Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kevinh

Engine Starting Question

Recommended Posts

I'd like to congratulate PMDG on their product. I do understand that some guys are looking to get very involved in certain procedures, but I also see things from Kyle's perspective. This is PMDG's entry into x-plane and I'm sure you will continue to see detailed aircraft like those in FSX if they continue down the x-plane track. Just like real pilots we complain and moan about certain things, but we have to keep perspective as we move forward. I think PMDG did a great job balancing the aircraft to meet a good range of the xplane community. When I look at the development for FSX compared to xplane, we still have a ways to go and it's great to have PMDG jump in the mix. I'm sure that updates will continue after this release, and maybe you will get what you are looking for. They worked hard on it and I see they were able to get around the ground effect issue(my gripe with xplane). Again, congrats on your entry into the xplane world.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't like the start procedure of the DC-6. I wish that it was set up like ____." Fill in the blank without the snark. I can't guarantee that anything will happen, but at least people will know what you all are looking for.

 

I'll give it a try and make a suggestion:

 

- make the "safety" and the "start" switches toggle-able (independently). Make the "prime" and "boost" switches independent from the others as well but not toggle-able (just "click and hold").

 

- Now, the user can first toggle the "safety" switch to "on" before proceeding.

 

- Actually starting the engines would happen by pressing (and holding) prime for a few seconds, then toggling the start switch to "on", waiting for a couple of seconds for the props to turn, then enabling the magnetos.

 

- I'm not 100% sure about the correct use of the "boost" switch, but I believe it should be used immediately after the engine fires? If so, you would just press & hold it after enabling the magnetos.

 

- After the engine has started, the safety and start switches could either snap back automatically or require the user to toggle them back to their original position.

 

 

I think it's not necessary to require the "correct" amount of priming or the correct time for the props turning over - such things would be nice to have but not essential. As long as the user follows the correct procedure the engines could start fine.

 

 

Anyway, it's getting a bit late here and I'm thinking that maybe we shouldn't take all of this too seriously. But still, the DC-6 already is a fine aircraft and if there's a chance to improve things it would be a shame not to take it... :smile:

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll give it a try and make a suggestion:

 

- make the "safety" and the "start" switches toggle-able (independently). Make the "prime" and "boost" switches independent from the others as well but not toggle-able (just "click and hold").

 

- Now, the user can first toggle the "safety" switch to "on" before proceeding.

 

- Actually starting the engines would happen by pressing (and holding) prime for a few seconds, then toggling the start switch to "on", waiting for a couple of seconds for the props to turn, then enabling the magnetos.

 

- I'm not 100% sure about the correct use of the "boost" switch, but I believe it should be used immediately after the engine fires? If so, you would just press & hold it after enabling the magnetos.

 

- After the engine has started, the safety and start switches could either snap back automatically or require the user to toggle them back to their original position.

 

 

I think it's not necessary to require the "correct" amount of priming or the correct time for the props turning over - such things would be nice to have but not essential. As long as the user follows the correct procedure the engines could start fine.

 

 

Anyway, it's getting a bit late here and I'm thinking that maybe we shouldn't take all of this too seriously. But still, the DC-6 already is a fine aircraft and if there's a chance to improve things it would be a shame not to take it... :smile:

Interesting this could work. I think having several options would be nice at least. Maybe a fully realistic mode where all the switches can be assigned then what you suggest followed by the current system and then the simplified procedures?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, it's getting a bit late here and I'm thinking that maybe we shouldn't take all of this too seriously.

 

Well, in some forums / websites the DC-6 is already called a flop / write-off (I don't know the correct translation for the German word "Reinfall" ...) by some users, while others say they had only a "rather moderate impression" . At the .org forum, someone called it lackluster. They all refer tothe simplified engine start (and some other things like sound), maybe re-thinking about the engine start is at least interesting. I'm sure there could be a user-friendly solution found -- your suggestion sounds like a good start...

 

It would be a pity if this otherwise very detailed aircraft would get bad user reviews just because everybody focuses on the simplified engine start procedure and forgets that all the systems indeed exist and work...

  • Upvote 2

Mario Donick .:. vFlyteAir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in some forums / websites the DC-6 is already called a flop / write-off (I don't know the correct translation for the German word "Reinfall" ...) by some users, while others say they had only a "rather moderate impression" . At the .org forum, someone called it lackluster. They all refer tothe simplified engine start (and some other things like sound), maybe re-thinking about the engine start is at least interesting. I'm sure there could be a user-friendly solution found -- your suggestion sounds like a good start...

 

It would be a pity if this otherwise very detailed aircraft would get bad user reviews just because everybody focuses on the simplified engine start procedure and forgets that all the systems indeed exist and work...

I'd hate to think what the reaction would have been if itbwas as buggy as the IXEG on release...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd hate to think what the reaction would have been if itbwas as buggy as the IXEG on release...?

 

Better not imagine that ;-) I think many users were expecting the "perfect" aircraft, where EVERYTHING is 110%, simply because it's PMDG. Although everybody should have known by now that the DC-6 is some kind of experiment.

