FSX-MS To Realair Simulations

[Andydigital 93]

+4

+5Re the click spots if you dont want to remove them completely, please at least have an area around each button where the click zone isnt active (i.e. a hole, dead zone) so that accidental switching view isn't an issue, thanks.

[robert young 2,897]

Hi all,It's good that people are observant. We'll have a look at the torque/ vent relationship. Could be a mistake in the xml coding. I'll try to look for the vapour trail too but we don't know where on earth that is coming from.Regarding the click spots, we've had many many emails appreciating the easy nature of getting quickly into zoomed views and quickly out again with left and right clicks. I assume clicking functions in track IR are conflicting with our clicking functions, or perhaps someone can explain in more detail why there is a conflict.I suppose we could create an option so that a KEY PRESS always gets you back to the main panel, but personally I find right and left clicks perfect for very quick examination of gauges. Is there not an option in Track IR so that you could use for example the middle mouse button or some other method for the conflicting clicks?Regarding click spots, one of the things in FSX that makes finding click spots harder is the grossly exaggerated FSX inertia effects which sometimes can make FSX VCs move around while you are flying and this is further exaggerated the more zoomed in you are to a click spot area. I would recommend toning down the inertia movement in FSX and this is simple to do by tweaking the settings in FSX.cfgWe can't make click spots bigger in most cases because it would mean that some rows of switches have click areas that are in danger of overlapping. I have rarely accidently clicked the wrong area but maybe I am excessively careful about this!As with everything we design, we err on the side of a standard copy of FSX, which the vast majority of people use. When you start introducing for example other camera systems, or addons which influence standard ways in which things are done, you inevitably come face to face with "conflicts of interest" about which method should take precedence. Many users on this forum are knowledgable and run FSX in a far more sophisticated way compared with the "average" user. We have to make sure that the average user is acommodated too.But we are making a list of all observations passed on and I assure you we set out with the intention to design everything to be as efficient as it can be for the majority of users. We'll make a decision soon about what a future update will contain, so we welcome observations made here.All the best,Rob - RealAir

[Andydigital 93]

We don't want you to make the click zones bigger, we want you to remove part of the click zone for the panel view changer facility around the immediate area of another click zone for a switch for example. Its just too easy to click view change rather than the actual switch you are after, and getting us to edit camera.cfgs to reduce head momentum effects actually goes against your philosophy of keeping FSX standard does it not.

[robert young 2,897]

We don't want you to make the click zones bigger, we want you to remove part of the click zone for the panel view changer facility around the immediate area of another click zone for a switch for example.

Ok understood!Rob - RealAir

[ohsirus 241]

Took the plunge and bought it, sight unseen. Took her out for a spin, great bird even though my right engine shut down while climbing. Going to have to RTFM. Great Visuals/Sounds, well worth it,

[Andydigital 93]

Took the plunge and bought it, sight unseen. Took her out for a spin, great bird even though my right engine shut down while climbing. Going to have to RTFM. Great Visuals/Sounds, well worth it,

Yes the random failure system seems to be a bit suspect or I'm extremely unlucky as far as the turbine Duke is concerned. I had random failures set to the lowest level and in my first 30 minutes of testing I had 2 failures of the right engine to start, which according to the manual should be an extremely rare event, one failure of the right engine while taxiing out to the runway and another failure of the right engine at 2000AGL after take off. This failures were all within the period of the first hour of use, the engines only had 30 minutes on them :)I've changed random failures to "Never" for now while I get a better feel for the Royal Duke and hopefully my luck will have changed by the time I get the guts (or have enough money for the repairs/service) to turn it back on again :)

[robert young 2,897]

Yes the random failure system seems to be a bit suspect or I'm extremely unlucky as far as the turbine Duke is concerned. I had random failures set to the lowest level and in my first 30 minutes of testing I had 2 failures of the right engine to start, which according to the manual should be an extremely rare event, one failure of the right engine while taxiing out to the runway and another failure of the right engine at 2000AGL after take off. This failures were all within the period of the first hour of use, the engines only had 30 minutes on them :)I've changed random failures to "Never" for now while I get a better feel for the Royal Duke and hopefully my luck will have changed by the time I get the guts (or have enough money for the repairs/service) to turn it back on again :)

The random failures are different from the failures due to engine stress. We will monitor reports of failures and see if we can improve any anomolies. You can have random failures low or very low but still suffer a failure through excessive torque, temp or Ng%. Rob - RealAir

[Andydigital 93]

Yes Rob thanks, im one of the sado's who read manuals cover to cover so I do have some understanding of your implementation of failures, I did have it set to very low already by the way thats why I said I must be extremely unlucky, either that or the choices in the configuration program arent working as expected, maybe the very high and very low settings have become transposed somehow. I'll turn them back on today and see how my luck changes.As always is the case from RealAir thanks for the quick feedback.

[ohsirus 241]

I was careful as to not overstress engine (Something I learned from the J41), did kind of catch me off guard as my gauges went to zero, but looking out the window my props still had constant rotation, have to check into Ice indications. Well, have to do more testing tomorrow. But OMG can she climb fast!

[Gazzareth 808]

I was careful as to not overstress engine (Something I learned from the J41), did kind of catch me off guard as my gauges went to zero, but looking out the window my props still had constant rotation, have to check into Ice indications. Well, have to do more testing tomorrow. But OMG can she climb fast!

