Douglas A-4 Skyhawk by Mid7night

[Mid7night]

...

On the other hand these days we have the means to have excellent flight models AND the same time excellent looks.

Being able to walk and to speak/sing is normal,  someone missing one of the capeabilities is disabled.

....

I don't really agree with your analogy, although I do understand what you're trying to say.

My Skyhawk has all the features of an airplane model - if it were 'disabled' it wouldn't run at all, in my opinion - they're just not all "the best" in your assessment.

...

A contemporary flightsim-airplane should have a good flightmodel and have good looks the same time.

....

Objectively, this is an opinion, and on top of that, "good" is entirely open for interpretation.

So at this point, we're really just haggling about the price.

All this is great discussion, and your opinions about quality are not that unfair; I never claimed it was the best X-Plane model out there.  Although, to my knowledge, it is the only fully-3D Skyhawk for X-Plane at the moment.  Just sayin...  8)

[Leen de Jager]

it is the only fully-3D Skyhawk for X-Plane at the moment.

Yes I fully agree.

Nevertheless I could imagine a plane created by guys like you having excellent flightmodels , having looks like planes by  Xavier Rollon and having skins made by real texture-artists.

We need joint ventures.

The moment that happens we reach the level........ wich will be standard next decades.

Being "the only fully-3D Skyhawk for X-Plane at the moment" is`nt really the arguement to put a price tag on it.

I am not a modeller , I have no idea of flight models. (I really  know something about painting, though)

Imagine I made an Antoinette for X-Plane, looking horrible, flying like a dead duck.

Having made the first and only Antoinette ( maybe it already exists , just giving an example) for X-Plane would not be justifying putting a price-tag on it.

Thats al I am saying.( keep in mind I am spoiled already)

Regards

Leen de Jager

[UH-60 Blackhawk]

I have little doubt that Mid7 could've produced a nicer-looking aircraft, but he either:

a.)  Doesn't have the experience in making aircraft look nice

b.)  Didn't want to have someone else handle the graphic design

c.)  Was satisfied with what he made

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[Warmbrak]

Mid7night, I think it is great that you replied to the posts here, and I never viewed it as needed "defending". There is sometimes a disjoint between what a developer has in mind, and how it is marketed by someone else with a an entirely different set of KPI's. In this case, the screenshots and development previews showed us what to expect visually, and some of the beta testers gave a heads up on the handling. The only grey area before the sale was the cockpit itself and systems. I like the idea where manuals or portions thereof are made available before an aircraft purchase to show people what they are getting. I decided not to get the latest Carenado offering due to a lack of information on the autopilot (if there is one or not). I love hand flying, but not when doing long x-country. I was happy to see yours had one, although it was difficult to know beforehand. I still don't know what that radar is supposed to do, but I like to flip the lid up and down 

I am thoroughly enjoying this aircraft (I love military aviation), and if you keep this up I will probably lap up everything else you sell. If you get someone to add more bells & whistles in the visuals department I would easily pay a lot more for it.

[Mid7night]

Mid7night, I think it is great that you replied to the posts here, and I never viewed it as needed "defending". There is sometimes a disjoint between what a developer has in mind, and how it is marketed by someone else with a an entirely different set of KPI's. In this case, the screenshots and development previews showed us what to expect visually, and some of the beta testers gave a heads up on the handling. The only grey area before the sale was the cockpit itself and systems. I like the idea where manuals or portions thereof are made available before an aircraft purchase to show people what they are getting. I decided not to get the latest Carenado offering due to a lack of information on the autopilot (if there is one or not). I love hand flying, but not when doing long x-country. I was happy to see yours had one, although it was difficult to know beforehand. I still don't know what that radar is supposed to do, but I like to flip the lid up and down 

I am thoroughly enjoying this aircraft (I love military aviation), and if you keep this up I will probably lap up everything else you sell. If you get someone to add more bells & whistles in the visuals department I would easily pay a lot more for it.

Thanks for the kind words, and for enjoying my aircraft.

I didn't jump in with the intention of "defending" my product, although I can certainly see how that comes across.

I simply wanted to clarify a few points that I saw being misrepresented, or not fully explained.  That's all.

I'm one that believes in over-communication whenever in doubt, it pains me to see discussion or arguments start over misinformation; thus my reason for 'jumpin in.' 

[Goran_M]

Ben, there's no doubt there is significantly worse payware out there.  And in saying that, I'm not saying your's is bad by any stretch.  Would I pay for it?  Probably not.  And that is what is so great about today's society.  We have a choice.

