I already addressed why the ignition being off doesn't allow the engine to start. Let's move on.

Yes you did, but then you said, in response to a post about whether there was an alternative

 

 

There is. Just made it more bulletproof than it needed to be.

 

So which is it? Is it absolutely necessary or is there a possibility to make it less bulletproof in return for allowing the starter motor to be independent of the ignition? I can't believe that with all the ingenuity PMDG has that it isn't possible to uncouple the ignition from the starter in X-Plane.

 

Also, what happens in flight with the ignition off? Does the engine stop dead or is it only on ground that prop rotation is inhibited like this? Does it windmill if not feathered?

 

I can't "move on" from this until I kow there is no alternative. Didn't you (or RSR) talk about all the things you've done to overcome X-Plane limitations?

 

 

So which is it? Is it absolutely necessary or is there a possibility to make it less bulletproof in return for allowing the starter motor to be independent of the ignition? I can't believe that with all the ingenuity PMDG has that it isn't possible to uncouple the ignition from the starter in X-Plane.

 

I think one could reasonably see that my earlier comment was to say "it's more bulletproof than it needed to be" without saying categorically that we are going to change it. That's not my call.

 

 

 

Also, what happens in flight with the ignition off? Does the engine stop dead or is it only on ground that prop rotation is inhibited like this? Does it windmill if not feathered?

 

This was only done to prevent prop movement on the ground.

 

 

 

I can't "move on" from this until I kow there is no alternative. Didn't you (or RSR) talk about all the things you've done to overcome X-Plane limitations?

 

The props moving incorrectly due to the simulator itself would be a limitation, and a background prop lock would be overcoming that limitation, no? All the same, I do see your angle. As I said: we made it more bulletproof than it needed to be.

I'd like to jump to the "get persons more involved in the starting procedure". Yes you need 4-6 hands in the real one. But as a simmer I want to get more involved in starting procedure. I feel more proud of started the B377 engine than the DC6. I know it's pretty much the same but you don't have to do this much. In the sim you even do not have a co pilot. I think most simmers would run into problems when doing ATPL SOP's.

 

In fact that's my only improvement suggestion. Flow EDFH-BIKR yesterday with VOR-VOR navigation (and GPS to recheck the correct path) after a long planning phase because most europe low enroutes are RNAV. It's a great plane!

Another maybe improvement regards the AFE: can you make some clickspots for RPM and BPM the AFE has to follow so we can fly to the books but we decide which table and BHP we use?

How many of you have seen a 6 get started? What are you expecting here?

This is what irks me about PMDG.

 

I agree with the other comments - engine start is too simple. Check out how A2A do things in their B-17 - it has as many operations to perform as the -6 does, in fact more if you count the inertial starter.

 

The way it is now would be good as an "easy" mode for engine start, but it would be great if you could make it so that it can be started properly.

 

For all the detail that has gone into the product, this over-simplification is disappointing to say the least.

 

A suggestion, if I may:

 

* Make all switches independent

* Click SAFETY, which latches ON

* Click START, which only operates the starter if safety ON, and latches ON

* Prime/Boost as necessary

* Allow some random interval to operate magnetos/fuel mixture for successful start, based on primer state and cylinder temp.

 

It's a shame proper start-up was omitted - it's a feature of big radial operation.

 

 

This is what irks me about PMDG.

 

Me asking for community feedback on how to improve something is what irks you about us? That's a new one...

 

Full names - first and last - in the forum.

Me asking for community feedback on how to improve something is what irks you about us? That's a new one...

I shortened the quote, but "what are you expecting here" - for such a high fidelity product, where in video after video, and information on the product goes on about how fluid flows are modelled in depth, I certainly wouldn't expect a simple thing like engine start to be simplified in the way it has.

 

Full names - first and last - in the forum.

For some reason I can't change my signature for 10 days.

 

Rob Smith.

 

 

I shortened the quote, but "what are you expecting here" - for such a high fidelity product, where in video after video, and information on the product goes on about how fluid flows are modelled in depth, I certainly wouldn't expect a simple thing like engine start to be simplified in the way it has.

 

I wasn't asking that rhetorically, or on a high level, though. I was asking for very clear specifics: regarding the engine start procedure, how should it behave?

 

The real procedure is:

1. Hold engage safety and starter
2. Count blades
3. Mags on
4. Prime as necessary (boost isn't/wasn't really necessary on the 6, unlike some of the other 2800-equipped planes - different ignition system that caught easily)
5. When the engine catches, bring in the mixture to AUTO RICH
6. Release safety and starter

That's all precisely timed, too. The time taken panning around to work the various items could easily mean missing your "window" if we modeled it to a full realism standpoint. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand wanting more realism than less. I just wanted to get a better understanding of what people thought was realistic.

 

...because to be honest, a lot of people's understanding of realism is more assumptions than fact, particularly with an aircraft of this vintage.

 

 

 

For some reason I can't change my signature for 10 days.

 

Yeah, it's some weird thing with the forum system used here. Never really understood that...thanks for the manual effort in the meantime.

Well I only purchased it last night and had time for a very short play around but I think it's incredible, what a blast!

 

I've never flown a DC-6 so I can't comment on the engine start process, but for me this is one of the most complete, polished products I've seen for X-Plane. The Flight Engineer system is fantastic and I think adds a whole new level of immersion and realism to a simulated aircraft, as well as make it easier to operate by yourself.

 

Don't know what on earth those people saying this is a flop or a letdown are thinking, must have bought a completely different product to me!

That's all precisely timed, too. The time taken panning around to work the various items could easily mean missing your "window" if we modeled it to a full realism standpoint. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand wanting more realism than less. I just wanted to get a better understanding of what people thought was realistic.

 

...because to be honest, a lot of people's understanding of realism is more assumptions than fact, particularly with an aircraft of this vintage.

I can understand why you might think that.

 

As for timings, you could fudge the precision requirement to "long enough" to perform the actions, but if you wait e.g. 20 seconds, then it fails.

 

It would be great if this could be added!

 

Rob Smith.

I think one could reasonably see that my earlier comment was to say "it's more bulletproof than it needed to be" without saying categorically that we are going to change it. That's not my call.

 

This was only done to prevent prop movement on the ground.

 

The props moving incorrectly due to the simulator itself would be a limitation, and a background prop lock would be overcoming that limitation, no? All the same, I do see your angle. As I said: we made it more bulletproof than it needed to be.

Fair enough Kyle. I didn't expect you to commit to it being changed, I just wondered whether it could be modified so that the ignition switch didn't stop rotation. Thanks for clarifying it's only on ground.

 

I can see the reason for a background prop lock. Perhaps you could modify the logic such that

 

[Proplock ON]  = [Magneto OFF] .AND. [starter not engaged]

 

That way the proplock is also released when the starter is operated so the engine would crank with ignition off.

 

I'm happy to wait and see if this gets addressed.

Good civilised discussion all around. I think it should also be mentioned as demonstrated by AeroSimGaming in his stream last night that following an incorrect procedure allows for a good engine start. FOr example according to him the engine should not start with the mixture on auto rich from the start but it does. Maybe he's incorrect, I'm not sure. Also closing the cowl flaps on the ground didn't do much to overheat the engines.

 

 

FOr example according to him the engine should not start with the mixture on auto rich from the start but it does. Maybe he's incorrect, I'm not sure.

 

It shouldn't start with mixture set to auto rich, but again, the start sequence has been massively simplified for the reasons I've stated a number of times now.

 

 

 

Also closing the cowl flaps on the ground didn't do much to overheat the engines.

 

I'll look into this later, but this isn't an absolute thing. Depends on a number of factors.

It shouldn't start with mixture set to auto rich, but again, the start sequence has been massively simplified for the reasons I've stated a number of times now.

 

 

 

 

I'll look into this later, but this isn't an absolute thing. Depends on a number of factors.

 

Well he was at full throttle IIRC or close to it.

The real procedure is:

• Hold engage safety and starter
• Count blades
• Mags on
• Prime as necessary (boost isn't/wasn't really necessary on the 6, unlike some of the other 2800-equipped planes - different ignition system that caught easily)
• When the engine catches, bring in the mixture to AUTO RICH
• Release safety and starter

And that's exactly how it works in the A2A T-6 Texan. So it is possible to simulate this realistic procedure in a correct manner within a flight simulator.

 

However, I guess no one would complain if one had to put the mags to both and the mixture to auto rich before following the above procedure to start the engines. The problem is just that the current procedure is way too simplified. After all these years most of us simply expect more from PMDG. And that should be seen as a compliment as PMDG has raised the bar more than once.

 

But let's wait and see...I'm confident that PMDG will eventually come up with a much more realistic engine start procedure  :smile:

I was frankly a little disappointed with the simplified start procedure, but fully understand the design choice.  Other than that and a bit of a lack luster external sound (I think half the reason I buy these older planes is for a good fly-by every once in a while), I'm quite happy with the DC-6.

 

In my opinion I think a lot of X-Planers were expecting an NGX/777 level aircraft, when in reality this is more akin to the Jetstream (i.e. a technology demonstration product, maybe with a lot more simulated than the Jetstream ^_^).

 

I have zero knowledge on a DC-6 start cycle, but as I've read it in the manuals could be fixed by:

1. One more line for the settings panel; "Simplified Start Procedure (true/false)".
2. Simplified uses current start method
3. Not-Simplified (with some FS-ism)
   1. Safety, Start, Prime, Boost are separate toggle switches (safety and start could still be tied together.
      1. Switches are assignable in X-Plane to hardware or keys
      2. If safety is in a "released" state all other switches will release instead of holding state
   2. Provide some fudge factor, if the starter isn't dis-engaged immediately after catching your starter doesn't blow up immediately, etc.

To aid in the starting (as you said it typically requires 4-6 hands) either:

• Provide a simplified 2d-panel with switches, mag selectors, fuel mixture, and maybe oil pressure.  This would allow us to visually watch the prop while operating the start procedure.
• Have the "FE" provide a prop count and add some fudging to the timing to allow for view changes between that start panel and mixture levers.
  1. It's probably not possible to actually count the prop in X-Plane, don't know, but it's more important to have him call out a stalled prop so a simple scripted count with some parameter to call out a hydro-locked prop.  This would also need a maintenance entry to clear the cylinder if you simulate that.

Having read through this post and being a software designer, I just now realize that is a ton of work... maybe one day

 

-Bryant Martin