Reversers

[Guest phlerp]

I'd like to see the reversers separated from the throttle. As it is now you control the reversers by moving the throttle below idle or if done in your own gauge give the throttle a negative value. This seems to result in some strange behaviour. Since many planes actually don't have the reverser nozzles and the throttle connected to each other, separating them in FS would be more flexible for everyone.

[Stuntie 0]

I agree.At the moment you could inadvertantly trigger the reversers if you throttle back too much.Also it is more realistic as reversers are a distinct operation separate from the throttle movement.It would also help to have a separate reverser action for each throttle rather than the current one action triggers all.

[n4gix 4,947]

>It would also help to have a separate reverser action for each>throttle rather than the current one action triggers all.Er, reversers are independent. Just like the throttle, you can press E,1 to select the #1 reverser, then hold F2 key to engage reverse thrust on engine #1 only...Press E,1,2,etc. to re-couple all engine controls...

[Guest phlerp]

That only tells us that the different engines are independent from each other. but it still doesn't make the reversers independent from the throttle.

[Guest EdrickV]

Don't know what kind of controller you use, but on my X45 I can't activate the reversers with the throttle axis whether I want to or not. I have to use a button configured to do F2."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

[Guest nem]

>Don't know what kind of controller you use, but on my X45 I>can't activate the reversers with the throttle axis whether I>want to or not. I have to use a button configured to do F2.With a registered FSUIPC you definitely can. ;)On page 1 of the "Joystick" tab check the "Map to 4 throttles" box. You can then set the idle, reverse and normal range of the throttle on page 3.http://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa168.png

[Guest EdrickV]

I don't want that feature and most of the planes I fly don't have reversers of any sort to use with it anyways. The original poster wants a seperate command for reversers in FSX, well, for me they are seperate in FS9, or close enough to it for me."Let me help you out. You're cleared to taxi any way you can to any runway you see."

[Guest nem]

Ah, got carried away from the OP. True, with the right setup you can already have seperated reversers in FS today.Actually, considering how often I've accidentally activated the reversers now I'm considering changing the setup myself. ;)http://www.virtualpilots.org/signatures/vpa168.png

[Guest phlerp]

>The original poster wants a seperate command for reversers in FSX,>well, for me they are seperate in FS9, or close enough to it>for me.They are certainly NOT separated. I'm not looking to separate reversers on different engines from each other, but separate the reverse flaps or nozzle(or whatever you'd like to call them) from the throttle. In many planes the pilot don't experience this sepparation as his control for reversers are both for the reverser flaps and the throttle producing the reversing force. However there are also some planes where it is not so and thus making realistic reversing in thses planes impossible. If reverser flaps and throttle was separated we could have a realistic behaviour for both those that work like FS9 is today and those that don't work that way.You might not have any problem with this, and FS9 might be close enough for you. But that is kind of pointless since there is many peoply who don't like it the way it is now, and the current feature is clearly not the way it works IRL.

[n4gix 4,947]

>You might not have any problem with this, and FS9 might be>close enough for you. But that is kind of pointless since>there is many peoply who don't like it the way it is now, and>the current feature is clearly not the way it works IRL. Quantify "many..." I dare to posit that the actual number is an extremely tiny fraction of an already insignificant number of "hard-core simmers," when compared to total sales of the sim.IOW, not nearly significant enough to warrant the level of detail and the programming expense to realize your pet feature. ;)

[GusRodrigues 1]

>>The original poster wants a seperate command for reversers>in FSX,>>well, for me they are seperate in FS9, or close enough to it>>for me.>>They are certainly NOT separated. I'm not looking to separate>reversers on different engines from each other, but separate>the reverse flaps or nozzle(or whatever you'd like to call>them) from the throttle. In many planes the pilot don't>experience this sepparation as his control for reversers are>both for the reverser flaps and the throttle producing the>reversing force. However there are also some planes where it>is not so and thus making realistic reversing in thses planes>impossible. If reverser flaps and throttle was separated we>could have a realistic behaviour for both those that work like>FS9 is today and those that don't work that way.The case of the B732, DC-9 series, fokker-70/100, and others with reverser bucket like a clam shell.(if I

[Guest BlueRidgeDx]

>Quantify "many..." I dare to posit that the actual number is>an extremely tiny fraction of an already insignificant number>of "hard-core simmers," when compared to total sales of the>sim.>>IOW, not nearly significant enough to warrant the level of>detail and the programming expense to realize your pet>feature. ;)Well, you can add me to the list. It comes down to the fact that the way reversers are currently modeled in FS9 is, in large part, wrong. He's asking for more control when operating thrust reversers, and thats perfectly reasonable.Its always bothered me to see partially deployed buckets, and unrealistic behavior. Most thrust reverser systems have simple interlocks that govern their behavior. First, the throttle lever must be at the mechanical idle stop in order to unlock the reverse levers. Then, when you tug on the reverse levers, they only move slightly before hitting another interlock. This one makes sure that the buckets (or translating cowls, as appropriate) are fully deployed before allowing you to increase the amount of reverse thrust.I know its taboo to say, but I'm willing to bet that it wouldn't chew up an inordinate amount of development time to properly implement the functionality.I made a similar suggestion to tell_fs regarding FS9's afterburner implementation. It suffers from the same kind of limitations as reverse thrust does. We currently have a separate key press that "plugs in" the burners. Therefore, it seems FS9 allows afterburner usage while at idle thrust. I'd love to see afterburner equipped airplanes have the ability to use it solely through throttle movement...no keypress (unless you're flying with keyboard only). As your joystick throttle is moved forward, it should command maximum "dry" thrust at a point short of the forward stop. Above that point, throttle should control the amount of "augmented" thrust provided by the afterburner.I'm positive that anyone who flies military type aircraft in FSX would love to have such a feature. Likewise, the many people who fly heavy metal would like to see properly modeled reverse thrust.Just because its not on your priority list doesn't mean it wouldn't go a LONG way toward increasing realism.Regards,Nick

[Guest]

in other words, a thousand different systems working in a thousand different ways.Whichever is chosen by the FS team to implement there will always be someone complaining...Such is the life of the creator of customisable mass market software, and a great argument towards not allowing 3rd party plugins it is.

[Guest phlerp]

>in other words, a thousand different systems working in a>thousand different ways.>Whichever is chosen by the FS team to implement there will>always be someone complaining...>>Such is the life of the creator of customisable mass market>software, and a great argument towards not allowing 3rd party>plugins it is.I don't really understand this way of thinking. I ask for a feature that will fit any kind of reversers in oposite to the existing that is custombuilt for only one kind of reversers. If the reversers worked the way I ask for it would fit any kind of reverser and anyone could customize if for the plane he/she is making. Actually the same applies for the afterburner. Since after burner and throttle is separated I, as a developer, can chose to put the logic for it in the model by means of XML. I ask for the exact same kind of behaviour for the reversers.

[Guest Surge]

I don't see any problem with the feature request. All MS has to do is add an interface system that allows people to add these customizations themselves.FlightGear has a brilliant XML and scripting based interface system (Nasal) that allows just about any type of customized control. You can do fun stuff like mix joystick inputs before passing them onto the control surfaces making realistic Fly-By-Wire system possible. Nearly all simulator variables are accessible from any part of the aircraft system. Panels, hydraulic systems, electrical systems, FDMs, etc. all share a global property tree and can speak to each other in whatever way you please. Need a button in the cockpit to alter a variable in the flight dynamics module? No problem!And there's no need to code C DLL's either, it's all in plain text files.MS really could take some clues from that open source project.PaulP.S. And the FDMs are in XML files not this binary nonsense that MS won't release the specs for.