Lord Farringdon

Well, Microsoft have form in this regard, haven't they .. a very old (although not too successful) MSTS. This from Wiki. Vehicle simulation games are a genre of video games which attempt to provide the player with a realistic interpretation of operating various kinds of vehicles. This includes automobiles, aircraft, watercraft, spacecraft, military vehicles, and a variety of other vehicles. The main challenge is to master driving and steering the vehicle from the perspective of the pilot or driver, with most games adding another challenge such as racing or fighting rival vehicles. Games are often divided based on realism, with some games including more realistic physics and challenges such as fuel management. While I don't think MSFS will include anything like this in the 2024,( I mean it is still called MSFS) I believe we may eventually see an iteration of the software engine being used in a much wider sense. Space exploration seems almost too easy with so may planets and moons in our solar system already charted and let's not forget about underwater exploration for which many of the worlds oceans are already reasonably well mapped. Add in a range of subs, support vessels, a famous shipwreck or two, (please, no jokes about the Ocean Gate disaster) a missing aircraft, search and rescue and some intense activities and challenges to go with it all and gee..., there really are no limits! Perhaps a better question is why wouldn't MS exploit this world landscape and scenery engine for more than just one version of the vehicle simulation genre? IMHO such an undertaking is unlikely to be presented as a one stop shop. The onboarding of specialist software houses (Asobo +) and the need to satisfy huge online server requirements, could mean that although the same engine might be used, it would be in separate and different titles. That's not to say some interfacing might not occur such as riding as a passenger on a train into Heathrow watching live air traffic coming and going ...Whoops, there goes my flight to Barbados? Word not allowed! Cheers Terry

Excellent approach Raul. I'll certainly be buying the -200 and ''upgrading'' to the -100! This thread should be renamed "Four things that impress you about MSFS". In my view, FSReborn and SWS collaboration would be two of them and another one would be all the developers in general who take the time to enter this forum with their insights, offerings and feedback to our community. It is greatly appreciated. Cheers Terry

Yes I do Raul. I noted you mentioned that in another thread. But you know, I'm a marshmallow kid. I want it now!!! Haha. I know. Good things take time, and really good things take even longer. So I must be patient. Fantastic you and SWS are doing this and I sense there are many of us looking forward to your first showcase whenever that might be. We've had or will soon have all the current Boeings and Airbuses...now its time for some class(ics). Cheers Terry

So perhaps the OP's post is coined a little negatively, but I respect the post which is really just a wish list for MSFS 2024. And, the OP is not alone with some others in this thread hoping these issues will be fixed in MSFS 2024 too. As to whether they are immersion killers depends on who you are and what you do in this simulator. I'm a freighter kind of guy who flies mostly at night across dark oceans at 35,000 feet.....sooo.. I couldn't really care less about most of these things, but that's just me. If it was me, I'd be asking for some good ATC, real time live air traffic, (all of it, not just some of it, and closer to actual times, not delayed by 2 - 5 mins), some better weather (METAR) realism (although I know this is a bit tricky), and of course some really great clouds/weather that pop my sunset departures and sunrise arrivals and immerse me in Alfred Noyes's “The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas” through those long nights. Five million pebbles or was it 5 billion? Yeah, nah! But, there are quite a few GA guys here for whom bush adventures are their raison d'être. Camping out in a pebble strewn creek with a hammock slung under the wing and some marshmallows on the camp fire will be absolutely idyllic in MSFS 2024. But for me? I'd rather have St Elmo's fire to keep me amused through the night tee hee. The problem (if it is a problem) with Microsoft Flight Simulator is that MS/Asobo have developed it to a point where it is no longer just about flight. In fact, more and more they seem to be relying on third party developers to build the planes/and avionics, while they focus on the scenery, animations and activities. In this regard, MSFS 2024 will be a joy to see for all of us. Impressive world wide scenery is of course what sells the product alongside a gaming/activity solution for the Xbox market. I'm not saying Asobo are not improving the flight aspects of the simulator. They have done wonderful things in air flow physics that enable realism in glider and helicopter operations but raindrops on windscreens and bright coloured St Elmo's fire may be a few of our favourite things, but not necessarily theirs. I imagine, lack of attention to these details will be well overridden by so much more that this new rendition of the simulator will have to offer all of us, not just my narrow interpretation of what a good flight simulator should be.😁 But I do want a B727-100!!! Cheers Terry

Ok Raul....let me think........what would I love .......thinking.........thinking .......positive thoughts.........engaging passion....... a dream I want to come true........ oh yes a B727-100!! 😁👍 Cheers a cheeky Terry.

