Thank you Col. Scott,I appreciate you taking the time to evaluate this product. I hope Milviz will take your suggestions to heart and do what they can within the confines of FSX to make their $39.99 product even better.Sincerely,Bill

Hi All,I have always wanted to post this question as I think it is pertinent. I know nothing of the different types of sticks/yokes and pedals in as far as their conformity to or the given results based on the software or OS that they installed to. So I often wondered when someone stated the rudder or stick was sluggish or too sensitive, can this be an accurate statement for all types of manufacturers, and of course the software that controls them? Many I know including myself sometimes use non-linear adjustments through FSUIPC or through the config file for the aircraft. Can it be said that if someone is using the same manufacturer controls that have not been modified through FSUIPC or other software, that they will yield the same results with the same aircraft? This is something that I never did ask and am very curious.RegardsBob

That was a quick-and-dirty fix because I was seeing heavy stick forces and actually hitting the stops during the flare. It is indeed too easy to pull into heavy buffet and wing rock, but I suspect that has more to do with the CL vs AOA curve in the FDE. The AoA goes up far too fast as you slow down...flying final at just 5 KIAS slow produces a red chevron and AoA at/above 0.8...that's too sensitive. At liftoff I'm rotating right into that rumble...again, never ever saw that...believe that the lift curves need some work and some recalibration of the AoA and associated effects is also necessary.I used rudder all the time--in extended trail, for example, it's a very effective way of turning the jet when you're loaded up to 4-6 G. Anyway, with rudder effectiveness dialed down to 0.25 I still have LOTS of rudder authority at high AoA.If you aerobrake to ~100KIAS and then use the wheel brakes, the landing roll with braking effectiveness at 1.0 looks pretty good to me. If you apply wheel brakes much over 120KIAS in the real jet, you're asking for a blown tire anyway...so braking effectiveness is kind of a moot point--a better approach would be to simulate the blown tire. But overpowering locked brakes at just 80-90% RPM is a much bigger break with reality IMHO.C'mon, that one's trivially easy to do...that's a five-minute coding job in the altimeter gauge. It's a unique characteristic of the T-38 that tens of thousands of AF pilots who first broke the sound barrier in this jet observed, and one of those cool details that any guy who's been on a boom ride might see and go "wow."Besides, I think I read somewhere "In a world of compromise, we don't." :(

Hi All,I have always wanted to post this question as I think it is pertinent. I know nothing of the different types of sticks/yokes and pedals in as far as their conformity to or the given results based on the software or OS that they installed to. So I often wondered when someone stated the rudder or stick was sluggish or too sensitive, can this be an accurate statement for all types of manufacturers, and of course the software that controls them? Many I know including myself sometimes use non-linear adjustments through FSUIPC or through the config file for the aircraft. Can it be said that if someone is using the same manufacturer controls that have not been modified through FSUIPC or other software, that they will yield the same results with the same aircraft? This is something that I never did ask and am very curious.

That's hard to answer...though any properly calibrated joystick will produce the same range of values from stop to stop, different controllers have different centering spring configurations, so the "feel" will be different between controllers. Some, especially the more inexpensive controllers, will not have much difference in force from center to full travel, and some, like my tricked-out Thrustmaster Cougar, require considerably more force the further you move away from center.Of course if you have non-linear response curves, the feel will be drastically altered as well. The problem with using much non-linearity in a simulation of an airplane like the T-38 is you will get a truckload of aileron deflection out near the limits that is practically impossible to control well. The ailerons on the T-38 can produce roll rates of 720 deg/sec...with non-linear controls you're going to get most of that all at once.

I figured as much. I did not use any linear with the T-38 but I did notice the rudder causing the roll of the aircraft even with very little rudder applied. I could not control it. Now I do not know about jets but when I did fly the instructor taught me to use rudder, especially on approach for small adjustments so this has stuck with me. I just accepted the fact that this was the way it was with the talon due to it's fast approach speeds.Bob

That's hard to answer...though any properly calibrated joystick will produce the same range of values from stop to stop, different controllers have different centering spring configurations, so the "feel" will be different between controllers. Some, especially the more inexpensive controllers, will not have much difference in force from center to full travel, and some, like my tricked-out Thrustmaster Cougar, require considerably more force the further you move away from center.Of course if you have non-linear response curves, the feel will be drastically altered as well. The problem with using much non-linearity in a simulation of an airplane like the T-38 is you will get a truckload of aileron deflection out near the limits that is practically impossible to control well. The ailerons on the T-38 can produce roll rates of 720 deg/sec...with non-linear controls you're going to get most of that all at once.

I figured as much. I did not use any linear with the T-38 but I did notice the rudder causing the roll of the aircraft even with very little rudder applied. I could not control it. Now I do not know about jets but when I did fly the instructor taught me to use rudder, especially on approach for small adjustments so this has stuck with me. I just accepted the fact that this was the way it was with the talon due to it's fast approach speeds.

