Aerozone Cheyenne Sounds - Anyone?

[Tom_L 522]

Aaargh - think and verify before posting. Of course blue line speed would be way too high. Actually I am aiming for the red line at around 96 kts, which in fact should be V_MCA. According to the "Normal Procedures" provided by Carenado approach speed is 98 kts.

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Tom,

LOL - no worries - that's why we discuss these things - I need to change the way I fly now...

Regards,
Scott

[FDEdev 955]

The 'professional' way would mean that you should be established between 500 and 1000ft AGL. At target speed (e.g. V_REF +5), stable pitch, power setting and ROD.

A problem is that Carenado/Alabeo almost always have the viewpoint way too low. You have a nice view of the instrument panel but very little of the runway.

So you have to fly way too fast to be able to see the runway.  It's especially bad on their new PA42.  You can see the announciator panel due to the too low POV, but if you fly with the correct approach speed you can't even see the runway!

A realistic cut-off angle IRL is between 10 and 15deg. Set the pitch to 10deg nose up, and if the POV is correct you should still be able to see a tiny bit of the horizon.

That's a good starting point. I always have to increase the POV in the cfg file. Most of the time I move it forward as well.

 

[whamil77 183]

3 hours ago, J35OE said:

The 'professional' way would mean that you should be established between 500 and 1000ft AGL. At target speed (e.g. V_REF +5), stable pitch, power setting and ROD.

A problem is that Carenado/Alabeo almost always have the viewpoint way too low. You have a nice view of the instrument panel but very little of the runway.

So you have to fly way too fast to be able to see the runway.  It's especially bad on their new PA42.  You can see the announciator panel due to the too low POV, but if you fly with the correct approach speed you can't even see the runway!

A realistic cut-off angle IRL is between 10 and 15deg. Set the pitch to 10deg nose up, and if the POV is correct you should still be able to see a tiny bit of the horizon.

That's a good starting point. I always have to increase the POV in the cfg file. Most of the time I move it forward as well.

 

I do the same.  In fact, I have a pretty standard setup for it.  In the Cheyenne mod it is called TrackIR and should come up immediately after Virtual Cockpit. 

I also think there is another problem with the PA42.  I think Carendo has the aircraft incidence angle wrong.  You can get it humming along at top speed and switch to an external view.  The AOA is readily apparent, which shouldn't be there at high IAS. 

[FDEdev 955]

3 hours ago, whamil77 said:

I also think there is another problem with the PA42.  I think Carendo has the aircraft incidence angle wrong.  You can get it humming along at top speed and switch to an external view.  The AOA is readily apparent, which shouldn't be there at high IAS. 

Just tried and at 240kias the AoA at low weight is 0.5deg and at high weight 1.2deg. Both values look ok to me.

[whamil77 183]

9 minutes ago, J35OE said:

Just tried and at 240kias the AoA at low weight is 0.5deg and at high weight 1.2deg. Both values look ok to me.

I really should not have said AOA and stuck with my original statement about incidence angle instead.  What did the airplane look like when viewed from a side spot view?  IMO it looks to be pointed too much upwards, which would partly explain the trouble seeing over the panel.  I haven't done this yet but you might try a comparison between the PA31T and  the PA42 as viewed from the side at high airspeed.  It can be reporting appropriate AOA, but if the model itself is tilted too much upward it wouldn't show in the air data.  I think the opposite thing is happening with the new MILVIZ Otter.  On final the airplane is flying an appropriate glideslope but is pointed 20 degrees nose down.  I have time in the Otter and I don't remember anything like that. 
 

[FDEdev 955]

19 minutes ago, whamil77 said:

What did the airplane look like when viewed from a side spot view?  IMO it looks to be pointed too much upwards, which would partly explain the trouble seeing over the panel.

I think the opposite thing is happening with the new MILVIZ Otter.  On final the airplane is flying an appropriate glideslope but is pointed 20 degrees nose down.  I have time in the Otter and I don't remember anything like that. 

 

Seems to be ok as well. Difficult to judge especially when it's about such small angles.When you are in the VC and turn your head, just look at the relative position of the side window and headrest and compare it with the correctly positioned pilot from the outside view. Way too low.

Concerning the Milviz Otter, the FDE has been done by their 'backup' FDE guy.....  

[whamil77 183]

Well if it isn't enough to see the difference, it's probably not the problem. 

[scottb613 1,188]

 

16 hours ago, J35OE said:

A problem is that Carenado/Alabeo almost always have the viewpoint way too low. You have a nice view of the instrument panel but very little of the runway.

Hi Folks,

Hah - I've always thought that - I figured the guys from Carenado aren't the tallest guys in the world... My flight instructor was the same way - young kid compared to me - he used to complain on climb out that I would never dip the nose to check for traffic in the C172 - at 6'5" - I was like "Lou - I can see perfectly fine over the nose" - LOL - I threatened him with bringing phone books that he could sit on - a bit of a running joke with us - we had a good time... 

Have you guys tried ChasePlane ? It has quickly become an absolute necessity for me - in seconds you can adjust your view for a better perspective - it's about the slickest piece of kit I've seen in a very long time and I've been doing this since monochrome... The head movement stuff really brings a whole new level of immersion and brings the aircraft to life... I can't recommend it enough...

Regards,
Scott  

[Egbert Drenth 250]

1 hour ago, scottb613 said:

Have you guys tried ChasePlane ?

I have both EZdok and Chaseplane. 
For now I like EZdok better but will try CP when it officially has been released

[Tom_L 522]

I have set my viewpoint in both the -31T and -42 so that I can see a tiny bit of the nose (using EZDok). I'm a pretty tall guy in RL (6'7'') and tend to mimic the "under the roof" feeling in all aircraft I own for P3D . While this is no real problem in the 31T the annunciator panel in the 42 is fully out of sight - not sure if it's the real thing or Carenado, but so be it, as I prefer to have visual contact with the runway at all times. As much as I would have liked to be a pilot IRL I would have been quite limited in job opportunities - had the chance to get in a Challenger 350 cockpit recently and it was quite a challenge (no pun intended) to get my legs past the center console. But I feel comfortable in a C172 or a SR20 and that has to suffice. Anything bigger belongs to "Sim-World".

[scottb613 1,188]

Hi Tom,

LOL - and here I am being used to being “the tall guy” in the room...

I was offered the C152’s to save a few bucks on training - I said absolutely not after one close look - it looked painful...

I had the opportunity to climb into a Lear 35A cockpit once - other than the shear awe factor - wasn’t really fun either...

Regards,

Scott

[whamil77 183]

I think there is going to be a problem with the Aerzone sounds.  The .wav files simply won't work in their present form.  I would have to modify them with an audio program to make them fit the startup mod sequence.  I am having some success doing that.  Problem is......I'm pretty sure I can't legally distribute them in modified form (or any other form for that matter).  If it was simply a matter of re-mixing the sound.cfg file that would probably be OK.  But there is no way to  get the modified .wav files to you guys without getting into trouble with Aerzone and AVSIM. 

[Tom_L 522]

Hey Bill,

yep, be careful. Many thanks for your efforts anyway.

Regards

Tom

[MartinRex007 390]

Hi Bill, understand! No problem! Was hoping it would just be a mod to the sound.cfg but sounds like it would be a lot more involved.

I use a free audio program called Audacity and have the sound SDK format so might try playing around with them myself?

Cheers

Martin