AAlphaSierra

Cosmetic and immersive suggestion

Recommended Posts

In parallel of my previous topic concerning the possibility of opening the doors to the ground, what would you think if PMDG added us the possibility of opening the engine doors (and maybe have appropriate service vehicles) as illustrated in the pictures of the following link ?

http://www.gauthiernicolas.fr/?p=3570
 

I understand that it is not in the field of pilot, but that would be awesome, no?

Best regards.

 

Alexandre SAGETTE aka AAlphaSierra

Share this post


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

Why would that be awesome? I don't get it.  I'd rather have so many other features, such as ARINC navdata compatible FMS or how about a high fidelity bank and turn flight simulation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What would be interesting, is now that PMDG are doing that ops thing, if the opening of service panels could be tied to when the aircraft comes onto the stand with an issue, as is the case in real life, i.e. the ACARS stuff sends telemetry to the airline engineering personnel at the destination, for example reporting that the number two engine is low on oil or whatever, and if that could be made to trigger the oil filler access panel on number two opening up when the engine is shut down at the stand to simulate it being attended to, then that would be kind of cool. One could even go further with stuff like that and have it so that if the aircraft is at a remote airport where that airline has no service personnel, any such issues could be either deferred and stuck on the MEL, or take a while to sort out, or whatever.

Edited by Chock
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting suggestion, it would certainly increase the immersion factor, imho.

We can simulate all these service vehicle surrounding the aircraft, let them open some panels and take a look.

Take it one step further, work on the engines...drop a wrench... ground the aircraft while a fod check is carried out. Kinda along the idea of what Chock was explaining. I guess the possibilities are endless from a user standpoint, maybe not so much so from the dev though 🙂

The op title is cosmetic immersion, let's not rain on his parade.

James Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you JimmyD, and that's right : if this cosmetic addition can be linked with engines maintenances/repairs procedures, this would make more sense.

We can imagine the same kind of things for gear pressure/changes...

From the point of view of developers, maybe not for this version I can understand, but for next version, focusing on the 64 bit P3D platform, a lot of things would be possible... No ?

AAlphaSierra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I understood from PMDG some time ago, they are not allowed by Boeing to show damage to the airplane. And they need their cooperation with Boeing to produce these wonderfull aircrafts.

That is why you don’t see any smoke or fire from your engine even if the fire bell rings in the cockpit. Opening doors for maintenance would be a similar issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also take into consideration how much more detail they would need to put into the engines if you were able to pop open the engine nacelles. With that amount of detail, it could easily start to bring performance down, even with 64-bit.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice suggestions... but honestly rather for a self owned GA airplane, the accusim approach.. 

Pilots of airliners normally don‘t care that much about dropping a wrench. 

One thing to consider: as noted an opening engine panel requires modeled engine textures. Modeled textures means more dev time, hence a higher price and longer beta... ^^ 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ephedrin said:

One thing to consider: as noted an opening engine panel requires modeled engine textures.

I guess it depends on how detailed you want to get. You can either do just engine textures, or you would have to model each and every part. The latter would take up a significant amount of resources.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/28/2018 at 4:37 PM, downscc said:

Why would that be awesome? I don't get it.  I'd rather have so many other features, such as ARINC navdata compatible FMS or how about a high fidelity bank and turn flight simulation?

Dan can I ask what the deficiencies are in the current reproduction of bank and turn in the sim? Just purely out of interest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rondon9898 said:

Dan can I ask what the deficiencies are in the current reproduction of bank and turn in the sim? Just purely out of interest

Sure John, watch how the FMS-equipped aircraft often overshoots or undershoots a turn.  The FMS is trying to predict the ground track of the aircraft given speed (and to some extent I believe wind), which should be easy to do because there are basic laws of physics involved. However, the flight dynamics engine FDE in the simulator does not apply those physics formulas but instead uses a method that approximates the turn physics.  At some speeds the approximation is spot on, at other speeds it is off and the errors are compounded the greater the change in heading of the turn.  For example, PMDG B738 departing KPHX to the West on a SID that has a 90 deg turn to the right (North) several miles from airport such that aircraft is at 250 KIAS climbing through maybe 4000 ft and it is impossible for the aircraft to role out on correct heading a be on the LNAV predicted path so the result is the FMS applies correction such as a left turn (West) to resolve the track error.  It's pretty easy to see on just about any turn that exceeds 30 deg.  The solution is the developers need to take the flight dynamics of the turn outside of the FDE and do the simulation with custom coding, much in the same way PMDG already simulates the engines and in the case of the B744 the ground friction model.  I had a developer explain to me that as much as he wants to do this, it just isn't on the work priority list yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, downscc said:

Sure John, watch how the FMS-equipped aircraft often overshoots or undershoots a turn.  The FMS is trying to predict the ground track of the aircraft given speed (and to some extent I believe wind), which should be easy to do because there are basic laws of physics involved. However, the flight dynamics engine FDE in the simulator does not apply those physics formulas but instead uses a method that approximates the turn physics.  At some speeds the approximation is spot on, at other speeds it is off and the errors are compounded the greater the change in heading of the turn.  For example, PMDG B738 departing KPHX to the West on a SID that has a 90 deg turn to the right (North) several miles from airport such that aircraft is at 250 KIAS climbing through maybe 4000 ft and it is impossible for the aircraft to role out on correct heading a be on the LNAV predicted path so the result is the FMS applies correction such as a left turn (West) to resolve the track error.  It's pretty easy to see on just about any turn that exceeds 30 deg.  The solution is the developers need to take the flight dynamics of the turn outside of the FDE and do the simulation with custom coding, much in the same way PMDG already simulates the engines and in the case of the B744 the ground friction model.  I had a developer explain to me that as much as he wants to do this, it just isn't on the work priority list yet.

I wish it was a priority I must say.  I don't know if you have used the FSL A320, Dan, but it turns magically and follows its predicted paths very nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m ashamed to say that all the simming I’ve done and I’ve never sctually noticed this effect, so I shall look out for it. Very interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want that go buy the Captain Sim Aircraft, They are more gimmicky (if that's even a word) than PMDG

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice example of the B737NG, but if you've flown the real aircraft, you'd know it really can't follow the magenta line for toffee in the low altitude departure phase. 

You often find yourself in that initial turn out while still accelerating and it ties itself in knots trying to follow it as speed changes and you clean up.

So I'd say it was probably more realistic than not.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MarkJHarris said:

Nice example of the B737NG, but if you've flown the real aircraft, you'd know it really can't follow the magenta line for toffee in the low altitude departure phase. 

You often find yourself in that initial turn out while still accelerating and it ties itself in knots trying to follow it as speed changes and you clean up.

So I'd say it was probably more realistic than not.

 

 

That is interesting - why is that I wonder?

I haven’t flown the PMDG 738 for a long while but have been doing quite a few bits in the 744 and can’t say I’ve noticed the effect, even after Dan pointed it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Nice example of the B737NG, but if you've flown the real aircraft, you'd know it really can't follow the magenta line for toffee in the low altitude departure phase. 

You often find yourself in that initial turn out while still accelerating and it ties itself in knots trying to follow it as speed changes and you clean up.

That reminds me of the Dopek 2W departure at EGNM Leeds Bradford. When I attempted that for the first time in the 737-600 NGX, it just gave up and started plunging towards the ground!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's probably because the older NGs have seriously slow CPUs in the FMCs that take a few seconds to work stuff out, and also you're trying to drive a heavily modified and butchered 1965 concoction of spare parts with a 1980's computer. Don't get me wrong, I like flying them, solid, safe and reliable. They are however cramped, dirty for the most part and compromised in many ways.

Best part of the NG is the drip tray. Look at the bottom of the Overhead panel. on the font edge is a trim panel running full width with three drain lines. This catches condensation in the descent and stops it raining on the pilots. Brilliant idea! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Christopher Low said:

That reminds me of the Dopek 2W departure at EGNM Leeds Bradford. When I attempted that for the first time in the 737-600 NGX, it just gave up and started plunging towards the ground!!

Sounds more like a bad trim axis or something, honestly...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ideal way to get the NG to correctly follow these things is to introduce speed limitations in the legs page. This keeps it slower in the turns and allows it to follow the lines. Often, such as LAMIX from LBA, you'll see it drawn with a overshoot and turn back onto the radial specified in the SID. By putting a 220B/ in it will redraw it neater and fly it neater too. Just saying.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Sounds more like a bad trim axis or something, honestly..

I am fairly sure that someone else confirmed that the Dopek 2W departure was acting a bit strangely. I may have to test it again, as that was quite early in my "PMDG autopilot experience" days.

Edited by Christopher Low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, MarkJHarris said:

The ideal way to get the NG to correctly follow these things is to introduce speed limitations in the legs page. This keeps it slower in the turns and allows it to follow the lines. Often, such as LAMIX from LBA, you'll see it drawn with a overshoot and turn back onto the radial specified in the SID. By putting a 220B/ in it will redraw it neater and fly it neater too. Just saying.....

This applies to some arrivals as well.  The one of many that comes to mind is the 90 deg turn on the RJAA ELGAR arrival at MELON.  Left alone, the VNAV would have you above 10,000 at those descent speeds but if you try to fly it that way you end up a mile off track.  Best to dial in something like 230/8000B, which if you look at the actual traffic ground tracks this is closer to what ATC is clearing.  It is always a good idea to evaluate published terminal procedures with a dose of reality and not blindly follow the automation.

Edited by downscc

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