Jump to content

Avcomware

Frozen-Inactivity
  • Content Count

    1,133
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Avcomware

  • Rank
    Member - 1,000+

Recent Profile Visitors

3,073 profile views
  1. Hi GoranM. I like your picture. You must be part of the fabulous team that developed XP10? I think I am beginning to understand who / what you guys are. Can you post a picture of your whole group? I bet you get a lot of looks when you go out in public? TV
  2. Hi Donald, and everyone. >>..either they may not have thought about the problem, or didn't really think it was that much of a problem.<< I am sure it's both, and that is exactly why people like I am try to help with constructive feedback. All the problems that I have pointed out are fairly easy to fix and would greatly improve the simming experience. One can easily analyze the models, if you look at details that are lacking, when compared to a real life model, and come up with hundreds of inaccuracies. My goal is to point out the biggest deviations that can be easily fixed. The problem becomes, gets compounded, when you see individuals that behave as if they may be involved in the development process that should be thankful for the feedback, they instead try to justify the short comings by attacking the individual that is actually doing them a favor. This is the most difficult part to fix. When one is not willing to take the time to understand, and accept the facts, the issues may never be resolved. As it stands right now, what I see in the present release, and the response, there is little hope of having a credible sim. These individuals don't only disrespect themselves they also insult their customers. I would hope Cessna will look closely to this representation and take action. If a real C172 would behave like the model they have to date, nobody would be buying / flying them. It would scare me right out of aviation, if I did not know any better. TV
  3. Hi wb5okj and everyone. >>...however it is very hard to get this view on a small 2 dimensional flat monitor and still fly. << It is actually very easy to implement. I designed an 182RG, in GMAX for FS9 about 8 years ago, that does that, and I don't even consider myself to be an aircraft designer. See pics below. Here is another example and I can show you many more if you like. The problem is that you get these "experts" defined as "one that knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing" that are allowed, and believed as being right, and the people that actually try to help, and actually know something get edited / pushed out. TV
  4. Hi SF. >>Personal attack removed by Mod. No more of this please. SF<< >>So your perception of both the REAL world, FS and XP all seem to be terribly missled.<< I am not sure I understand how was my statement different than the one you alowed from Morten? I would have approached you on private Email but I do not know How? Who you are. Have you seen other posts directed at me? TV
  5. Hi MortenM. Personal attack removed by Mod. No more of this please. SF
  6. Hi Antlab. I did not want to take too much of my time to get into this, I will for the ones curious and want to learn. I am fully aware that there are some that all they want is to antagonize and or create trouble or look smart, they will never learn and in my opinion will die dumb. I am fine with that. If MS would still be around I would not bother to post here because if I post it is my hope someone listens, learns and maybe something good comes out of it. Since Laminar's is the only sim that I still use, and still around it's my hope someone does something about it. >>..Get a model where I can see the wing tips from a normal flight position,<< I will try to elaborate, for the non pilots this may require more information, here it is. When I, or most pilots unless you are very short and cannot see the cowl, sit at the controls in a Cessna 172 you normally see the top of the top of Instrument panel and part of top the cowl as a normal position, without moving my eyes or any other part of my body. For the ones that think the size matters, I've had a pilot for Flight review 6ft.6in. 340 lbs that needed a seat belt extender and he also was able to see the wingtips. Why do I think it's important? Many reasons but assume your windshield gets full of oil, bird splatter, all instruments fail, just to name a few, your ability to fly using external references will save your life After you get a some experience you get to notice / see / sense any movement and or change in that area. While the pics can not represent exactly the proper position it's close enough to get the point across. Now try to do the same in XP10 Cessna 172 in VC mode and look at the wing tips. To Tom K. I was able to get some variations of your RV, to work in XP10, see some pics below. I have some problems with the jitter / shaking / flutter with respect to the Horizon, about the Longitudinal axis of the aircraft, at around 140KIAS, similar to the Cessna 172 at 110, but I do not save time to track down now. I use it when I just want to play, too bad I cannot do more often. Great fun bird. TV
