8 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Please hop off the Pmdg know everything and cant do anything wrong bandwagon it gets a little tiresome to those who do know to hear people continually throwing themselves at the ground in front of them. Particularly when its wrong or not totally accurate.

Pmdg generally do a wonderful job of simulating most things in what is a pretty poor simulator to start with. How they and others have managed to create great representations of incredibly complex machines many have never even seen is outstanding.

The start sequence has already been discussed as being less than perfect over on the other simulator some time ago.

Is the 12 blade count correct for "every star"t..no. Yes it would be nice to have some variablility in the start time as a hot R2800 starts anywhere from 9-20 blades if its not going by 20 it aint starting try again. Cold starts its anyone's guess as it is a truly magical art.

Is the start as accurate as A2A's..no.

Is A2A's perfect...no.

In short there is no way to "accurately" do a start in an aircraft which requires the co-ordination of four people three who are crew members, 12 arms, 8 eyes, four brains to get started by one person in a simulator with a limited field of view.

I dont mind the Pmdg start likewise i dont mind the more difficult but still not totally accurate A2A start.

Everything in a PC simulator is a compromise and the acceptance of that is the road to sim happiness.

 

Thanks for your completely unconstructive comment.

If you had taken the time to actually read my response, you'll realise that I did not say they could do no wrong, rather, I said that Kyle (Being a PMDG developer) is going to know more about their product than a customer is, just like Boeing will know more about a Boeing 777 than Qantas will, and Apple will know more about an iPhone than jonny iPhone user will. But please, quote me where I was "throwing myself in front of them".

1 hour ago, PMDG777 said:

Thanks for your completely unconstructive comment.

If you had taken the time to actually read my response, you'll realise that I did not say they could do no wrong, rather, I said that Kyle (Being a PMDG developer) is going to know more about their product than a customer is, just like Boeing will know more about a Boeing 777 than Qantas will, and Apple will know more about an iPhone than jonny iPhone user will. But please, quote me where I was "throwing myself in front of them".

Hmm hard to keep my mouth shut....

There is no doubt that Kyle knows more about the PMDG DC-6 product than anyone else outside PMDG. But that does not mean that he knows more about radial engines than some of the customers in this forum (not necessarily myself included).

A 3D modeller f.ex does not need to know anything about aerodynamics, flight modelling or aircraft systems etc.

Question could then also be what kind of developer Kyle is - 3D modeller, FM developer, systems coder or the one piecing the documetation togetherm or producing the tutorials, all based on the product and not necessarily the realworld DC-6. So while Boeing knows more about the B-777 than any other, they do not necessarily know more about the GE, RR or PW engines than others.

You do not seem to understand that all we are questioning, is the engine startup  lack of uncertainty, that normally exist on those old radial engines, which kind of kills the immersion. The rest of the DC-6 is very good.

All we have expected for a PMDG product, is a more immersive and unpredictable startup of the engines, which could have been done by adding either deeper physical effecys, or just some randomness.

In essence all You keep saying is that PMDG knows better how those engines should start (which is true for this product), while we try to compare it yo how those engines where known to act in reality, and thats not something that is patented by PMDG.

30 minutes ago, Wothan said:

Hmm hard to keep my mouth shut....

There is no doubt that Kyle knows more about the PMDG DC-6 product than anyone else outside PMDG. But that does not mean that he knows more about radial engines than some of the customers in this forum (not necessarily myself included).

A 3D modeller f.ex does not need to know anything about aerodynamics, flight modelling or aircraft systems etc.

Question could then also be what kind of developer Kyle is - 3D modeller, FM developer, systems coder or the one piecing the documetation togetherm or producing the tutorials, all based on the product and not necessarily the realworld DC-6. So while Boeing knows more about the B-777 than any other, they do not necessarily know more about the GE, RR or PW engines than others.

Of course that is true, Kyle could know nothing about radials, but Robert has considerable RW experience flying them ;)

Quote

You do not seem to understand that all we are questioning, is the engine startup  lack of uncertainty, that normally exist on those old radial engines, which kind of kills the immersion. The rest of the DC-6 is very good.

Oh I understand it, as a customer I want it to be modelled as accurately as possible, I just wanted to explain that some of the logic some people were using as evidence for their argument was flawed.

Quote

All we have expected for a PMDG product, is a more immersive and unpredictable startup of the engines, which could have been done by adding either deeper physical effecys, or just some randomness.

In essence all You keep saying is that PMDG knows better how those engines should start (which is true for this product), while we try to compare it yo how those engines where known to act in reality, and thats not something that is patented by PMDG.

What I was trying to say is that if PMDG say it is modelled, then it is whether you see it or not. They will know what is/isn't simulated, and going by at least one of their team's experience in radials, will know how a real radial reacts.

I think you should submit a support ticket asking the question, that's the best way to truly get a response.

4 hours ago, PMDG777 said:

I think you should submit a support ticket asking the question, that's the best way to truly get a response.

Done !

14 hours ago, PMDG777 said:

Thanks for your completely unconstructive comment.

If you had taken the time to actually read my response, you'll realise that I did not say they could do no wrong, rather, I said that Kyle (Being a PMDG developer) is going to know more about their product than a customer is, just like Boeing will know more about a Boeing 777 than Qantas will, and Apple will know more about an iPhone than jonny iPhone user will. But please, quote me where I was "throwing myself in front of them".

You will quite clearly find that companies like Qantas are continualkybasked by Boeing about there aircraft and what Qantas do to fix and operate them.

Jetstar are continually working with Airbus educating them on how "their" aircrsft works(or doesnt) in the real world so they can continue to improve the product.

It terms of throwing yourself in front of Pmdg's holy altar saying someone who has a legitimate question and concern is wrong because the "developer knows better or more" is simply that. Accept that the question or criticism is valid rather than dismissing it would be a start.

Pmdg do some wonderful products but its seems people criticizing (constructively) are frowned upon and heavily critiqued even when its clear they are correct.

The end goal is an improvement in already great products not scoring points for or against.

 

4 hours ago, DEHowie said:

You will quite clearly find that companies like Qantas are continualkybasked by Boeing about there aircraft and what Qantas do to fix and operate them.

Jetstar are continually working with Airbus educating them on how "their" aircrsft works(or doesnt) in the real world so they can continue to improve the product.

Of course that's true, but you won't find Qantas saying that they know more than Boeing about it ;).

4 hours ago, DEHowie said:

It terms of throwing yourself in front of Pmdg's holy altar saying someone who has a legitimate question and concern is wrong because the "developer knows better or more" is simply that. Accept that the question or criticism is valid rather than dismissing it would be a start.

For it to be valid, it has to be built on facts and evidence, not hypothesis that you can't prove. It's well and fair saying yep I don't think the engine starts are any different, but how do you know what the real aircraft is like? Just my 2 cents.

4 hours ago, DEHowie said:

Pmdg do some wonderful products but its seems people criticizing (constructively) are frowned upon and heavily critiqued even when its clear they are correct.

The end goal is an improvement in already great products not scoring points for or against.

 

Not at all, I think unfounded criticism is frowned upon.

I opened a Ticket the 30th July on the PMDG site. Apart from a short notice by Ryan that my request for more details on the engine start has been forwarded to the Devs. I have not got any further feedback on this.

What's the normal time span for support ticket feedback ?

16 hours ago, Wothan said:

I opened a Ticket the 30th July on the PMDG site. Apart from a short notice by Ryan that my request for more details on the engine start has been forwarded to the Devs. I have not got any further feedback on this.

What's the normal time span for support ticket feedback ?

Well I would imagine it'll depend on what the devs are working on and how busy support is. As it's a request, it's not high priority.

Starting the engines of this bird is really challenging every time, there is no way to make two starting procedures equal to another! May be PMDG has slightly exaggerated this aspect? Anyway if an engine refuses to start at all, my "trick" is opening more the throttle, about 1/2 or a bit more (corresponding at about more than 2000 rpm), and the engine starts, then reducing the throttle to the minimum rpms required for the warmup.

Claudio Rampini

On 8/3/2017 at 5:03 PM, Wothan said:

What's the normal time span for support ticket feedback ?

For generic support (activation issues, order issues, and generic product questions)? Usually within the day, but potentially up to 48 hours.

Your case isn't generic support, though. Your report needs to receive dev time. Dev time takes time, not only to task, but to research/find/correct/code/test/etc. Completely different ballgame.

@rampa True, with the setting the VFE provides the engines don't start well. Giv a slight increase in the throttle position, they they will easily start up on the first attempt: Fuel pump on low, starter on, switch on primer, mags and boost somewhere between 3-12 blades (not correct, but the '6' doesn't care here), and the engine will catch at 12 bladed. Immediately set mixture full rich, and you're done. Usually I switch on mags at 6 blades, primer at 9 (since I cannot see it does anything at all) and boost at 12. Works. If the throttle has been increased from the standard setting.

26 minutes ago, MatzeH84 said:

True, with the setting the VFE provides the engines don't start well.

With the exception of the fuel pump being off, I haven't had any issues.

Well I had, and found that if I would open the throttle a bit more I'd have much better results. Maybe it's weather related, or system-related..?

2 minutes ago, MatzeH84 said:

Maybe it's weather related,

Temp affects it some. Admittedly, I always use RW weather, and it's been pretty hot here in DC (where I've been flying it), so it isn't as tough to get going.

1 hour ago, scandinavian13 said:

For generic support (activation issues, order issues, and generic product questions)? Usually within the day, but potentially up to 48 hours.

Your case isn't generic support, though. Your report needs to receive dev time. Dev time takes time, not only to task, but to research/find/correct/code/test/etc. Completely different ballgame.

Now 288 hours after last feedback from Ryan I still not have got any clear answer. Ryan just told that he don´t know, but doubt that it is intended if it´s scribted.

Cracking the throttles is necessary, but other than that the start always occure at the 12 blade call.