Just Flight Bae 146 update

[eslader 1,782]

1 hour ago, Gilandred said:

Just curious but in what way is Leonardo in a different league?  As far as I can tell both aircraft are modeled to be more or less “study level” for that specific aircraft type.

For one thing the JF doesn't model failures (beyond obvious stuff like the engines quit if you run out of fuel). For another, almost everything is modeled in the Leonardo plane. Even the circuit breakers work. 

If you do a clumsy start in the 146, it'll start. If you do it in the Leonardo, you might just set the engines on fire. Your chances of setting the engines on fire depend among other things upon whether you're facing into or away from the wind. And you might set 'em on fire again on takeoff if you just jam the throttle to the stops and hope for the best. Not so much with the JF.  Which again isn't an insult to the JF. I remember a few years ago when Qualitywings released the 787 for P3d, people were ragging on it because it lacked a failure system/etc.  But overall it was a pretty danged nice plane, about on level with the JF, and I had many enjoyable hours flying it. QW/JF make great planes. Leonardo/PMDG make legendary ones. 😉

 

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by eslader

[bendead 1,085]

28 minutes ago, eslader said:

QW/JF make great planes. Leonardo/PMDG make legendary ones. 😉

 

Not yet, the MD will need quite a lot of work to reach PMDG level, Sounds, texture, modeling, Interface, issue. Maybe in 6 month to a year, it will change.

The 146, is just way more rounded and finished, it also quite a lot cheaper

[ShawnG 1,823]

29 minutes ago, eslader said:

 

If you do a clumsy start in the 146, it'll start. If you do it in the Leonardo, you might just set the engines on fire. Your chances of setting the engines on fire depend among other things upon whether you're facing into or away from the wind. And you might set 'em on fire again on takeoff if you just jam the throttle to the stops and hope for the best.. 😉

 

 

Not to dispute your main point at all, which is fair, but I've always really wondered about stuff like this.  Is this realistic?  cause it seems to find it's way into sims, and it seems to be a selling point to some.

I'm the first to admit, I'm not a real pilot or aeronautical engineer, nor am I ever going to be one, So I remain cognizant that I might be off base, but IRL does one "clumsy" start have a greater than 50 percent chance of causing a catastrophic engine failure and fire immediately?  does firewalling the throttle on takeoff have that high of an immediate effect?  I realize that procedures are the way they are for a reason, and to my mind, that reason is engine and system longevity and reduced maintenance expenses, as well as an abundance of caution with a commitment to safety, and NOT that everyone is going to die immediately if a start is not performed exactly per the manual at all times.  Now, I realize that if you are a simmer, that's pretty subtle a thing to simulate, and given the amount of free time we all have it's unlikely to ever experience a failure if an actual realistic failure rate is imposed.  And if you like being able to put out the fires, do the engine out procedures, and bring it to the tarmac smoking, that probably is fun, and may be why you do this hobby.

But, and this is the point likely to upset some, if what they are indeed doing is exaggerating the effect of these things in order to create an "exciting" scenario in creating a failure for the purpose of entertainment, then is that actually a "sim" or is it indeed a "game"?

obviously if a real pilot comes in and tells me that, yes, these things that millions of people fly on every day are really this volatile that they can grenade out at a moments notice and an incorrect dial position, then I will stand corrected, and probably never fly again.  People screw up all the time.

[RaptyrOne 1,404]

From what I have seen on YT videos, the MD80 textures fall badly short of being “legendary”…or even good. Especially considering the asking price. That black nose cone for starters. It may be modelled up the creek in terms of systems and failures but it disappoints on close inspection just about everywhere. I supposed it will be improved by freeware community applying 4K/8K textures in quick time but only so much they can do.

[espent 1,394]

They need to stop using these 4K/8K textures and start using decals. Then it will look better and perform better. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by espent

[RaptyrOne 1,404]

1 hour ago, ShawnG said:

mmediate effect?  I realize that procedures are the way they are for a reason, and to my mind, that reason is engine and system longevity and reduced maintenance expenses, as well as an abundance of caution with a commitment to safety, and NOT that everyone is going to die immediately

LOL yeah, there is a reason why the max throttle positions are labelled max power and not “Instant Death” or “Suicide Power”

No aircraft aircraft would be certified if it was so prone to instant combustion.
 

Not sayin’ this is how the MD 80 is modelled, I don’t own it, just generally speaking.

[Donka 645]

2 hours ago, espent said:

They need to stop using these 4K/8K textures and start using decals. Then it will look better and perform better. 

Decals need to be applied to the model and work best for finer details. If you have a very complex livery design, you won't get as much benefit from using decals as you need to apply so many decals that you would require multiple decal texture sheets or less sheets but higher resolution. The concept behind decals is that you have a lower resolution base texture and an additional texture sheet for small details that can be relatively higher resolution.

That's why Asobo typically only ship a single livery with the default aircraft or a few colour variations of the exact same design. Aerosoft did similar with the Twotter - only a single livery per model variant.

 

In many instances, decals are great but they're not a magic bullet unfortunately.

[eslader 1,782]

5 hours ago, RaptyrOne said:

No aircraft aircraft would be certified if it was so prone to instant combustion.

Pre-FADEC, if you mistreated a jet engine on startup, like say introducing fuel to start combustion before your N2 was high enough and there wasn't enough airflow through the core, you could easily get things much hotter than they should be, and if you don't react properly bad things happen. Yes, even on certified aircraft.

Many home flight sim jet engines are modeled such that you can just hit the starter and throw the fuel switches on right away and they'll just start because true startup behavior isn't modeled. 

Edited May 7, 2022 by eslader

[Fiorentoni 4,217]

8 hours ago, ShawnG said:

Not to dispute your main point at all, which is fair, but I've always really wondered about stuff like this.  Is this realistic?  cause it seems to find it's way into sims, and it seems to be a selling point to some.

I'm the first to admit, I'm not a real pilot or aeronautical engineer, nor am I ever going to be one, So I remain cognizant that I might be off base, but IRL does one "clumsy" start have a greater than 50 percent chance of causing a catastrophic engine failure and fire immediately?  does firewalling the throttle on takeoff have that high of an immediate effect?  I realize that procedures are the way they are for a reason, and to my mind, that reason is engine and system longevity and reduced maintenance expenses, as well as an abundance of caution with a commitment to safety, and NOT that everyone is going to die immediately if a start is not performed exactly per the manual at all times.  Now, I realize that if you are a simmer, that's pretty subtle a thing to simulate, and given the amount of free time we all have it's unlikely to ever experience a failure if an actual realistic failure rate is imposed.  And if you like being able to put out the fires, do the engine out procedures, and bring it to the tarmac smoking, that probably is fun, and may be why you do this hobby.

But, and this is the point likely to upset some, if what they are indeed doing is exaggerating the effect of these things in order to create an "exciting" scenario in creating a failure for the purpose of entertainment, then is that actually a "sim" or is it indeed a "game"?

obviously if a real pilot comes in and tells me that, yes, these things that millions of people fly on every day are really this volatile that they can grenade out at a moments notice and an incorrect dial position, then I will stand corrected, and probably never fly again.  People screw up all the time.

Well, it's not like millions of people are flying on MD80s anymore. These are old aircraft.
And yes, one "clumsy" start could grill your engines. That's why pilots got paid a lot more (relative to inflation) back in those days.
That said it's not really difficult to start the engines in the MD80: Pull the starter switch, wait, open the fuel switches. Done. Not sure how someone can "clumsily" do that wrongly, but yes, if you try deliberately you can set the engines on fire.

[Fiorentoni 4,217]

8 hours ago, bendead said:

Not yet, the MD will need quite a lot of work to reach PMDG level, Sounds, texture, modeling, Interface, issue. Maybe in 6 month to a year, it will change.

Don't get me wrong, I love PMDG and will buy the 737. But the PMDG does not even have an EFB yet, so how about you compare either MSFS vs MSFS version OR P3D vs P3D?

In P3D Leonardo was superior in ALL categories you mentioned (except for sound maybe). There was not even ACARS on the 737 in PMDG, after almost a decade (!).
In MSFS the 737 will be superior in sounds and textures, but once again not in usabilty due to the missing EFB. Hell the 737 will release without a takeoff performance calculator! Also the 737 is not even out yet, so about we wait before comparing?

Then, what is "issue"?

 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Fiorentoni

[IrfanAhmed 47]

Would like to see a tutorial on how to use the tables on pages 252 & 253 of the manual to set flex thrust on the BAE 146. It is explained but I just can't make sense of it. 

[bendead 1,085]

41 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Don't get me wrong, I love PMDG and will buy the 737. But the PMDG does not even have an EFB yet, so how about you compare either MSFS vs MSFS version OR P3D vs P3D?

It also won't come with a very detailed landing gear bay, but is this as important as good VC texture and modeling, or even the nose of the plane with mismatch texture, as one exemple like on the MD? For me it's a no.

Maybe the 737 will be release with such issues, it's not out yet, but to be frank, I really don't think so or will be pitchfork out on PMDG.

The reply you quoted was more an answer to the post where the MD-80 was placed in category way above the 146, which is for me not the case, surely for the system depth, but not the rest.

That's why I am going to wait a couple of month and revisit it, but at the moment, the 90 euros I spent, left me a bit bitter about this plane.

 

 

[jarmstro 2,402]

I am not sure I can explain why but I am enjoying the BA146 much much more than I am the Maddog. In fact I regret buying thd Maddog. It's way overpriced. Just Flight have knocked it out of the park on every level with this plane.

[Aglos77 168]

For me the most important thing is always the depth of the systems, that's why I say that Leonardo plays in another league, but I don't want to underestimate anyone's work.

[eslader 1,782]

1 hour ago, Fiorentoni said:

That said it's not really difficult to start the engines in the MD80: Pull the starter switch, wait, open the fuel switches. Done. Not sure how someone can "clumsily" do that wrongly, but yes, if you try deliberately you can set the engines on fire.

I didn't mean to imply that you have to be some sort of certified genius to start the MD's engines. One of the things I like to do when I first get a plane that's billed as "high fidelity" or "study level" etc, is to do things wrong intentionally to see what happens. It's a lot more interesting to follow proper procedures when you know that failing to follow them can result in bad things happening. When I intentionally dumped fuel into a low RPM engine and destroyed it, that told me that yeah, there's actually a reason to follow the startup procedures with this plane. When I started it with a tailwind and noticed the temps were hotter than with a headwind that told me they paid attention to the small details. And when I intentionally pegged the throttle on takeoff and one of the engines caught fire and failed, that told me yeah, cool, there's a reason to fly the thing properly too. 

That doesn't mean people who prefer the JF are wrong. Like I've said lots of times, it's a great plane too, and I fly it probably about the same amount of time as I do the MD. But the MD has the edge in procedure simulation because failing to follow procedure with the MD can actually have consequences. For me, that's more interesting than pretty graphics. If all I cared about were pretty graphics, I'd exclusively buy Carenado. But then I still sim on HD monitors, largely because I'm too cheap to upgrade to 4k. 😉 So that might explain why I'm not so bothered by the Leonardo's graphics.  Well, that and that I spent a lot of time since MSFS released thinking "right now I'd be happy with just the p3d version in the MSFS world."  Well, now I have exactly that, so I can't get too upset that the graphics aren't as pretty as some other planes.