Not sure if this is similar to your problem or if the solution that worked for me would work for you since it was very hardware dependent. Cheers Terry

Quite agree. I don't think CS will be the least bit worried by my mine or anyone else's negativity toward their products or marketing approach. Ably assisted by the MS market place, CS appear to be targeting and quite successfully reaching a newer cadre of simmers who have a different perspective of flight simulation. That cadre specifically enjoy three dimensional freedom of movement across a a globally accurate and diverse scenery and landscape while often using an external POV and/or connected with multiplayer. To this end, they require control simplicity and 'external POV friendly' flight models that don't require too much attention to keep flying and, the 'prettier' the better . Complexity, 'study level' and true to life flight models that require handling skills, are not much use. As you allude to, earlier flight simulators were not blessed with the visuals and activities of MSFS and so I suspect those most interested in the pursuit of flight simulation did so from a more technical perspective. For better or worse MSFS has really turned that upside down. As the old adage goes, and with out referring to one perspective or the other, "one mans rubbish, is another mans treasure"! Of course it is not binary and there is lots in between. Fortunately our developers to continue to amaze all of us with their offerings.

Hmmm, well someone needs to tell Azure Poly that because their Transall C-160 can do aerobatics with both the paradoor and the ramp open, no problem! (See the vid earlier in the thread). But then CS are only using a generic MS flight model so maybe that's where CS has the problem. Cheers Terry

Hi, Scott. I suspect that will be a bridge too far for Captain Sim. I mean they cant even do paratroop doors or a ramp that open in flight let alone air deflector doors (for para) or working ski's! I expect your friend was mostly likely a VXE-6 pilot. Every austral summer season, VXE-6 would deploy 'ski bird' Hercs to Antarctica. The first flights for the season, known as Operation WINFLY, started from Christchurch in about August of each year and were primarily focused on sending snow plough and blower equipment to Mc Murdo in order to carve out the ice runway for the wheeled aircraft (USAF C-141 Starlifters and RNZAF C-130's) later in October. As the name WINFLY suggests these flights would occur in low light and winter conditions making the flights somewhat perilous and apt to having to use the designated "whiteout area'' at Mc Murdo in earnest should the weather clag in. This meant flying a specific heading while descending in IMC (ie no visibility and flying on instruments only) at a set rate of decent until the aircaft effectively 'hit' the ground. Flying in Antarctica is a hazardous operation at the best of times, and VXE-6 have had some fatal accidents involving their Hercs. Once the ice runway was operational, the wheeled 'open up ' flights began in October relieving VXE-6 of the Christchurch to McMurdo runs and allowing them to deploy to Antarctica where they would continue their support to the National Science Foundation (NSF) including regular flights from McMurdo to South Pole Station, for the remainder of the season. As mentioned earlier, The RNZAF would conduct preplanned flights from Christchurch to McMurdo with about 12 C130 return flights in support of our own NZ Antarctic Research (NZAR) program and Scott Base resupply. Weather caused constant cancellations For both us and VXE-6 and so needless to say we used to spend a lot of down-time in McMurdo with VXE-6 crews. So I possibly met your friend at some stage, and while I'm sure neither of us would remember each other, we would most likely have enjoyed each others company. In any case, please give him/her my regards. Cheers Terry

Hi Luis, Not sure about P3D, but see post above from @andy1252 yesterday, where he said: Terry, I dug out my old FSX version of this and loaded up the sounds and it does indeed work ok with them. See - https://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/135009-Hercules-fans-you-ain-t-gonna-believe-this?p=1334064&viewfull=1 Cheers Terry