I never use the rudder for small corrections during the approach, not in a GA single and for sure never ever in a jet.When performing a crosswind landing you have to land the T-38 with the actual crab angle due to the high induced roll moment when trying to de-crab with the rudder.During a normal pattern there's no need for any rudder input according to the manual and our two T-38 pilots.

Very Helpful... thanks much!!!Bob

I never use the rudder for small corrections during the approach, not in a GA single and for sure never ever in a jet.When performing a crosswind landing you have to land the T-38 with the actual crab angle due to the high induced roll moment when trying to de-crab with the rudder.During a normal pattern there's no need for any rudder input according to the manual and our two T-38 pilots.

I personally wouldn't focus on the last remaining "bad" percentage of a product, but on the already available good stuff. That view may even go beyond flight sim regimes and leads to more of this. :smile:As far as I could read it, the devs already noted all input and also pointed out some interesting things about causes and possible fixes there. I've also got the impression that they are on a timely fix release, so there isn't much to worry in my eyes.

Yipes,I was impressed with the screenshots of this T-38, but after reading about all the flight dynamics shortcomings from a guy with 1000 hrs in the real machine, no thank you. Two real T-38 pilots 'validated' the FDE according to Milviz? You're telling me that neither one of those guys thought it was a little strange you could pop through the Mach using only Mil power??? C'mon guys.

OK, now, I started out by saying I thought these guys are off to a good start with the T-38, and I still think that's the case.I think Milviz has joined iFly as a relative newcomer that's proving itself focused on getting it right, and--just as importantly--on listening to its users. I don't want this to evolve into a food fight...and I don't want my test flight punch list to be used as a bludgeon before anyone has a chance to address the issues I raised. I feel pretty confident these guys are already on it.

Bob,As I wrote over at the MilViz forums, the entire development team has reviewed your excellent feedback and as Colin (the owner and boss) has said, we are going to do our best always to extract the most accuracy and fidelity possible in our products. We deal with an FSX cornerstone that frankly was not coded to be used as a commercial training simulator, so there are many issues that have to be worked around to obtain that fidelity. But, we try to overcome all of that, and so any feedback we can get that helps us improve that process we are like the labrador retriever's ears when the tennis ball is bounced in front of us!ALCON,For what it is worth, the MilViz test team is essentially a totally real world collection of commercial pilots. We have real world experience in military aircraft of various types, commercial aircraft, and general aviation of all types. You cannot imagine the sheer volume of time we spent in detailed analysis of the flight dynamics modeling, trying to squeeze every ounce of fidelity we could. Often in the search for improvement in one area, we paid for it with reduction in other areas. It was a balancing act to say the least. That's not an excuse, nor a smokescreen we are going to try to use to avoid process improvement. As you can see, Colin has invited the Colonel to join the team based on the excellence of his feedback and the obvious experience he brings to the table!Everyone with money has the inherent right to spend or not spend that hard-earned money as he sees best. But, I would like to challenge our member here to think about the larger picture. This is especially true when you consider that it is possible to achieve Mach 1 with mil power. A good friend of mine as an IP did it when he reached a rather "huge" altitude and achieved Mach 1 in level flight by holding the power at full MIL setting. Further, in a shallow dive from a very high altitude, it is also possible to do it. That said, what was not mentioned is that at sea level, you cannot attain Mach with full afterburner -- just like the real jet, because you would reach Vne prior to doing it!What we really tried to focus on was fidelity in the pattern since that is where most pilots get the greatest joy in landing the aircraft. But, each person has the fundamental right to choose how to spend his money. And we take that as a given.Cheers,Ken

... but after reading about all the flight dynamics shortcomings from a guy with 1000 hrs in the real machine, no thank you. Two real T-38 pilots 'validated' the FDE according to Milviz? You're telling me that neither one of those guys thought it was a little strange you could pop through the Mach using only Mil power??? C'mon guys.

That's why I love such long 'bug lists' in an open forum. Including items like an altimeter indicating a wrong altitude for 1sec are of course real show stoppers.These two T-38 pilots not only 'validated' the T-38, they tested every version since November 2010 for countless hours.Sorry that they didn't make a high speed run with every version.Concering 'pop through Mach'.. the S.L. top speed with the drag error is off by 0.2Mach.You will not find a single high performance jet add-on that performs that close to the book numbers at low and high altitude, even with the (already fixed)drag error. Especially with very high performance jets you have to make compromises e.g. due to the wrong FSX trim calculation with a flying tail, the use of FSUIPC, different joystick setup etc....If we would have taken everything into account Bob mentioned (and additionally send every customer the same joystick), development would have been a never ending story and the T-38 would have been another add-on in the 60-70USD range.

