HelloYou might like to take into consideration that Ryan aside from being a licensed pilot also makes his living as an air traffic controller.In between all of that he has some how managed to accrue almost 6000 posts here.I am sure he his cracking open a beer now after finding out that someone with three posts to his name and one months membership of avsim has bestowed on him the accreditation of an advanced level one flight simmer or maybe a two.Way to go mate, classic third post.

...[ ] Don't forget... Like I've said before. I'm not saying it's a bad plane... Quite the opposite it's a great plane in my opinion the best plane I own. I't almost the only thing I fly. (just ask my flying club) I just think that there are a few MAJOR problems with it that need to be addressed, and I think that payware plane designers in general need to think about a bigger picture when deciding weather or not to include a variation that a level 2 can customize with aftermarket gauges and equipment.And for goodness sake... make sure you knobs buttons and levers can be activated by mouse, keyboard shortcut, or direct input (simconnect in the case of FSX) so that it's usable by all levels of user, not just the guy who thinks there should be a mouse in every cockpit.Bao

Hi Bao,Leaving the desirability of mouse control out of the discussion for a while, we did make efforts to link as many controls as possible with hardware addon functionality. It is not often appreciated that the channels available in FSX for this kind of thing are extremely limited. Add to that the fact that most of our gauges are silky smooth and crystal clear for the very reason that they are not conventionally built, but are in fact true 3d animations, and the problem of hardware functionality becomes even more restricted, but on the other hand there is no doubt that the success of our aircraft is very strongly connected with users' appreciation of their design, and the very design they appreciate inevitably throws up compromises. If we designed the whole aircraft on a conventional 2d system with 2d gauges and switches slapped on a flat background, no doubt many of your frustrations would be alleviated, but not many people would be satisfied with that.Having two completely different versions, ie: 2d and 3d, would extend the development time and resources beyond commercial viability. At some point we have to actually finish a project and claw back the investment. We emphasise in all our documents and website that we are a 3d cockpit specialist, and any developer will tell you that making every hardware function perfect in a 3d environment is simply not possible given FSX's limitations.Some functions (for example the cowl flaps) just would not work from inside the cockpit with hardware assignments, however hard we tried.We don't deliberately set out to stop them and nor does this happen through lack of effort (we spent weeks trying to solve the cowl flap issue). But most users report that the majority of common functions do work with their hardware. Without specialist programming which would add to the already long (two years) development time including release and subsequent service release improvements, and that further programming might not even be successful and would bound to increase our costs and therefore the price, we felt that the vast majority of users were very happy with the outcome of the last patch which adressed requests from statistically a tiny minority of users.Coming to your point about mouse control, I think this subject is open to different views. My view is that the mouse "hand" in a virtual cockpit represents the actual hand of the pilot, and using the mouse in this way within the 3d environment as displayed on your screen is the nearest equivalent to using your actual hand to operate switches and functions.The addition of a physical home-built cockpit adds yet another layer of functionality. You are looking at your own structure from your seat, but the screen in front of you is showing a virtual cockpit AS WELL. In effect, this means you are using two separate representations of virtual reality, one the physical structure around you and two, the graphical/virtual structure in front of you. In a completely satisfying home cockpit there would be no need for our 3d cockpit at all. All you would need would be just an outside view since everything else would be simulated with your cockpit structure and your hardware.Such structures and functionality are as you know incredibly expensive, but the point is that over 99% of our users have neither the cash, resources nor skills to build such a thing. Therefore I think it is reasonable that we design our aircraft to satisfy that 99%. That is not to say we would ignore the remaining 1%, but it is a product which is a tiny fraction of the price of building a sim cockpit, using a platform (FSX) that is itself amazingly inexpensive considering what you get in return, and we feel we've pushed the design possibilities already way beyond anyone could have conceived of just a few years ago.I'm sorry we cannot match your requirements but I think you are asking for the impossible. The very thing that our customers like about the Duke is the presentation and performance of the exterior, flight model, interior and (by and large) it's functions, view options, and especially its gauges. In order to deliver all this, intellgient compromises have to be made elsewhere. If we could "magic" up a perfect simulator from a now very old platform with vast numbers of limitations, we would.With best regards, Rob - RealAir

Well said, Rob

If we could "magic" up a perfect simulator from a now very old platform with vast numbers of limitations, we would.With best regards, Rob - RealAir Rob...you already did!! It's called the "Duke Turbine" and thanks for that. By the way...please do have a chat with the guys at Prepar3D and see if they can fix some of those limitations for you. They seem very willing to work with developers.

HelloYou might like to take into consideration that Ryan aside from being a licensed pilot also makes his living as an air traffic controller.In between all of that he has some how managed to accrue almost 6000 posts here.I am sure he his cracking open a beer now after finding out that someone with three posts to his name and one months membership of avsim has bestowed on him the accreditation of an advanced level one flight simmer or maybe a two.Way to go mate, classic third post.

