Just Flight Vickers VC-10 released

[Martyn JF 388]

Our marketing team do a great job of promoting products through social media, videos etc but unfortunately, in terms of image sizes/compression etc, that is constrained by our website functionality and Facebook/Twitter. We are working on various website improvements but that's never quick.

Thanks
Martyn 

[Holdit 551]

22 hours ago, Chock said:

Well, that's kind of one of those can of worm contention points isn't it? If I turn the light switch on in my bedroom, and a light comes on, and I make a simulation of it, do I need to simulate the electrons flowing down the wire and the switching brass mechanism behind the plastic light switch facade in order to say I've modeled a working light switch? The end result is the same whether I model those wires and stuff, or if I simply write a program which polls a click point and asks, 'has the user clicked this spot?', if yes, load the light graphic, if not, do not load the light graphic.

The logic behind such simulations as these was taken to extremes by Flight Sim Labs when they modeled the electrical and hydraulic and fuel systems in their A320, where they did actually model the entire wiring harness for the A320, and did a simulation of liquids so that simulated fuel would accurately slosh about in the fuel tanks and simulated hydraulic fluid would actually go through simulated hydraulic lines etc and the electrical resistance of the wiring plays a part in the loads the meters and LED  display segments present as a value, and that's cool, but then, FSL knew that loads of people wanted a really realistically simulated A320 and were prepared to pay a lot for it (I think I paid about 120 quid for the FSX version of that), so they knew they could afford to spend the time and money on developing such a detailed simulation and see a return on that investment.

I prefer design-for-effect myself. If you can get the same outcomes by reproducing the correct outputs in the correct circumstances, why bother simulating things down to the atomic level?

[Chock 17,769]

That obsessive level of modeling systems was sort of a necessity for FSL when making their A320, because the real thing has five flight computers and as many flight control modes, and it was apparent from the many flawed and failed attempts to create a realistic Airbus A320 by other developers which had gone before, that it would be necessary to take that approach to allow a detailed simulation of that particular aeroplane in FSX/P3D.

Of course the upside of that approach to simulating something is, if someone turns off a video screen in seat 53, or you knock off the landing lights, the electrical meters and such on the overhead would realistically reflect the electrical loads having altered by an amount. Or if the hydraulic seals on the actuators for something were a bit worn, then I'd expect to see maybe a slight drop in hydraulic pressure as some of the fluid sweated out of the system. This is the kind of detail the FSL A320 offers, and is why it costs what it does, but realistically, unless you flew the real thing on a daily basis and were intimately familiar with how everything you do in the cockpit impacts on things for real, would you really care about an ammeter reading 4.0, rather than 3.999 in a simulation? Not really, but yes if you were using it for real world training. However, for pretending to fly some pretend passengers to your pretend Malaga scenery on Vatsim or in Air Hauler, who really cares as long as it is reasonably realistic-looking.

Now I'll be honest, I actually did care about that for the A320, but only because I'd worked on the manuals for the real thing, so I was keen to have a very realistically simulated A320 for vaguely professional reasons of curiosity. So when people balked at the price of the FSL A320 upon release, I didn't, because I knew what it would take to get a realistic simulation of it to work on the ESP platform and was prepared to pay the requisite amount of money to FSL for their efforts in having pulled that off, in the same way that I'm prepared to pay 15-20 quid to Virtualcol for a comparatively simple' jump in and go' simulation of the ATR-42 or CRJ; one which looks reasonably accurate but doesn't obsess with such nerdiness.

What I know about the real VC-10 from a systems familiarity point of view could comfortably fit on the back of a cig packet with room left over to draw a picture of the thing lol, so I am less inclined to worry about such minutia with this particular add-on, and especially when it costs one fifth of the price I paid for that FSL A320, since I am aware that you are getting what you paid for. However, one thing I do hope to see simulated in at least some way on older low bypass turbojet-equipped aeroplanes such as the VC-10, 707, DC-8 and 737-200 etc, i.e. aeroplanes with no sophisticated computer engine control, is somewhat realistic engine pressure ratios relfected on the cockpit gauges. That is the one thing which otherwise very realistic and impressive add-ons such as the Captain Sim 707 and 727, do not do, so it means you have to kind of blag the throttle settings and ignore the EPR gauge readings, as they are not even close to what they should be reading.

This is perhaps a good example of something which could be sorted with a less obsessive level of simulation, by means of producing an EPR gauge which does not need to be actually monitoring air temperatures and thrust level differences at the front and back of the turbojet and such, but will instead just go to more or less the right readings on the gauge if you have the throttle in more or less the right place; i.e. a bit of gauge creation sleight of hand. 

