FF 777 v2 Available again to Purchase

[Franz007]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I searched but I couldn't find any BB711 tests for the FF 777 v2 ?

Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_b_rdU6MDE&t=18489s

And once again he mentionned the great fidelity of XP’s flight behaviour by saying: „it really handflies beautifully“

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Meanwhile I do like what I see in the following vid. The "pilot" takes a few wrong actions (on purpose) and the outcome looks pretty much realistic to me, not to mntion the way the 777, before the final stages of the flight, behaves in such adverse weather conditions:

X-PLANE 12 B777 A GO AROUND STALL IN MELBOURNE (youtube.com)

Haha, I saw that. There is no surprise why I am sticking to the most realistic sim around when I see these kind of actions 😊

Edited September 11, 2024 by Franz007

[Epikk]

37 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Let me ask you the following questions:

- which systems exactly are you refering to? Which have wrong numbers and what is your reference for that?
- have you checked all numbers of the CL650 if those were exactly as in the real plane? If yes, what is your source for that?
- you do understand what a beta-version is and that there may be some bugs and sytems having to be tuned?
- based on what source exactly are you coming to the conclusion that „it will never have a system-fidelity“ like the CL650 knowing that the devs want it to be very high-fidelity and as close as possible as the level-D-sim?

It looks to me that you are a just someine projecting its own negativity on a product, without really having a clue about.

Ok man, you're right - I'm just projecting my own negativity on the FF777v2. 

Edited September 11, 2024 by Epikk

[BobFS88]

2 hours ago, Epikk said:

But honestly, system fidelity-wise it's just not there with the CL650 and will never be. Fact. 

Give it some time. After all Toto aircraft is a release product and FF is still in beta just to be fair. I don’t believe that Ramazzess will put that much effort into an aircraft just to do a a$$ job, knowing what he is up against competitively and with the brand reputation at stake. It will not be in his best interest not to do so. The is still a lot that has to be done and I am sure it will get there.

BTW good seeing here.😊
 

 

[jcomm]

4 hours ago, Epikk said:

Ok man, you're right - I'm just projecting my own negativity on the FF777v2. 

Quite on the contrary @Epikk, you provided your honest, and I would say, unbiased view of the product at it's present state of development, as a user yourself of the FF B777 v2, and it was rather useful at least for me, although a bit exacerbated in terms of "the fate" of this FF 777 v2 which I honestly think is a project that for many reasons FlightFactor will invest their best capabilities and efforts to make a success. I see where you come from when comparing it to the CL 650, but I don't think we need that comparison every time a new, more complex addon, becomes available for X-Plane. It suffices, at least to me, that the list of features announced get correctly modeled.

My decision regarding buying this 777 is conditioned by many factors, including, but not only, the following:

.) I purchased and used the 777 v1, and as a user of the PMDG 777 for FSX and later for P3Dv4 and v5, I was very disappointed with various aspects of the simulation, from feel of flight to systems, functionality, etc...

.) I also own the FF A320, and I have my own opinion about that A320 model in comparison to other XP offers;

.) I was offered their 757 Professional, and I did like it overall, although I found some limitations in it's representation of the various 757 models it represents, but I place among my preferred X-Plane 11 and 12 airliners;

.) I own the PMDG 777 for MSFS 2020;

It's not a cheap addon, even being sold with a $10 discount, and I am waiting for a fix of XP12 that can solve a problem with prop aircraft that is really preventing me from using the simulator with full pleasure 😕 and while prop flight dynamics bugs shouldn't impact jet aircraft, whenever a flight simulator is plagued by a core bug that is too evident, like the awful ground physics in MSFS etc... I can't really play it and feel satisfied...

So, and since the 777 is an airliner that although present in the various platforms is still one of my preferred airliners, and since the various youtubes I've seen from this 777 v2 and now particularly also the BB711 one, look rather positive to me, I am about to take the plunge, start Xp12, play the 777 v2 and see how it goes.

You presented valid points regarding the limitations of the simulation at it's present state of Beta development, but I also want to believe that FF will really take this product seriously and try their best to make it a great 777 for X-Plane 12, so, let's see what I decide in the next weeks, and who knows I will purchase and enjoy it the best I can 🙂

P.S.: The following video shows a flaw in the autopilot system(s) logic:

777v2 issue (youtube.com)

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by jcomm

[Franz007]

3 hours ago, Epikk said:

Ok man, you're right - I'm just projecting my own negativity on the FF777v2. 

Well if you cannot answer any of my qustions to help understanding your opinion, then I don’t see any other reason. So it‘s up to you.

[Epikk]

No biggie guys - I just don't want it to go into a useless contest and a big a misundertanding. Maybe I unable to convey what I think/feel about FF, HS or PMDG. Maybe it's something else. Just know that I have all three addons and was trying to give my "honest" opinion about it... 