I mentioned before that I don't have it and cannot make any kind of judgement on it except for a visual one.  Speaking for myself, (and maybe a few others), it just seems odd and can be perceived as biased that an org moderator reviewed another org moderators product.  And as was noted, it doesn't really read like a review.  I felt like I was reading a marketing newsletter.

Look at avsim reviews.  They point out the negatives but they don't try and turn them into positives with some kind of justification.

I agree that it's great you are able to come here and address these questions and remarks.  It's just a shame that most developers here can't do the same at the org with regards to OUR products.

Perhaps, some day, that will change.

[Mid7night]

Ben, there's no doubt there is significantly worse payware out there.  And in saying that, I'm not saying your's is bad by any stretch.  Would I pay for it?  Probably not.  And that is what is so great about today's society.  We have a choice.

I mentioned before that I don't have it and cannot make any kind of judgement on it except for a visual one.  Speaking for myself, (and maybe a few others), it just seems odd and can be perceived as biased that an org moderator reviewed another org moderators product.  And as was noted, it doesn't really read like a review.  I felt like I was reading a marketing newsletter.

Look at avsim reviews.  They point out the negatives but they don't try and turn them into positives with some kind of justification.

I agree that it's great you are able to come here and address these questions and remarks. 

...

I get that it's not a 'traditional' review, and I'll be honest; I was hoping to get more exposure from it.  So yeah, it was a bit of friendly advertising, but what's wrong with that?  I didn't pay him to write it, and he's not getting a commission either; he could've said no just as easily as write it.  I didn't feel like waiting for someone to spontaneously write a review - which is highly unlikely in the first place, given my no-name status in the Payware-world - so I asked my friend to help me out.  Doesn't seem like a big deal to me...  :-\

...

It's just a shame that most developers here can't do the same at the org with regards to OUR products.

Perhaps, some day, that will change.

A shame yes, but please let's not got there in this thread.

[Goran_M]

I get that it's not a 'traditional' review, and I'll be honest; I was hoping to get more exposure from it.  So yeah, it was a bit of friendly advertising, but what's wrong with that?  I didn't pay him to write it, and he's not getting a commission either; he could've said no just as easily as write it.  I didn't feel like waiting for someone to spontaneously write a review - which is highly unlikely in the first place, given my no-name status in the Payware-world - so I asked my friend to help me out.  Doesn't seem like a big deal to me...  :-\

Absolutely nothing wrong with a friend helping another friend out.  And if you enjoy what you're doing, I wish you the best in the payware world.  But, by your own admission, you wanted more exposure.  In that sense, maybe it should have been treated as such.  Maybe Nicolas should have put VH's "review" in the org newsletter instead of under the review section in the forums. 

It might not SEEM like a big deal, but if a new customer comes in, reads that review, and buys the A-4 based on it, only to find out it was reviewed by a friend of yours who is also an org moderator like you, it may not go down well.  Not just with him, but with many others.  Personally, I would refuse any XA moderator or developer to review anything I make.  But that's just me. 

Whether or not you paid him is no ones business except yours. 

Don't sell yourself short, Ben.  I, along with many others, know what you do and the other freeware you have done.  I also know about your AC3D animation tutorial.  Everyone has to start somewhere.

A shame yes, but please let's not got there in this thread.

Then please, by all means, start a new thread.  I can safely say that Cameron won't object to you (or any other org moderator) shedding some light on the latest events that have transpired. 

Send an email or PM to Cameron or any other developer that has been banned.  I would sure as hell keep my mouth shut if you told me what happened.

Let's just keep it civil (unlike another org developer who went completely berserk in another thread without any provocation)

[ChrisVon]

I gotta be honest, I don't think there's a whole lot "wrong" with what I've seen in screen shots / videos. But to be fair, I've never been a "rivet counter" either. For me, it's all about the flight modeling, and if the correct measurements were placed, along with accurate airfoil data (obtainable I assume to the public for this type of aircraft's age), then X-Plane will take care of the rest. Anything after that is lagniappe as far as I'm concerned (or the "gravy" if that makes more sense to ya'll).

I'm not saying I would buy this for $20 if the panel used "default" setups produced by Plane Maker, but I've seen a similar aircraft (in fact, another A-4) sold on another site, for another flight sim (which will remain nameless ;-)  lol) that's half the price of what the .org is selling, but who's panel really isn't nearly as impressive. In fact, it should be about $5 instead of $10. There's really no point in going over the flight model to this competitor's rendition (since the designer is having to "feed" parameters in for the sim to read), but if the attention to detail of the panel is any indication of the aerodynamics, well.....

