right now... well... it's not the best.  We've had multiple issues using it so....

Anyway... I can't say which are used and which are not.

You're free to try it if you wish... but we take no responsibility if you break it...

What ? You can't provide us with the whole list of simvars you are using on your aircraft ? I am using an external program for my logitech panels. It would be great to have a list 

[Milviz 919]

We will see.  No promises.

[karlz 37]

Any speculation on the release of the new version,  like to see it without that extra glass for gun site in VR.  I am constantly moving my head above and below, and the thing kind of causes eye strain in VR after a bit.

[Milviz 919]

That is now optional.  So is the blowing up.  However, they are there by default.  In order to access them, RTFM.  (or click on the chartboard...)

[leprechaunlive 1,852]

11 hours ago, Nyxx said:

In the Milviz you can have the canopy open all the time, as I do sometimes, flight speed 300kts. Even the FI spit canopy open is not a problem. Also I have not got crash detection turned off. Thats why I was crashing on takeoff in the P-40. The FG and spit do not have that problem.

Hence why in the PDF I sent you, it read close canopy on hold short/line up. 😉 folowing your leads to Crash on takeoff, unless you turn off crash detection.🙂

we actually werenon custom vars for the whole dev process, bit decided last minute to actually use asobos guideline...well, that was a mistake 😛

[karlz 37]

So is the new version out available for download?

[Nyxx 6,993]

No not yet.

[Steeler 11]

On 5/7/2021 at 11:01 AM, leprechaunlive said:

CANOPY OPEN for instance, triggers a stress crash above a certain speed. Wich is incompatible with a warbird, usually taking off and landing with it opened.

That is an interesting point, one which I hadn't considered. Ironically the two aircrafts that do support the CANOPY OPEN simulation variable (that I know of!) are fighter jets: the freeware Dassault Dornier Alpha Jet and the Fiat G.91.

But yes, in both cases landing procedures do not foresee to open the canopy ;) But I am definitively going to check out at which speed a stress crash would happen.

The greater picture here is of course that IMHO Asobo should make sure that every aircraft properly supports their SimConnect API: the aircraft has a tailhook? -> It should support the existing TAILHOOK POSITION simulation variable. Canopy? -> CANOPY OPEN. Wing folding? -> FOLDING WING LEFT|RIGHT PERCENT. Etc.

If there is an issue with "stress crashes" which should not happen for a particular aircraft / canopy style then that should be reported to Asobo and e.g. an additional "stress speed threshold" should be introduced. That would be the proper solution.

But yes, I very much agree that the SimConnect API appears to be in a very "work in progress" state. But given the fact that it exists for like two decades already doesn't necessarily raise hopes that it will ever be "cleaned up".

For instance the FOLDING WING HANDLE POSITION: why is it just readable? Why is the FLAPS HANDLE INDEX writeable then?

Whether a given simulation variable is only readable or both readable and writeable seems like an arbitrary decision, or rather like an afterthought by the API designers.

One can only hope that with the popularity of FS2020 there will be efforts made by Asobo to "clean the API" up, such that it also becomes more popular (or actually "usable") by aircraft designers.

[Steeler 11]

On 5/7/2021 at 12:53 PM, Milviz said:

You're free to try it if you wish... but we take no responsibility if you break it...

Well, that's not the kind of answer I was hoping for as a consumer: I consider the SimConnect API integral part of every addon product, so every aicraft should report and react to simulation variables as far as possible.

Yes, I absolutely agree that the state of the API is... well, "improvements can be made" 😉 But many simulation variables such as the FOLDING WING LEFT|RIGHT PERCENT, TAILHOOK POSITION etc. exist since long time.

And yes, not every special lever can be properly modelled/controlled with simulation variables - simply because no such variable might exist yet. Then that's where "local variables" come into play (I guess - again, I am not familiar at all with aircraft design aspects of the SDK).

If there are issues with the simulation variables - such as the mentioned "stress crash" - those should be actively reported by every developer to Asobo, for futher improvements.

What worries me more however is the "if you break it, it's your fault" part of your reply: it's one thing if the aircraft does not react at all to simulation variable value requests (e.g. the Spitfire does not react either to CANOPY OPEN, as it uses "local variables", just like the T-45C Goshawk). Now as a consumer of those aircrafts that is disappointing, but I can understand that the API "might just not be there yet".

But an aircraft (the logic thereof) should never "break" if an attempt is made to request simulation variable changes. And if it does, I expect the developers to take care of it.

 

Anyway, I will hold off from purchasing more aircrafts for the time being - I was very much looking forward to see the wing folding in action! - and observe how third parties are embracing the SimConnect API respectively whether Asobo will manage to get it into production quality anytime soon. Because latest when Asobo is providing their own "replay functionality" within FS2020 the question how to record all levers and handles in an aircraft will popup again (also for us consumers).