Gentlemen and ladies,No dev can get every single bug. You, the clients, of all people, should know that. That I said we would fix them and do it soon should be enough, no? What more would you want? For me to apologize? Alright: I sincerely apologize to all of you that we made the plane go faster than mach 1.0 on military power alone and left another 15 minor bugs in place. As much of them will be fixed as soon as we release the SP. That will be within the next 2 weeks if not before.Please remember, if you purchased it from Flight 1, you have a 30 day money back guarantee. If you feel that my word isn't good, then, please, feel free to return it right now. Otherwise, please have some patience while we make it happen.Finally, please remember that this is only our second product and we are still working on our testing methodology. That said, whether you like it or not, we are here to stay. Wait till you see what's coming down the pipeline...I thank you for your time and patience.

Gentlemen and ladies,No dev can get every single bug. You, the clients, of all people, should know that. That I said we would fix them and do it soon should be enough, no? What more would you want? For me to apologize? Alright: I sincerely apologize to all of you that we made the plane go faster than mach 1.0 on military power alone and left another 15 minor bugs in place. As much of them will be fixed as soon as we release the SP. That will be within the next 2 weeks if not before.Please remember, if you purchased it from Flight 1, you have a 30 day money back guarantee. If you feel that my word isn't good, then, please, feel free to return it right now. Otherwise, please have some patience while we make it happen.Finally, please remember that this is only our second product and we are still working on our testing methodology. That said, whether you like it or not, we are here to stay. Wait till you see what's coming down the pipeline...I thank you for your time and patience.

I'm here to say the C310 is in a class by itself when it comes to FD...Kdub

You know fellas, I'm getting the feeling as I read this thread that it might not be a bad idea to step back a bit and do some reflection. There are numbers of us who are interested in this product and we benefit greatly from not only the developer's perspective and description of his work product but also the very valuable input provided by those of us who have real-world flight experience in that particular A/C.If a developer aspires to produce a work product that is totally devoid of compromise and offers a 100% authentic reproduction of the real thing then, I believe that developer must not only create such a A/C but also provide a pretty extensive set of specifications regarding the input devices to be used and how they should be configured. I believe we all could agree that such a goal is practically unattainable given the platform we all must live with and the extensive variety of input devices that are available.This developer has put a lot of hard work in this product and he certainly has not released that product to us all before making a significant effort to authenticate it. We are also privileged to have the thoughtful and authoritative input of an experienced real world user of this product. As a result of that user's input, the developer has announced he will work to implement at least some of advisable corrections. In the end, all of us with an interest in enjoying this product will benefit. We are all the recipients of a very considerable amount of experience and expertise. Yes, we pay for this product and so we have a very legitimate right to express our opinions regarding its value. I believe it would now be appropriate for us to take this developer at his spoken word and allow him to demonstrate his intentions as outlined above to us all.I'm putting words in Bob's mouth here so I must be careful but I don't believe it was his intention to denigrate the T-38. He was very clear, at least to me, that his observations were mean't to make a good product better if he could. To the extent those observations and recommendations can be implemented without unduly compromising the T-38's performance, we all will be the better for it.I applaud the Milviz team for its efforts here and I look forward to not only an improved T-38 but also some pretty interesting products to appear in the future. I also am very grateful for folks like Col. Bob and their willingness to share.John

Hi,I learned in J3 at Van Nuys airport in 1968 and the instructor really pushed this. Now after two people have tolld me no, I now wish I knew why why he stressed this to me.Bob

I never use the rudder for small corrections during the approach, not in a GA single and for sure never ever in a jet.When performing a crosswind landing you have to land the T-38 with the actual crab angle due to the high induced roll moment when trying to de-crab with the rudder.During a normal pattern there's no need for any rudder input according to the manual and our two T-38 pilots.

One more so it's 100% clear. WE (Milviz) did NOT code the GPS. That's Bill's work. Not ours. I did not and do not lie.Mods, this guywas asked to apologize in another thread for calling me names. He did so but hasn't learned as he is back at it again.Please remove him or we will no longer consider Avsim dev friendly...Thanks.

This is such a typical thread here and frankly it just amazes me. A developer comes out with a product, there are praises, and critics (all valid) and then it gets out of control. Just to be clear from my perspective at least-this was a great thread-with a single exception. Bob's observations were incredible from rw experience and the developers politely said they would take his critics and do as much with them as they could within the limits of a fairly cheap sim/game.Seems reasonable...Bliksimpie-the implications you make or openely state are not reasonable and are filled with vitrol that you seem to think are hidden (crappy/liar) but are not-probably why I have several active reports on you right now. As with all complaints I am gonna wait for the other mods to weigh in (we never make any decision without consultation) but in my opinion you are out of line, and have already been warned-yet you continue.Milvitz-as for developer friendly-I like to think avsim is both user friendly and developer friendly allowing a free discusion of both critics and praise. It is where the line is crossed and I think it has been here.