... commercially available general purpose sim for gear actuator failure.  Every serious simulator should have that. Level D simulators have failures. It's their main purpose, to train them.
Many of us may know LOT flight 16. As I haven't a B767 as default plane, I did it with something smaller.

 

@UrgentSiesta

Like this you mean... (now I need me a motion chamber capable of throwing me around at 9G+, felt sooooo slow without it)

 

It's mind-boggling anyone could even enjoy themselves in a sim without gear actuator failure. What's the point without it? 

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

@UrgentSiesta

Like this you mean... (now I need me a motion chamber capable of throwing me around at 9G+, felt sooooo slow without it)

 

Are you running on low graphics? Ground mesh looks super jaggy (I've seen better on other xp videos)

2 hours ago, Theboot100 said:

Are you running on low graphics? Ground mesh looks super jaggy (I've seen better on other xp videos)

feel free to show me yours

should look something like this

but also yes, because VR needs stupid high fps, and anything with more triangles than beat saber is fine by me.

10 hours ago, Dermot McClusky said:

It's mind-boggling anyone could even enjoy themselves in a sim without gear actuator failure. What's the point without it? 

Because it's fun, being able to use an FAA certified simulator which can do failures like a level D simulator. BTW, even X-Plane 6 (released 2001) had already 110 failures by default, unlike ... you know ...

Edited December 20, 20223 yr by flying_carpet

This is the X-Plane forum. Discuss the merits of that sim and don’t enter into a discussion about what other sims can or cannot do.

If you persist the topic will be locked. Individual action may also be taken.

13 hours ago, mSparks said:

@UrgentSiesta

Like this you mean... (now I need me a motion chamber capable of throwing me around at 9G+, felt sooooo slow without it)

 

Yes, exactly!

Why else bother with a highly realistic flight sim if you're going to unrealistically simulate flight in it?

Half the fun of places like the Mach Loop is doing it right - without dying. 

Same reason I fly helos - not because they're easy, but because they're hard.

If you're going to turn off the realism, you might as well fly the Halo Pelican in MSFS! And the scenery is FANTASTIC!

7 hours ago, Theboot100 said:

You will love vr in the other sim

I'm sure I would, hopefully they port it to a popular gaming platform like the PS5, then I can enjoy it on the PSVR2 like everyone else who made that jump.

But what I meant was "show me your saved replay of fluttering into ripping the wings off on the last corner of the mach loop" - or similar. to compare my XP against when you said

10 hours ago, Theboot100 said:

Ground mesh looks super jaggy (I've seen better on other xp videos)

XP has a lot of options, I only just moved from L16 ortho to L17, I think you are very likely right and it might be worth giving L18 a shot for that area.

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

If you're going to turn off the realism, you might as well fly the Halo Pelican in MSFS!

Well, sharing the "width breadth and height" of the simulation is kinda the point of these threads as far as I can tell, I can tell you the reason I turned it off - it's very hard to "balance" a 744 at 40,000 feet (current releases of the Sparky744 are no good there in either XP11 or XP12, and its not LRs fault, - yesterdays github push should get it close to many "numbers by the book"), makes it much easier to test when every time something doesn't quite work right the plane doesn't disintegrate.

What I see when I look at "the other sim" is a very shallow simulation with an excessive focus on visuals - that isn't a criticism, its a great way to bring new people into the hobby before they start concerning themselves with the much greater "width breadth and height" of simulation XP offers.

Problem with it on, is mach 1 feels like a leisurely stroll in the park, vs mach 2 which is more comparable with 205mph on the German autobahn. I might just hotrod my own F14 version with advanced composites to withstand 15G and 1400KTAS, or maybe pick up the VSL F19

It was also very much catching this YT short that made me think "hmm that looks like a fun thing to do on a Friday"

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And the scenery is FANTASTIC!

Just set mostly before

https://legionmagazine.com/en/the-royal-navys-war-on-trees/

in the UK from what I've seen, hopefully Asobo fix that before they use their creative autonomy to release a PS5 version 🤷‍♂️.

EDIT:Apologies to @flying_carpet if this is too much like hijacking your thread, it was very much the structural type failures while you fly then landing that reminded me I had that replay saved. (the F14 in the new top gun movie losses its nose gear)

Edited December 20, 20223 yr by mSparks

I’m betting there is a manual gear extension procedure to follow in the event of a gear actuator failure. It’s great to see a robust selection of failures available…but the true training value is found in recognition and response. Hopefully there is as equally a robust set of actions available to evaluate and attempt to remedy the failures? 

Edited December 20, 20223 yr by snglecoil

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

EDIT:Apologies to @flying_carpet if this is too much like hijacking your thread, it was very much the structural type failures while you fly then landing that reminded me I had that replay saved. (the F14 in the new top gun movie losses its nose gear)

No worries about "hijacking" ...

However, despite a warning, someone didn't obey, straight below that warning. Mind you: this thread isn't about the Halo Pelican in MSFS and its scenery.

25 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

straight below that warning.

Yeah but,

X-Plane has replay (still a little buggy atm, I'll file them in the new year/as soon as a new beta drops)

Don't get that in real life

 

11 hours ago, Theboot100 said:

Laminer need to urgently do some performance improvements in VR.

They've announced openXR support is coming. This will be a huge boost for VR. No sense in sinking resources into the current situation when they know something better is just around the corner.

 

Quote

Well, sharing the "width breadth and height" of the simulation is kinda the point of these threads as far as I can tell

If only that's what you were doing. But even so, without any context, your clip just looks like a kid playing an arcade game.

Quote

I can tell you the reason I turned it off - makes it much easier to test when every time something doesn't quite work right the plane doesn't disintegrate.

Valid use case - feature used appropriately.

Invalid, though, for someone who's known for constantly (and inaccurately) bragging about XPs utter superiority over all others in realism, to then brag about "mach 2+ at sea level"

 

Quote

What I see when I look at "the other sim" is a very shallow simulation with an excessive focus on visuals - that isn't a criticism,

Of COURSE it is! Further, if that's what you see, you've obviously poor eyesight, or an incredibly biased opinion.

Quote

Problem with it on, is mach 1 feels like a leisurely stroll in the park, vs mach 2 which is more comparable with 205mph on the German autobahn.

If Mach 1 through The Loop feels leisurely to you, then you're not flying low enough. I mean, c'mon, man - you're a HELO pilot for cryin' out loud - of all peeps, YOU should understand that concept.

Quote

or maybe pick up the VSL F19

The vSL F-19 is kind of a dog in the top speed dept, tbh. Nevertheless, I absolutely love it, because of what vSL did with a fake plane: it's not real, but in many ways, it's highly REALISTIC.

It is the distilled essence of what X-Plane is all about.

Unlike bragging about flying at M2 at sea level in a Tomcat.

Quote

It was also very much catching this YT short that made me think "hmm that looks like a fun thing to do on a Friday"

I love canyon carving at dangerous speeds in an accurately modeled addon. In fact, give me a low-level Military Training Route over a fully automated super-jumbo at FL350 all day, every day.

Quote

it was very much the structural type failures while you fly then landing

(the F14 in the new top gun movie losses its nose gear)

Given the strength of carrier qualified landing gear, or in the nose-wheel's case, carrier-qualified "take-off" gear, Im "pretty sure" that particular structural failure would've ended the movie right there.

Doesn't matter - good movie, and good at suspending disbelief.

 

 

All this has nothing to do with how any particular simulator is used, whether in a realistic manner or not, it's simply that your utter and frequently inane partisanship is far more toxic than a related reference to "the other sim".

Edited December 20, 20223 yr by UrgentSiesta
deleted extraneous quote

36 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

If Mach 1 through The Loop feels leisurely to you, then you're not flying low enough. I mean, c'mon, man - you're a HELO pilot for cryin' out loud - of all peeps, YOU should understand that concept.

You clearly misunderstand what the Mach Loop is. It’s not about flying at supersonic speed. Clearly impossible with the tight turns and low altitude involved.

The name derives from the area of Wales where the exercise is conducted. Near the town of Machynlleth in central Wales. https://machloop.co.uk/tag/mach-loop-map/

You ignored my earlier warning about references to MSFS. This is your final warning. Stick to XP discussion.