Microprose B-17 Flying Fortress Released

[Wittpilot]

Well...... That tail wheel is gonna come up (I don't know the mph off hand on when it usually comes up) but that tail will want to go flying, and you want it up because you lose a lot of rudder authority with the tail down. So you want the tail up because you want that rudder working to keep her going straight. I think soft ground and/or short takeoffs may call for the tail to stay down. (don't quote me on that I'm really not sure).

 

[Javis]

Well...... That tail wheel is gonna come up (I don't know the mph off hand on when it usually comes up) but that tail will want to go flying, and you want it up because you lose a lot of rudder authority with the tail down.

Tell that to MP, Wittp.

Getting more and more mysterious what the heck these people are doing overthere at Microprose. Looks very much like they bought a cheapish, half finished B-17 model while having no clue how to proceed.

 

[DennyA]

I'm pretty sure it was a 3D asset created for one of the many B-17 sims (VR and pancack) they have in development, adapted to MSFS because it seemed a reasonably simple way to create a new product that would also promote their upcoming B-17 sims.

But they'd never had to deal with the reactions of MSFS users, who notice everything from major issues like static wheels to crazily detailed manifold-pressures-at-altitudes desires.

 

[Javis]

Ok, so atleast two completely different Microprose projects you think ?

Possibly a scenario like : a couple of enthusiastic MSFSimmers close to the Microprose fireplace asking for a B-17 model for them to convert to MSFS. Answer: Sure, we can do with some money so make that an Early Access bla bla bla project, alright ?!...Here's the model, good luck !

So the two enthousiastic B-17 fanboys get Blender, Gimp and more freeware stuff they figure they'll need for their MSFS B-17 project and start watching MSFS development videos... Phewww!!.... Oh my Gawd....what have we started...... ...

I can't really think of anything much else... Any true FS aircraft developer would simply be too embarrassed to deliver a payware product that, after 2 upgrades, is still in such deplorable state as this awkward contraption. No FS aircraft dev with a love for the B-17 and knows what he's talking about would put up a video on YT showing a completely wrong take-off attitude and be proud of it too. I feel sorry for these guys although they took my money...

 

[Priller]

Ok, so atleast two completely different Microprose projects you think ?

Possibly a scenario like : a couple of enthusiastic MSFSimmers close to the Microprose fireplace asking for a B-17 model for them to convert to MSFS. Answer: Sure, we can do with some money so make that an Early Access bla bla bla project, alright ?!...Here's the model, good luck !

So the two enthousiastic B-17 fanboys get Blender, Gimp and more freeware stuff they figure they'll need for their MSFS B-17 project and start watching MSFS development videos... Phewww!!.... Oh my Gawd....what have we started...... ...

I can't really think of anything much else... Any true FS aircraft developer would simply be too embarrassed to deliver a payware product that, after 2 upgrades, is still in such deplorable state as this awkward contraption. No FS aircraft dev with a love for the B-17 and knows what he's talking about would put up a video on YT showing a completely wrong take-off attitude and be proud of it too. I feel sorry for these guys although they took my money...

They're laughing their way to the bank Jan.

Jan

 

[Mr.Mugel]

Ok, so atleast two completely different Microprose projects you think ?

Possibly a scenario like : a couple of enthusiastic MSFSimmers close to the Microprose fireplace asking for a B-17 model for them to convert to MSFS. Answer: Sure, we can do with some money so make that an Early Access bla bla bla project, alright ?!...Here's the model, good luck !

So the two enthousiastic B-17 fanboys get Blender, Gimp and more freeware stuff they figure they'll need for their MSFS B-17 project and start watching MSFS development videos... Phewww!!.... Oh my Gawd....what have we started...... ...

I can't really think of anything much else... Any true FS aircraft developer would simply be too embarrassed to deliver a payware product that, after 2 upgrades, is still in such deplorable state as this awkward contraption. No FS aircraft dev with a love for the B-17 and knows what he's talking about would put up a video on YT showing a completely wrong take-off attitude and be proud of it too. I feel sorry for these guys although they took my money...

It is not 2 updates after release, it is still quite a bit before release.

People who don't want an unfinished product but still buy early access and do nothing but criticize is probablya big reason why. If you expect a certain quality (understandable) which the product did not have at EA release, why did you opt into the early access? You do release it is optional and totally up to the customer to just wait for the final release, check the quality then and decide on whether to buy it or not.

