Engine Starting Question

[sizziano 172]

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:

 

• One more line for the settings panel; "Simplified Start Procedure (true/false)".
• Simplified uses current start method
• Not-Simplified (with some FS-ism)
  • Safety, Start, Prime, Boost are separate toggle switches (safety and start could still be tied together.

  • Switches are assignable in X-Plane to hardware or keys
  • If safety is in a "released" state all other switches will release instead of holding state
• 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.

• 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

Very good post

[kevinh 409]

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

Apart from me, at least. See my posts in this thread. I think putting the mags on at the right time is crucial to realism in starting a big radial.

For me it's more important than fiddling with the priming and boost switches (because for that to make any real difference requires a much more sophisticated combustion and ignition model).

[sizziano 172]

Apart from me, at least. See my posts in this thread. I think putting the mags on at the right time is crucial to realism in starting a big radial.

For me it's more important than fiddling with the prime and boost switches (because for that to make any real difference requires a much more sophisticated combustion and ignition model).

IDK what happened but after updating I'm now able to crank the engines with the mags off.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

IDK what happened but after updating I'm now able to crank the engines with the mags off.

 

You probably tripped off one of the other parts of the "prop lock."

 

 

 

In any case. Thanks to everyone for bearing with me and providing your own ideas. I've passed them on.

[sizziano 172]

You probably tripped off one of the other parts of the "prop lock."

 

 

 

In any case. Thanks to everyone for bearing with me and providing your own ideas. I've passed them on.

Which are?

[PilotNL 9]

OK, please don't get me wrong in this post, I write this with the best intentions!!

 

Maybe the feeling gets amplified, after being totally immersed with all the beautiful aspects of the DC6, and then the arcade 'click here to start' option feels worse than ever. Also the 'start' is the first impression people get from this product, but this alone does not support bad reviews.

 

However, that said I agree that the starting is totally not in line with this (and other) magnificent PMDG products, and hence the reason why people are asking questions about it.

 

PMDG's response to those questions in this forum sound like:

 

It's too complicated for you flight-sim people, and that's why we keep it simple. So you can manage.

 

This is not who we are. this is not what PMDG is about, this is a very insulting waiver and it is not the truth.

 

We are long time flight simmers, most of us have studied in the field of aviation and/or have a pilot licence. We are not arcade computergame players. We are the simulator community and we are PMDG customers. Most of all we take our hobby serious. a bad insult like that, creates bad reviews. not good!

 

I am speculating here, but could it be that the realistic start was in development but either not finished or buggy, and hence removed for the release version?

I am thinking this based on a video of one of the beta testers and I quote:

 

"I'm not going through the full start up, we will cover the intricacies of this aircraft in a complete series on this aircraft, it is that complex and awesome"

 

Really?

 

"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.

 

"Easy start ON"

As it is now.

 

"Easy start OFF" 

As real as it gets, period. I know PMDG can handle this fine, and so can we. Make it in line with the rest of the product!

 

Maybe you are too busy now, perhaps with the 747? fine! take your time! I won't mind waiting another few months for a patch! In the mean time we can enjoy the DC6 as it is now and be grateful for it, but please don't tell us this mickey mouse click to start is final.

 

Thanks for reading and your understanding.

 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

This is not who we are. this is not what PMDG is about, this is a very insulting waiver and it is not the truth.

 

No. What's not the truth is your misrepresentation of what I've said. I have literally said - this entire time - that it is a multi-person operation, which cannot be realistically simulated 100% in the simulator. As such, we went with a simplified example.

 

 

 

I am speculating here, but could it be that the realistic start was in development but either not finished or buggy, and hence removed for the release version?

 

You're speculating. The start sequence has been like this since the beginning because, as I noted above, it requires multiple people and you are single person.

 

 

 

There's no need to add drama into situations where it doesn't belong, so don't.

[MarioDonick 752]

 

 

We are long time flight simmers, most of us have studied in the field of aviation and/or have a pilot licence. We are not arcade computergame players. We are the simulator community and we are PMDG customers. Most of all we take our hobby serious. a bad insult like that, creates bad reviews. not good!

 

I think reducing the flight simulator community to aviation professionals is not very realistic. Maybe that's true for you and your peers, or maybe even for the majority of PMDG customers (but even this I doubt), but the flight simulation community as a whole is very colorful, and I feel insulted that you exclude me from this community with your statement.  :mad:

 

 

Well.

 

Actually I do not feel insulted. But I could not resist to write it that way, because I don't think that PMDG's statement was meant as an insult.

 

Besides, all this "oh we are so serious with our hobby" stuff which you can read again and again by some people on nearly all flight simulation websites (and which I discussed at the European Flight Sim Conference 2016 in Berlin this March) is not good for the community as a whole. I suspect there wouldn't be many PMDG products if there weren't also a lot of users who are happy with even the simplest Carenado aircraft. Because the market would be too small if there were only aviation professionals and "pure" PMDG enthusiasts out there.

[PilotNL 9]

You are all missing the point. maybe I didn't write it down perfectly but please let me try and explain again.

 

I know PMDG did not MEAN to insult us, but it can be interpreted like that.

 

There is a difference between a multi-crew operation and the ability of a flightsim operator to handle 4 switches at the same time. I still think this is a very weak excuse for simplifying the start up to this level. but I am afraid I have to live with it. Me and many others will see this as a huge disappointment and not what we expected from PMDG. As Robert said himself. PMDG'ed is already synonymy for making it absurdly realistic. this start sequence simply does not fit that description.

 

Also I never meant to insult who ever you are Mario Donick, I fail to see how I could have possibly insulted you in all this. please explain or even beter, never mind if you don't.

 

Lastly, I really love the DC6 product you have created, every bit of it, except the start up.. so no drama...

 

Peace?

[MarioDonick 752]

 

 

Also I never meant to insult who ever you are Mario Donick, I fail to see how I could have possibly insulted you in all this. please explain or even beter, never mind if you don't.

 

As I said, you did not really insult me. But as much as you felt insulted by PMDG because they said a real engine start would be too difficult in the simulation, I could have felt insulted by your post, because I see myself as part of the flight simulation community, even though I'm neither an aviation professional nor (at least until yesterday) a PMDG customer. In your definition of the flight simulation community, I would not be part of this community, and this could be interpreted as insult.

 

Anyway, never mind.

[PilotNL 9]

"most of us" means I don't exclude anyone

 

"Easy start ON" As it is now. = Don't worry I've got you covered.

[MarioDonick 752]

 

 

"most of us" means I don't exclude anyone

 

But it makes the others seem irrelevant for the community and the market.

[CloudSurfer 16]

I have literally said - this entire time - that it is a multi-person operation, which cannot be realistically simulated 100% in the simulator. As such, we went with a simplified example.

...and that is the entire problem. There is no need to simplify the start procedure at all.

 

Rob Smith.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

...and that is the entire problem. There is no need to simplify the start procedure at all.

Rob Smith.

If we made it 100% realistic, I can guarantee that you, as a single person, would not be able to start it using the proper procedure. How are you imagining that you could? I'm genuinely curious.

[Tim-HH 570]

If we made it 100% realistic, I can guarantee that you, as a single person, would not be able to start it using the proper procedure. How are you imagining that you could? I'm genuinely curious.

 

I can't agree with that. All A2A aircrafts have fully realistic starting procedures and I never had a problem to start them. 

 

The key is simply that the starter switch stays in the pressed position.