FF 777 v2 Available again to Purchase

[mjrhealth]

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

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... 

Would you be willing to pay for all that. I doubt anyone else would be interested. Adds nothing.

[jcomm]

1 hour ago, mjrhealth said:

Would you be willing to pay for all that. I doubt anyone else would be interested. Adds nothing.

Your oppinion...

and why would that make the product so much more expensive? There's aspects of, for instance, airfoill definition, which are a lot more complex / heavy on the simulation cycle...

 

Edited September 13, 2024 by jcomm

[Epikk]

Several devs out there have been doing "non equalized" engine parameters for a long long time... it's not someting new or difficult to do. Definiterly a devlopper's choice. It's part of attention to details for me. 

[Murmur]

5 hours ago, jcomm said:

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... 

But as I said, the point is to produce exact conditions even if the exactness is unrealistic. It wouldn't make any sense (and would be an unneeded complication) to delete all 3D scenery and objects just to have ISA atmosphere, just because without scenery it would be "more realistic". What if I want to model performance scenarios at ISA atmosphere in a certain orographic scenario? And other similar examples could be made.

5 hours ago, jcomm said:

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... 

I agree but IMO that should be the designer's job, not the underlying platform's. Although maybe Plane-Maker allows to do that in the most "realistic" way, i.e. designing two different engines with slightly different performance parameters. For sure, if not in Plane-Maker, that could be done via datarefs, as many XP aircraft designers do.

[jcomm]

44 minutes ago, Murmur said:

But as I said, the point is to produce exact conditions even if the exactness is unrealistic. It wouldn't make any sense (and would be an unneeded complication) to delete all 3D scenery and objects just to have ISA atmosphere, just because without scenery it would be "more realistic". What if I want to model performance scenarios at ISA atmosphere in a certain orographic scenario? And other similar examples could be made.

I thought you might mention this :-), but then you would use the reference height of the object, assuming you're using a GPS-equipped aircraft wouldn't be difficult... 

But I meant to show how extreme it is possible to go in a purely "sandbox" for aerodynamics platform... Also, as an example, Aerowinx PSX has no graphical representation of orography, well... with a few specific airports where the slope of teh runway is somehow represented, and yet it has a topographic database, so, even while not seing terrain, you can still collide with a mountain 🙂

 

[Bjoern]

22 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...

At least for RPM/N1, XP12 shows unequal values out of the box, depending on wind conditions.

I wouldn't be a fan of true mismatched engine parameters because this means a constant requirement for asymmetric thrust settings, which is highly inconvenient to do without a multi-engine throttle quadrant.

[jcomm]

2 minutes ago, Bjoern said:

At least for RPM/N1, XP12 shows unequal values out of the box, depending on wind conditions.

I wouldn't be a fan of true mismatched engine parameters because this means a constant requirement for asymmetric thrust settings, which is highly inconvenient to do without a multi-engine throttle quadrant.

I see your point. Could be an option then ...