This is obviously fake since today a lot of the B-17s take off with the tail wheel up. Not considering that they have a completely different loadout (the video of the MP plane is with 100% fuel and no flaps, the video Javis linked is probably pretty empty) is obviously easier to just bash it here on the forum, hoping a developer who decided to finally bring a B-17 to this sim at all just goes away.
I am also not sure if their B-17 will meet my expectations, but so far I am keeping my mind open about it until we can really see what they will release.

 

[lagaffe]

Hello,

My 2 cents ...
I also bought this plane to see what it was worth and to participate in its development as I had done for the Boeing 247 and other Early Acces.
In fact, given the current content, which on the graphic side is quite advanced, the rest is not as much.

The problem in my opinion is the version number that was associated with this addon during its first release: IMO it is not a v0.9 but just a 0.5.
But how to attract potential buyers by publishing such a low version number ... that's the question! It is not necessary to detail my point further, everyone will have understood the commercial approach of Microprose

That this aircraft has potential and will improve in the future is possible, but this choice of version led a certain number of people into error.

PS: A final version is usually indicated by a V1.0 not by a 2.x

 

[Mr.Mugel]

Hello,

My 2 cents ...
I also bought this plane to see what it was worth and to participate in its development as I had done for the Boeing 247 and other Early Acces.
In fact, given the current content, which on the graphic side is quite advanced, the rest is not as much.

The problem in my opinion is the version number that was associated with this addon during its first release: IMO it is not a v0.9 but just a 0.5.
But how to attract potential buyers by publishing such a low version number ... that's the question! It is not necessary to detail my point further, everyone will have understood the commercial approach of Microprose

That this aircraft has potential and will improve in the future is possible, but this choice of version led a certain number of people into error.

PS: A final version is usually indicated by a V1.0 not by a 2.x

Hmm, but 0.9 does not mean 1.0 has to follow. In SW development as I know it, after 0.9 comes 0.10, 0.11, etc. Just a build number basically.

I agree though that it can raise unrealistic expectations with people who are not aware. I also think publishing a rather short roadmap with a rough schedule for release was a big mistake. People on the internet often seem to get the idea that a roadmap for an EA title is a binding schedule rather than a potential outlook into the future plans.

 

[Javis]

It is not 2 updates after release, it is still quite a bit before release.

I did not say 'after release'...

I have been flightsimming for about 40 years now (started with 'Nightflight' for Sinclair Spectrum 48K in 1984), believe i know what to expect from an EA release and this is no EA release. This is a BEA release (Botched Early Access release (not to be confused with former British European Airways)). This thing should've never been released in this state. Still, good for you if you have found a way to enjoy it. I simply can't.

 

[Paul K]

Still awaiting Flying Iron's decision whether to proceed. I'm becoming more optimistic by the day.

 

[Mr.Mugel]

I did not say 'after release'...

I have been flightsimming for about 40 years now (started with 'Nightflight' for Sinclair Spectrum 48K in 1984), believe i know what to expect from an EA release and this is no EA release. This is a BEA release (Botched Early Access release (not to be confused with former British European Airways)). This thing should've never been released in this state. Still, good for you if you have found a way to enjoy it. I simply can't.

I know you've been around long enough and I respect your contributions to this community. I also didn't want to single you out here, more like the general mood of the discussion.

If they won't get the flight dynamics right (or someone from the community will, as it was done / is being done for other products as well), and get a similar level of systems simulation as A2A did with the B-17 back in the days, I won't really use it myself. That is what is most important to me personally.
Since they didn't seem to have started with the systems, it's hard to see what they'll be able to deliver. Especially since they said that they will continue that after 1.0 release. Let's see what the future will bring.

 

[lagaffe]

Hmm, but 0.9 does not mean 1.0 has to follow. In SW development as I know it, after 0.9 comes 0.10, 0.11, etc. Just a build number basically.

I agree though that it can raise unrealistic expectations with people who are not aware. I also think publishing a rather short roadmap with a rough schedule for release was a big mistake. People on the internet often seem to get the idea that a roadmap for an EA title is a binding schedule rather than a potential outlook into the future plans.

When I read the roadmap initially planned and knowing that the second release has been made ... I don't think that they planned to do a 0.10, 0.11, ... etc. But I may be wrong, which between us would be good for all the people who trusted them

The roadmap published by Microprose.

Nevertheless, if that’s the case, it’s them who have been too confident in the provisional schedule, and in the computer games industry they tend to respect schedules cost by cost, there is nothing to see FS24 who had to wait a year to have the SU4 which should have been the initial version (Oct.2024).
But well, the characteristic of a discussion is to confront diverse and sometimes opposing opinions

PS: I often read their Discord and know pertinament that one of their developers: Seb has been suffering.