[Martyn JF 388]

VC10 Jetliner SP v1.1 is now available - https://www.justflight.com/support/vc10-jetliner/1840aa4

Changes include:

• Pitot heat fixed
• Smoke effect on takeoff added
• Contrails added
• Improvements to fuel transfer/crossfeed system
• Multiplayer CTD fix

Thanks
Martyn

[HighBypass 2,339]

Most impressive! 

4 engines, 8 throttle levers  - voice activated... 

http://www.vc10.net/Memories/testing_earlydays.html#The Voice-controlled Throttles

[Bozdog 63]

Anyone running it on an Nvidia 3 screen setup ? Any issues 

cheers 

[Beardyman 604]

how u guys judge take off/landing speed ?

any tool or tables given ?

[pedrotrindade 335]

2 hours ago, HighBypass said:

Most impressive! 

4 engines, 8 throttle levers  - voice activated... 

http://www.vc10.net/Memories/testing_earlydays.html#The Voice-controlled Throttles

Thanks for the link.

Installing now the beast! It was stronger then me, too sexy to wait more!

[Chock 17,769]

6 hours ago, Beardyman said:

how u guys judge take off/landing speed ?

any tool or tables given ?

Well, there is some info in the manual, but since we are awaiting a 'pro' version, it is limited. Unless you want to buy a VC10 pilot notes manual (you can find them on pinterest and eBay, and there is also one of those slightly tongue in cheek Haynes owners manuals for the VC10 available which has some useful info too) this is where you get the chance to be a test pilot and determine those values yourself with a bit of effort, which is what the test pilots have to do with real aeroplanes.

If you're not sure about how that is done, here's how you go about it. And if you like aeroplanes and are interested in flying them properly, then this exercise is worth doing. Like most testing, it's not so much hard as it is repetitive and meticulous, a bit like beta testing...

First you have to determine Vmu, which is minimum lift off speed. On real aeroplanes when they are tested, a tailskid is fitted to the aeroplane (some have them already of course, for example the 737-900 NG has one) and then with a minimum fuel load on board, the aeroplane is throttled up and goes along the runway with the tail scraping along the runway surface until the thing flies off the deck, and the speed it does that at, is its Vmu. Of course you can't put a tailskid on your FS aeroplane, but you can turn off crash detection and damage and scrape its @ss along the runway and so that will amount to doing the same thing as is done in the real tests.

Tests are also done in this manner with greater fuel loads too, usually at least two more, i.e. you will have eventually done one at light weight, one with middle weight and one at MTOW. When Vmu is known, then you'll know what Vr should be. Then you have to determine V1 for various weights and temperatures, so ideally (as with all such tests), initially you should do all this stuff at 1013.25Mb/29.92Hg in calm winds.

But V1 is not as simple as it seems, because V1 itself is not what most pilots think it is. Many pilots will tell you V1 is the speed beyond which the takeoff should no longer be aborted, and whilst this is true, there's a bit more to it than that; V1 is actually two things: It is the speed in the takeoff roll at which you have to positively take action to stop the airplane within the accelerate-stop distance and it is the minimum speed in the takeoff where, if a critical engine fails, the pilot can continue the take off and still achieve the necessary clearance height above the takeoff surface within the takeoff distance available. So whilst it is determined by runway length and terrain clearance if that is limited, V1 is also a figure which is determined by when and how the aeroplane can make it up to its minimum control speed, i.e. where it will fly, but will also be able to be controlled to negate any yaw induced by asymmetric thrust caused by a failed critical engine (usually the outboard engine on most four engine aeroplanes is deemed to be the critical engine, but it's not always the case). With the VC10, the notion of a critical engine is, to a very large extent, minimised by the fact that it has all four engines closely grouped together, so Vef (the critical engine speed) is more about what three engines can deliver in terms of thrust than whether the rudder can keep you on the runway and tracking reasonably straight after lift off. All things being equal, V1 for the VC10 is the go/no go take off decision speed.

So, if you try three take offs with one of the outboard engines not running on your VC10, one at minimum weight, one and half weight and one at MTOW, and time how long it takes to get to V2, then do the same with all four engines running and see the difference, you'll be able to calculate what V1 should be. Then you need to know what V2 should be, and that's again a case of doing three take offs, one light, one medium and one MTOW, the aim being to know what speed you have on the clock when 35 feet off the deck with the critical engine failed. Whatever that speed is, is V2.

Having done all that, although you will end up with V1 Vr and V2 speed references for light, middle and MTOW loadings, it's important to note these will not produce a linear scale, as evidenced by the fact that your middle weight speeds will not be typically halfway between your light and MTOW speeds, but, if you draw a graph, and connect the dots, the resulting curved connecting line should get you pretty close to what the real thing would be for most speeds.

Repeat this all at hot temperatures and cold temps, and with wet and dry runways, and you'd have the charts you needed, but to be honest, just spending twenty minutes doing it all at a standard day pressure setting will be enough for sim purposes, which is just as well because much of what a test pilot does is in fact rather boring stuff like that.