  7. Hello everyone. I see that a number of people have decided that when faced with facts they turn to personal attacks, sign of a lack of data to support their replies / opinions. My only goal is to give feedback based on verified facts, my experience, and with the intention of improving the overall experience of everyone involved. It is my hope that someday I can sit at my computer and experience a sensation of flight without having to get in a real aircraft. >>I have the strong feeling that you have either not flown any recent version of X-Plane, posted in the wrong forum, neven flown a real plane yourself or simply have other motivations to slander X-Plane. Or maybe all of the above. Jan<< There is no slander, everything I said is verifiable and a fact. On the other hand your post and your statement can be interpreted as slander and has no basis, or proof of what you are stating. I will give you one bit of advice, keep your remarks focused to the topic at hand and keep your personal remarks to yourself. I presently have XP9.7(Ver. 9.7.0.0), XP10 ( Ver. 10.0.3.6; 10.0.4.3; 10.0.4.4 ) demos, in the past I had XP8, involved with some sort of simulation since 1976 when I wrote my own Navigation / VOR / ADF simulator, and owned just about every PC simulator on every micro platform since. I also spent many hours in the C130 full motion simulator and was advocating to FAA, and everyone else that would listen, the merits of the PC simulation long before some of these young bucks were even born, and apparently don't know the difference between a Cessna 172 and a low wing aircraft. Every aircraft that I give my opinion on, I have flown in real life and spent a lot of time comparing, analyzing and verifying specified data vs real performance. >>....Now if I had to choose the interpretation of a flight instructor over an 8000+ hour airline captain for xwind experience, I'm going with the captain. Do expect these forums to stay hot at long as people post their interpretations with no concrete data to support the claims. Tom Kyler<< Tom, I think you have / had? good intentions, I still use your low wing release for the XP9, which I had to modify before it became useful, see some of the older posts, and I had to modify again and again with every new ver. of XP9 to make it acceptable / credible. Did you ever finish that? I think you are one of the good guys, don't let art get in the way of facts. You do not have to take anyone's word, get the C172 at KSEA, on the runway, set up the Wx to get about 12 Kts of Xwind, yes I am sure you know what Xwind is in spite of you playing dumb, and see what happens. In addition I forgot to mention, that I get this oscillation about the horizontal axis at about 110 KIAS that gives me the sensation of riding a dragon fly. Is it just me? In regards to captains, they are all humans, I've flown with some that did not know how the Rate of turn if influenced by airspeed, or they could not hand fly a simple acft without the autopilot and many other strange and unbelievable issues. They all knew it at one time, but if you don't use it you loose it. Good luck to all. TV
  8. Hello everyone. In my opinion the technology, by itself, will not fix aviation. What needs to be done is have governments like the EU / read France, stop meddling in the Aviation industry and keep making new rules and regulations that basically destroys aviation. To fix aviation we need to have France split between Switzerland and Belgium. We can come up with any technology but without having pilots and ability to learn and fly there is no aviation. TV
  9. Hello everyone. I, personally, look at an aircraft model as the flight characteristics / model being the Most important part of any simulator, and I compare them to the real world flying / feel sensation / performance. I look at them as tools and how useful the item may be, I don't really care how fancy looking something is. I will restrict my comments to the Cessna 172 in the following statements, unless otherwise noted. As others have mentioned nothing is exactly like the real thing, including the multi million dollars full motions sims. Since I see some of the "old" guys around, I am trying to get a better understanding as to why is it that every time a new version, especially in the XPlane world, they make changes that Drastically affect the flight model? While I do not consider myself an expert I am able to, most of the time, get most of the flight models, in most of the sims, to get the right response / feel of the real aircraft. There are limitations in all, FSX I cannot get the model to fly in slow flight with the horn on, something we practice everyday, without butchering the flight model where most of the other parameters are way out of tolerance. No Adverse yaw, only the original Fly! had that ability, adjusting the in cockpit view in the position of normal flight, see part of cowl and the 6 pack, not sitting in the back seats, to see both wings when you look to the side, very important in teaching someone visual flight, ground effect slightly