I tried to give some examples of behaviors that aren't realistic in the FF (and better modeled in other high-fidely addons) to explain what makes me see things that way... 

Franz, when I say, HS and FF are not in the same league, I'm not trying to diminish FF. I just really think they're not. Period. No more. No less. And I think FF and Toto aren't approaching simulation the same way, and it shows easily, again "system-wise". It's just another level if you're honest about it. 

Also, another thing that makes me say and think FF will not get (and aren't even interested in it tbh) to the CL650 level system-wise (and believe me I don't mind), is the fact that I think that it's not easy at all to do it Toto's way. In other words, I don't think you just wake up one day and do it... for many many reasons. But, that's just me, seeing things this way. 

[Franz007]

@Epikk

It‘s perfectly fine if you think that way. And I see the point as well, that both devs don‘t have the same approach in developping an addon. Toto (CL650) is simply a genius and also in my opinion the best developper I‘ve ever seen. He has a huge sense for details. And he has delivered an amazing addon that is without a doubt the best we have ever seen, at least for a complex jet.

Nevertheless I was interested in knowing where exactly you saw the differences in „systems“ beetween both addons that let you come to your conclusion, since the FF777 seems to simulate everything (apart the few missing features that should be added soon). I am not saying you aren‘t giving a honest opinion but I wanted to have a honest „reason“, because I really wonder where you see those differences. Or perhaps I missed them and you explained it more above or in another thread?

Edited September 12, 2024 by Franz007

[Epikk]

On 9/10/2024 at 7:56 PM, Epikk said:

And systems-wise (yes I'm a systems Geek) too many details that aren't right in the FF 777v2 at the moment : GE90s startup behavior isn't good at all (crazy EGT rise, Oil Levels stuck), engine parameters showing exactly the same parameters ALL the time (still seeing this in 2024?! come on this isn't a default freeware... ), ailerons and elevators drooping like Airbuses, Cabin Pressurisation ain't right too (CAB ALT is always too high in cruise), fuel temperature model isn't realistic (temp drops wayyyy too fast), etc etc... 

@Franz007

I gave a few examples in one of my previous post (thinking it was obvious for everyone) but I'll try to illustrate. Again, this is fact and not bashing, trolling. None of that. 

So I talked about engine behavior in the FF777. - at startup... EGT rise is way too fast atm (you can probably find a good flightdeck 777 startup on YT and see it for yourself). This isn't how the 'Mighty' GE90 starts. - Engine Oil level remain the same. But IRL jet engine oil levels always decrease during/after engine start since a part of that oil is being pumped through the engine/isn't in the tank anymore. - once the engine are running with AT on, ALL parameters are always equal, ALL the time (personal preference and sim limitations I know but hey, IRL all parameters are always close but not ALWAYS the same and changing "in unissons"). 

Now, if you have a close look at engine behavior in the CL650 you'll observe proper (realistic/believable if you will) EGT rise once fuel is introduced, sutible variations in parameters when both engines are running... if you go further you'll see other true to life behaviors (that aren't found in the FF777 but might be in the PMDG777/All the above are). - Engine Oil pressure/viscosity is affected by temperature. - Start timing is affected by altitude and temperature (take a chrono and try starting the CL650 at 15°C OAT and then at 40°C OAT). - Realistic/believable representation of heat from the core before and after shutdown (depending on how hot your engine is when the fan starts turning you can see the EGT decrease before adding fuel/the same way you see it rise slowly at shutdown because the fan stop bringing cooler air through the engine) - Accessory gearbox inertia is taken into account - etc etc... You know Toto's way. Crazy... 

 

Ailerons and elevators shoudn't droop like they do in the FF777 once hyd pressure drops/after shutdown on the ground. There's a "PCU Blocking Mode" preventing them from doing this IRL. You should researsh it. Interesting read. 

 

The CAB ALT in the FF777 climbs very fast (compared to what I'm used to see) and almost always ends up at 8000ft. Which is "kinda" HIGH for this bird... Check it during your next flight.

 

The fuel temperature is an easy one I think. No need to compare or anything it's just good sense. In the FF777 you can takeoff with 120T of fuel at say 30°C (again 120.000 liters liters !) and look at temperature again 30ish minutes later at say FL300 and it will show close zero degree and keep dropping below zero very quickly... Don't you agree such a huge amount of fuel cannot change temperature this quickly ? Check it during your next flight too... 

 

Now I'm going to stop here because I think it's clear FF can make good addons when they finish them. They just don't go "there"... wich is just absolutelly fine. This 777 is still at the beginning of its journey, let's see where they take us this time. 

[Epikk]

Here's a good GE90 startup. Check the behavior... timings, EGT, Oil levels... 