[kaha 205]

27 minutes ago, Steeler said:

...Anyway, I will hold off from purchasing more aircrafts for the time being - I was very much looking forward to see the wing folding in action! - and observe how third parties are embracing the SimConnect API respectively whether Asobo will manage to get it into production quality anytime soon....

Could be a long wait.  

Karl

[Milviz 919]

Let's be clear on what constitutes modding:  If you go into the cfg's or the JS code (if any) or anything else that is part of the systems/code base, and you do modifications to those... we are no longer responsible for your product working or not.

If all you're doing is "asking/requesting" the product to work using the codes that you want/expect to be the "correct" ones, there's no guarantee that will work and we do not agree to do this for you, or for anyone else.  There are several reasons for this but, by far, the biggest one is fidelity/functionality.  Our products are built to resemble as closely as possible the real thing.  Without bugs (at least, as minimal as possible).  To do this requires that we, sometimes, not be beholden to using the built in API's/calls/variables that Asobo has deemed fit for use.  As their product is a moving target, doing so would seem... silly.  So we only do so when we absolutely must.

All of this said, it is our intention to put a list (as complete as we can make it without actually giving away our code) of accessible variables in the back of the manual on release of the SP (service pack).

It's important to note that I am not exactly the best customer service person but... at least you will know if we can do something (or not).  I won't hide that.

Also, wing folding WORKS now... not sure why it's not working for you but if you're trying to assign it to a "button" that may or may not work.  Sorry.

Nuff said.

 

 

[Steeler 11]

8 hours ago, Milviz said:

Let's be clear on what constitutes modding:  If you go into the cfg's or the JS code (if any) or anything else that is part of the systems/code base, and you do modifications to those... we are no longer responsible for your product working or not.

Oh, I am sorry about the confusion here, perhaps I wasn‘t clear about what I meant when asking about the support of simulation variables: my only intent is to use them via the official SimConnect API which exposes those simulation variables to external application. Most of them can also be „written“ (e.g. the mentioned FLAPS HANDLE INDEX or the CANOPY OPEN), others are „read-only“ (for one reason or the other).

So I am specifically talking about this here:

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/index.htm#t=Programming_Tools%2FSimConnect%2FSimConnect_API_Reference.htm

By no means do I intend to modify any aircraft configuration files. And yes, I fully agree with your „whatever you do it‘s your fault“-policy in this regard.

Full disclosure: I am the author of one of the free „replay tools“, hence my interest in the support for those simulation variables. But as I am developing the recording application for my own enjoyment - and hopefully the usefulness for the community ;) - I believe my motivations are leggit ;)

And hence my initial question whether the Corsair would „react“ to changes in the simulation variables FOLDING WING LEFT|RIGHT PERCENT (which are writeable) and CANOPY OPEN (where I understand the answer was „no“ - because for stress crash reasons).

And to be clear: I am mostly (only) interested in the simulation variables with a „noticeable visual effect“ (flaps, ailerons, … and of course wing folding) - not in accurately reproducing every single lever/switch operation (e.g. enabling autopilot or setting some heading/course/track etc.)

8 hours ago, Milviz said:

To do this requires that we, sometimes, not be beholden to using the built in API's/calls/variables that Asobo has deemed fit for use.  As their product is a moving target, doing so would seem... silly.  So we only do so when we absolutely must.

That‘s just fair game and I do understand „time to market“ commercial requirements etc. and that you have to „use what‘s there (in a working state)“.

So all I am asking / hoping for is that you - as „registered developers“ - do „actively“ report those deficiencies to Asobo and once they are improved / fixed in the SDK / FS2020 that you keep updating your own products as well (if „commercially viable“ - and I do wish that you make lots of money with the Corsair! ;))

Being an „early adopter“ not only means to „wade through unfinished APIs“, but hopefully also gives you the opportunity to actively improve/influence them!

8 hours ago, Milviz said:

It's important to note that I am not exactly the best customer service person but... at least you will know if we can do something (or not).  I won't hide that.

I am absolutely fine with that: I take an honest „sorry, can‘t do, won‘t do“ answer anytime over some BS-marketing ;)

Thank you for your time for reading my post!

[Steeler 11]

9 hours ago, Milviz said:

Also, wing folding WORKS now... not sure why it's not working for you but if you're trying to assign it to a "button" that may or may not work.  Sorry.

Ah, and one more thing: I did not intend to imply that wing folding (as requested per simulation variables FOLDING WING LEFT|RIGHT PERCENT) wasn‘t working.

I was asking whether it would work (when requested via the mentioned simulation variables). Because if the answer was „yes“ then I would feel a strong urge to purchase the Corsair (once in the sim marketplace)… (which makes it obvious that I don‘t own that aircraft yet, otherwise I would already know the answer to my question respectively could verify it myself, e.g. with the „SimvarWatcher“ example app which comes with the SDK).

P.S. I don‘t see an „edit post“ option - yet? Perhaps that‘s because of my „noob level“ here in the forum (my posts still need to be audited by an administrator), or because I am using the „mobile web version“ right now… in any case, sorry about the consecutive posts.