 

Well, even I was a bit disappointed about the outside textures (esp. how the metal looks, which have others done better, even without reflections) and the sounds (no change in sound volume when the cockpit window is opened on the ground while engines are running?) But these issues are no real issues. The DC-6 is still a very good product, not only for X-Plane, but in general.

  • Upvote 1

Mario Donick .:. vFlyteAir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope the few gripes I (we) have with this aircraft don't overshadow the aircraft as a whole.  So far I think it's a blast to fly.  I'm not going to create a post about every feature I love, and trust me, they would outweigh the criticisms.  Instead I post about the things I would like to see improved.  The fact that I purchased a $70 prop aircraft should attest to the fact that I love PMDG's work.  So I apologize to all the devs if it comes across as me being disappointed with the product as a whole.  

 

Having said that.  I think Don Quixote's suggestion could work.  Have a few switches "stick" in position, almost like they do now, but separately.  This would allow the sequence of events to more closely follow the operation manual.  Instead of looking out the window and watching the props spin, we could use sound, or just a general amount of time after the start is engaged before engaging the ignition.  

 

P.S. Thanks for your patience Kyle. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


Instead of looking out the window and watching the props spin, we could use sound, or just a general amount of time after the start is engaged before engaging the ignition.  

 

There could also be an optional 2D panel with all required switches etc., so the pilot's view could be towards the props, while all the actions are done on the 2D panel.

  • Upvote 2

Mario Donick .:. vFlyteAir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in some forums / websites the DC-6 is already called a flop / write-off (I don't know the correct translation for the German word "Reinfall" ...) by some users, while others say they had only a "rather moderate impression" . At the .org forum, someone called it lackluster. They all refer tothe simplified engine start (and some other things like sound), maybe re-thinking about the engine start is at least interesting. I'm sure there could be a user-friendly solution found -- your suggestion sounds like a good start...

 

It would be a pity if this otherwise very detailed aircraft would get bad user reviews just because everybody focuses on the simplified engine start procedure and forgets that all the systems indeed exist and work...

I wouldn't pay too much attention to the "letdown" remarks you mention, especially coming from users with 1 or 2 posts. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. Thanks for your patience Kyle.

 

Thanks for sticking around. To be honest, none of us want to come in here and hear negativity, but the fact you both stuck around to contribute in the end says a lot. I can't guarantee anything will change, but I now at least have something to suggest to the team. Thank you both.

  • Upvote 1

Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I agree that the engine start procedure could be a bit more realistic/challenging, I would never start bashing the product as a whole because of this. I really like doing procedures by the book, but I'm ok with having to deal with a simplified process which only applies to a fraction of a percent of the whole flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


I'll re-state the earlier question:

You don't have 4-6 hands all in single mouse clicks, and the ability to reach around to feel out switches while looking out the window counting blades, so...what are we looking for here?



I'm all for taking ideas from the forum and passing them on to the devs who can make the changes, but I can't just show up with "hey, the forum wants you to change it...somehow...I'm not sure how...but more reals?"

I'd be happy with magnetos and mixture being independent inputs with realistic effects. So you need air (i.e. RPM), ignition and fuel to fire the engine. Then it would be up to me when I switched them on (either before start as now for ease of operation, or after the engine has turned a couple of revolutions for realism). The fact with the mags off the engine won't crank is frankly unrealistic. The aircraft isn't wired that way. That has to be corrected. I'm not asking for more "reals" I'm asking for less "unreals".

 

PMDG's jet engine sim starting procedures are great. Mishandling isn't really catered for, but normal starting is realistic. No horrors like needing the fuel pumps on to crank the engine as in some payware. It's such a shame that this realistic aircraft is letdown by unrealistic and oversimplified engine starting procedure. Some simplification is necessary, but cranking without fuel and or ignition is surely fundamental? If you don't have the hardware, keyboard shortcuts could control the magnetos and fuel (which only need to be enabled at the right time, no toggling on/off).

  • Upvote 1

ki9cAAb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be happy with magnetos and mixture being independent inputs with realistic effects. So you need air (i.e. RPM), ignition and fuel to fire the engine. Then it would be up to me when I switched them on (either before start as now for ease of operation, or after the engine has turned a couple of revolutions for realism). The fact with the mags off the engine won't crank is frankly unrealistic. The aircraft isn't wired that way. That has to be corrected. I'm not asking for more "reals" I'm asking for less "unreals".

 

PMDG's jet engine sim starting procedures are great. Mishandling isn't really catered for, but normal starting is realistic. No horrors like needing the fuel pumps on to crank the engine as in some payware. It's such a shame that this realistic aircraft is letdown by unrealistic and oversimplified engine starting procedure. Some simplification is necessary, but cranking without fuel and or ignition is surely fundamental? If you don't have the hardware, keyboard shortcuts could control the magnetos and fuel (which only need to be enabled at the right time, no toggling on/off).

 

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


Kyle Rodgers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...