You do need to keep an eye on the oil temps, hard to see as they are behind the throttle quadrant. The right engine seems to run a touch hotter than the left. Even at -10 degrees on the ground it is easy to overheating on climbing...G

[albar965 1,040]

The vaportrail is not Duke specific. It happens on the default aircraft and others too. As far as I remember this is caused by the wet enginge wash effect in the "effects" folder. Just rename the file to disable the effect.About the views: You can just remove the camera sections of these cockpit views from the "aircraft.cfg" to avoid accidental view changes. I use TrackIR and did this already for the piston Duke.BTW: Great aircraft. After a few flights I really love it. Alex

[Andydigital 93]

Open the oil cooler doors and oil temps wont be a problem this time of year, around Europe and the UK at least anyway. The PT6's certainly shouldn't over heat to the point of shutting down that quickly, especially in my case when I only managed to climb to 2000agl before one died on me, that must have been a random failure rather than an avoidable failure due to engine misuse.I've just done an hour flight with randoms back on "very low" and had an uneventful flight, so maybe it was bad luck after all, I'll keep you posted Rob.

[bliksimpie 1]

Does anyone else notice a smoke / vapor trail effect that comes off the plane about 500 feet below the centerline? I was flying at FL260 tonight and noticed what looked like a mini cloud floating beneath the plane.. I tried tapping the 'I' (smokesystem) key but it wouldn't go away. Engines were operating within specs.TIAjja

you can get more detail here on how to correct it... It is standard on all planes when you fly in winter in what FSX classify as "hard snow" areas as well as in rainy conditions.if you get it in conditions without rain it is the snowwash effect. See below. similar can be corrected for rainwash( wet engine wash as explained by Alex in post above - I think the effect also is something like weteneginewash if I am not mistaken). Even thou it say 20Ft below plane I really dont know the distance as it is really a guess to how much below plane it is, but it is really way down below plane. I have renamed my effect and it is working great on all my planes. The only thing is that when you taxi in rainy/snowing conditions you will not get the engine wash effect on the runway. I can live with that. http://aussiex.org/forum/index.php?/files/file/1572-remove-engine-snow-wash-effect-20-ft-below-plane/

[SpiritFlyer 987]

We get asked from time to time why we don't have a dedicated forum. We do monitor public forums, and especially this excellent one, and we've been offered space many times to host a forum. However, for over a decade now we have supported our customers with very prompt email replies, and this has worked extremely well. If we had a forum we'd be repeating exactly what we do in our current support, but in a less personal way, and we don't want to be sidetracked from the most important thing: Our customers. We prefer to service our customers individually and personally. That doesn't mean we are against public discussion, as this forum well demonstrates.All I can say is that the vast majority of our customers appreciate the timely responses and also appreciate the bespoke service. Even running a dedicated forum still means we have to provide email support, AND still monitor public forums too. We feel our energies are better directed at the service we currently give, since we are a two man team and we do not have the resources to take on more.I know for some this is not a conventional approach, but we like to go our own way.Rob - RealAir

Thank you Rob,It is a great feature for those without Track IR, no doubt at all. But it is a nuisance for those who move their head and hands around the cockpit with that equipment because as likely as not, the arrow and hand may be slightly off the switch being activated and onto another view clickspot and away you go. That is just about the last thing in the world a pilot wants when on short final! I believe the original suggester asked whether or not removing the click spot feature could be made into an option on the configurator panel in order to make it more compatible with Track IR, not for it to be removed altogether.This is not a suggestion for a fix, because it does not need one. The click spot feature is a welcome carry-over from the virtual cockpit/2D panel transition days that is still useful for those using a fixed reference point. It is a lot less so with others. This is merely an observation and suggestion for an enhancement that makes operating fully in the virtual cockpit more natural by removing an inconvenient hazard when using Track IR.Love the airplane! Did a four hour IFR from Twin Oaks OR to Sitka Al at FL 280 yesterday without a hitch.Kind regards,

[robert young 2,897]

Thank you Rob,It is a great feature for those without Track IR, no doubt at all. But it is a nuisance for those who move their head and hands around the cockpit with that equipment because as likely as not, the arrow and hand may be slightly off the switch being activated and onto another view clickspot and away you go. That is just about the last thing in the world a pilot wants when on short final! I believe the original suggester asked whether or not removing the click spot feature could be made into an option on the configurator panel in order to make it more compatible with Track IR, not for it to be removed altogether.This is not a suggestion for a fix, because it does not need one. The click spot feature is a welcome carry-over from the virtual cockpit/2D panel transition days that is still useful for those using a fixed reference point. It is a lot less so with others. This is merely an observation and suggestion for an enhancement that makes operating fully in the virtual cockpit more natural by removing an inconvenient hazard when using Track IR.Love the airplane! Did a four hour IFR from Twin Oaks OR to Sitka Al at FL 280 yesterday without a hitch.Kind regards,

Hi Stephen,Thanks for expanding on the explanations, and with such courtesy too which I appreciate. Yes I appreciate it can be a pain if you are running track IR. We'll see if we can make it optional, and also reduce the area for left clicking.All the best,Rob