FSX-MS Real Air Duke v2.0 Released

[jcomm 5,898]

I'm glad someone noticed!

 

I confess I did notice, but I thought it was because of using the "DynamicFriction" Lua script with FSUIPC...

I wonder if using it has some adverse effect on the B60 then, since it already accounts for sideways friction problems when the default values of FSX are used (?)

[cvearl 60]

100% agree.... as I've said earlier in the thread.  The T Duke looks oodles better than v1 piston, and the difference is a little less than the Legacy.  Of course the LEG2 has more sound stuff involved.

 

I would rather they move on to a Scout rebuild or something else. The Turbine was already awesome. A B-1900 ?

 

C.

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

 

 

I would rather they move on to a Scout rebuild or something else. The Turbine was already awesome.

 

Well, the taxi improvements and the p-factor would be very welcome (and, perhaps, the other flight model improvements).  Vibrating needles and airspeed indicator would be pluses too. 

[cvearl 60]

I still don't know if I'm imagining the taxi improvements but I do find that the new B60 is far more taxi-able than any other airplane that I own.  Further, in crosswind landings, the airplane does touchdown and 'follow the wheels' instead of sliding as if the runway is covered with ice as the other airplanes I've tried tough crosswind landings with.  I took it up with the intention of testing how the wheel traction did on crosswind landings.  With a 20 knot direct crosswind it did handle reasonably...probably the only airplane that I have that does.  Perhaps it's even a little overdone but it's far more like real than I've seen before. 

 

 

 

Love it. Great plane. Pet peeve was always the xwind behaviour once on the runway. That sideways sliding crap always bothered me.

 

Charles.

[JesC 88]

Well, in terms of the leans, I'm not ruling out the idea that it might have been my yoke control...but it'd be kind of cool if it's just the airplane.

 

Well, the "leans" are certainly obvious with even a small shift in CG to the left or right. For instance with single pilot, no passengers and even with equal left and right side fuel it is pretty obvious (and, realistic). Then, get the fuel just a bit out of balance... and, off you go. That much at least is not your imagination or yoke control, anyway. Its just good fun flying. And I'm also glad someone else has noticed these things, too. They really have added up to a greatly improved flight experience.

[ardix 0]

I don't know if it's just me, but when I load the aircraft on ground, I get this situation: the turn coordinator balance ball is slightly off centered. Not a big problem, but any advice is appreciated.

 

Thanks

 

[jcomm 5,898]

I have noticed that too. Tried to move my viewpoint, just in case it was caused by some parallax error, but no, it's really looks shifted to the right (?)

[Manny 1,293]

I really want the 172SP

[cavaricooper 2,613]

I will buy the Turbine Update as well.

[sleightflight 17]

I am still occasionally getting the click spot malfunction & I'm also not happy about having to disable collisions, I have for the first time ever had to create a second cfg file specifically for this aircraft, I hope this situation can be corrected with a patch cos I love flying it but I also love all my other top notch payware planes.

 

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4

 

 

[Gregg_Seipp 565]

 

 

Well, the "leans" are certainly obvious with even a small shift in CG to the left or right. For instance with single pilot, no passengers and even with equal left and right side fuel it is pretty obvious (and, realistic). Then, get the fuel just a bit out of balance... and, off you go. That much at least is not your imagination or yoke control, anyway. Its just good fun flying. And I'm also glad someone else has noticed these things, too. They really have added up to a greatly improved flight experience.

 

Yeah, that's true.  I've seen similar things in Bernt Stolle's FDEs.  In both his C337 and C182 (mod) the airplane really behaves real world...the right momentum but also a slipperiness and movement in the air.   A kind of floating.  Hard to believe that that can be accomplished in any sim.  RealAir is the only other company I have, so far, do that.  Looking forward to Bernt's Milviz FDEs that are upcoming. 

 

 

I am still occasionally getting the click spot malfunction & I'm also not happy about having to disable collisions, I have for the first time ever had to create a second cfg file specifically for this aircraft, I hope this situation can be corrected with a patch cos I love flying it but I also love all my other top notch payware planes.

 

I used to see it that way but, after a while I realized what little benefit you get out of collision detection.  It is, generally, very inaccurate and one of the worst parts of FSX.  Also, sometimes FSX parks me in a place where I have to either clip a building or another airplane to get out of my position.  I can see if I run into something and decide to abort the flight.  It doesn't add anything to my experience for the sim to stop my flight because of these things.

