FSX-MS Aerosim's 787 for FSX released

[Chock 17,769]

Lol Chock you make it sound like we should be paying extra money to these companies just to get decent framerates. Good FPS should be a basic feature of the addon, not something that is capitalized on.

 

No, I make it sound like it is worth paying for products which don't have crap frame rates because the developer has the good sense to realise that FSX has its limitations, knows what they are doing with optimising stuff, and is more concerned with putting out a product which runs well, than they are with pretty screenshots, because screenshots only have to run at a frame rate of one FPS.

 

I agree that good FPS should be a basic feature of all add-ons, but you know as well as I do that there are a ton of pretty products out there which turn FSX into a slideshow even on PCs with technology six years more up to date than the base program. And then you have to run EFB, Radar Contact, REX, FS2 Crew, MCE etc, etc on top of that, which makes things even worse. I can run any number of those things with all of AeroSim's products and still get good FPS. Try that with some other FSX airliners and your graphics card and CPU cores will melt into your motherboard LOL. And I've got an I7 processor in my PC.

 

Al

[ajpongress 467]

So you believe we should be paying more,as in the $100.00+ range, for complexity with very little if any concern for performance?

 

Uh no. Never said that and that's not what I believe. I think you misread my post.

 

No, I make it sound like it is worth paying for products which don't have crap frame rates because the developer has the good sense to realise that FSX has its limitations, knows what they are doing with optimising stuff, and is more concerned with putting out a product which runs well, than they are with pretty screenshots, because screenshots only have to run at a frame rate of one FPS.

 

I agree that good FPS should be a basic feature of all add-ons, but you know as well as I do that there are a ton of pretty products out there which turn FSX into a slideshow even on PCs with technology six years more up to date than the base program. And then you have to run EFB, Radar Contact, REX, FS2 Crew, MCE etc, etc on top of that, which makes things even worse. I can run any number of those things with all of AeroSim's products and still get good FPS. Try that with some other FSX airliners and your graphics card and CPU cores will melt into your motherboard LOL. And I've got an I7 processor in my PC.

 

Sorry, just sounded like you were saying FPS was a luxury!

I know...too many products that only focus on running with a 4.5 GHZ quad core to get decent frames. I run an i7 and I still don't get the 60 fps that some claim they achieve with every "slider maxed out."

I'm starting to think it's a myth.

[Ben Cap 89]

How is the soundset on this aircraft?

[Chock 17,769]

Funny you should mention that, I was just flying the 787 from Baghdad to Kuwait City and I noticed that when you throttle back for the descent, you get a really faint sound which is a bit like a WW2 aeroplane going into a dive, hard to explain, but that's what it reminded me of.

 

Anyway, not knowing what a real 787 sounds like very much, since I've only ever seen one landing once, all I can say is that I like the sounds and they are FSX coned, although they might not be like the real thing. I replaced my AeroSim 777 sounds with a TSS set if that helps you any.

 

Some pics of leaving Baghdad, worth noting here that this photorealistic scenery for Baghdad City and the surrounding terrain is on offer at Simmarket at the moment for just 6 Euros. There's a very nice freebie FSX Kuwait Airport in the Avsim Library too:

 

Ready to go...

 

 

Climbing out of what used to be Saddam International Airport until the US Army changed its name to Baghdad International in 2003 for rather obvious reasons.

 

 

Al

[vc10man 732]

steenkin

Al, you've watching too many Sergio Leone spag Westerns!

 

Nice paintjob though and thanks for that Kuwait+Bagdad airport h/u

[T_Fleck 36]

I am really on the fence about this one. Does is simulate the FBW? or is that asking a bit too much.

[Chock 17,769]

Nah, it's yer bog standard flight sim malarkey. Basically it looks like a 787 and has a VC which looks like it, has a simple FMC, an HGS, and can do basic LNAV/VNAV. That's about your lot.

 

Al

[T_Fleck 36]

Bah, ok. That means if I were to buy it I would be hell bent on adding FBW and end up doing more tweaking than flying resulting in not enjoying the plane much.

 

That being said I will probably end up buying it anyways, be knee deep in config files and cursing like a sailor the whole time. That seems to be my track record with shady addons.

[xplanery 250]

Bah, ok. That means if i were to buy it I would be hell bent on adding FBW and end up doing more tweaking than flying resulting in not enjoying the plane much.

Mmh how would you need to add Fly By Wire to it? I don't think B787 has any kind of flight envelope protections like modern Airbus.

[T_Fleck 36]

787 as far as I know is a Fly by wire aircraft. Not so worried about envelope protection as I am pitch and roll stability.

[Chock 17,769]

Yup, it is a FBW aircraft, in fact it uses the same basic system which is on the A380 and the SSJ, that being the AFDX interface. But unless you wanted to start ripping panels off the back bulkhead or simulating really in depth failures, it hardly matters in FSX, because where the 787 is concerned, it is only the means to transmit the commands to the control surfaces and does not include envelope protections such as the ones EADS uses on its Airbus aircraft.

 

So, effectively you can just as easily imagine that whatever system you like is transmitting the control inputs to the flying surfaces, even old bits of string and pulleys off a '65 Ford Mustang if you like, since it doesn't make any difference to it from an operational point of view.