I can see me buying this aircraft sooner rather than later (especially if 10 comes out before long, and the author will verify that it works as it should in 10.)

Could there be room for improbement? Of course, but name ONE product out there that has never been "touched up". Heck, how many versions of of the Star Wars films have been released since the originals! lol

Chris

[Mid7night]

...

I'm not saying I would buy this for $20 if the panel used "default" setups produced by Plane Maker, but I've seen a similar aircraft (in fact, another A-4) sold on another site, for another flight sim (which will remain nameless ;-)  lol) that's half the price of what the .org is selling, but who's panel really isn't nearly as impressive. In fact, it should be about $5 instead of $10. There's really no point in going over the flight model to this competitor's rendition (since the designer is having to "feed" parameters in for the sim to read), but if the attention to detail of the panel is any indication of the aerodynamics, well.....

I can see me buying this aircraft sooner rather than later (especially if 10 comes out before long, and the author will verify that it works as it should in 10.)

....

I presume this is in reference to the first-post's comment:

...

However, the "3d" cockpit looks more like a brown pit with 2d buttons and displays.....

I failed to respond to this in my original reply, so let me correct that here.

I most certainly did NOT use 2D buttons or "default setups produced by Plane Maker", and unfortunately the single cockpit picture just doesn't tell the whole story.  Now I'm not saying everything is animated in the cockpit, but there are no 2D-button/switch shortcuts here.  All the buttons/switches/knobs ARE modeled, and the ones that DO stuff are animated.

The attachments show the use of interior 3D lighting, and hopefully show you that it's not a cheated 2D-panel-in-3D.  Keep in mind though that this video and these pics were taken during development, hence the lack of a stick in the 'pit.

CLICK FOR VIDEO OF COCKPIT LIGHTING

- -

I don't know what it is - maybe I just suck at marketing - but I figure judgments like "the "3d" cockpit looks more like a brown pit with 2d buttons and display" should be made by someone who has actually inspected the cockpit, not just looked at screenshots.

...

I can see me buying this aircraft sooner rather than later (especially if 10 comes out before long, and the author will verify that it works as it should in 10.)

....

And yes, I do plan on keeping this up-to-date when XP10 finally hits.    8)

~ Mid7night

[FlorianR]

Mid7Night, regarding my post about the cockpit: Now that you have posted those screenshots above I take back my accusation. The switches and navigational equipment from those angles look very nice, and the screenshot at the .org is misleading. However, its a shame that there is no textured floor to the cockpit. Nonetheless, my apologies. I looks way nicer than conveyed at the .org!

I think we can all agree there is quite the visible difference.

[Mid7night]

Mid7Night, regarding my post about the cockpit: Now that you have posted those screenshots above I take back my accusation. The switches and navigational equipment from those angles look very nice, and the screenshot at the .org is misleading. However, its a shame that there is no textured floor to the cockpit. Nonetheless, my apologies. I looks way nicer than conveyed at the .org!

I think we can all agree there is quite the visible difference.

Thanks FlorianR, I appreciate your reassessment.  

While I'm here, I guess I'll let you know I just updated the Skyhawk with custom engine, starter and wind sounds!  Check out the little demo vid I made:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mYuuxCMDFI

If you have it already, you should have received an email-notification today.

Enjoy!   8)

[Dozer]

My modeling focus is usually on flightmodel and kinematic animations, and the Skyhawk is no exception.  Maybe that means I need to team up with a graphics-guy to do my cockpits in the future - Which I'm TOTALLY open to BTW!  I don't particularly like interiors and texturing, I like to barrel down the Grand Canyon in the chase-view.

-----

While Leen de Jager may be angered by the lack of visual-shine; I myself get a little heated when people minimize the flight simulation aspects of X-Plane over graphic niceties!  I use X-Plane at work to simulate and iterate thru aircraft configurations on a daily basis, so in my opinion the "real" power of X-Plane is its flightmodel capabilities.  That may not be YOUR opinion, and that's great - we use the same tool for different things.  But presuming that everyone wants what you do is a little naive.

-----

I didn't make my Skyhawk for everyone, and I know it's not for everyone.  I made it for me, to have fun and fly around, and I put a LOT of work into it so I figured 'why not sell it?'.

Mid7night thank you for your very well-worded responses to this thread - they were refreshing to read. Especially the sentence I've quoted in bold. That's how Lord of the Rings was written. A playground for Tolkein's favourite hobby: inventing languages!