[KingGhidorah 209]

Sleightflight, I see where you are coming from, and the concept of running a separare fsx.cfg just for this aircraft was something that I earlier considered doing, but I found that it is not necessary for several reasons.  The first reason is that unlike with certain settings and sliders, changing collision detection on or off, or moving the p-factor and torque sliders will not cause your tweaks to reset.  You are safe to change those things at will, and that only takes 2 seconds.  Second, the collision detection setting is advisory, but from everything I've seen, it is not mandatory.  I have collision detection on, and it doesn't appear to change anything other than that after a survivable belly landing, the simulation might end a few seconds after your plane has come to a stop.  A belly landing, is, afterall, a crash, so I find it appropriate for that to happen.  Plus, if you slam into the side of a mountain at 300 mph, it will be as expected, for this plane and others.  Real Air warned about strange ground behavior or landing gear behaving oddly as a result of collision detection being enabled, but I haven't seen any of this, and I've tried it both ways, collisions on and off.  So if you want to have your collision detections enabled, or have your torque and p-factor sliders at the high end, I say go for it, and it will probably be fine.

[robert young 2,897]

Unless there is something I have missed for several years, having damage or crash detect on in FSX is pointless. All this does is offer to close the flight or continue, or shuts down the flight, even though you know perfectly well you have collided with something because you can see it. This is as pointless as having a car racing sim where if you go off the track, flip upside down, hit a wall and come to rest, a message comes up saying "you have collided with something" (doh!).

 

The very good reason in the Duke for turning crash detect off is that firstly it stops the custom landing gear and custom suspension from failing (which on some systems it can with crash detect on), and secondly it allows you to make gear up or belly landings without "ending" the flight. Some of the reasons why others have noticed the tighter suspension, better lateral grip and better steering is exactly because of the custom suspension. To make sure this works as it should we recommend crash detect off. I can't see why any software or other add-ons would recommend it to be on, but I am willing to be educated as to why.

[KingGhidorah 209]

 

The very good reason in the Duke for turning crash detect off is that firstly it stops the custom landing gear and custom suspension from failing (which on some systems it can with crash detect on), and secondly it allows you to make gear up or belly landings without "ending" the flight.

 

What are you talking about when you refer to the prevention of the gear and suspension from "failing" on "some" systems.  What particular situation, with crash detection enabled, will cause an anomaly and how will that manifest itself in the form of observable behaviors?  I've tried it both ways, collision on and off, even in moderate crosswind landing with controls crossed, and I have to say I've not yet seen a bit of difference in any ground behaviors.  You're the author, so if you insist that collision detection MUST be off,  then that's the way it shall be, and it's a simple matter to do so without the need for a custom fsx.cfg, but I still don't understand what is likely to happen if it's left on, mistakenly or intentionally.   I'll of course go back into the sim and do some extreme taxying with both on and off, and see if I notice any differences anew, but I haven't so far in the course of normal operations.

 

As to the logic of a survivable belly landing not ending the flight several seconds after the plane has slid to a stop, or a massive crash not ending a flight immediately, I guess that is a matter of taste.  I don't think it would be so realistic to crash the NGX head on into Mt Ranier and have it bounce off...I'm going to be inclined to end the flight myself in the extremly unlikely event that that would happen...I don't crash very often unless I'm just completely screwing off, but especially in planes that don't feature custom crash features, belly landings, or ditchings, I personally find that there is some merit to having it enabled, especially in situations where you aren't sure if a certain contact with the ground would have been a damaging event, because it's not always obvious. 

[Guest]

 

 

nless there is something I have missed for several years, having damage or crash detect on in FSX is pointless.

 

Agree.  With AI issues and various Airport vehicles that often cross a runway or your path without even a hint of recognition -- it's best to have FSX crash detection disabled forever.

 

 

 

I don't think it would be so realistic to crash the NGX head on into Mt Ranier and have it bounce off...

 

True, but there again, how realistic is it to fly an NGX by yourself?  I think what Robert is indicating that there are many glitches around crash detection in FSX that could prematurely end a flight when it would be unrealistic to do so ... for example you hit a bump on a runway that was accidentally created by a 3rd party vendor ... it would end your flight there and then.  It's one of those FSX features that for the most part didn't get much development time, more a checkmark on feature than an actually was not well implemented feature (read very low priority).

 

Crash detection and resulting affects are weak in just about any simulation (from racing to flight sim) -- iRacing was struggling with damage for some time and still do, the amount of processing power and physics required to emulate a "crash or damage" is staggering (well beyond common end user hardware).

 

Don't get me wrong, it would be a nice feature in some other product, just not in FSX.  Maybe when Microsoft provide a true physics API (using the GPU) as part of DX we'll see a better future of crash and damage, but in FSX, it's best turned off IMHO and certainly doesn't detract from the excellent work RealAir folks have done.

 

Rob