I'm slowly working my way thru the complexities of the PMDG DC-6 and it's a joy to fly when everything goes well, that is if I don't have too many loose nuts on the controls.  I did notice something today which seems not correct.  While using the PDMG GNS 430 and flying a GPS segment from EAT to YKM course 176°, the North indicator arrow was pointing about south.  I still pointed south mor or less on the next segment to LJT course 193°.  Is this a feature?

 

Jim Driskell

7 hours ago, jmdriskell said:

I'm slowly working my way thru the complexities of the PMDG DC-6 and it's a joy to fly when everything goes well, that is if I don't have too many loose nuts on the controls.  I did notice something today which seems not correct.  While using the PDMG GNS 430 and flying a GPS segment from EAT to YKM course 176°, the North indicator arrow was pointing about south.  I still pointed south mor or less on the next segment to LJT course 193°.  Is this a feature?

 

Jim Driskell

That GPS is the default GPS with just a custom face plate. If the behavior of this is not correct then this is due to errors on the default provided GPS

16 hours ago, jmdriskell said:

I'm slowly working my way thru the complexities of the PMDG DC-6 and it's a joy to fly when everything goes well, that is if I don't have too many loose nuts on the controls.  I did notice something today which seems not correct. 

Hi James:  Glad to hear you are enjoying the DC-6!  Chris is right, the "PMDG" GPS are really just the default GPS that comes with your simulator (FSX or P3D?). While I did purchase the Flight1 GNS product when beta testing the XPlane version, by the time we started on the P3D 64b one I lost interest in having a GPS in the DC6 and have gone all VOR-based or plain ole' pilotage. The DC6 works great with the GNS650 if you chose that route.  I find after flying the Boeing tubeliners getting into the DC6 and flying up the road to a favorite vacation spot leaves me grinning with happiness.  Every session is as if I were going out to fly the C-414, manual route planning and I follow my progress with a finger on the map (figuratively) using SkyVector on a second screen.

My salute to the USMC.  Dan Downs, Maj USAF (Ret)

Hi Dan,

Thanks for the information.  I'm very familiar with VOR based navigation as it was the method I learned many years ago when I was actually flying.  What I don't understand is why PMDG would release an otherwise wonderful aircraft with a feature that was less than perfect.  I'm going to look at the Flight1 GNS and will probably add it to the sim.

Too bad someone doesn't come up with a good C-117 simulation similar to the one behind me in the pic.

Jim Driskell

19 minutes ago, jmdriskell said:

What I don't understand is why PMDG would release an otherwise wonderful aircraft with a feature that was less than perfect.

Sure, understand.  However, the DC6 is not a full study simulation and you'll find many more items based on the simulator platform that are not designed outside of the box.  Radios, autopilot, ground friction modelling, etc.  The GNS650 is a good option but even it is based on the Garmin trainer (available free) so you are limited to occasional navdata updates as Garmin see fit to release for free.  All things considered, I decided just to keep it simple and enjoy flying the airplane.

Roger that Dan. I like to fly some of the DC6 thrill rides I had when I was a kid. Like my first plane ride when I was six sitting beside my Dad from the Canal Zone to Bogata. Later some domestic flights around the US then to Managua and back home three years later. I reinstalled FSX Steam just for a retro sim and loaded it with some retro airport sceneries from California Classics. The old recips really can make you smile.

I'm hopelessly smitten with round engines and oil smears.  I would echo Dan's thoughts about running the -6 without ANY modern (read new-fangled) navigation equipment. The more time I spend with NDB and VOR navigation, the more situationally aware I become, which is very handy when arriving in a hold stack over LAM on a foggy day in London Town.  Relying on the Magenta Line has become the de facto standard, but I do get a great sense of accomplishment navigating to and arriving at my destination without GPS.  

I accept that my viewpoint is only one, so if you indeed want to use GPS, the after market offers a couple of choices...

I keep hoping that we will re-visit this old girl soon.  She just needs a few items tidied up and she will be superlative! She is beautifully complex in a mechanically linked sort of way, and I always enjoy a session in her....

C

 

Nicely said!

Jim Driskell

On 9/18/2018 at 6:57 PM, downscc said:

Sure, understand.  However, the DC6 is not a full study simulation and you'll find many more items based on the simulator platform that are not designed outside of the box.  Radios, autopilot, ground friction modelling, etc.  The GNS650 is a good option but even it is based on the Garmin trainer (available free) so you are limited to occasional navdata updates as Garmin see fit to release for free.  All things considered, I decided just to keep it simple and enjoy flying the airplane.

I think the PMDG DC-6 is a wonderful simulation aircraft, and it seems to have nearly all of the features that a DC-6 of the period would have (an airliner of this period would not have a GPS), and the systems and performance simulation seems quite comprehensive. So I am not sure what you mean by a "full study" simulation aircraft and why you consider it is not one.

59 minutes ago, AviatorMan said:

So I am not sure what you mean by a "full study" simulation aircraft and why you consider it is not one.

Systems are not modeled to the detail you'd expect in a study simulation and failure modes are just basic whatever-the-simulator-provides.  This doesn't detract from the quality of the product and wasn't intended to imply as much.  For example, there is a basic engine performance degradation feature based on how the user treats the engines but nothing in detail such as fowled lower plugs or maybe a magneto failure.  In a study simulation such as the PMDG 747 QOTSII one may chose to fail hundreds of different components of systems in a variety of ways.

4 hours ago, downscc said:

Systems are not modeled to the detail you'd expect in a study simulation and failure modes are just basic whatever-the-simulator-provides.  This doesn't detract from the quality of the product and wasn't intended to imply as much.  For example, there is a basic engine performance degradation feature based on how the user treats the engines but nothing in detail such as fowled lower plugs or maybe a magneto failure.  In a study simulation such as the PMDG 747 QOTSII one may chose to fail hundreds of different components of systems in a variety of ways.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.