 

[Franz007]

@Epikk

Many thanks for those very good examples. And you‘re right that you mentionned the engine-issue briefly alrady, I somehow overlooked it.

I know that these points got discussed in the forum. What I also noticed is that the air-conditioning and cabin-temperature seems unrealistic, because even with APU and bleed air on, it only goes up to like 15 degrees and will only increase to normal temps (22-24C) when the engines are running.

If I remember right, these were points (together with your described ones that were acurate right away in the first version of the CL650.

So, indeed, this could be a sign that they haven‘t simulated the underlying systems as deep as in the CL650.

But these are issues they absolutely have to fix in my opinion.

I understand your opinion much better now and tend to even agree with you, because you could explain them very well.

So thanks again for having taken the time. And let‘s see what will happen in future with those issues. I pushed a bit for knowing the reasons because I have seen people criticizing a product only because they don‘t like a dev. But this doesn‘t seem to be your case and let me apologize if I was reacting a bit unfair first. I perfectly get your point now. Thanks 👍

[Epikk]

No biggie - We all want and love good simming here. Cheers. 

[jcomm]

The equalized jet engine, turboprop or even prop engine parameters are one of the "features" that most irritate me in a flightsim, specially when the underlaying simulation platform is one that is classified of "high level"...

Some FSX/P3D/XP developers have overcome this limitation through gauge / plugin / external modelling of engines ( Totoro for instance in XP12 and that UNIQUE CL650 ), but HECK!!! I would expect a platform with the maturity of X-Plane to natively offer some nice modeling alternative for this particular details...

 

Edited September 12, 2024 by jcomm

[Murmur]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

The equalized jet engine, turboprop or even prop engine parameters are one of the "features" that most irritates me, specially when the underlaying simulation platform is one that is classified of "high level"...

Some FSX/P3D/XP developers have overcome this limitation through gauge / plugin / external modelling of engines ( Totoro for instance in XP12 and that UNIQUE CL650 ), but HECK!!! I would expect a platform with the maturity of X-Plane to natively offer some nice modeling alternative for this particular details...

I think it's the aircraft designer responsibility to offer that kind of detail. The underlying platform simply does (and must be able to do) what the designer tells it to do. In other words, if the designer tells Plane-Maker that the engine has given values for RPM, EGT, thrust, etc., Plane-Maker shouldn't change them at its whim, just because the real world engines are a bit different from one another.

This is especially true for a product like X-Plane/Plane-Maker which is an engineering tool and must produce exact results. Paradoxically, even if they are exact in an unrealistic way!

It's the same reason for which X-Plane should always retain the option to model a 100% exact ISA atmosphere, with no turbulence, thermals, etc. even if it's something that in the real world is never encountered.

[Epikk]

7 hours ago, jcomm said:

The equalized jet engine, turboprop or even prop engine parameters are one of the "features" that most irritate me in a flightsim, specially when the underlaying simulation platform is one that is classified of "high level"...

Some FSX/P3D/XP developers have overcome this limitation through gauge / plugin / external modelling of engines ( Totoro for instance in XP12 and that UNIQUE CL650 ), but HECK!!! I would expect a platform with the maturity of X-Plane to natively offer some nice modeling alternative for this particular details...

 

Ahah ! It just kills the immersion factor for me... 😅

[jcomm]

9 hours ago, Murmur said:

I think it's the aircraft designer responsibility to offer that kind of detail. The underlying platform simply does (and must be able to do) what the designer tells it to do. In other words, if the designer tells Plane-Maker that the engine has given values for RPM, EGT, thrust, etc., Plane-Maker shouldn't change them at its whim, just because the real world engines are a bit different from one another.

This is especially true for a product like X-Plane/Plane-Maker which is an engineering tool and must produce exact results. Paradoxically, even if they are exact in an unrealistic way!

It's the same reason for which X-Plane should always retain the option to model a 100% exact ISA atmosphere, with no turbulence, thermals, etc. even if it's something that in the real world is never encountered.

I see your point Murmur, and I partially agree, regarding the "puristic" modelling approach.

Yes, if meant to be used for aerodynamics modelling / analysis then a flight simulator like X-Plane should offer options to use only ISA, no turbulence etc... which X-Plane actually does - you can opt for an ISA atmosphere in the preset weather scenarios.

But then options should also exist, irrespective from the level of crispiness of the scenery display, to ban cars, boats, houses, and in the limit any orography since without the turbulence contribution it might create it is doing nothing there...

Regarding the engines, for my liking they should be modelled as separate entities with as much complexity as possible, with variables / parameters that could be used to somehow reproduce production line bias due to different rigging or mounting or brands of components, etc... 

 

Edited September 13, 2024 by jcomm