Sign in to follow this  
cagrikartal

747v3 performance calculator

Recommended Posts

hello everyone,

 

I was wondering will we be able to use the 747v2 profile in topcat for the v3 performance ? if not, i would love to have some sort of performance calculator from pmdg which may be compatible with other softwares like pfpx. As far as i know we still don't have a profile for 773 in topcat(i heard they stopped development and the ones left on the market arent auite accurate) and it is very easy to overpower on takeoffs with those ge90s. And since we have different(and accurate) engine options on v3, i thought it would be nice to be able to see the differences on the flightplans otherwise what is the point of the accuracy ?  what do you think ?

 

thank you and a happy new year to everyone

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I was wondering will we be able to use the 747v2 profile in topcat for the v3 performance ?

 

That models a 747, doesn't it?

 

And we're currently modeling a 747, right?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That models a 747, doesn't it?

 

And we're currently modeling a 747, right?

 yes but i dont know maybe engine modeling accuracy is diffrerent or something else. i havent flown much on the v2 so  :Big Grin: and '' yes you can" would take u less time, unles u have a lot of time to kill :t1851:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That models a 747, doesn't it?

And we're currently modeling a 747, right?

Is v3 just an updated visual model? An updated VC? Youre making a newer more accurate 747 are you not? Its a legitmate question. Considering the fact that in the flightsim world the same type made by different developers or a newer version can ofder more precise performance or offer different performance due to attention to detail, who knows how accurate that profile can be.

 

Because if the old v2 performance is spot on to the real deal and thats not changing in v3, then the new v3 probably isnt worth the money PMDG is going to charge for it. Afterall, it would only be a new look.

 

As you say, a 747 is a 747 is a 747.

 

Having said that, im sure the v3 is much more accurate in every aspect than the old v2 which woukd undoubtly throw off fuel numbers and takeoff data to an extent that would a new profile would need to be made or the old one tweaked to make sure it matches the more accurate simulation you guys are making.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having said that, im sure the v3 is much more accurate in every aspect than the old v2 which woukd undoubtly throw off fuel numbers and takeoff data to an extent that would a new profile would need to be made or the old one tweaked to make sure it matches the more accurate simulation you guys are making.

I have been using TOPCAT 2.74 for 2 months now in beta testing and never crashed on takeoff because of incorrect derates, assumed temperatures or flap settings recommended by TOPCAT.

 

And TOPCAT has nothing to do with fuel. Take weight is what matters. Fuel comes from PFPX or some other program similar to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using TOPCAT 2.74 for 2 months now in beta testing and never crashed on takeoff because of incorrect derates, assumed temperatures or flap settings.

So V3 is identical to the V2 I have? So as above, just a texture upgrade?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been using TOPCAT 2.74 for 2 months now in beta testing and never crashed on takeoff because of incorrect derates, assumed temperatures or flap settings.

Thats all fine and dandy. I woukd assume takeoff data wouldnt really change. What about flight plan fuel burn? Im adsuming that v3 fuel burn calculations are much more accurate than v2. Therefore a new profile would to be made or at least tweaked ao flights can be planned fairly accurately.

 

Samsung galaxy induced spelling errors aside...

So V3 is identical to the V2 I have? So as above, just a texture upgrade?

with take off data, it should be to a certain extent. Its merely weaight dependent. The derates may change ever so slightly but the accuracy of TOPCAT shoukd probably be questioned more than the 747 v3 addon itself.

 

Im more concerned with PFPX.

 

If topcat spits out tskeoff numbers for the new 747 like it does for the NGX. (same flap setting no matter what), then that may be a TOPCAT problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So V3 is identical to the V2 I have? So as above, just a texture upgrade?

No not at all. It is a complete rebuild from the ground up. Visuals will of course be up to today's standards, but expect performance (as in frame rates and vas usage) to be up to today's standards too. Having said all that, the aircraft is still a 747, and as the v2 was already a great rendition of the Queen, it will most likely perform very similarly when it comes to the different engines, flight model and operations.

 

Topcat will probably be sufficient to calculate takeoff performance. It's what Kyle was alluding to in his response above. I'm sure they have already tried and have come to this conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No not at all. It is a complete rebuild from the ground up. Visuals will of course be up to today's standards, but expect performance (as in frame rates and vas usage) to be up to today's standards too. Having said all that, the aircraft is still a 747, and as the v2 was already a great rendition of the Queen, it will most likely perform very similarly when it comes to the different engines, flight model and operations.

Topcat will probably be sufficient to calculate takeoff performance. It's what Kyle was alluding to in his response above. I'm sure they have already tried and have come to this conclusion.

Well, it was what was mentioned above by somebody else. And what you said that is basically just a visual upgrade with maybe a coupe extra tweaks anyway I performance is the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Topcat and pfpx profiles were made using real life 747 data. So if PMDG 747v2 was flying close to the numbers, then v3 should be even more so. For instance, maybe the Topcat calculations said you would have 1500ft to spare on a rejected takeoff. With 747v2, you might get within 300ft of that, but with 747v3 it might be a margin of 100ft. Same thing with fuel consumption. Now, this is all assuming Topcat and pfpx have perfect real-world profiles, which they very well might not.