COMPARISON: Captian Sims C130 Hercules and Azure Poly's C-160 Transall For anybody who is still leaning into this Captain Sim product I've put together what I think of the aircraft FWIW, and compared it to the Azure Poly Transall C-160. Firstly here is a link to a YT live stream. The guys fumbles around alot and admits as much but in the process unknowingly reveals a couple of nasties about this product: Based on the specs on the CS website the aircraft comes with the King Air flight model and the King air sounds. There is a sound patch from FSX/P3D which by all accounts is pretty good and this apparently works with the CS model. So that's good. But the flight model is certainly suspect. In the YT video the streamer couldn't slow the airplane down despite the power being pulled right back and those big old props acting like massive air brakes. Then again he also didn't consider flap and gear. But the reality is the airplane was flying like a clean King Air, not a dirtied up Herc. While he fumbled about the streamer did eventually find a VOR and ILS freq and managed an approach on that basis, but he couldn't get the radar to work even if it was just an animation. Engine start was modelled fairly closely but frankly it didn't matter what position a lot of the 'working' switches were in, the engines started and continued anyway, which kind of suggested there were no underlying systems modelled. If you bought the CS C-130, would you like to open the cargo door inflight and throw some cargo or some paratroops out? Maybe stand on the ramp and take pic or two looking outside perhaps with another formation Herc following you? Well forget it. Neither paradoors nor the ramp and door open in flight and in fact the ramp only can only be fully closed or fully open ie lowered to the ground with toe ramps connected, the configuration used for loading vehicles. The ramp can't be placed in the level position known as the aerial delivery position, on the ground so you cant taxi with the ramp open which is absolutely necessary for reversing, and for removing restrains from cargo before a rapid offload. Neither can you load pallets on the aircraft from a platform or K loader unless the ramp is level. But lets go a bit further, if in flight you can't even enter the cargo compartment unless you fly in there with the drone!! The paratroop red (5 minute ) and green (jump) lights on the flight deck are non-functional as is the paratroop warning bell. Although the streamer didn't' know where he had seen it, he thought maybe this was all because CS were putting out a mission pack to go with the aircraft and this would add all these features. So not an update but another product to purchase potentially! The CS C-130 comes with one livery and there is no paint kit and so we can expect CS to start selling multiple livery products at something like $5.00 US per livery set and probably only about 25 liveries in total if we use the CS 767 livery packs as an example. This is of course ridiculous since there must be hundreds of C130 liveries out there and not allowing a paint kit denies our communities painters the opportunity to showcase their work while satisfying the livery needs of many. This is obviously another dollar grab by CS. Oh, and apparently some have tried to set up repaint kits and have found the dreaded black textures have over ridden their work. Some suggest this might be an Nvideo issue but it really just looks like CS are up to their old tricks and attempting to exploit a captured market. Lets compare CS's C1-30 to the Azure Poly C-160 Transall. IRL, the C160 is just a mini Herc and has the same roles as the C-130 albeit the aircraft can carry less over short distances but has a real STOL capability, so it works more forward in the battle field. Documentation: CS- has none Azure- comprehensive 100 page manual Textures and Interior Renditions: CS- excellent with some good wear and tear artwork Azure -also excellent with 8k textures, while perhaps looking newer than it should. Features: CS: Good number of panel animations, except the GTC intake doors don't work and in keeping with its no inflight paratrooping capability, the Air Deflector doors don't work either. the interior cargo compartment is reasonably well modelled but it can't be accessed in flight and there is no animated cargo. Azure: A fully modelled cargo bay. Ramp and para doors open in flight and cargo compartment can be entered in flight. A number of panels are animated and the kneeling capability of the aircraft is also modelled. Various cargo loads (wheeled, bulk and palletised) are animated. Air drop of vehicles and troops is not shown in the YT video but is an impressive feature. Custom effects including decoy flares, propeller vortices, propeller dust, fuel dumping, etc. Importantly these features can be viewed externally or internally from the paradoor and ramp. Sounds: CS - as purchased, King Air Azure - comes with a definitive Transall soundset utilising the Wwise ecosystem ie third party audio sound system providers. Flight Model and Systems: CS- King Air flight model and and standard MSFS systems Azure - Transall includes a big amount of bespoke systems and does not re-use existing generic avionics from the simulator. Liveries: CS - 1 liver . No paint kit and probably locked to community painters. Azure - 11 liveries including military and civil operators with purchased aircraft. 108 on Flightsim.to. Paint kit downloadable from Azure's website for free. EFB: CS -yes but very rudimentary and associated only with opening and closing doors, panels etc Azure - yes, custom EFB to manage numerous aircraft settings, including cargo and payload management with several available objects (vehicles, pallets, etc) and importantly, a moving map. Cost: (where the rubber meets the road). CS C130 - Normally $US50.00. On sale for $US40.00 (rounded up one cent). Will most likely need to buy liveries on top of this and potentially (unconfirmed) a mission pack to unlock some basic features. Azure Poly C-160 Transall - On the MS Market Place for about $US30.00 and SimMarket for about $US35.00 (at current NZD and Euro exchange rates.) Conclusion. CS have produced a model with an attractive flight deck and external looks. However, just a few scratches and the paint comes off very quickly. The depth of this model is my view, very light with a lot of missing features, locked paint kits, generic flight model, no documentation and no systems depth. When compared to the Azure Poly C-160, which is also not study level but still has some complexity to it and 100 page manual, the price of the CS product even before adding extra for liveries and possible mission packs, is astronomical for what is offered. For those who clearly dont want a study level or even moderately complex model, the 'good looks' but simplicity of the CS-product is potentially worth the money particular in the absence of any other C-130 example for MSFS. But for anyone expecting something better than the Azure Poly C-160 for all that extra money (which could be as high as 40% more than C-160 when the CS products comes off sale) then CS's C-130 will come as a very big disappointment. I love the C-130, it was a big part of my life, and if it was at Azure Poly's standard I would buy it in a heartbeat. But, I won't be buying this one from CS. IMHO Cheers Terry

