While studying the hydraulic system I started wondering how I can simulate hydraulic failures that allow me to practice the emergency checklist in order to isolate hydraulic leaks. This then led me to the on question on how to simulate failures in general. Besides the realism options I did not find any particular reference to failures. Two items however look interesting:

• Engine damage: does it only include damage based on bad engine treatment or also random failures of various components?
• CB failures: what kind of failure rate do they have and what will the actual failure be? Will they just pop out or will they indeed simulate a short from which on can or cannot recover?

I am aware of the X-Plane failure system, which I assume, works for some of the generic items like engine, generator, flight controls, etc. But is there also a way to simulate failure for DC-6 specific systems?

 

Thanks

Nik Schild

PMDG did not include a failure rate based system that is found in the NGX B747 B777 full study simulations.  In other words, this is not a full study simulator.  I'm not sure how the XPL failure system might present failures in the DC-6 since there is a lot of processing done outside of the box to achieve the fidelity in this product.  The engine damage feature is just as you say... based on bad engine treatment and not a service based failure feature.

Thank you. I did some quick tests with the X-Plane Equipment Failures.

Engine fire, magnetos and oil pump work, on the other hand, generators, engine failures, OAT and fuel quantity sensors do not work.This is of course just a small subset of all available failures.

This looks like it really just depends on how PMDG made use of X-Plane's default features.

To me this is a bit disappointing because such a sophisticated airplane (even if its not a study model) does not even make use of default X-Plane features which would have enhanced the model quite a bit. So from a failure modelling point of view even X-Plane's default aircraft provide more depth.

 

regards

Nik Schild

PMDG chose to focus more on the fidelity of the engine and flight characteristics of the aircraft, which most would agree is important.  The sophistication of this product is no where near the level of sophistication that is achieved in the full study simulators. XPlane simply could not have supported the DC-6 without the outside of the box approach.

Yes, this makes also sense. I could imagine that doing stuff out of the box may make the airplane also easier to port to another flight sim platform.

May someone from PMDG shed some light into future intentions about failures? 

 

Nik Schild