Rotate MD-80 Imminent release X-Plane

[airlinejets 709]

Greetings Ladies/Gents,

The MD80 has been a long time favorite of mine. Some guys go for every single little detail/system of the real aircraft while others are more after the feel of the jet. I prefer a jet that has the feel and quirks of the real one. Systems are fine, but you never can fully simulate all systems on an aircraft. For example, I flew the real world KC-10A and the DC-10-30 for 9 years. A few developers have made a DC10, but have never been able to capture the full systems of the aircraft. For example, if flying the DC10 in the clean configuration and you happen to get slow/get the shaker, the outboard slats will automatically extend to the takeoff position. The Slat reset light will start flashing letting you know you have encountered auto slats. Pressing the slat reset light would cause the auto slats system to retract the outboard slats and reset the system. I've yet to see this simple system modeled. This definitely does not take away from a product. It all depends on how deep the developer wants to go. Lets look at real INS/IRS systems. When you initially turn them on, the system goes into a self test where position and batteries are checked. During these self checks, most systems will not accept a position. The IRS systems in Gulfstreams will actually perform a full count down and the align lights will flash if you tried to enter during the self test. Thats a 10 to 15 minute mistake. Again, I have yet to see this modeled. If the last position disagrees with what you are entering, again the align lights will flash letting you know something is amiss. If you enter that position twice, the IRS will accept the position whether its wrong or right. I've yet to see this modeled. But as a real world pilot who fly heavies and light jets, these issues have never detracted from any sim aircraft I've flown unless its far off the mark. Again, I'm more after the feel and characteristics of the aircraft mainly. As long as the automation and feel are where they should be, i feel a product is solid.

 

Now for this MD80. I have flown the cool sky, Leonardo and one other I can't remember. I remember the Leonardo having good systems but it could not make V2+10 shortly after lift off. You could only reach 15 degrees in pitch before the speed start rolling back. The engines also responded very quickly to throttle input.The systems modeling were nice, but it did not have that classic performance of the real 80. The Cool sky was a little better in performance, but seemed under powered and a bit too much ground effect requiring no flare. The engine indication was quirky also as you could not make takeoff EPR. These engines are a little sluggish at lower power, but once they are spooled, they respond. You would be on takeoff roll and the EPR would be slowly increasing on the cool sky. The systems were good enough for me but the performance was lacking. Now, this rotate MD80 has nailed the performance gents. Micky D had a thing about their wing design. The DC10 and the MD80 have high speed and low lift/drag wings. These type wings perform at altitude, but require good lift at takeoff and landing. The compromise was to add flaps and use slats to allow the aircraft to use AOA to produce the required lift. This is why the DC10 and MD80 has a high pitch angle on takeoff and landing. Take away those slats and the speeds involved increase greatly. I can land a DC10 with slats and no flaps at a much lower speed than a DC10 with full flaps and no slats. That's how these jets generate lift. Rotate has capture this performance. There were quirky things with the FMC and figuring CG, but hey, they captured the dial a flap system. I think this product is a good representation of the MD80 as i can't think of another that rivals it at this point. People complain when aircraft are delayed and they complain if they are missing features.     

Rick, thank you!

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Greetings Ladies/Gents, The MD80 has been a long time favorite of mine. Some guys go for every single little detail/system of the real aircraft while others are more after the feel of the jet. I prefer a jet that has the feel and quirks of the real one. Systems are fine, but you never can fully simulate all systems on an aircraft. For example, I flew the real world KC-10A and the DC-10-30 for 9 years. A few developers have made a DC10, but have never been able to capture the full systems of the aircraft. For example, if flying the DC10 in the clean configuration and you happen to get slow/get the shaker, the outboard slats will automatically extend to the takeoff position. The Slat reset light will start flashing letting you know you 

 

....(snip)

"Well, I guess that said it, Rick...and thanks for you input and insight."

[G550flyer 1,010]

Rick, thank you!

 

"Well, I guess that said it, Rick...and thanks for you input and insight."

Any time!

[Cameron XA 272]

Just saw you added this...now I know who you really are...lol

Care to enlighten, because I'm still mystified?

 

On another note, I'm also getting a chuckle at the topic here overall. Sometimes I wonder if devs could just slap an FMC on anything and say, "Welp, this is just like the real thing," and folks would just eat that statement up and believe it (in fact, I'm partially convinced of such).

 

Some of you guys seem so passionate to have wanted certain add-ons that you'll fight to the grave if someone with knowledge or even opinion comes in to say their side against it. Apparently against even people who are even qualified (like a dispatcher, or another airline captain).

 

I have not flown the MD80 in real life. I can't comment to its realism, but I have now seen multiple people say it's unrealistic, and others say it's the cats' pajamas. Many of us really aren't even qualified to say the FDE is realistic (though the Rotate MD80 certainly gives me the immersion of what I would think it would feel like).

 

That said, I will say that I find it hard to believe this product could have every bit of accuracy. It was about 1.5 years in development I believe, and we compare to something like IXEG which is in year 5, or even PMDG who takes quite a number or years to get something out.

