AEROFLY FS2 R22: A PILOT'S PERSPECTIVE

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Interesting article on HeliSimmer: https://www.helisimmer.com/editorial/aerofly-fs2-r22-pilots-perspective

Quote

The Robinson R22 turns 40 this year and so Nick decided to write a bit about what's, very possibly, the best R22 in a sim right now.

 

[DrumsArt 270]

21 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

Interesting article on HeliSimmer: https://www.helisimmer.com/editorial/aerofly-fs2-r22-pilots-perspective

 

Hi,

Interesting article, thank you.

I was just about to write a post about the R22.

After months of non-use (I don't come back to the criticisms about this simu...), I relaunched AFS2 on the occasion of the release of the R22. From my point of view it is the only interesting aircraft both on the systems and on the flight model ( finally...). Moreover, it is really challenging.

I regret one thing, for once the start-up procedure is very close to reality, to take advantage of it it is necessary first to turn off the engine, lol! Probably an idea of the manager(s) who think that the people who use their simu are all 2-year-old children or intellectually failing people...

When will they finally decide to put a C&D option and also a possibility to save situations...OMG?! About this, JV had modified a file that allowed to have a Q400 C&D. This file has of course disappeared from the radars via the Mods of the IPACS site. Fortunately, I still have it. From this idea I took a look at some R22 files but unfortunately these files now seem encrypted! Thanks!!!! Anyway, end of the rant...;-) except for these disadvantages, the R22 is really worth it and gives a new meaning to AFS2.

If you are a beginner like me with helicopters, I have found some interesting links about startup and flight techniques.

Richard

[HiFlyer 9,343]

1 hour ago, DrumsArt said:

I regret one thing, for once the start-up procedure is very close to reality, to take advantage of it it is necessary first to turn off the engine, lol! Probably an idea of the manager(s) who think that the people who use their simu are all 2-year-old children or intellectually failing people...

I think the decision to have Aerofly aircraft begin already running has more of a philosophical basis of maintaining inclusion to all levels of user, and one I tend to agree with.

I also know this tends to frustrate pilots seeking absolute realism, but Ipacs has stated its intent that even as it becomes a deeper and more sophisticated sim over time, part of its goal is to never let itself become so "simmy" that it becomes inaccessible to just plain folk.

This means that even when things like Sid and Star become available, there will still be the simple point-and click navigation system that some have heard grumbled about from time to time.

I suspect that eventually you will simply be able to choose how you want your aircraft started. I also suspect that despite expectations, most people will end up starting their planes ready-to-go. 😄

[DrumsArt 270]

10 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

I think the decision to have Aerofly aircraft begin already running has more of a philosophical basis of maintaining inclusion to all levels of user, and one I tend to agree with.

I also know this tends to frustrate pilots seeking absolute realism, but Ipacs has stated its intent that even as it becomes a deeper and more sophisticated sim over time, part of its goal is to never let itself become so "simmy" that it becomes inaccessible to just plain folk.

This means that even when things like Sid and Star become available, there will still be the simple point-and click navigation system that some have heard grumbled about from time to time.

I suspect that eventually you will simply be able to choose how you want your aircraft started. I also suspect that despite expectations, most people will end up starting their planes ready-to-go. 😄

Why not the choice, just the choice?

Besides, the R22 has 2 flight options, easy and realist! Perhaps it is a beginning of a breach in their "philosophical-dogmatic" position? I hope...

Richard

Edited February 28, 2019 by DrumsArt

[HiFlyer 9,343]

Well my last paragraph pretty much said that. But for Aerofly it's not as simple as it seems, because ipacs is are essentially perfectionists.

They don't want to fake it and just turn off some lights and sounds.

Their stated intent is an entire airplane programming language (essentially) where you plug in the systems you want, and the plane automatically.... acts like a plane.

Doing that is no small task and for a smaller company it's certainly not been fast, but if they can get it done...........

In the meanwhile we wait, and for myself I keep pretty good tabs on the developers stated goals and their steps towards meeting them. Given what they are trying to do, I'm willing to wait quite a while, after all they are only on version 2! 😄

Quote

I don't think all of our users would want the default planes to be as deeply simulated as PMDG aircraft or other study level aircraft out there, they'd be overwhelmed by the complexity and would never be able to start the aircraft. When I put the aircraft onto the runway it should always be fully functional, fueled up sufficiently and I don't want to repair the propeller first, change the oil because I haven't flown over a year or clean my wings before I can take off. These are nice features for add on aircraft but don't really belong in a default aircraft. And its true, I do have great plans for our aircraft for the future but we also will make sure it is not such a steep learning curve by providing assistance and shortcuts for beginners so that everyone can have fun even with growing complexity. So we aim to have both, deep complex systems for the advanced users and simple to use assistance for beginners to manage these complex systems

 

Quote

 

The systems you mentioned are all things that we eventually want to provide tmd blocks for (no promises), then you can create your own networks using the electric buses, batteries, electric loads, electric bus connectors / electric switches, generators (all implemented already), fuel lines, fuel pumps, fuel tanks (also already implemented), hydraulic lines, hydraulic pumps, bleed air ducts, valves, packs, recirc fans, pressurization chambers and so on. You can also already write custom avionics (just not the display rendering as of today), you have variables, logic gates, event setters, integration, differentiation, sums, products; all you need to implement systems, custom controllers or even systems that aren't implemented as actual building blocks yet. For example you could use electric networks to simulate hydraulic networks or bleeds (just find some factor to convert from voltage to pressure and from current to fluid mass flow - the physical "system-description" are almost identical). Or just use the fuel lines and pumps to represent hydraulic lines and pumps. On a numerical level it's just numbers, it doesn't matter how we scale it or name it. 

If you take a look at the Learjet 45 tmd you'll find custom menus, the A320 has most of its ECAM system implemented in the tmd, including automatic page switching, several caution messages, etc, in the C172 and B58 you'll find completely finished electrical networks (including "dark" state in default C172 and B58) and at least the basic networks in the A320 and Learjet and we will expand these in the future.

 

Quote

 

I have started work on the CDUs (interaction menus with the already existing FMS) in the A320, B747, Learjet and Q400. The A320 MCDU its by far the most advanced implementation of these yet and is already working well and my plan is to have each of the CDUs operational eventually. E.g. also the ones in the c90 and b737.

But this takes away a lot of time, a lot of research to find out when which field is shown, how each of the pages looks like on ground, before takeoff, during takeoff, clb, crz, des, appr, ldg, rollout..., when which field is editable, its value range, what is the exact pattern you need to enter, e.g. 123. or 123.0 or 123.0/ etc.

Current status of the q400: it was a static image of the FMS before, I now send it text but it just shows how far I got so far. I have a version that shows more text but that requires a lot of changes in the autopilot, FMS and CDU code and that is why I have not merged it into the public release yet. It would put a lot of code into an untested state which I don't want.

I am afraid that it will take a while before you see a fully functional CDU. It's not something that can be done fast.

 

Quote

We actually simulate the engine startup very accurately without using some look up tables to fake the values that you see on the display. The engine start is one of the most detailed simulations on the market, we model a full thermodynamic model of the engine with all of its shafts, compressors and turbines, even the burner has physics in our Q400, the electric load of the starter, the drive shaft torque of the starter to the accessory gear box, full FADEC engine start without any faking what so ever, it commands ignition, fuel flow to a simulated fuel metering unit, that is all simulated.... all of the parameters depend on the altitude and temperatures (density) and the engine values are quite close to the real world I think, at least we used real world values to set up the engine model.