9 minutes ago, michdb8 said:

how it is the performance of the md-11 on cpu more light like pmdg or heavy like Fenix or ini builds aircrafts?

On my old 9900k it performs very well. More like a PMDG 737 than a Fenix A320 for sure.

I do not think tweaking the sensitivity fixes the underlying issue.

The general problem is how quickly it is to get a 200 tons aircraft descending at 1000fpm  to have it climbing 1000fpm. It seems to break a few laws of physics. 🙂

MSFS problem, not a TFDi problem (even though they should be able to hide this flaw to a certain extent).

 

Edited July 4, 20241 yr by espent

1 hour ago, michdb8 said:

how it is the performance of the md-11 on cpu more light like pmdg or heavy like Fenix or ini builds aircrafts?

It literally flies. More on the PMDG side than Fenix, definitely even if i have no issues with Fenix's models.

14 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I hope one day you understand this.

I don't disagree with any of the points you mentioned, you're very correct in what purchasing high fidelity addons bring to the table in terms of the various topics you stated. Though I feel we may be having an understanding clash to the points im trying to make with regards to your original comments.

It's no matter, and I'm not trying to steer the topic for what sounds like a really great addon which I'll be picking up shortly. I do agree with @Krakin though, there is valid concerns about price of these addons, especially with the market research published by Asobo about customer base price sensitivity. It's not about a good deal in-relation to flying in the real world, it's about what majority of people are willing for addons.

So guys, all in all: Systems depth, fidelity and reliability, is it more a PMDG 777 or more an iniBuilds A300? If you already bought the 777, do you feel the urge to fly the MD11 more than the 777 (or viceversa)?

How well does it work with time acceleration? 

3 hours ago, espent said:

The general problem is how quickly it is to get a 200 tons aircraft descending at 1000fpm  to have it climbing 1000fpm.

How many seconds would you estimate for that transition?

Assumed it is 1 second. Going from -1000ft/min to 1000ft/min means that vertical speed changes over 1 second by 2000ft/min (~ 10m/s). This e.g. means that the vertical acceleration matches 1G very closely (10m/s per second matches 1G as 9,81m/s^2 very closely). 1G pitch transitions on a MD-11 would be hefty of course (but certainly withing the certified limits), but the actual time you observed probably was more? If the transition took say 3 seconds, we are down to a 0.33G acceleration, which is probably about expected for a large control input.

Edited July 4, 20241 yr by fsiscool

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

So guys, all in all: Systems depth, fidelity and reliability, is it more a PMDG 777 or more an iniBuilds A300? If you already bought the 777, do you feel the urge to fly the MD11 more than the 777 (or viceversa)?

Not that the A300 is bad, but it's more on the 777 side. Needs clear polishing in the texture department and in the details department...

The EFB has terrible fonts and terrible font sizes. It cannot be shutdown, and config has to be set independently for all liveries, there's no "one for all".

The EFB cannot be removed (minor drag but useful).

The yokes cannot be lowered (again, minor but useful).

So, nothing major up until now, it flies really well except for feeling way too light for a 200T+ trijet. You can pull it like a cessna fully loaded - Does the actual MD-11 behave as such, can any MD-11 pilot/ex-pilot give some input on this?

9 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

How many seconds would you estimate for that transition?

Assumed it is 1 second. Going from -1000ft/min to 1000ft/min means that vertical speed changes over 1 second by 2000ft/min (~ 10m/s). This e.g. means that the vertical acceleration matches 1G very closely (10m/s per second matches 1G as 9,81m/s^2 very closely). 1G pitch transitions on a MD-11 would be hefty of course (but certainly withing the certified limits), but the actual time you observed probably was more? If the transition took say 3 seconds, we are down to a 0.33G acceleration, which is probably about expected for a large control input.

I THINK your math is off here but I may be wrong!. -1000 to +1000 is not a simple +2000 inertia difference. Put simply you need first reverse the -1000 to get to level flight. That takes a lot of power against direction of motion. Once levelled you then need move a level heavy plane up to +1000. These 2 are added together to form one continuous power input (from engines/control surfaces).

The mass of the plane plays a major role in inertial calculations.

You cannot create/destroy matter/energy - only divert/convert it.

So...to move up when you were once traveling down means you are going to lose forward energy (ie slow down) to travel up.

If you are content to lose speed (dangerous on approach) and also the structural integrity of the plane is not compromised by such a manoeuvre, it would certainly be possible to easily change from -1000 to +1000 in one second. Easy as in simple and quick. NOT easy with regard to the rather violent demands on the aircraft (and passengers!) to do this.

I'm just throwing ideas out here. Points to be considered and NOT a professional opinion on the laws of physics regarding flight!

 

8 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

 

The EFB cannot be removed (minor drag but useful).

 

Just click the USB plug (aircraft side)

2 minutes ago, espent said:

Just click the USB plug (aircraft side)

Awesome! Thanks!

47 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

How many seconds would you estimate for that transition?

Assumed it is 1 second. Going from -1000ft/min to 1000ft/min means that vertical speed changes over 1 second by 2000ft/min (~ 10m/s). This e.g. means that the vertical acceleration matches 1G very closely (10m/s per second matches 1G as 9,81m/s^2 very closely). 1G pitch transitions on a MD-11 would be hefty of course (but certainly withing the certified limits), but the actual time you observed probably was more? If the transition took say 3 seconds, we are down to a 0.33G acceleration, which is probably about expected for a large control input.

Surly it cannot be that easy. Thats like putting a tanker ship going at 1kts into revers and expecting it to immediately start going backwards.

58 minutes ago, Nuno Pinto said:

Not that the A300 is bad, but it's more on the 777 side. Needs clear polishing in the texture department and in the details department...

The EFB has terrible fonts and terrible font sizes. It cannot be shutdown, and config has to be set independently for all liveries, there's no "one for all".

The EFB cannot be removed (minor drag but useful).

I don’t own the plane, but I’ve also heard the EFB cannot really be used in VR as it doesn’t have a popup keyboard for making necessary entries.

Is there a way to disable the yoke?

9 minutes ago, cchiozza said:

Is there a way to disable the yoke?

No but it looks like they are looking into it. From their Discord:

Hi all. I'd just like to give a little bit of a sit-rep now that the initial dust has settled. First off, you should all be experiencing much better downloads now. With that out of the way, I want to address some of the areas on the immediate to-do list for us. Right now, we're looking at the following for fixes/changes in the next week or two: -

Baro sync option -

Hide yoke option -

Excessive pitch trim during approach -

Oil press warn during start -

ATS tuning/engine oscillation under specific conditions -

Inaccurate fuel predictions -

Controllable cabin lights/better auto-dim -

The gear handle release button not working -

SID/STAR speed constraints being improperly imported under some conditions -

Lower res option for P3D to help with VRAM