 

What is not simulated, which might be noticable (maybe), and is probably what you are on about, is the active flight damping system that was based on the one found in (I think) the B2 Spirit stealth bomber (could be wrong on that, might have been the other one, i.e. the F-117 Nighthawk), which augments the kind of thing yaw dampers do, but also in the rolling and pitching plane as well. Although having said that, you could even pretend that one is in there, because I was flying the AeroSim 787 last night and had it on sim speed 16X, in real world weather, and it was doing a great job of maintaining 37,000 feet, unlike some FS airliners when you do that, which go completely haywire, especially when the weather updates.

 

Since the 787 eliminates a lot of what were traditionally bleed air and hydraulically-controlled systems, such as the wing anti-icing and the APU operations, by using a lot of electrics instead, it would certainly have been interesting at least from an avionics and overhead point of view if they'd had a stab at replicating that stuff. But it doesn't really go to those depths. Having said that, it does simulate the benefits of how that saved weight on the 787, because it does replicate the weight and range of the real thing.

 

Al

[xplanery 250]

787 as far as I know is a Fly by wire aircraft. Not so worried about envelope protection as I am pitch and roll stability.

Ah yeah forgot that it also affects there.

 

In few days planning to start around the world trip with this, flying with my friend in FSX multiplayer.

[T_Fleck 36]

Yup, it is a FBW aircraft, in fact it uses the same basic system which is on the A380 and the SSJ, that being the AFDX interface. But unless you wanted to start ripping panels off the back bulkhead or simulating really in depth failures, it hardly matters in FSX, because where the 787 is concerned, it is only the means to transmit the commands to the control surfaces and does not include envelope protections such as the ones EADS uses on its Airbus aircraft.

 

So, effectively you can just as easily imagine that whatever system you like is transmitting the control inputs to the flying surfaces, even old bits of string and pulleys off a '65 Ford Mustang if you like, since it doesn't make any difference to it from an operational point of view.

 

What is not simulated, which might be noticable (maybe), and is probably what you are on about, is the active flight damping system that was based on the one found in (I think) the B2 Spirit stealth bomber (could be wrong on that, might have been the other one, i.e. the F-117 Nighthawk), which augments the kind of thing yaw dampers do, but also in the rolling and pitching plane as well. Although having said that, you could even pretend that one is in there, because I was flying the AeroSim 787 last night and had it on sim speed 16X, in real world weather, and it was doing a great job of maintaining 37,000 feet, unlike some FS airliners when you do that, which go completely haywire, especially when the weather updates.

 

Since the 787 eliminates a lot of what were traditionally bleed air and hydraulically-controlled systems, such as the wing anti-icing and the APU operations, by using a lot of electrics instead, it would certainly have been interesting at least from an avionics and overhead point of view if they'd had a stab at replicating that stuff. But it doesn't really go to those depths. Having said that, it does simulate the benefits of how that saved weight on the 787, because it does replicate the weight and range of the real thing.

 

Al

 

So the 87' will not hold pitch and roll like an Airbus?

 

Alright, so I bought it. Out of curiosity how long did it take you guys to get you download links?

[Chock 17,769]

Nope. But that does not mean that the 787 does not have flight envelope protection augmentations. However, they are similar to the ones the 777 has, and also which the 747-800 utilises. These are a little bit like the 'laws' which EADS Airbuses have in certain modes, but they are not absolutely directly comparable, since the Triple Seven, 787 and the 747-800 have just three modes, these being Normal, Secondary, and Direct, and none of those modes prevent the pilot from taking the aircraft outside of a 'safe' flight envelope, although there are annunciations which tell the pilot that this would be the result of any such control input which is likely to do so.

 

Normal mode does what you might expect, i.e. everything works and there is some flight envelope protection to prevent overstressing the airframe, plus some stability augmentation, although you could actually take the aircraft past a safe angle of attack or whatever in this mode, so it isn't like the full flight protection mode of normal Airbus operations where it actually inhibits the attitude of the aircraft, nor does it maintain a specific roll or pitch attitude when you release the yoke, as it does with an Airbus.

 

Secondary is a bit like the EADS Alternate Law, and is a automatic reversion if some of the electronic flight control or IRS functionality is compromised. The main upshot of this is that some of the flight envelope protections which prevent overstressing the aircraft are lost, which on Boeing aircraft would mean that you could overstress the airframe if you flew it like a moron, although no decent pilot with a good feel for the controls would be so ham fisted as to be likely to do so.

 

Direct is a mode which is automatically entered if all of the primary flight computers conk out, or all the normal control surface actuators go offline, or there is some major problem with AFDX interface. It is possible to manually put Boeing aircraft into Direct mode, although apart from during flight testing, or an air test, it's difficult to imagine a circumstance where you'd actually want to do that. This is almost like manual reversion on something like a 737, although it is still via electronic actuators.

 

Al

[T_Fleck 36]

Interesting stuff, thank you for sorting that out for me. Foe whatever reason I was under the impression that the FBW system was more similar to the Airbus than it really is. On the bright side of that, I suppose it is nice that Boeing has at least maintained a more pilots' plane.