 

[Mr.Mugel]

When I read the roadmap initially planned and knowing that the second release has been made ... I don't think that they planned to do a 0.10, 0.11, ... etc. But I may be wrong, which between us would be good for all the people who trusted them

The roadmap published by Microprose.
View attachment 176329
Nevertheless, if that’s the case, it’s them who have been too confident in the provisional schedule, and in the computer games industry they tend to respect schedules cost by cost, there is nothing to see FS24 who had to wait a year to have the SU4 which should have been the initial version (Oct.2024).
But well, the characteristic of a discussion is to confront diverse and sometimes opposing opinions

PS: I often read their Discord and know pertinament that one of their developers: Seb has been suffering.

Yeah, that's what I meant, putting out the roadmap with details and the possibility to extrapolate a release date was maybe not the best idea.

 

[Wittpilot]

This is obviously fake since today a lot of the B-17s take off with the tail wheel up. Not considering that they have a completely different loadout (the video of the MP plane is with 100% fuel and no flaps, the video Javis linked is probably pretty empty) is obviously easier to just bash it here on the forum, hoping a developer who decided to finally bring a B-17 to this sim at all just goes away.
I am also not sure if their B-17 will meet my expectations, but so far I am keeping my mind open about it until we can really see what they will release.

A classic video. Wish they had YouTube back in the day when I used to play the original MicroProse B-17 game. ha! Yeah like I said, I'm sure we did 3 point takeoffs at times. But I can tell you they were rare. We typically fly out of a lot longer runways these days compared to the 40's and certainly we flew very light most of the time. (Interesting side note that I remember the pilots talking about eons ago, was when flying non-revenue types of lights and someone would venture back to the tail, they said you'd often have to re-trim the airplane as the weight of that person will actually cause the plane to go out of trim. Something that probably doesn't surprise a lot of real world pilots, but not something I would have really considered off the top of my head!)

 

[Wittpilot]

Still awaiting Flying Iron's decision whether to proceed. I'm becoming more optimistic by the day.

Yeah, it may be something they circle back around to. I know they have another aircraft in mind they are working on. But having seen some of the early B-17 work they had done...mannnnnn it looked good.

 

[Javis]

I know you've been around long enough and I respect your contributions to this community. I also didn't want to single you out here, more like the general mood of the discussion.

Sure, that's fine, sir.

If they won't get the flight dynamics right (or someone from the community will, as it was done / is being done for other products as well), and get a similar level of systems simulation as A2A did with the B-17 back in the days, I won't really use it myself.

Ok, now wait a minute, clearly you hearten MP's B-17 project and that's very commendable of you but in the end you don't really care for a B-17 model to fly in FS24 ?.. Not even if it has A2A quality ??..... Huh ??!!...

I think i may have lost you here completely but i might understand that you don't like new FS projects being 'bashed' as a common rule. Again, very commendable of you and i do certainly agree and if the B-17 not happend to be so close to my heart i certainly wouldn't have bothered to spend another word on it.

Besides, i might have to tone down my comments so far a little bit because i found 'the culprit' that is givin the MP B-17 dev a headache regarding the wheels animation : they want the tires to look like they carry a heavy load while on the ground. An admirable pursuit that, AFAIK, never really has come to fruitation. I know Milton has been working on it for a while and gave up on it. And that's exactly what i'd like to propose to MP as well: fuhgeddaboutit and do a normal wheels animation. ;-) The bulging outwards bottom of the tires look great but the solution to having that stay there while the wheels are supposed to be rotating is *not* to rotate the rim only....

They should've worked on the external model and VC only to begin with, leave the entire inner fuse for later, not important (in MSFS which is *not* a game, right ? ;-) What's important in a model like the B-17 is, when inside the cockpit and you look right or left, the spinning props should deffinately be 3D ! Personally i can't even look at those 'spinning props' like it is now. Totally ruining the immersion (the VC does look nice apart from looking left/right)

Ok, then, i'll be happy to stop whining about those stuck wheels now that i know what's causing it and i do applaud the effort. Maybe there's still a shred of hope left in me..

 

[Mr.Mugel]

Sure, that's fine, sir.


Ok, now wait a minute, clearly you hearten MP's B-17 project and that's very commendable of you but in the end you don't really care for a B-17 model to fly in FS24 ?.. Not even if it has A2A quality ??..... Huh ??!!...

I think i may have lost you here completely but i might understand that you don't like new FS projects being 'bashed' as a common rule. Again, very commendable of you and i do certainly agree and if the B-17 not happend to be so close to my heart i certainly wouldn't have bothered to spend another word on it.