 

I think it's evident this is not true study level on the systems simulation. It's a nice 3D model, great textures, cool feeling flight dynamics, etc. with a level of assumed functionality, but not to the 'T'. I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we think we could learn this product and how it works, then go to the real MD80 and try to apply it there. And, I'm not so sure Rotate has tried to sell it that way either.

 

I have the MD80. I think the 3D exterior modeling is superb, as is the texture detail. My knowledge stops there. While I cannot speak for its authenticity in systems simulations, I do enjoy it for what it is.

 

Case in point, stop getting so wound up when someone who desires the technical systems accuracy sees flaws where you don't want to see it. If you already enjoy it for what it is, cool...do just that. But, you aren't everyone, and everyone is not you.

[airlinejets 709]

Care to enlighten, because I'm still mystified?

 

On another note, I'm also getting a chuckle at the topic here overall. Sometimes I wonder if devs could just slap an FMC on anything and say, "Welp, this is just like the real thing," and folks would just eat that statement up and believe it (in fact, I'm partially convinced of such).

 

Some of you guys seem so passionate to have wanted certain add-ons that you'll fight to the grave if someone with knowledge or even opinion comes in to say their side against it. Apparently against even people who are even qualified (like a dispatcher, or another airline captain).

 

I have not flown the MD80 in real life. I can't comment to its realism, but I have now seen multiple people say it's unrealistic, and others say it's the cats' pajamas. Many of us really aren't even qualified to say the FDE is realistic (though the Rotate MD80 certainly gives me the immersion of what I would think it would feel like).

 

That said, I will say that I find it hard to believe this product could have every bit of accuracy. It was about 1.5 years in development I believe, and we compare to something like IXEG which is in year 5, or even PMDG who takes quite a number or years to get something out.

 

I think it's evident this is not true study level on the systems simulation. It's a nice 3D model, great textures, cool feeling flight dynamics, etc. with a level of assumed functionality, but not to the T. I think we'd all be kidding ourselves if we think we could learn this product and how it works, then go to the real MD80 and try to apply it there. And, I'm not so sure Rotate has tried to sell it that way either.

 

I have the MD80. I think the 3D exterior modeling is superb, as is the texture detail. My knowledge stops there. While I cannot speak for its authenticity in systems simulations, I do enjoy it for what it is.

 

Case in point, stop getting so wound up when someone who desires the technical systems accuracy sees flaws where you don't want to see it. If you already enjoy it for what it is, cool...do just that. But, you aren't everyone, and everyone is not you.

Funny thing is I knew you'd feel compelled to come and reply...

[Cameron XA 272]

Funny thing is I knew you'd feel compelled to come and reply...

What are you...a magician?  :wink:

 

Well, of course I am. Some dude says "X-Pilots" and you make some funky remark probably eluding to a specific site for which I am a part of when you take a letter out of the word (which he may or may not know of, and likely meant XP people).

 

But, you didn't answer anything. It's more of the same drivel from prior posts in the topic.

 

I don't have anything against you. Don't even know you, really, but I'm curious as to your comments in this thread. I'm trying to get you to clarify, because if you're about to be making false statements we have a problem.

[mdavis 10]

I would like to see some performance improvements, such as giving us the option for other texture sizes than just 4K, thats a killer for a lot of people including myself eventhough I run a high end computer! 

There is a 2K texture set now available for the MD-80.

[nachezdc9 25]

As I just said what we post here are only opinions based on our own experience on previous products or real life, I respect others opinion that that complains about system deph of a product, and I,m sure they respect mine when talking about the feeling this product gave me when flying it, I still saying that this is the first time I felt I was in the cockpit of the maddog again and that I liked it too much, and I,m still thinking it. If the developer make this product bigger in system complexity ( not as bad as some say right now) of course will be welcome, but I keep saying is a product that worth every dollar. Now we should stop this fighting that is not constructive, nobody thinks the same and nobody will, even with pmdg, coolsky or realair products there have been always people that wasn,t happy, and is totally legit, but never cross the line of respect, we are here to make this hobbie a better one, not to show who knows more.

[Flying Penguin 44]

Jamie, you placard yourself as a P3D user, you can't hide that fact. No one was talking about the fidelity of simulated systems. An Md pilot came in and said it was very well done. Then, some FSX/P3D guy came in the forum to take a dump. He should have been asked to leave by a moderator. Avsim just allows this to go on and on...

OK so I'm not allowed to ask questions about an X-Plane add-on because I've got a P3D banner? Christ on a bike.

 

When i installed X-Plane I must have missed the section of the EULA where it said I had to renounce all other simulators... Better not hang out on the DCS forums then either, those blokes have guns!

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

 Now, this rotate MD80 has nailed the performance gents. Micky D had a thing about their wing design. The DC10 and the MD80 have high speed and low lift/drag wings. These type wings perform at altitude, but require good lift at takeoff and landing. The compromise was to add flaps and use slats to allow the aircraft to use AOA to produce the required lift. This is why the DC10 and MD80 has a high pitch angle on takeoff and landing. Take away those slats and the speeds involved increase greatly. I can land a DC10 with slats and no flaps at a much lower speed than a DC10 with full flaps and no slats. That's how these jets generate lift. Rotate has captured this performance. There were quirky things with the FMC and figuring CG, but hey, they captured the dial a flap system. I think this product is a good representation of the MD80 as i can't think of another that rivals it at this point.