I think you may misunderstand what I mean by lvl's 1, 2, and 3. It's about the immersion level and has nothing to do with how long someone has been flying sims or the level at which they participate in real world aviation. It's all about "the mouse in the cockpit" as we call it. Not necessarily the actual mouse mind you, but for example.Your basic level one simmer installs the software out of the box and most likely installs a joystick or flight stick of some kind and just flies... he may fly 90 hours a week for 10 years. But he is still a lvl 1 simmer. The level one refers rather to the hardware setup.. He only uses one keyboard for example.The level two simmer is a bit more advanced in the other hand... He or she feels the need to use more than one keyboard in order to reduce keyboard combinations to a single key-press and have keys or "buttons" on both sides of the controls to help simulate the reality if reaching with the left hand to flip switches that are on the pilots left side in the aircraft and keys on the right (ir even over head off to the right) to simulate switch panels in those locations. This simmer can generally has the desire for an exceptional 3d cockpit (like the one in the Duke) to help his "reality" stay tied to visually accuracy. This simmer also likes to employ the use of additional monitors for third party apps like flight planning software, weather tracking, and such.In my case I also like to keep my GNS's up on a separate monitor (down and to the right) so that I don't have to loose the ability to see my other gaugesor the horizon line but rather can just turn my head slightly and still have a peripheral view of the world and the rest of the plane. And since I have all the RXPGNS units listen for keystrokes independently from FSX and can be set up with their own keybindings I just have to move my hand over the controls for the GNS I have placed just below that monitor.Which brings me to level three.. This is what I'm transitioning to right now in my case for financial reasons it's a LONG transition. and relies (and will to continue to) heavily on inginuity spare parts broken stereos, VCR's, junk from the local dump, etc... But many of you have seen examples of the creature I am turning into... Were the "nut jobs" who build full scale cockpits in the spare room of our house or in a garage... in the case of one gentleman I read... In his warehouse downtown.Once this level is achieved the virtual cockpit is no longer needed. But during the transition... it is.I hope that helps to clear up the misunderstanding. Saying that I thought Ryan was a high lvl 1 or a lvl 2 was not in any way a putdown it was just a guestimation of the immersion level he flies at.. One KBD, IR Tracker, flight controlls (yolk or stick) single monitor (even if it's a movie screen) is a lvl 1 (ir and huge screen generally considered a HIGH lvl 1) Once you start buying or building extra key panels or using afternmarket (or home built) autopilot units, comstack and the like, you have crossed the threshold and are in danger... Your wife just may hold an intervention.Thankfully my wife understands completely (end even helps out. I hope one day to teach her to fly.As to the "Duke issues"I sniffed out most of the variables and knocked off a few LUA scripts to be run through last night in the wee hours of the morning giving me full hardware assignability to all the knobs and switches that can't be used with a basic event binding and now have FULL control over the plane from hardware through FSUIPC. Like I said it was in the wee hours of the morning as soon I polish them up a bit I'll make them available to anyone who wants to use themAnd Rob,Can we assume that so much of the Duke is simulated outside of FSX in preparation for implementation on other sim platforms with minimal updating? If so I will do my best to include functionality for all the switches that don't do anything in FSX but are still "switchable" in the Duke in case they are tied to simulator function later. Of corse this would be a lot easier and go a lot faster if I has an actual list of the variables rather than sifting through the aftermath to get them. Not to mention coders and scriptwriters far better than I could take a wack at it too and maybe together we could slay this beastMy goal in the end assuming I have time and brain function enough to pull it off is to write a "translator" script that listens for SC Events and then mimics the Duke equivalent setting for the entire plane, implementing change in the Duke only after it is confirmed to be in the wrong state of course. I wrote software for years and I absolutely understand if you can't provide a list to work from. But it may be worth talking with you business partners about. Listing the Variables in the PDF manual for reference might not be a bad Idea.At any rate I'll keep sifting in the meantime.Bao

There's nothing much in the Duke which is custom as far as switch functions are concerned, except where we had to workaround FSX bugs or where we couldn't find a solution. Thanks to mad dog for finding the event assignments and pledging to publish them.Baobob: No, the Dukes were designed only for FSX. We have not anticipated any development for any other platform, and at its incept we had no idea about other emerging platforms anyway.Rob - RealAir

I didn't hear anything about mad dog pledging to publish any sort of event assignments, but as promised I uploaded the lua scripts that I wrote last night after giving them a quick shakedown the file is DukeLUAs.zip... I don't know how the system works here because I have not used this particular forum before, so I don't know when they will become available for download. I didn'st write one for the Cabin Pressure yet but I'll get to it as soon as my brain rests up a bit.Please let me know what bugs you find so I can take care of them as quickly as I can. So far they all work for me.Bao

I'm still not sure weather or not the download is available so I'm posting a link here to another forum I recently joined where I have to scripts original scripts as well as the most recent versions posted. All future development on those scripts as well as others will be done on the other website since not only can I make scripts available for download right in the posts but it is a more likely place for lvl 2 and 3 immersion to be looking for them in the first place since it is they who need to tie those plane functions to knobs and switches in the first place. The link here is where I will be putting the scripts for the Duke specifically and I'm sure there will be others posting there as well so if you have need... feel free...Bao-http://forum.simflight.com/topic/69767-duke-turbine-scripts/

I hate the Topics being viewed, because all it does it make us look at what everyone is looking at no matter how old it is.

