4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

The only thing they can rescue is airframe. Engine is doomed as crank shaft has been compromised. But in this video that need to clear runway first !LOL

I think their pilot's licence is also compromised. Imagine flying that approach and not hearing the gear not down buzzer going off for over 1 min and noone fluttered an eyelid. They deserved everything they got including the damage. 

9 minutes ago, regis9 said:

I’m curious about this one, are these the default GNS430 and GNS530?  Does the PNS mod work with them?

The mod works.

 

20 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Update:

After flying 30 minutes of I got full electrical failure LOL Don't buy until it fixed

I sent Bill an e-mail with a bug report and he's looking into everything. As for the electrical failure, I haven't had one yet.

BTW, charging is an issue with the alternator.  If the alternator switch isn't on, the plane runs on the battery till its out of power.

Edited February 2, 20215 yr by DJJose

7 minutes ago, DJJose said:

The mod works.

 

I sent Bill an e-mail with a bug report and he's looking into everything. As for the electrical failure, I haven't had one yet.

BTW, charging is an issue with the alternator.  If the alternator switch isn't on, the plane runs on the battery till its out of power.

Yes it was on. Which makes it odd

9 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes it was on. Which makes it odd

I'll let Bill know.

Hey all,

 

I got this bird few days ago as I already liked it from FS2004/FSX days. I like it in MSFS too.

Besides of what has been mentioned already in this thread, my biggest worry is the following:

1) No glideslope (neither with ILS nor with RNAV approach) on HSI, no glideslope on top VOR indicator either.

2) Bottom VOR indicator not working at all - I would expect it to be linked to NAV2 radio but no, nada (this may be related to the issue mentioned above about the two GPSs being somehow linked... dunno).

3) It is actually quite a weird nav suite combination: HSI and two VOR indicators... hm. In real life pictures as well as on the P3D version, there is an RMI instead of the bottom VOR indicator, which makes sense.

As these issues are not mentioned as limitations, they are either a feature (I doubt so) or bugs. I contacted Bill via the formulaire on the website. A bit surprised I got no confirmation but hope he'd come back to me.

Can you confirm that you have no glideslope and the bottom VOR indicator does not work at all? I can see on the screens in this thread that the two VORs were not working.

Thanks.

As for the gear-up video - I think you are too harsh. Sh#t happens and it happened to them. That's all. Gear-up landings happen maybe more often than you think. No injuries there, just to the aircraft and ego.

Edited February 4, 20215 yr by apollon01

14 minutes ago, apollon01 said:

As for the gear-up video - I think you are too harsh. Sh#t happens and it happened to them. That's all. Gear-up landings happen maybe more often than you think. No injuries there, just to the aircraft and ego.

Think the issue there was several people were in the aeroplane, not all on headsets so easily capable of hearing it, yet nobody said 'hang on a minute, what's that warning noise about?' which might have been a distraction or CRM thing but that's when checks really matter.

Nobody did a quick landing mnemonic check. Doing that check, even if you just do it in your head to yourself, is really something basic you should do with every landing; I even include the gear check on fixed gear aeroplanes and just respond 'not fitted'.

And apparently one of those guys in the plane was an instructor as far as I'm aware, which is even worse. Back on the topic of this add-on plane anyway, I am getting power failures on the avionics on long flights even with the alternator correctly set.

I got respond from Lion Heart developer on FB. He said to make sure BAT and ALT switches are on LOL Well, does he understand it's bug? Did anyone else reported it?

54 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I got respond from Lion Heart developer on FB. He said to make sure BAT and ALT switches are on LOL 

Hmm, now why didn't we think of that? Oh wait, we did. But while we're on the subject of that, the visual feedback from some of those switches is not as good as it could be.

Did I see this correctly in the videos on YT? This plane does not even have bump-mapped textures on the fuselage and wings? Those textures look totally flat to me...

15 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I got respond from Lion Heart developer on FB. He said to make sure BAT and ALT switches are on LOL Well, does he understand it's bug? Did anyone else reported it?

Si.

5 hours ago, AnkH said:

Did I see this correctly in the videos on YT? This plane does not even have bump-mapped textures on the fuselage and wings? Those textures look totally flat to me...