What I'm looking forward to the most in v3 are the customizations, accurate representation of RR and PW engines, and flight dynamics. Can't wait for MTOW with RR engines (the weakest ones). Over or under 11° nose up anyone?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key here is as above. The profile was built with real 747 data rather than data specific to v2, v3 should hit the numbers even closer :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here, which is why I responded the way I did in the first post. This is a question that has come up before (see the FS9 NG vs the FSX NGX, though most of it was lost in the Great AVSIM Server Fire...not even kidding).

 

If I'd simply said 'yes' it would give the impression that the two products are compatible. Answering yes gives someone an answer and they don't learn anything from it. In this case, you need to use a little bit of logic to work through it. The tools are not specifically, directly compatible. They shouldn't be specifically so. Yes, you read that correctly. Our product and PFPX, TOPCAT, Toper, and any other calculator shouldn't be specifically compatible.

 

Why? Transitive compatibility.

 

If I make a sim aircraft (A) to emulate a Boeing 744 ©;

...and someone else makes a calculator (B) to work with a Boeing 744 ©;

...then A = C and they will work together.

 

If both of you are doing it right, then your key point will be on the actual plane and not each other. With this in mind, the fact that any of these tools references a specific developer at all is somewhat baffling (though a lot of these products simply have profiles for products because they contain the OEW, max pax cap, fuel cap, and max cargo cap, which may vary between devs some given the reference aircraft used).

 

 

 

All of the comments about a visual update and so on are a bit off the mark. Of course, where possible, we will clean up the data to make it more accurate to the real aircraft, but a 744 is still a 744. We designed the earlier version to be like the real 744. This version was also designed to be like the 744. Over the years, we've picked up all kinds of techniques to make things better, but that doesn't mean that the old version is less accurate simply because it's older. While that may make sense to all of you, it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, there may be some improvements here and there, but it's not like the old version was wildly off the mark, and the new one is spot on. There may be a few spots where the data doesn't match up perfectly, but keep in mind that you all are using a data tool that cost about 56 Euro (both PFPX and TOPCAT). You want accuracy? Go look at the professional tools out there and bring a high limit card, or make sure you save up a bit. You'll be forking out about $2000 per airplane.

 

So...perspective... (and also the reason I didn't just say, flatly, 'yes' - because the answer isn't simply 'yes').

 

If the two products are simulating a 744 then they should reasonably work well together. It doesn't need to be a question every time someone releases a 744, provided the tool's data and the aircraft dev's data are made with a reference point of the real 744.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys,

 

You're making a mountain out of a molehill here, which is why I responded the way I did in the first post. This is a question that has come up before (see the FS9 NG vs the FSX NGX, though most of it was lost in the Great AVSIM Server Fire...not even kidding).

 

If I'd simply said 'yes' it would give the impression that the two products are compatible. Answering yes gives someone an answer and they don't learn anything from it. In this case, you need to use a little bit of logic to work through it. The tools are not specifically, directly compatible. They shouldn't be specifically so. Yes, you read that correctly. Our product and PFPX, TOPCAT, Toper, and any other calculator shouldn't be specifically compatible.

 

Why? Transitive compatibility.

 

If I make a sim aircraft (A) to emulate a Boeing 744 ©;

...and someone else makes a calculator ( B) to work with a Boeing 744 ©;

...then A = C and they will work together.

 

If both of you are doing it right, then your key point will be on the actual plane and not each other. With this in mind, the fact that any of these tools references a specific developer at all is somewhat baffling (though a lot of these products simply have profiles for products because they contain the OEW, max pax cap, fuel cap, and max cargo cap, which may vary between devs some given the reference aircraft used).

 

 

 

All of the comments about a visual update and so on are a bit off the mark. Of course, where possible, we will clean up the data to make it more accurate to the real aircraft, but a 744 is still a 744. We designed the earlier version to be like the real 744. This version was also designed to be like the 744. Over the years, we've picked up all kinds of techniques to make things better, but that doesn't mean that the old version is less accurate simply because it's older. While that may make sense to all of you, it certainly doesn't make any sense to me. Sure, there may be some improvements here and there, but it's not like the old version was wildly off the mark, and the new one is spot on. There may be a few spots where the data doesn't match up perfectly, but keep in mind that you all are using a data tool that cost about 56 Euro (both PFPX and TOPCAT). You want accuracy? Go look at the professional tools out there and bring a high limit card, or make sure you save up a bit. You'll be forking out about $2000 per airplane.

 

So...perspective... (and also the reason I didn't just say, flatly, 'yes' - because the answer isn't simply 'yes').

 

If the two products are simulating a 744 then they should reasonably work well together. It doesn't need to be a question every time someone releases a 744, provided the tool's data and the aircraft dev's data are made with a reference point of the real 744

hmm i get it, but i would also like to mention that when i use pfpx,AS2016 and topcat to plan my flights i get values that doesnt match with the values i get when i enter the numbers in pmdg 777lr, For example i have topcat saying TO1 +54  resulting 87%N1 on fmc TO1 +54 gives 95%N1.(i compensate it by changing the assumed temperature)  Having a pmdg  calculator would eliminate the accuracy differences between other products.(i remember reading in t7 update topic that they ve changed the assumed takeoff algorithms to have more realistic result) However i cant say how much it cost in time or money but given the complexity and the price range of the product i say it is worth it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 


However i cant say how much it cost in time or money but given the complexity and the price range of the product i say it is worth it.

 

This. It's a sim. It's not going to be perfect. Expecting everything to match exactly is to chase a ghost.

 

Take the planning numbers out of any manual and then go fly any plane you have access to in the real world. You think they're going to match exactly?

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