They just seem to consistently be bottom-rung stuff when it comes to aircraft.

 

Try their Canberra, sublime

Coming into "system simulation" discussion, biggest flaw for me is lack of performance computer.

Also you cannot fly to numbers because various engine parameters do not match real tables and charts.

 

Weather radar is same fake item which CS developed long time ago ( showing clouds instead precipitation ), default APU, not realistic engine start, lack of TCAS and some other minor CS shortcuts...

 

What i like about CS, is that they have courage to bring old birds into life, respect about that, only they could pay a bit more attention to system simulation ...

I just bought the Professional upgrade pack for my JF L1011. I will have to see how it improves the base product.

Coming into "system simulation" discussion, biggest flaw for me is lack of performance computer.

 

Also you cannot fly to numbers because various engine parameters do not match real tables and charts.

 

Maybe that's because the L-1011 did not have an FMC. The first FMC's were on the Boeing 757/767 which came well after the L-1011. It's possible some airlines may have retrofitted one later on, although I can't find any evidence of that. Captain Sim though tends to model their models from the earliest variants, so it wouldn't have a FMC on board. Which is completely prototypical. This is why people think their 757/767 can't follow a VNAV descent, when in fact, it works as designed. You must manually define a End of descent (EOF) point, then a proper descent path will be generated, including restraints. This is how the early 757/767 FMC's worked, as they were in their infancy at the time. It wasn't til later they were upgraded to the type we see today.

Tom, i did not say FMC, real L1011 had performance computer which was calculating engine thrust based on few parameters ( similar computer was in MD80 )

 

Airliner Tech vol.8 L1011 Tristar

This is why people think their 757/767 can't follow a VNAV descent, when in fact, it works as designed. You must manually define a End of descent (EOF) point, then a proper descent path will be generated, including restraints.

 

Tom, when you say "manually define End of Descent", what are you referring to. On the CS 767, when I put in a star, altitudes and speed restrictions appear but it will only follow those values correctly down to the first way-point beyond the TOD. After it reaches that way-point, it will start climbing again and accelerating when the FMC star data says descent ( and slowdown) to the next waypoint down. This happens every time. Quite different than the NGX FMC which follows descent altitudes and speed restrictions as presented in the FMC all the way down to the runway. Am I missing something here?

Thanks for your help.

 

Best,

Brian

Tom, when you say "manually define End of Descent", what are you referring to. On the CS 767, when I put in a star, altitudes and speed restrictions appear but it will only follow those values correctly down to the first way-point beyond the TOD. After it reaches that way-point, it will start climbing again and accelerating when the FMC star data says descent ( and slowdown) to the next waypoint down. This happens every time. Quite different than the NGX FMC which follows descent altitudes and speed restrictions as presented in the FMC all the way down to the runway. Am I missing something here?

Thanks for your help.

 

Best,

Brian

There are 2 ways to do it. If you have a runway transition in the NAV DB (Not approach transition) selecting one will do it. Barring that manually entering the target altitude of a waypoint, usually the one prior to the runway or the last constraint, will create an EOD.

Maybe that's because the L-1011 did not have an FMC

 

The L-1011 did have a FMS "Flight Management System" manufactured by Hamilton Sundstrand. VNAV/LNAV, engine management and more.

 

 

Missing on both FSX simulations……(Just Flight FMC is not the correct type) but not on FS9.x.  

The L-1011 did have a FMS "Flight Management System" manufactured by Hamilton Sundstrand. VNAV/LNAV, engine management and more.

 

 

Missing on both FSX simulations……(Just Flight FMC is not the correct type) but not on FS9.x.  

 

True, but I don't think they were OEM on the original Tristars. They were implemented later, I believe on Saudia 200's and later 500's. How much later is sketchy as it's hard to find data about them these days. Since CS normally models the earliest variants, I wouldn't expect  their version to have an FMS.

True, but I don't think they were OEM on the original Tristars. They were implemented later, I believe on Saudia 200's and later 500's. How much later is sketchy as it's hard to find data about them these days. Since CS normally models the earliest variants, I wouldn't expect  their version to have an FMS.

 

I couldn't find a photo of even a -100 without the FMS (apart from the prototype)

 

I just feel as the FMS was so different to any other aircraft and very much a part of the character of the L-1011 as is the DLC it should not be omitted…..remember this was an aircraft ahead of it's time.

 

I have been watching with interest both FSX releases and am astounded that not one comment about the FMS!

 

There is a Facebook group for the real L-1011 …the passion for this aircraft really struck me.

 

I don't see it in FS.

I think the flight dynamics are a little bit off on the  L-1011s. I have both versions and they seem a little off. I compare it to my real world DC10 experience, but they don't perform as well or match L1011 performance data.

Hi guys,

 

Just to let you know the 'Just Flight L-1011 Tristar Professional is on bank holiday offer at 14 Pounds.

 

Think am going to have a dibble at that