Fokker 100

[Dutcheeseblend]

Check out Bill's other aircraft, especially the Lear 23 to see what you can expect in terms of systems. I really doubt that he's going all out like PMDG or DA.

If you really want a full blown simulation of a F100, including a shift in CoG due to an overweight passenger or shifting fluid levels in the waste water tanks, you'll have to do your own model or wait 250 years until another developer makes one.

Pretty easy, since you don't even need a visual model. A simple cube would be satisfactory

Keep it up Bill

 

[Hewe]

It would be a shame if this bird wouldnt get what it deserved, a good system depth. I think people will have an easier time flying this because if it features an FMC, most childen of the magenta line will buy it.

 

[F747fly]

Will we please not yet worry about the systems but first enjoy this beautiful exterior model! it looks very nice Bill!

 

[lionheart]

Funny how this entire subject has become a debate. Same thing happened with the Lear. Goodness... I never get this when doing homebuilts. I have already got a cut down, that it should be freeware, lol. This business has really changed.

I'll see what happens. I'll make it the way I want it and if people do not like it, I hope they dont buy it. I want it really nice and I'll do it the way I feel it should be done. Complainers can leave. Bottom line. I like kind advice, but advice that has cut-downs and threats and 'it should be feeware then' can just leave me alone. Build your own! Its fun. Just dont let complainers DRIVE YOU NUTS!

 

[lionheart]

Someone asked about the Material for the ground. I have two. I think the 'sand' version is the one shown, its a stock Material for Max, Wall Paint, dialed into a sand color.

Enabling Ambient Occlusion gives it some neat shading but will increase render time.

 

[lionheart]

When I did systems on the Lear, I had such a blast coding it. I had all these cool features, gauges that showed fuel bleeding, etc, etc. I had wing overheating features, alarms for everything, all this coding. And what happened? A million complaints. People freaking out, complaining, ranting, posting their rants, this doesnt work, that doesnt work when it actually worked fine.

Cold and dark flights are something of a mystery to everyone in the FS world. They all use it now, and yet cannot figure out why all of their planes cannot use a CD file from one single plane. (Settings for fuel and particular switches and valves are all stored in the save file. If you shut down in a Cessna 182, mixture off, fuel tanks off, totally different fuel selectors, etc, and you try to turn on a new plane with special coding features, none of that works. The one jet engine will not start or run properly because the Cessna mixture was (is) at zero setting (cold and dark) so that engine will not work, so its all Bill's fault because people do not understand how to use cold and dark files. (WHAT A NIGHTMARE THAT SUBJECT ALONE WAS!!!!!)

Then there is the reviewer at AVS that would email me 10X a morning with repeat questions. Always the same questions, questions answered in the manual and by me. Why cant I use my CD file on this plane? But why? Why do I have to use the switch in the VC instead of just using Control-E to start? (system coding).

I had people crying that their saitek buttons wouldnt work on my plane, they couldnt use it (system coding). People with 3D cockpits couldnt use it because their gauges worked with standard sim platform systems, not system coding.

So, you ask me for system coding? I laugh. The market isnt ready. They cannot read manuals.

One German reviewer went on to say how the various systems DID NOT WORK. lol... We all beta tested it, it was working fine, no issues, all functioned. I shot down his review with the TRUTH. His fellow reviewer went through and retested and sure enough, it was all working. Someone didnt read the manual.

So, if you want a F100 with system coding, go to PMDG or make one yourself. You deal with the people that refuse to read the manual, refuse to learn the system, the reviewers that make you look bad because they didnt want to take the time to read the manual and see how it REALLY works.

sigh...

 

[lionheart]

I like Elon Musk's engine recovery ship's name; 'Just read the manual!'

 

[fsxar177]

Bill, with you, we always get a solid, ready to fly aircraft. You are straight up, and honest about you work. +1

Better than some developers, who claim to deliver models with 'fully coded systems', and then have to patch the pi$$ out of it to get anything to work at all!

- Joseph

 

[Roel]

Bill, I will push myself forward as your new Customer Service employee and deal with all the boneheads out there if you make this into a nice bird with some nice systems. If people with the mind of a doorknob stop you from having a blast coding, modelling and designing systems, I will sacrifice myself and throw myself into the Lion(heart)pit for the sake of an incredible airplane!