Your basic level one simmer installs the software out of the box and most likely installs a joystick or flight stick of some kind and just flies... he may fly 90 hours a week for 10 years. But he is still a lvl 1 simmer. The level one refers rather to the hardware setup.. He only uses one keyboard for example.

You´re also saying that I´m an level 1 simmer in your oppinion just because I don´t have all these fancy hardware like multiple real panels?! That´s ... Have you thought that there are some guys out there who don´t wan´t to have everything like the real thing with real panels and enjoy their childish "keyboard"? or some others (like me) how simply don´t have the money to buy all these things? Are these ones not that experienced than these with all that fancy stuff?

Edit...I should read more carefully. I thought 90 hours a week for 10 years was in FS...I was impressed and concerned :(

The RealAir Duke is among the very best planes ever done for Flight Simulator. It is among the rare few for which which I have felt no need to do any modifications. It is a masterpiece. If you don't love the Duke, adjust your head. The plane is fine.

Hi Hitchhiker,FSX by default severely restricts sound channels to assign to switches, and the only way to do so is to programme custom sounds which adds to the frame rate demands, adds another layer of uncertainty to many systems whose users expect perfection, and is also very fiddly and difficult to implement. I would agree (if that was any user's point) that it is quite absurd that FSX doesn't ship with this most basic of functions, but this flaw always gets blamed on addon developers, yet we find it as frustrating as you might! We'd love FSX to be able to play switch sounds by default but at the moment it is limited to fuel pump, starter switches and battery/master switch. Many many users of FSX do not often realise just how many inherent flaws, bugs and limitations we have to overcome just to get any decent aircraft (especially turboprops) to perform reasonably at all!Once we have ironed out the minor issues that are arising, we will work on a service release and when the current stuff is working as perfectly as we can achieve, we'll start thinking about adding things like custom sounds.Regarding switches, if one function has three increments (Off, half and full on) it is quite difficult to construct switches that are not more confusing than bi directional ones. Many real aircraft have bi-directional switches, and another issue is finding enough switch panel real-estate to cram every function in. For the time being I don't think it is hugely inconvenient to cope with bi- directional switching.Regards,Rob - RealAir

Folks, I am wondering is there any custom made sound set for the switches to add this fantastic aircraft ? Cheers

HelloYou might like to take into consideration that Ryan aside from being a licensed pilot also makes his living as an air traffic controller.In between all of that he has some how managed to accrue almost 6000 posts here.I am sure he his cracking open a beer now after finding out that someone with three posts to his name and one months membership of avsim has bestowed on him the accreditation of an advanced level one flight simmer or maybe a two.Way to go mate, classic third post.

Perfect, absolutely perfect answer, and oh, so justified! Well done MD. :good:INHO the Duke is the best of the best in class, bar none.

There are two ways to fly virtually and make it seem very close to reality.One is to immerse the physical operator's mind into the simulated world, placing him inside the virtual cockpit graphical interface, sitting on the virtual pilot seat and presenting him with a near perfect electronic representation of the physical reality. By entering this world and by mastering the use of such devices as Track IR the pilot and the simulation become an extension of each other. The fidelity and believability of the pilot's experience is dependant primarily upon human skill and the software interface of the simulation program. Using simple controls the pilot commands the virtual aircraft from within, thereby rendering a physical replicated cockpit redundant.The other way is to connect only part of the simulated world with a physical replicated cockpit, while placing the pilot outside the graphical interface. All else is shared with the virtual reality version except that all instruments and controls are physical and not virtual. The fidelity of the pilot's experience is dependant not only upon the characteristics of the simulation program, but also upon the quality and functionality of the physically replicated cockpit, and the ability of it's complex hardware to interface with the simulation program. The pilot controls the hardware, and the hardware controls the virtual world from without, there rendering a virtual cockpit redundant.What is the difference when all is said and done when each type is developed and implemented to the full extent? I don't know, but I will guess that the virtual version represents a broader and more immersive environment as the entire cockpit changes with the aircraft flown. The virtual pilot will jump into an F16 and scream for the heavens or shepherd a docile 747-400 into an ILS landing. The other pilot, the one outside the simulation program, is stuck in the same cockpit and imaginary airplane he designed it to look and function like in the first place. The first pilot becomes a virtual pilot, flying virtual aircraft in a virtual world. The second becomes a virtual pilot also, but flying a virtual aircraft in his garage.IMHO one is not less valid or realistic than the other, and whichever route is chosen, or combination thereof, it does not classify whether they are first, second or third rate flight simulation pilots. Their skill at operating and handling their virtual aircraft does that.Kind regards,