Nope, it has some things which could do with tweaking but the texturing on the inside isn't one of them, however, on the outside its a different story, but one that is being addressed; it comes with 4,096 resolution PBR textures which do have bump-mapping (although not throughout), in fact the product page does warn users that it can be a bit resource heavy because of its large usage of high resolution textures. However and as noted, where those textures are bump-mapped and where they aren't is probably what you were seeing. 

Unlike a lot of GA aeroplanes, the SOCATA Caribbean series were a bit fancier (in some places) than the average spam can, because SOCATA was basically part of Aerospatiale and so it got some of that sweet EU/Govt Airbus money to allow it to get fancy with production. One of the ways the TB series does that, which is easy to spot on the real things, is the fact that the airframe uses flush riveting throughout although the fanciness isn't just skin deep, the TB has a spar milled out of one piece rather than being made up from several components, like the A320. another obvious feature of the TB series is the 'car-like' interior, and that's not just visual either; part of the design and production process for the TB was that it would use construction methods perfected in the car industry to make it easier and faster to build. An upshot of that was it ended up with that love it or hate it pseudo-leather finish texturing on the interior.

So, texturing-wise, the Lionheart TB applies fancier multi-channel textures where they'll be most apparently needed and resorts to more basic texturing where it is less critical. You can see this in these two screenies, where I did a 180 degree turn between grabbing them, so that really bright sunlight which would normally have strong shadows, would hit the wing on the second one.

Note that the interior texture on the edge of the window and the seat is doing accurate reflections since all the interior has fancy texturing, for example observe the shadows having changed on the seat piping. Whereas the pressed-channels in the rear area of the control surfaces are purely a basic texture with the shadows being part of that texture, and so they are not bouncing light around realistically and nor are the rivets, but the anti-slip matting at the wing root is doing that because that bit was updated in the patch.

This bit of the wing was patched owing to the fact that it had been created by (I'm guessing here, but it's a good guess) by using the Add Noise Filter in Photoshop, but without having ticked the Monochrome option, resulting in that noised-up black texture which is supposed to be replicating the grit surface of the anti-slip walkway, having some coloured pixels on it in the release version, as opposed to what you see here on the patched version where it is monochrome.

So, the wings will probably get updated too I should think, although it wouldn't make a huge amount of difference where the rivets are because as noted, on the real thing they are flush, but that pressed-channel trailing edge would definitely look better if it had a bit of light and shade picking out the undulating shape of the real thing where the strengthening channels are pressed into the alloy.

Edited February 5, 20215 yr by Chock

I agree, the vc looks pretty good in regard of plasticity of the textures. Just the outside textures are not even close to what we get with the default planes or the P.149, it simply looks like a blunt conversion from the P3D variant lacking all those effects that make proper MSFS model look that awesome. Just also check this video about the rivets, they are clearly visible, not even close what the Lionheart TB21 offers here...

I stay with my initial rating based on screenshots even after watching several videos: this addon plane is not even close to the level of other addons such as the P.149 or Carenado planes in regard of textures. What a bummer...

There is a thread on the MSFS forum where someone has compared frame rates with other aircraft at the same location at JFK with identical settings..  The comments above about performance hit seem to be borne out.

 

Trinidad 26.5 fps

 

Default TBM Glass Cockpit  40.0 fps

 

Moonie 37.4 fps

 

P149 46.3 fps

Edited February 5, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

Doesn't seem to perform any differently on my PC, and I do have all those add-on aeroplanes. Maybe it's because my GPU is an 8Gb ATI one, unlike the NVidia ones which most people seem to use.

Regardless of this, there are clearly some things which need tweaking on this add-on, and of those my priority would be to address the electrical failure which kicks in after a lengthy time in the air, rather than to worry about rivets on the wings first, although hopefully that is something which might also be addressed..

Edited February 5, 20215 yr by Chock

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

Doesn't seem to perform any differently on my PC, and I do have all those add-on aeroplanes. Maybe it's because my GPU is an 8Gb ATI one, unlike the NVidia ones which most people seem to use.

 

In those pics it is  limited by main thread at something like 36 ms,  The GPU bar is pure green. It is severely CPU bound.

Edited February 5, 20215 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick