The Great Catalina Experiment

[Guest yrob1917]

I flew the Cat in WWII in the Aleutian Islands. I am now 90 years old and have had every MS FS since FS95 and all the Cat software available since Fred Wohosky's one and Abacus's for FS2002. I have been very disappointed no decent one has been made for 2004 or FSX. When I stumbled on this site I became excited. If the final version has just the features depicted in the photos of the author's post of Mar 1, 07, I would be elated. No need for more whistles and bells being cried for in other posts. I guarantee I will be one of your very first customers when it hits the street regardless of what it costs !

[ChrisB 11]

Hi Rob and welcome from a fellow fan of this site and product.

I envy you your experience of having flown this bird, although not for having had to have flown her for that "reason" (WWII). This particular model has indeed been long in the making. I guess everyone has a bit more patience though - after the FSX launch disaster forced most addicts to buy a newer PC . Now we need to wait for SP 1 to come through...

I am sure the moaners and detractors here - those who say they will never buy because of reason A or reason B - have not considered that this is a TEAM plane. I don't think Mathijs and his team could do that kind of model (yet). You'd never really be able to fly this bird alone for long. Not comfortably or safely, anyway.

But hey, Mathijs - that would be an idea for when we all get FSX working smoothly, now, wouldn't it? Model the different crew stations to allow the "flyer" to take his pick of the positions and maybe have "voice recordings" of simulated crew members (not really autopilot) giving him the info he needs for whatever station he's at.

Yeah... great idea! Give some of the moaners some real WWII cabin layouts - and a sextant. Oh - and a virtual FAA / EASA so that the plane would be grounded at first port of call because it didn't comply with current airworthiness regs... :twisted:

As for the "war aspect" that some folk might wish for:

Having followed this rather heated thread for some weeks now, it's time for me to have "a preach" again - go on, call me "Mary Whitehouse" if you want...

I have basically nothing against the idea of warbirds. I have even been a conviced soldier - been there, seen the film, got the T-shirt. But we don't need wars or even reminders of wars. Nope, I am not a pacifist either - just touch my car and see how I react... I also play mean and nasty RPGs with hack and slash... but the last thing FS needs is violence. The "Game" is rated free for absolutely all age groups folks - please remember that! A five year old could "play" this.

If you moaners had ever seen for real why I, and folk like me say this, we might have a better place for our kids. As it is, we see body bags all too often still.

So... I vote for "peaceful" flying in FS any day

@ all FS model devs - by all means make "period models and paints" and give 'em dummy bombs, but leave military action out of it.

Leave that for CFS and other (even) indexed games. Leave the period flying for "The Golden Age" developers - as in FS9

[maverickNL 0]

chris i must say you've got a very good point there with the violence thing. i didn't thought of it :oops:

but than the dog fighting mode, who they said to be on the falcon, should be taken out to?

[GOZR 0]

This is very interesting indeed ofcourse we can make a descent conversation with out pointing fingers and writing bad names, The beauty of it is that we can talk, exchange opinions and it should be that way and stay that way in my opinion, very good and valable points have been made.

Like a minority or a majority lets it continue because it is anyway for the good of a product with peoples with differents taste and experiences in their own life.

Another post about this thread here:

http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=42709

[maverickNL 0]

indeed but what i think we must not forget is that some planes are simply build for war. that also includes the Cat. whom to my knowledge was built as a scout/anti submarine warfare plane, and of course the F-16 and the A-10...

[IanP 0]

The Catalina was originally a scout/reconnaisance aircraft (totally unarmed) designed and built before WW2, but was given defensive armament later and, when one particular commander started attacking shipping with it, capability for dropping bombs and depth charges was added.

I definately agree with the statements abut not adding "explosive ordinance" to a civilian FS aircraft. You can stage mock dogfights if you like - Nick C and I seem to end up having a furball every time we're online together, regardless of what aircraft we're in! - but when you consider that many copies of FS are sold to parents who specifically get it because it is non-violent?

Ian P.

[ChrisB 11]

Hmm - seems I wasn't too far off with my thoughts.

Generally I don't want armies and all that, but I do realise that as humans, we are always going to have some that want to be aggressive, be it singly, in gangs or even in armies. However, it is those few "malcontents" that force the rest of us to need to protect ourselves, be it as an individual, in teams (Police) or even armies...

...and then we pay politicians to talk us out of a fight.

It's when they fail, that we send in the boys.

"The boys" need to be trained.

So dogfight modes are fair training game in FS - and so, unfortunately, are weapons. So we must train our "boys" in the use of them. But those who make "fighting modes" should reconsider - especially in light of the "no age restriction". I'd really hate for my grandson to "go playing" a computer game and find him dropping bombs on those evil foreign devil tourorists just because they got their towels on the sunbeds at 4:00 a.m.

I believe the Aerosoft Warthog has a bombing range, no?

As I said: "The boys" need to be trained. They also need to be old enough to kill before they get trained. In real life AND in sim.

Anyway, the absolutely best role any Cat was ever in was as the Jacques Cousteau support plane. It is sad that Cousteau Junior died, when that Cat crashed, but a memorial paint of that plane is almost a must in my eyes.

Besides, Cats (and other seaplanes) also played a big role in many a downed pilot's life. A few SAR missions wouldn't go amiss. This plane was a hero in more ways than one.

[maverickNL 0]

so what you are suggesting is that the F-16 and the A-10 should have an age limit on it because they do have weapons? (wich i would totally agree on)

yeah I suggested a cousteau version in the beginning of this project i'd love to see that one.

[GOZR 0]

This is a great thought and idea actually the suggested Jacques cousteau Catalina .

"The flying calypso"

[Thrud 0]

would there be copyright issues with using the Cousteau logo? i don't think they'd come after aerosoft.

[IanP 0]

The easiest way to solve that it to not include it in the package, then release it as a freeware add-on skin later - say, sort of, an hour after release.

That is how the community has managed to get around AAL's exceptionally tight limitations on use of it's insignia curtosey of Mr. Tishmuppet. :roll:

Ian P.

[Malloy 1]

Woha! I thought that Cousteau's is 100% for the package anyway...?!? Please do not think too much about that logo. A short letter to the foundation with a request for permission and I am sure they will agree. Come on, not everyone in that world is sewing everyone.

I even think they will apprechiate it, as most of todays kids have no idea about Cousteau and a cool model might increase some hits on their page anyway.

If it goes to mission planning, I would go for a Cousteau mission for sure.

As far as the weapons topic: leave the bombing to the bombers and the recce for the recce planes. A short mission to capture some good recce footage would do as well. Why are so many people thinking so destructive all the time? If you wanna see debris, check out CNN and wait for the Bagdadh news... real news would be if there is no bombing.

Sorry, my two cents... :wink:

[Snave 466]

From the `Shoot yourself in the foot` department:

While we discuss the emotional and notional niceties of `not flying warplanes` can we pause for a little factoid: Philippe Cousteau, second son of Jacques-Yves Cousteau was killed in the crash of N101CS `The Flying Calypso` on the 28th June 1979. The aircraft was destroyed.

So if death and destruction preclude the portrayal, then pedanticism dictates no Cousteau version, either

... and 767's? Let's not go there, shall we.

DO try to keep a grip on reality when discussing the virtual world, gentlemen. The decision not to render a `fully WWII` version is business, not a didactic in artisitic responsibility...

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Loads of issues here to settle.

We will do several versions of the PBY5 and at least one of the PBY4 (you will be able to use the beaching gear). All models will be in some form a mix (or rather merge) of several aircraft we used as sample. So we never pick one aircraft and try to do that one perfect because that would often limit us too much. We pick elements we like best from several aircraft and use them.

As with all our projects we try to make the aircraft as most people see it these days at air shows or static displays. So in a version that makes it usable in the current environment. FSX is not set in the 1943 after all. It is not impossible that we'll ever do a project that is strictly period, but that is a very different project from this one. The reason for this is simple, the demand for a pure ww2 version is limited, just not large enough to make the investment worthwhile. My market research on this is very clear. There will be a simplified panel, but the engine instruments will stay on the panel and not moved to a special engineers cabin. There is another project on the drawing board at this moment that we'll do totally in style, won't even have lights.

There will also be only a FSX version. I have seen some rather strong but not very intelligent statements on this. To make a hybrid version, fsx and FS9, would mean either doing a FS9 version that 'works' in FSX or do two versions. The first is no option for me as I want the full FSX options, the second is financially not possible.

Let me put it differently, how many FS9 addons you think we sell summer 2008? Keep in mind that chain stores won't even order any FS9 software at this moment. I have seen 5 upgrades of FS from a commercial point of view and this one is nothing special. There is the same group of people who claim never to use the new version because of some reason, there is the same group of people who will not use it yet for some reason. But they will all switch to the new version at one time. If not we would sell a whopping load of FS98 software right now.

People who tell us that they will no longer consider us as a possible supplier of software because of our support for FSX should take a look at what we did release in 2007. There is very very little actual FSX only software. We done new versions of FS2004 products, but that does not mean the FS2004 version is take out of the shop. We done many new products that are highly exiting and are FS2004 only (think of AES).

[foreigndevil 0]

those evil foreign devil tourorists

Thank you very much for abusing my name! :wink:

[Iron.Eagle 0]

Thank you very much for abusing my name! :wink:

and isn't it devilish, actually?

[IanP 0]

Sorry to drag up an old post from two pages ago, but...

Ian,

True, true, but let's be honest about MAAM Sim though: If that had been a commercial success then its commercial goal - of providing a new engine for the real grounded aircraft in MAAM's real hangar would long ago have been met

...Actually, the problem with the R4D is that it isn't in a hangar. The structure the museum was going to move into was declared beyond economic repair, so they have to wait until they have sufficient hangar space to fit the aircraft in before they can even start work on her.

It does, however, still prove both our and Mathijs' points, because if you look at both the MAAM-SIM R4D and B25, you will see a full array of VHF navigation instruments. Not period ones, not concealed ones, they're accurate renditions of aircraft that operate in a modern ATC environment. Worse than that, they operate in one of the busiest areas of the US for ATC and traffic using it!

On the Cousteau aircraft, there's a serious difference between a deliberate act intended to harm and an accident. The fact that someone was killed in a crash is hardly the same thing as deliberately pretending to kill other people in most observers' eyes.

Anyway, I'm totally off topic now, so I'll just sit back and read the thread now unless someone specifically questions me.

Cheers folks!

Ian P.

[ChrisB 11]

Thank you very much for abusing my name! :wink:

How odd... :oops: :wink:

But then again, we're all foreigners in over two-hundred countries. Funnily enough, after all the travelling I have done in my life, I feel foreign in the country of my passport, so that makes me a hundred percent foreign...

oooeerrr.

[GOZR 0]

Mathjiskok, Thank you for this answer..

My opinion, forget 2004 from now on

[ae_timmy 3]

Any news on the Cat? It's been over a month since the last post..

Really looking forward to this one.

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Any news on the Cat? It's been over a month since the last post..

Really looking forward to this one.

no comments on the attached image (note, you will only see it when you are logged on)

[pby5a 0]

Nice one Mathijs!!

I am so much looking forward to this plane. In fact, I think I am going to wait to install fsx until the Catalina come out. Then I'll install both and with the Catalina cruise speed I don't even have to worry about framerates

Does this picture mean we are going to see quite some virtual cabin :?: I sure hope so.

Again, let me know how I can help. Did you spot my new pictures uploaded?

[Thrud 0]

Close, but not quite there, yet. Keep working on that cockpit and nose turret.

i don't want you to fall short on your quote from the Company

The high quality standards of our products have been proved time and again by the many international awards bestowed upon Aerosoft.

.

[ae_timmy 3]

Hi there,

Just recently (while reading up on water bombing) I learned that Catalinas have been used as water bombers as well ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PBY_Cat...a_airtanker.jpg ). Personally I would hereby like to request a FSX version of one..

Now of course I would not expect one to be added to the release which is undergoing the finishing touches right now, but it might make for an interesting expansion / update package. With the current special effects of FSX, it could probably be simulated rather realistically and water bombing being a rather difficult profession (the French allegedly only like to hire naval aviators or aerobatic pilots), it could also make for some very interesting and challenging missions.

Also, if Aerosoft sees no marketable product in this, I am willing to have a go at it myself. It's just that I have virtually no programming experience... But I am an aerospace engineering student and I am quite capable of handling computers, so if there's anyone out there who has a bit more knowledge of programming for FSX and is willing to point me in the right direction.. ..I'd be happy to hear from you...

[maverickNL 0]

nice idea!

how does the water gets into the haul of the cat? they use like a big scoop and go for a cruise with 100 kts at 3 feet?