Excellent Andy. I wonder if that brings to life the classic C-130 reverse sounds? I used to live on the base we flew from and while you would never usually hear a Herc approaching, as soon as they landed and applied reverse thrust there was an unmistakably Herky sound announcing their arrival. You can imagine with constant speed props any increase in fuel in the engine was simply turned into blade angle on the props so they would take a bigger bite of air. As such the engines were always at 100% rpm and the tone would not change for hours on end regardless of climb or decent. With limited portholes to see out of and any occasion of a greasy smooth landing, dozing passengers lulled by 10 hours of monotonous droning generally had no idea the aircraft had landed until that reverse sound shattered the monotony and the associated de-acceleration came on. You could see the startle factor in passengers eyes as they quickly grabbed at seat webbing to hold themselves up. Thanks for your updates Andy. While the model is falling short in some areas like information on the flight model and the price tag for a non-study level aircraft (which is the equivalent of 3 weeks of morning coffee hits!.. not to be sneezed at!) I am certainly leaning into this. Cheers Terry Cheers Terry

Thanks Andy for giving us all a bit of insight into this. Quite understand your approach and I read your whiskey analogy to my Scottish wife and she agreed wholeheartedly 😁. From those great shots it seems pretty clear they have modelled the cargo bay quite well too. I even saw the step lowered for the honeypot just behind the left para door LOL! Your assessment of a 50/50 working switches is very helpful and generally what most of us would expect that from a non study level model like this one but perhaps would have expected a somewhat lower price tag to match. I'm still not sure about the flight model though which is probably based on a King Air, so that will destroy the immersion of the aircraft somewhat. Coupled with liveries being held in the Market Place by CS, it will feel somewhat strangled in terms of what we want the airplane to actually look and feel like. However, with the addition of the FSX sounds that has been suggested, and crossed fingers that painters can find a solution and some smart guys can work rework the flight model, this may just but worth it in the interim. I mean until something of study level nature comes along. I do hope the paint kit is made available for painters since there are so many worldwide liveries for the C-130 including civilian options. Thanks again Andy Cheers Terry

Would love that you do that! I saw a picture on another forum showing the blades feathered and I'm kind of hoping that means each can be individually feathered on the ground and inflight. I wonder if they have modelled an in-flight restart and if we can we do a windmill start on the ground? Although I doubt they have modelled start valves, let alone a stuck one haha. You would certainly know Chief!

Excellent, thanks very much 👍. Cheers Terry