Hi,

 

I have finished my initial study of the QRH and ran through some simulator scenarios (V1/V2 cuts etc)   A simple question regarding service based failures vs random failures.

 

Do I need to set random failures or is it enough to just have service based failures enabled?  Does service based failures cover everything from a simple fuel pump fault right up to an engine fire, TAC fault, decompression etc etc.

 

On the old PMDG 744 you had to enable random failures 1 per 10 hours minimum to get major random issues.

 

I have to say this product is a work of art, did a demo for a 777 captain and he was very impressed. Excellent work PMDG

 

Many thanks  

 

 

Does service based failures cover everything from a simple fuel pump fault right up to an engine fire, TAC fault, decompression etc etc.

 

My bet is that SBF covers the main things that fail over time that need servicing.  So, that would cover your run-of-the-mill, on-the-line stuff.  If you're looking for the newsworthy failures, those would need to be random failures, I'd think.

 

That or abuse...

Sorry to bring this up again guys!  So, after spend more time investigating I have found that service based failures do cover everything from a worn tire right up to an engine exploding.

 

Am very impressed with how it is implemented, well done to the devs! 

 

 Question for Ryan , the dev's, or Beta testers......

 

 

Here is a small example of what my maintenance page is saying for one of my Aerologic freighters

 

  -  wheels & brakes need to be serviced in 782 hours

 

 -  Engines need to be serviced in 82 hours

 

-   Flight instruments need to be serviced in 1982 hours

 

So here's the confusion, it also says that all systems need to be serviced in the next 32 hours? 

 

Do I only need to click on service all?  If the wheels don't need servicing for 782 hours why is it also telling me to service them in 32 hours?  Also what happens if I don't bother clicking service all? will aircraft components start to fail according to each systems pre calculated rate of failure?

 

Any help appreciated! it is a very clever system, would like to know that I am understanding it correctly.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

               -

Also, is there any way to modify the service in xxxx hours?

 

Flying 782 hours until the next service is not reasonable for me. I want the "next service" to be in, let's say, 20 hours. Is there a .xml or notepad file or something I can modify in the 777 Aircraft Folder to change the amount of time until the next service?

 

Been flying with Service Based Failures since their roll out with the PMDG 737. Logged over 250 flight hours in FSX since then, not one failure. It's realistic, but not necessarily exciting.

 

 

Also, is there any way to modify the service in xxxx hours

 

I dont think you can change the value but i think you can increase the rate so they will happen quicker.

Yes you can adjust the values on the maintenance page of the FMC. I have mine set at 5x that is why the hours are so low.

 

Kenneth, you are misunderstanding.  782 hours is until the next tire & brake check, why would you want to change the wheels & brakes every 20 hours? That would be like flying to hong kong & back and then replacing all the brakes!

 

If you want more random failures then use the built in random failure generator along with service based failures.

Rob,

 

Thank's for the suggestion on changing the failure rate variable.

 

You did misunderstand me when I said "20 hours until next service." I did not mean that I should have to change the wheels & brakes every 20 hours, what I wanted to do was put more "time" on the aircraft so I'm closer to my next maintenance schedule than I am now. As it stands now I'm several hundred hours from the next check on a lot of items, and I want to be able to magic wand in 100's of flight hours so that I'm closer to those times.

 

I'll just modify the failure rate to 5x, however, since I can't change the airframe hours.

Ah ok, understood! You have the option to change the  rate of each component or globally speed up the entire wear & tear of each system.

 

Once again I have to say that it is very impressive and well though out. Am sure most simmers will not even scratch the surface of what can be done with the failure system.

 

Regards

Hi,

 

I take the opportunity of that topic to ask a question, and sorry if the answer has already been given elsewhere:

_ Does the accident and damage recognition option in fsx needs to be ticked to get the service-based failures working?

I have disabled the damage and accidents in fsx because I'm flying online and for virtual airlines and I can't afford having a long haul cancelled because of collisions with invisible textures in some sceneries, but I'd like to keep the possibility of having real like failures occuring.

I tested for exemple very hard landings to check if I get tires blown but couldn't succeed even with vs up to 1600ft/min at touchdown! (would have led much more than blown tires...).

 

_ Are other failures still enabled?

 

_ Is it possible to override the fsx damage and accidents detection with the service-based failure?

 

Thanks for your answers.

Switch it off in FSX, it has nothing to do with PMDG failures or maintenance.

 

Cheers

Thanks for the clear answers.

 

Just getting back quickly on my landing trials, was it normal not to have any damage detected by the PMDG's system with a landing (crash...) at 1600ft/min?

 

Thanks

No idea... To be honest, you don't require a failure system  to figure out  that you have crashed or landed hard.  I guess blown tires would be nice for a very rough landing.

 

1600fpm would result in a write off (unless you fly for Qantas)  what would be the point in simulating the damage?

 

 

what would be the point in simulating the damage?

I agree with you that it is pointless at 1600ft/min. I wanted to check if something would happen.

 

When I learnt how to fly that beauty, I did a couple of hard landings up to 400-500 ft/min and never got any landing gears failure or blown tire even with successive hard landings with no servicing in between.

I was wondering if it was coming from the fact I disabled FsX damage.

From your answer, I know it is not.

 

But it would be great if it was simulated with the service-based failures. However, I don't know what should happen in real... maybe nothing at these vertical speeds (<500ft/min)?

 

Thanks for your information.

 

Cheers

Depends on type, 200 to 400fpm is normal, 600+ requires an inspection (doesn't mean the tires have blown or gear is damaged)

 

This is just from memory, will check with someone on the 777 and get back to you.   

 

Btw, although in simland we almost always refer to hard landings as FPM, in the real world it is measured as a G load.