I don't have a well-developed sense for flight models. If it objectively flies something like the performance charts say it should fly, and subjectively just 'feels right', then I'm happy. And I really appreciate good visual modelling, especially if it's both completely usable (ie, no blurry unreadable labels) and pretty. But I have no aptitude for 3d modelling, in Blender or Planemaker, for visual or flight models, or for building 3d cockpit objects. What I most appreciate, alongside a passable flight model and decent visual modelling, is the systems modelling. I appreciate a challenging level of complexity, as appropriate for the aircraft - which is why I really enjoy Tom Kyler's Falco. (It's probably the one of the most 'complete' aircraft presently, with excellent visuals and systems. I have no idea about the fidelity of the flight model but it's pleasing to fly, and the sounds I think are default.) Not that you must follow a five-page checklist to turn the engine on, but that the user gets they feeling they're sat behind a complicated bunch of components rather than the visual manifestation of a bunch of datarefs that come direct from the mouth of God.

If I were to build an aircraft, it would probably be a grey cylinder with slab wings and a 2d cockpit made from generic instruments, but with all the cockpit furniture driven by my own plugins that would reinforce the system dependencies and allow a host of entertainingly baffling failure scenarios (ideally, recording exactly what went wrong and why into a log file to be viewed after you crash). So you can fly at 105% N1 if you choose, but you'll be flying a glider after fifteen minutes. Or that there's a chance the aft rotor power-transmission gearbox has had enough of this cruel life and is shedding bits of metal into its oil, causing the annunciator panel to light up in pretty ways. Or maybe it's the XMSN CHIP DET sensor that's broken. This is the kind of modelling I want to do. I don't think many people would pay $20 for the kind of aircraft I could build by myself...

On a related note, are there any unique instruments in the Skyhawk that would need to be driven by a plugin? I might be able to write something suitable. My skills and experience are pretty rudimentary at the minute - the most recent things I've built are

and a plugin to drive the analogue DME gauge from my avatar. If there was a particular instrument needing a plugin in the A-4, I could possibly write an appropriate plugin and upload it as GNU freeware to the .org. Can't guarantee anything as I'm about to move house and start a new job, but I'd like to find interesting stuff to model systems- and instrumentation-wise...

[Dozer]

I've just read the blurb on the .org.

Ben Harber' date=' aka Mid7night, is a long time contributor to the X-Plane community. He has contributed more than 100 free projects to x-plane users.

He is currently a Community Leader of this site with a focus on 3D Modeling. He is also part of our moderating team.[/quote']

Focus on 3D modelling? I thought it was on flight modelling! Not really the same thing, for all the fact that Planemaker is a 3d editor...

[Mid7night]

Thanks for your thoughts.  I don't think there's any instruments that would require a plugin, I just haven't had the time to flesh out everything yet, like the radio and nav systems - which ARE on my to-do list.

I've just read the blurb on the .org.

Ben Harber' date=' aka Mid7night, is a long time contributor to the X-Plane community. He has contributed more than 100 free projects to x-plane users.

He is currently a Community Leader of this site with a focus on 3D Modeling. He is also part of our moderating team.[/quote']

Focus on 3D modelling? I thought it was on flight modelling! Not really the same thing, for all the fact that Planemaker is a 3d editor...

The blurb "focus on 3D Modeling" is in reference to the fact that I'm a leader of the 3D Modeling forum specifically.  I began most of my contributions there, and in Custom Designs.  My emphasis is more on the mechanics of 3D modeling, how to use the programs create and structure animations and such.

[Mid7night]

Update: The Skyhawk is now free!

 

I'm not actively supporting this plane anymore, other aspects of life have taken higher precedence (church planting, having a son...), but I just wanted to let you all know that it's out for free now.  

 

Enjoy!  

 

 

        ~ M7

 

http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=20420

[Gjalp]

Mid7night, thank you for what you have done, will you ever go back to this project?

 

Slainte,

 

Andy

NZCH

[Mid7night]

Mid7night, thank you for what you have done, will you ever go back to this project?

 

Slainte,

 

Andy

NZCH

 

Unfortunately, it is not likely, I'm sorry to disappoint.  Reason #1 is that I'm becoming ever-busier with learning to be a new father.  Secondarily I'm also getting more and more back into RC-flying, which takes a good chunk of my hobby-time.  Finally, the biggest reason I'm not likely to return to this project is that my laptop and external hard drive were recently stolen, and with them all the original models and associated files.  I'm glad that it's out and being enjoyed though, I'm glad to have done it.  

 

However; there are others who have taken to adding updates, so I don't see this as the end of my Skyhawk.  Most recently, an Org member has created a new livery with some new weapons.  Check it out here:  http://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?app=downloads&showfile=21117

 

Thanks again for all of you who have downloaded and enjoyed my Scooter!