If you want to do all that with the VC10, note that the tail incidence is typically at the 3 setting for a take off, with 20 degrees of flaps and between 93 and 96 percent thrust for most VC10 take offs (not always, but it's a good typical set up), so it'll do for any such tests. Similar tests are carried out for landing speed references of course on new aeroplane designs too, and the principal is pretty much the same as it would be for the aforementioned tests.

 

[Martyn JF 388]

V1/VR/V2 speeds for a variety of weights can be found in the performance section of the PDF manual.

Thanks
Martyn

[Beardyman 604]

How about landing speed, can find those as well in same performance sheet ?

[Chock 17,769]

7 hours ago, Beardyman said:

How about landing speed, can find those as well in same performance sheet ?

Yup, sure can. In fact, here are all those speeds:

Rotation Speed:

150,000 kg 154 KIAS

140,000 kg 148 KIAS

130,000 kg 143 KIAS

120,000 kg 137 KIAS

110,000 kg 132 KIAS

100,000 kg 126 KIAS

90,000 kg 121 KIAS

86,000 kg 119 KIAS

Threshold Speed:

150,000 kg 165 KIAS

140,000 kg 159 KIAS

130,000 kg 153 KIAS

120,000 kg 146 KIAS

110,000 kg 140 KIAS

100,000 kg 133 KIAS

90,000 kg 126 KIAS

86,000 kg 123 KIAS

80,000 kg 119 KIAS

Incidentally, for those of you who use Air Hauler 2, this is a great aeroplane to have in that add-on. It carries 50,000lb of cargo, can cruise at well over .90 Mach (in fact I'm pretty sure it would break Mach 1 if you ignored the overspeed warning), it has a massive range and can get in and out of hot and high places easily, like the real thing could.

It is a bit steep to buy in Air Hauler 2, at 60 Million Bucks new, or 7 Million deposit and then 3 Million per month to lease, but since it can carry tons of cargo a very long way quickly, it should easily pay for itself. It's very nice to fly too, and it sounds great. And don't be put off by the idea that it is only a fairly lite simulation, most of those switches in the VC do actually function, if you like doing all that flight engineer-type stuff.

[Christopher Low 5,332]

What a shame that such a superb airliner was held back by the niche market at which it was aimed. It should have been a world beater

[jimcarrel 688]

Bought this last night....... This morning after loading it, I got back out of P3D and headed for the good ole documentation. (I had to, too many strange controls). I perused quickly on the use of some of the never before seen controls and layout (totally new things to me). I loaded it back up.

First problem, after push back, having noticed the tiller control I had to touch it. Big mistake for me, (wish I had known before that rudder peddles accomplishes the same thing) I got the steering totally out of synch (at least it appeared so, since I didn't know it's simple "intricacies"). Finally got it lined up on runway at Tinker AFB. From startup to lineup probably took me 20 minutes.

At the line, scanning all the panels, setting T-tail, flaps, deciding it's ready... I gradually gave it power and then I get a beeping. Now I know that probably means something is not set right, but after all this time.... I'm going for it.

I hit 120 knots, all the while persevering the beeping, at about 300 feet I hit the gear up and then methodically raising flaps. The beeping stopped. Flew down range about 20 miles reversed course and headed back to KTIK.   Flew past KTIK about 30 miles, I was at 3000 ft. I figured 3000 ft at 30 miles would give me leisure time to get setup for touch down. Started slowing putting in flaps, finally gear down and found I wasn't low enough (I was too leisurely ). Pulled air brake, I was 1/3 down the runway at touch down. Touchdown was pretty smooth despite the speed. I hit the reversers and   managed to stop just short of last tun off.

I like this thing (will help tremendously to learn how to fly it). Wasn't sorry a nary bit for buying it, and will patiently wait for the "Pro" edition to be completed. Expectations for hand flying were well met.   

[drcancerman 7]

On 12/1/2017 at 9:45 AM, Martyn JF said:

Yes, it should be possible. We are currently developing our own brand-new INS for FSX/P3Dv1-4.

Thanks
Martyn

The only thing I would like to ask, because I assume it doesn't have it, since I didn't find it in any description, are the 2D autopilot panels. I ask because certain planes, like the DC-8, BAC 1-11 or even 707's or any plane with a quadrant AP, the AP is really difficult to turn on, or move. Sure, we can use a third party utility, or switch the view, but it becomes much harder when you need to hand fly many of those beauties. Even more troublesome when you have to use the same hand(no yoke on my case) to use the mouse to click any switches. 

So, my question is: is it possible to include a 2D panel only for the AP? Because, that way(since we don't have a co-pilot, flight engineer and a navigator) we can focus on keeping the plane leveled, and still fumble with the AP.