perceptible in the FSX with RYoung's model. This post is getting way too long to be informative and I will just try to summarize my frustration / feedback to all. All the above said, and considering that XP9-10 cannot handle any xwind condition I am finding that the most useful model for me, as a tool is an 11 years old model, the FLYHAWK from Fly!II with terrascene scenery, next is FSX with Real air configuration, then FSX MS model, then FS9 Real air, XP8-9 self modified model, XP10 but just about useless in Xwind, and remains to be seen what the Fly!Legacy will behave like when they release it. Yes, I know that is not exactly apples to apples but I can live without the VC in the Fly! because it acts very much like the VC in the other sims. Yes, I know that the XP10 has the ability to get most of the things done right, but will it? Remains to be seen. Laminar comes across, to me, as an immature teen that does not care what happens next, they live in the moment. Before I will recommend, or purchase, any of the XP versions again they will have to fix: Ground handling / xwind problem, Allow / implement the Null adjustment for All axis, Get a model where I can see the wing tips from a normal flight position, Fix the see through clouds, Fix the upslope view sensation on flat terrain / runway, Stable platform where the models can be at least used within the same release without mods, right now you cannot even load some of the older models from XP9 like the C162 without having the system hang up, and some other less important things that I am willing to live with but it would be nice to get them done right. With all the short comings that I see it's hard to see why anyone would want to get XP10, other than supporting an active, and hopefully responsive to customers company, when others sims are available offer more flexibility fewer problems and more stable simulators. TV
  10. Hi Alejandro. >>what if i were to sell my current amd radeon hd 6950 and with the money made buy something like a 560ti on sale or one step lower card...would this increase my performance and possibly the occasional artifacts or stutters i get with the ati..<< I have both brands, ATI 6950/70 and GTX 570. ATI has much cleaner display and just as good performance / FPS in FSX, Fly!Legacy, Fly!II, XP9 and XP10. Fix your video problem, if you have artifacts, and do not spend your money and effort on the 560. You will actually loose performance, with the 560. GPU 6950, never exceeded 80% load in my system, very similar to yours. Just fix your present system and enjoy. You should be able to run FSX really well with your set up. Look for changes in your .cfg and play with your sliders. TV
  11. Hi jrhoads. Would you elaborate? Are you saying / implying that they / Cessna has approved the model as an official / true representation of the real aircraft flight model? TV
  12. Hi AG. You may also want to verify that you do not have more than one axis assigned to that function. If you have more than one controller check to see that only one controls that direction. TV
  13. Hi Mark. Thank you for all the improvements. Great work.TV
  14. Hi Jeroen.>>I now agree with what others said, that flying to headings that are at the bottom of the VOR gauge isn't very comfortable..<< ??????I did not read all the messages but YOU DO NOT have to fly the headings at the bottom of your instrument, that is just an added bonus, that you can also intercept the reciprocal, in this case 205, just as easily as the course / radial you selected at the top, with direct sensing after you intercept. If you do not like that just put the reciprocal at the top of your compass card.By the way, to easily calculate a reciprocal I use the +2 -2 rule if first digit not over 360, -2 +2 if the added 2 to first digit goes above 360.Try 080, add 2 to the first digit if not over 360, and subtract 2 from the second, 080> 0+2=2, 8-2=6 >>260, or easier, if you are in the cockpit, use your instruments / compass cards.I always fly with the Nr1 / top / best instrument and if others are available I use as back up. This is a little more work but it can save a lot of confusion, especially on a long IFR / IMC flight. Single pilot IFR in the soup can be a very challenging experience. TV
  15. Hi J van E.I was not able to see the original post, but I was able to get some info from the page indicated by the original poster, and wanted to give my opinion since I see some real world Pilots getting involved, and it's my hope to help in some way.This is not intended to instruct and or teach someone, you should always do what your CFI teaches you, regardless of you knowing or thinking that you know better.I see that many recommend, and insist, on using the FAA described method and I also think that all pilots should know it, but it can be slow and complicated, and not the only / best method. I also think that there is nothing wrong with the method that is / was described by OP.This method is taking full advantage of the instrument's capabilities. The VOR is capable of giving you, the course within 90 degrees and one should know how to take