I'm dead serious about this, since I just love the F100 and F70 that much, but I can't deal with the DA Fokker because of the 2D cockpit. I'm not able to fly properly with those panels. Call me spoiled, but I rather have a crappy VC then beautiful panels.

 

[lazaro]

CSR: Lionheart Creations, Customer Service, my Name is Lazaro, how may I help you?
Bonehead: Yes, I have a problem with this Fokker, it doesn't seem to turn on. All the screens are black.
CSR: Sir, did your try the recommended start-up procedure?
Bonehead: No I just got this plane. This is stupid. It doesn't work! I already tried CTRL+E. It doesn't respond!
CSR: Sir, this plane is a complex simulation of the real aircraft. I recommend you try the RTFM procedure.
Bonehead: What is the RTFM procedure?
CSR: Read the f*cking manual....
Bonhead: What did you just say?!
CSR: I said: Read the Fokker manual!

***bonehead hangs up***

 

[TurboCompound]

Bill, please ignore those nitwits who can't handle a decently complex simulation. I thoroughly enjoyed your Learjet, and I can tell you that these complainers are a minority. It might not seem that way, but just remember that the people who don't have some meaningless issue don't send complaints. The Digital Aviation Fokker was one of the most popular addons ever created. It had an incredibly full systems simulation, shared cockpit support, and all kinds of cool features. The lack of a VC threw a couple people off (though not me), and I'm sure plenty of trolls complained about how complicated the plane was for that one as well. Just remember that that's all they are; trolls.

I can assure you that people care more about systems/flight dynamics than they do visuals, and you should not feel like you're doing anything wrong by incorporating them into your simulation.

 

[hairyspin]

...I'll see what happens. I'll make it the way I want it and if people do not like it, I hope they dont buy it. I want it really nice and I'll do it the way I feel it should be done.

Exactly right Bill. I'm rather surprised this should happen on FSDeveloper of all places! Some people should consider posting their shopping list of demands on FSCustomer, wherever that might be...

 

[lazaro]

Exactly right Bill. I'm rather surprised this should happen on FSDeveloper of all places! Some people should consider posting their shopping list of demands on FSCustomer, wherever that might be...

I guess this is why "bigger" developers don't post here...

 

[newmanix]

One developer trolling another? Now I have seen everything. What a way to break out into this community there Lazaro.

Very sad.

 

[lazaro]

How am I trolling him? Maybe you've misinterpreted my comment. I didn't mean to offend anyone, I didn't think my comment could be offensive. It was just a comment on the situation in this thread.

 

[hairyspin]

@newmanix, last I heard Bill is working with a skeleton staff: 'bigger' developers like Milviz f'rinstance have good-sized teams. Lazaro is not trolling.

 

[lazaro]

Oh god, I didn't mean to offend anyone by posting "bigger" developers. What I meant by that is that you usually don't see FlyTampa, Flightbeam, FSDT or PMDG posting non-textured WIPs on this forum at every step of the way, because then THIS would happen. I didn't actually wanted to say names but I guess my comment went the other direction. Seriously. People on the internet get angry way to easily. I'm pulling out of this discussion.

@lionheart if my comments in any way, shape or form offended you, I apologize. It was not intended to be offensive. I actually didn't think my comment could be offensive. But rather it was a comment on the situation here. Please keep posting updates on this wonderful bird as you go along, as I will be following this thread quietly from now on to avoid starting a knife fight on this forum. Best of luck for the future!

 

[n4gix]

I like Elon Musk's engine recovery ship's name; 'Just read the manual!'

Perhaps all of us developers need to amend our list of "Minimum Requirements" for our releases...

• 3 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 8 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 8 GB RAM (64-bit)
• 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
• DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver
• Ability to read and understand what was read
• Ability to translate written instructions into correct actions

 

[lazaro]

Maybe we should include a readme2.txt that says to read readme.txt?

 

[n4gix]

Maybe we should include a readme2.txt that says to read readme.txt?

Oddly enough, I've noted more success with a file named: do_not_read_this_file.txt

Go figure!