Engine Starting Question

[Pilotdude3407 11]

I will say that I don't think A2As radials are 100% accurate on startup. I think they may be 90% but as stated before, we do have limitations within the sims that have to be worked out. I will say that the 90% realistic start of A2A would be sufficient to probably 99% of simmers. Let me preface this by saying I'm not comparing A2A and PMDG. They both have a great place in the swimming community and both do excellent work.

 

Without knowing jack about sim coding, I can respect needing to "simplify" things due to the limitations of the sim, as well as only having one person with a finite amount of mouse buttons doing the job of three aviators, six hands and six eyes. If I may add my suggestion that I think has been said in different ways on here already:

 

Make the simplified aspects hidden somewhere else. i.e. Making the switches independent and able to be held down with a right click of the mouse. Maybe making just the starter switch connected to the "brake" of the prop so when it is depressed, it simulataniously releases the prop and cranks the engine. I would also be ok with the AFE doing the starts "realistically" as if you did have a full crew and let the animations reflect a genuine start as you would encounter on the real aircraft...such as counting blades and individual switch movement.

 

Again, I completely respect the limitations of any given simulator, but if at all possible, try and hide the "cheats" elsewhere in the coding.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

All A2A aircrafts have fully realistic starting procedures and I never had a problem to start them.

 

Put simply, they do not. They've used side steps as well, but they do make you click more things. Clicking more things does not mean more realistic.

 

This is the crux of the issue in this entire thread:

People are making assertions about a start sequence that they have no clue about.

[CloudSurfer 16]

Remind me again why we "fly" our computers?

 

Safe to say we are not going to agree here.

 

Rob Smith.

[Tim-HH 572]

Put simply, they do not. They've used side steps as well, but they do make you click more things. Clicking more things does not mean more realistic.

Could you please explain that a bit more? You can start the A2A T-6 with the procedures from the real manual without any shortcomings or issues. For me that is as realistic as it can get in a flight simulator.

 

People are making assertions about a start sequence that they have no clue about.

Isn't that kind of derogatory? Yes, most of us a have never started a real radial engine. But we are all aviation enthusiast and very interested in aircrafts and the procedures to operate them. For me, studying the real manuals and applying what I have learned in the simulator is a big part of the fun. And to be honest: Starting a radial engine is no black magic. It's a pretty straightforward process. And it can be simulated very well in a flight simulator.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Looks like there's a difference in terms here. When I'm saying "realistically," I mean that if a button needs to be clicked and held, then you're clicking and holding that button for the duration of the start. This being the case for both the start and the safety, that kinda rules it out from the start, unless you have hardware that you can assign to all of those things (not quite a reasonable request with 4 buttons alone for an engine start, much less the 4 more toggles for the mags, and yet another 4 toggles for the mixtures).

 

That being said, there are a number of companies that use some sort of method of giving the user a concession. To me, as soon as this is done, it's no longer 100% realistic. As Ken noted, above, it's 90-99%, which in most people's eyes (mine included) is good enough. While I personally wouldn't call that fully realistic, I can see how I'm parsing words here to an extreme degree (to the level of pedantry - yes, I even take shots at myself).

 

 

 

It all boils down to this:

When this was discussed this a year ago, it was obvious it could be done, but it was going to be really tough for users to get right (this generates quite a bit of support traffic, even when things are correctly difficult), and it was going to require some dev time to really work it through correctly. As a result, it got put on hold for a future update.

[Tim-HH 572]

Thanks for the clarification, Kyle! Now I understand what you meant  :smile:

 

In that regard, I'm very happy with 90% to 99% as well.