Besides, i might have to tone down my comments so far a little bit because i found 'the culprit' that is givin the MP B-17 dev a headache regarding the wheels animation : they want the tires to look like they carry a heavy load while on the ground. An admirable pursuit that, AFAIK, never really has come to fruitation. I know Milton has been working on it for a while and gave up on it. And that's exactly what i'd like to propose to MP as well: fuhgeddaboutit and do a normal wheels animation. ;-) The bulging outwards bottom of the tires look great but the solution to having that stay there while the wheels are supposed to be rotating is *not* to rotate the rim only....

They should've worked on the external model and VC only to begin with, leave the entire inner fuse for later, not important (in MSFS which is *not* a game, right ? ;-) What's important in a model like the B-17 is, when inside the cockpit and you look right or left, the spinning props should deffinately be 3D ! Personally i can't even look at those 'spinning props' like it is now. Totally ruining the immersion (the VC does look nice apart from looking left/right)

Ok, then, i'll be happy to stop whining about those stuck wheels now that i know what's causing it and i do applaud the effort. Maybe there's still a shred of hope left in me..

I think we are getting closer to a mutual understanding My rant was just about possibly pushing away new players on the market by frustrating them with superficial negative feedback. And I have done it myself in the past, I have to admit. Especially when it is about an aircraft we care a lot about, we tend to get temperamental.

The B-17 is iconic, I exactly remember the first time I saw one flying at Hahnweide airshow 2009. When it first came into view (it had to operate from Stuttgart airport due to weight limitations), basically the complete crowd fell silent. It was Pink Lady back then when she was still flying. Since then I had a few opportunities to see Sally B, at Villaroche and Sanicole. This aircraft just does something to me. Being a German myself and considering the tons of bombs that were dropped on this country from B-17s, I am still fascinated and I have a deep appreciation for the young men stepping into these machines, risking everything to attack strategic targets in daylight instead of just bombing cities in the night. I am grateful to the role they played in freeing Europe from fascism. (Edit, I hope this doesn't stray too far into the politics, that wasn't my intention at all).

That was the long way of saying I do care to get a model of this aircraft into the sim. I wished for it since I first tried FS2020. In FSX and P3D, probably half my time was spend in A2As model. But my main focus in the sim is the engineering aspect, maintaining the individual engines, keeping the machine purring. If that is too simple, my interest would probably fade and I'd go back to the PMDG DC-6, which really scratches my itch. So I'll see what the future will bring for us B-17 wise, may it be from MP or other companies. I just want all of them to get a fair shot at it, I am not a fanboy of any of these developers.

And to lighten the mood, I still watch this intro every now and then. I played the game in my childhood and it is crazy how far things have developed since then:

 

[Mr.Mugel]

A classic video. Wish they had YouTube back in the day when I used to play the original MicroProse B-17 game. ha! Yeah like I said, I'm sure we did 3 point takeoffs at times. But I can tell you they were rare. We typically fly out of a lot longer runways these days compared to the 40's and certainly we flew very light most of the time. (Interesting side note that I remember the pilots talking about eons ago, was when flying non-revenue types of lights and someone would venture back to the tail, they said you'd often have to re-trim the airplane as the weight of that person will actually cause the plane to go out of trim. Something that probably doesn't surprise a lot of real world pilots, but not something I would have really considered off the top of my head!)

Haha, yeah it's nice to have access to these videos so easily now.

I only fly R/C and sim, but even from R/C it is indeed interesting how big a difference a small weight on the tail can induce. Especially with aerobatics, pushing the CG slightly backwards can unlock a lot of interesting manouvers. At the cost of becoming nervous on take-off and landing of course.
I am a bit jealous, we don't get many restauration projects here like that here, otherwise I could see myself volunteering as well. I have only once seen Sally B up close on the ground and it still is my phone lockscreen wallpaper.

 

[Wittpilot]

Haha, yeah it's nice to have access to these videos so easily now.

I only fly R/C and sim, but even from R/C it is indeed interesting how big a difference a small weight on the tail can induce. Especially with aerobatics, pushing the CG slightly backwards can unlock a lot of interesting manouvers. At the cost of becoming nervous on take-off and landing of course.
I am a bit jealous, we don't get many restauration projects here like that here, otherwise I could see myself volunteering as well. I have only once seen Sally B up close on the ground and it still is my phone lockscreen wallpaper.

Oh I know the world of RC all too well! There's that old adage.... A nose heavy airplane flies poorly, a tail heavy airplane doesn't fly at all!