 

Thanks Rick for your deep insight. Your informed opinion nailed exactly what I'm looking for in a simulated aircraft.

People often talk/fight about system depth, flight model, eye candy,.

I'd rather use yet another term, which somehow includes the first two concepts:

 

How about "Behaviour" ?

 

I can totally see why a real life pilot would be more interested in how the aircraft "behaves", with it's peculiarities, it's strenghts, it's defects...

FMCs are cool, but hey, these are just computers. An aircraft is much more than that: a complex and living machine. Systems are important, as long as they give life to it.

 

Yesterday I did my first manual landing with the Rotate MD80. And this was a beautiful experience. Now I'm glad to read the comments of two real life Maddog pilots who confirm this experience had something to do with reality. I never stepped inside this aircraft, not even as a passenger, but now I can taste what it feels to sit in the cockpit, click the buttons, grab the yoke and get it moving. In this perspective, I wholeheartedly recommend this aircraft to anyone who identifies himself slightly with what Rick said.

 

Pascal

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Thanks Rick for your deep insight. Your informed opinion nailed exactly what I'm looking for in a simulated aircraft.

People often talk/fight about system depth, flight model, eye candy,.

I'd rather use yet another term, which somehow includes the first two concepts:

 

How about "Behaviour" ?

 

I can totally see why a real life pilot would be more interested in how the aircraft "behaves", with it's peculiarities, it's strenghts, it's defects...

FMCs are cool, but hey, these are just computers. An aircraft is much more than that: a complex and living machine. Systems are important, as long as they give life to it.

 

Yesterday I did my first manual landing with the Rotate MD80. And this was a beautiful experience. Now I'm glad to read the comments of two real life Maddog pilots who confirm this experience had something to do with reality. I never stepped inside this aircraft, not even as a passenger, but now I can taste what it feels to sit in the cockpit, click the buttons, grab the yoke and get it moving. In this perspective, I wholeheartedly recommend this aircraft to anyone who identifies himself slightly with what Rick said.

 

Pascal

Pascal, are you running the original 4K, or optional 2K textures?  Just wondering....

[Pascal_LSGC 298]

Pascal, are you running the original 4K, or optional 2K textures?  Just wondering....

I'm running the 4k texture, HDR, extended DSF, textures Very high, etc... but listen : I've had inacceptable performance with 4x AA, just stepped back to 2x and I'm perfectly fine. I probably hit a bottleneck on my gtx970.

 

But wait, I didn't try it above Drzewiecki Design's New York City yet ! :smile:

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

I'm running the 4k texture, HDR, extended DSF, textures Very high, etc... but listen : I've had inacceptable performance with 4x AA, just stepped back to 2x and I'm perfectly fine. I probably hit a bottleneck on my gtx970.

 

But wait, I didn't try it above Drzewiecki Design's New York City yet ! :smile:

Oh...don't go there with New York....your plane takes a tailspin...lol.  I'll have to try dropping back to 2x and see how that is.  I just don't want to give up the 4K textures...heck...I paid for 'em....lol.  The 'look' of the aircraft was as much my buying mandate as the rest of it....honestly...

 

While the 2K textures was greatly appreciated by the Dev's...I find them (as they perhaps did...) sort of mundane. There is none of that 'umph' that hits you visually, like with  the 4K's kicking it out...lol.

 

Mitch

[airlinejets 709]

I'm running the 4k texture, HDR, extended DSF, textures Very high, etc... but listen : I've had inacceptable performance with 4x AA, just stepped back to 2x and I'm perfectly fine. I probably hit a bottleneck on my gtx970.

 

But wait, I didn't try it above Drzewiecki Design's New York City yet ! :smile:

At first, I tried the original 4k textures but flying in Europe where OSM is dense, got me low teens FPS. So I switched to the 2k textures and I'm back up the FPS ladder. I didn't notice the textures had lost their appeal but then again, I didn't look closely at them as I was relieved to get good frame rates in order to appreciate this liner.

 

I'm still running textures at extreme though, that could explain the low 4k frames in the beginning.

OK so I'm not allowed to ask questions about an X-Plane add-on because I've got a P3D banner? Christ on a bike.

 

When i installed X-Plane I must have missed the section of the EULA where it said I had to renounce all other simulators... Better not hang out on the DCS forums then either, those blokes have guns!

Sorry I mentioned your banners in my post, I got carried away . I'm fine with the fact you support multiple platforms and you seem to be genuinely interested in the product.

 

You're right about the DCS guys, they're armed to the teeth... :smile:

 

P.S.-

If you ever see Christ on a bike again, say hi for me, will you? :wink:

[tonywob 4,768]

Then, some FSX/P3D guy came in the forum to take a dump. He should have been asked to leave by a moderator. Avsim just allows this to go on and on...

 

He voiced an opinion and this is not a reason to ban somebody from a thread unless it was deliberate trolling or inappropriate. Please can we keep this thread on topic.