advantage of it.I also think that everyone should know about the Reverse sensing, can be used in the Back Course approaches, Holds, etc. I would not recommend using it vs Normal / Direct sensing, but the students need to know and understand it.I see one poster stating that the OPs method will not work because you will never intercept the desired Course / Radial, reason being that the description suggests a 45 degree intercept, but there is nothing to prevent you from choosing the 90 degree intercept. The smart / only thing to do, unless you know your exact position / distance from the VOR is to do a 90 degree intercept.In addition by using the OPs method, you do not have to calculate anything, it's displayed for you, in most VOR heads. The reason I say most, it's because some have part of the Compass card covered up, but it's a lot easier to estimate the invisible part than to calculate everything.Here is the method I use, basically the same as described by the OP, but I think you will also need to make sure you get your Situational awareness understood, know where you are, before you proceed, for double checking your new position.DPEs have no problem with this method, as long as you tell them about it and be able to explain it. There are some that get very curious about it and want understand it better, and most already know it.I have an example here that also intercepts the 025 Course / Radial of "A" VOR, and starts with a mostly unknown position, which is very typical in real life especially VFR flight, where you fly along and you may not know exactly your position with respect to the VOR.Here is a real life situation (paraphrased):You know you are somewhere close to a VOR (SLI 115.70), VFR, the WX is getting marginal, still legally VFR for you picky ones, your CFI asks you to intercept radial / course 025.To set up.Get you favorite sim running get in the vicinity of the VOR, Take off from KSNA, Slew up to 1000Ft. and for a couple of seconds in any direction, with your eyes closed, and proceed. You should only know that you are in the vicinity of a VOR, (SLI 115.70) in this case. If you want to use what I think was a similar method to what OP posted, read on, and follow, this method.Position yourself somewhere near SLI VOR, if you want to try the FAA settings go to 160 Radial From SLI.To Intercept a course of 025, inbound of SLI (115.70) VOR.TITO mnemonic: Tune in your Frequency (115.70), Identify the Station (Morse code), Test your signal strength / flag, OBSelect, the desired Course / Radial, in this case 025 at the top, and note the TO flag, fly toward the quadrant that the CDI points to, see pic below, if you are on the 160 radial you can fly 295 for a 90 degree intercept or anything between 294 and 024 for something less than 90 degree intercept, not recommended.See details below for the complete procedure. If you are not on the 160 read the numbers on the CDI quadrant where the CDI is pointing and fly those headings. When you intercept your Course / radial turn in the desired direction and track.For the complete procedure read below.1-Turn your OBS to center the CDI with the From indication and find that you are on the XXX Radial, this gives you a definitive position, and helps you visualize where you need to go.2-You mentally visualize your position, you are on 160 From, as an example, on the Compass rose and know that the 025 Radial is the NNE quadrant, of your present position. You can now turn to a heading that gives you that general direction / course if you like / can visualize, WNW direction. To get more information, and better precision:3-Turn the OBS to the 025 radial, at the top of your Compass card, note your To flag points to the top half.4-Turn to the heading indicated by the instrument in the upper left quadrant, (where your CDI and the TO indicator quadrant point) between 295, for 90 degree intercept, or anything between 294 and 025 for a smaller intercept angle, if you want to fly To the station, or you can turn to between 295 to 205 if you want to intercept and fly radial 205 (reciprocal of 025) from the station, no change in OBS needed.You can also apply the same technique if you want the From on top half, just look for your From to be active and fly in the direction of the CDI and upper half quadrant indicated.If you want to really understand the operation of your VOR you can try to figure out how to find your position, if your To-From flag or CDI fails. Just keep in mind the TO From indicator divides the top and bottom half of the instrument and the CDI the left and right and left half sides. Example: Your CDI failed and you need to know what radial you are on, knowing your VOR frequency. How can you do this? Hint, turn your OBS until the To From flag changes, note the Compass card on the Horizontal divide / line, let's assume it's 160 and 320, you now know that you are one of those two radials. Make up your own situation for the CDI, with the TO From flag failed.You may run out of fuel, in real life, but it's a good exercise, and should never use it when any part of your fails. TV
×
×
  • Create New...