Is it the the VC-10 engineer panel!!??

 

I think he means Aerosoft's LIRF.

I am wondering how many missed app/go-arounds did you have prior to touchdown LOL

That's actually a pretty good question. I'm strictly a simmer. Only real a/c I ever flew was a Cessna 172, very briefly, around 30 years ago. Scared hell out of me. So my enjoyment of FS9 does not require nearly as high a level of authenticity as some, or probably even most. I like flying commercial airliners in FS9, but since the stock ATC has a number of serious flaws (including allowing a following a/c to run right over you on final), and since quite a few addon sceneries have flaws which allow your plane to "crash" when simply beginning at a gate, I've long since disabled crash detection in the sim. I tend to fly into the same airports over and over, and for most with parallel runways, I've long since discovered which one (or ones) get the heaviest amount of arriving traffic, and I request the lesser-used runways from ATC. For example, the stock ATC vectors a good 80% of arrivals at LAX to RWY 24R/6L, so I always request 25L/7R. That cuts way down on go-around demands. And since it's only a sim and I have crash detection disabled, even when issued a go-around, better than half the time I simply ignore it and set down anyway. I usually do manage to get stopped without rear-ending the a/c ahead of me, but I don't sweat it if I don't, since following traffic flies right "through" me all the time anyway. That's how "unpicky" I am about it. And it doesn't detract from my enjoyment a bit.

Most of my favorite addons have been named already. In addition to the addons, it's way more stable and performance friendly. Plus there's tons of awesome freeware. The only reason I'd return to fsx (provided I get a better rig) is for the Orbx/GA scenic flying.

-Not a separate point but more related to the first one. If I'm approaching Heathrow, one of the busiest airports in the world, I want to be able to simulate that in FS9 as well. My AI is always at 100% giving me tons and tons of flights just like at the real Heathrow. Default ATC has quite a hard time keeping track with everyone. Indeed, just yesterday I wrapped up a long haul flight and while on approach to Heathrow, ATC was giving approach clearance to at least 20 aircraft heading towards Heathrow, from a Cathay flight inbound from Hong Kong to my own Emirates flight from Dubai. AISmooth kept the go-arounds in check so it was slightly less hectic, but even so quite challenging. Real life Heathrow is just as busy, and so is my FS9 rendition of it.

 

Couldn't agree much more..

 

 

FSX is a joke, I don't care much if the graphics are to die for, if there's more detail, if it's a more advanced platform for developers or whatever, performance and realism matters most to me. I rather not fly around in the worlds best Airbus A320 for FSX at a nearly empty CDG that feels more like a slideshow than an actual simulator. Yes, the eye can't see more than 24FPS, but FSX cannot give me what I want AND deliver steady 24FPS. FS9's set the standard for me and FSX is yet to deliver. Been there and done that. It's simply not worth the amount of time AND effort invested.

 

I'm sorry if any FSX users are offended by my post, but after trying FSX a multitude of times, nothing came to fruition out of it. I spent over a week trying to fine tune everything from all the various forum posts but nothing at all worked. About the only thing I found FSX good for was for GA flying in areas with little to no development. Consequently, I'm going to stick with FS9 until I give up flying as a hobby entirely.

 

I think fsx/fs9 users are mature enough, no one should be offended by this thread, at least You and I didnt mean to either by starting the thread or stating your preference, that's why this fs2004 forum exists. As You stated earlier, taxiing to the gate and seeing various from airlines around the virtual world add the feel of being there.. especially after a long flight where you landed in a place that uses different language with your departing airport..well things like that

Is it the the VC-10 engineer panel!!??

 

I think he means Aerosoft's LIRF.

 

It's the engineers panel in part. It's a massive task due to the split system technology of the VC10. Every gauge and system has to be altered. What's "coming soon": Full Engine T's&P's Panel, Oxygen panel with split cabin and cockpit delivery, Flaps isolate (part panel), Icing system (that "really does" detect ice), Smoke detectors-thrust augmenters (part panel). New night overhead panel (see below). Most importantly however, the engines have had a complete and deep overhaul. All the problems in the original model have been eradicated. Gone is the annoying surge on start-up, and full reverse with engines off. Engine performance has been correctly matched to the perfomance tables and engine limitations. The engine performance of the original model is way off scale to put it mildly! Plus new cockpit ambient sounds including the background scream of the Conways on take-off. not forgetting more additions to the checklists.

As for LIRF I have the ISD free version.

 

It's the engineers panel in part.

 

That's sure a beaut! In looking for answers to various gauge problems, I've read some of your threads over at FSDeveloper - it sounds (and looks) like it's been a massive undertaking!

It's the engineers panel in part. ...

 

Great to hear! - I'm looking forward to it. I can only imagine the complexities involved in creating it - the VC-10 engineer panel is no laughing matter :smile: - really going to enjoy learning it!

 

As for LIRF I have the ISD free version.

Yup - I've been using it too for ages and I'm very happy with it.

That's sure a beaut! In looking for answers to various gauge problems, I've read some of your threads over at FSDeveloper - it sounds (and looks) like it's been a massive undertaking!

 

Thanks for that. The final two nails in the coffin "so to speak" are full hydraulics and electric panels. The problem with that is that on the VC10 control surfaces are split between electric power and hydraulic power. I have to match each engine generator to one or the other plus what services are redundant and on what bus. Also I have to create the ELRAT (Emergency Lowered Ram Air Turbine) which reduces even further what instruments are live. This is the T's&P's showing (top) the P7 gauges. The VC10 didn't use EPR. Instead it was a combination of P7 N1, N2. P7 is in effect the back half of the EPR. The calibration graph for P7 runs to 10 pages!!!!!!!

 

Great to hear! - I'm looking forward to it. I can only imagine the complexities involved in creating it - the VC-10 engineer panel is no laughing matter :smile: - really going to enjoy learning it!

From now on when you fly you'll have to stay within the engine limitations schedule. You can only slam the throttle for a max of 20 secs=107%n2. To give an example of the differences between the orginal engine model and this forthcoming one: Originally slamming the throttle produced 115%n2 (which would seriously damage the engine in real life!) Now the same thrust output is achieved at 96% n2!!! And reverse has been uprated to 93%n2

 

 

Sheesh, the depth you're recreating is impressive. As someone new to xml gauge programming, it just makes me shake my head at the complexity involved.

 

From now on when you fly you'll have to stay within the engine limitations schedule. You can only slam the throttle for a max of 20 secs=107%n2.

 

I've been looking at implementing the same sort of thing for my twin otter remake project - I'm wanting to implement a failure / accumulated time based failure for over-torquing the PT6A-27's. But then, there's so much that would be neat to implement that I might just be happy making a reasonable facsimile of the glass itself. Understanding a bit of what's going on in the gauges leaves me in awe of some of the truly complex projects out there!!

Sheesh, the depth you're recreating is impressive. As someone new to xml gauge programming, it just makes me shake my head at the complexity involved..

I've been looking at implementing the same sort of thing for my twin otter remake project - I'm wanting to implement a failure / accumulated time based failure for over-torquing the PT6A-27's. But then, there's so much that would be neat to implement that I might just be happy making a reasonable facsimile of the glass itself. Understanding a bit of what's going on in the gauges leaves me in awe of some of the truly complex projects out there!!

 

There are ways now that one can store information from xml gauges. I'm also exploring that for engine abuse. At least you don't have to programme an oxygen system! The VC10 has the whole show including hypoxia if you don't don your mask.

This is the replacement panel for existing temporary one. The "Pull" knobs actually pull out too!

 

There are ways now that one can store information from xml gauges.

Yep, I bookmarked some of the threads of FSDeveloper where people were dealing with that, sounded very interesting.

 

At least you don't have to programme an oxygen system!

 

Something better left to the experts such as yourself!!

Well, without the help and advice of the "usual suspects" at FSDeveloper it would be nigh impossible!

The DF 727

The DA Fokker 70 / 100

 

Stability and performance of FS9

 

I also have FSX as well though.

The work of Holger Sandmann

The newer stuff by Carenado (Their 337 is a beaut. I think it is my favorite sim aircraft, actually, and I've spent a rediculous amount of time and money on FS9, so it has some tough competition!)

FSGenesis meshes

REX textures

and... the work of Milton Shupe.

 

Sure, there are FSX versions of all of these, but I don't really want to spend another few thousand on a better PC and on rebuying all this stuff!

And, I feel that some things don't really translate that well. FSX has a different rendering engine that doesn't seem to smooth polygon vertices as well. This doesn't seem to matter so much since it is not so difficult create massively huge poly models for FSX, so they tend to just compensate with more vertices and higher-def textures. Low-poly models like those Milton Shupe made don't look as good in the FSX engine, I think, even when they've been updated to FSX standard.

 

When I tried FSX, I got a good 30 FPS with sliders full-left on my laptop, where I have FS9. Problem was, that was stock. The first addon plane I put in (a simple plane by Tim Conrad - his Zlin 50, which I still kinda want in FS9. Pity it will never make it there!) dropped my FPS to single digits. Then I tried Miltons Spartan in that sim... and that was a deal-breaker. It just didn't render as well, or as smoothly. No way I was going to limit myself to the stockers!

FS9, with oodles of AI, great scenery, beautiful aircraft, smooth, stutter-free operation with good FPS - this is the best thing. The best.

And, with the right addons, it is immersive. Try flying over your campus, flying over the mountains, and being able to identify the rock strata as I fly! (I'm a geology student.)... That is great stuff. That is simply great stuff.

PMDG MD-11 and CS 727