weaklink
Members
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
-
We're talking about a 172, right? Even a Vy climb (never mind Vx) needs a good amount of pressure on the right rudder to keep the ball centered. It's not exactly subtle...
-
Your propeller cares to disagree. 😉
-
The real-world 172 definitely has a strong pitch-up tendency, particularly when going from flaps up to flaps 10. You want to be anticipating the elevator input you need to put in and be ready to trim. It's been a while since I've flown the 172 in the sim, so I can't say if the effect is overdone in the sim, but it's certainly very noticeable in the real aircraft.
-
-
Here's what the documentation says about that field: "Slaved variation for VOR, i.e. direction of the 0 radial measured in true degrees" So if the navdata is correct, X-Plane should correctly model the orientation of the zero radial.
-
🤣 The same thought occurred to me, but I thought no one else would notice. I was wrong!
-
I'm sceptical that Claude (or another AI agent) will be able to generate scenery effectively, for several reasons: LLMs generally aren't good at spatial reasoning (which is important when generating scenery) The LLM isn't able to "see" the effects of its actions, i.e. what the resulting scenery looks like. Having created sceneries in both MSFS and X-Plane, I find this to be a critical part of the process. One of the reasons AI agents are good at programming tasks is because of the "feedback loop" where they can run the generated code, see what it does, and correct the code if it's not doing what it should do. WIthout a similar kind of feedback loop, I wouldn't expect an AI to do well at scenery generation. The LLM likely isn't able to accurately extract geolocations from aerial images (which is the way that humans doing scenery design usually place scenery objects). It would likely be possible to develop/train a custom AI model specifically for scenery generation that overcomes these limitations, but that would take a lot of effort/money, and I'm not sure that'd be worthwhile even for Microsoft/Asobo. If you do give this a go, I'd be curious to hear how it goes!
-
And just to add that the Operations Manual contains a tutorial flight (starting on page 146) that's very similar in style to the one for the RJ that I linked to earlier.
-
I think it's safe to assume that Just Flight will provide the manual on the product page so you can evaluate it before you buy. I guessing the documentation will be similar to what they've provided with previous releases. For example, here's the Operations Manual for the RJ. The tutorial flight is in the section "Flying the RJ", starting on page 206, and I'd say it's pretty step-by-step, with a lot of pictures to illustrate what switches and other controls you should be operating.
-
The magnetic variation in X-Plane is correct. Please read the whole thread.
-
To follow up, I've done a test in X-Plane to look at the underlying datarefs (which tells us what X-Plane itself is modeling and eliminates potential error sources from the aircraft). I set myself up on runway 02 in the Cessna 172 (G1000 version). Here's what I found: sim/flightmodel/position/true_psi (true heading): 22.67 This is pretty close to your "book" value of 22.72. sim/cockpit2/gauges/indicators/heading_AHARS_deg_mag_pilot: 23.67 Correspondingly, the heading indicator displays "024". sim/flightmodel/position/magnetic_variation: 1.00. This is consistent with the magnetic heading above if we assume it uses the unusual convention that positive numbers mean "west". I think this is also consistent with the variation data from the AIP that you gave above: If the variation was 2 degrees W in 2020 and is decreasing by 0.17 degrees per year, it should now be 2 - 6*0.17 = 0.98, which is very close to the value that X-Plane gives. So I think this all checks out. Looking at the Jeppesen chart for LPPT, it still shows the runway heading as 025 degrees and the variation as 2 degrees W. My assumption is that the charts have simply not been updated to account for the annual variation change since 2020. In other words, I think you would see exactly the same discrepancy in the real world, and I don't think a difference of a single degree is going to cause any issues.
-
Can you clarify where you're getting the 24º from? (This will help narrow down what the issue is.) Are you reading this from the heading indicator when lined up on the runway? (Which aircraft?) Or is this being displayed in your FMC? Or somewhere else?
-
I didn't have the 737-200 for XP11, but I've bought it now, and I'm enjoying it. In addition to a few short "tryout" flights, I've done one full A-to-B flight (EDDF to EDDH). Some thoughts: Fuel burn for the EDDF to EDDH definitely did seem low (from memory, it was around 2.2 tons). The "slipperiness" didn't seem to affect the descent too much. I was able to maintain a normal three-to-one descent angle at idle thrust, albeit at a slightly higher airspeed than I would have anticipated (around 290 KIAS). Didn't have any real problems "getting down" in the terminal environment either. The plane definitely feels "floaty" in the flare though. I assume this may also be because the drag is too low? If you have any increment at all over Vref, you'll float for ages, and even at Vref, it doesn't really want to stop flying. I really like the "hands-on" feel of flying with the old SP-77 autopilot and without an autothrottle. (I definitely need more practice to make my leveloffs smooth!) I was debating whether to do a VOR-only routing for the EDDF-to-EDDH flight, but ended up going with an RNAV route and procedures. I still found it to be very enjoyable to fly this with the SP-77 -- you have to be managing pitch and power all the time, and that keeps me much more engaged than a modern aircraft that would be doing everything on its own in LNAV/VNAV. Sounds give me a good feeling of immersion, and I love the "clickety clack" sound when you move the yoke. (I believe this comes from the CWS switches?) An update that improves the fuel burn and drag will definitely be appreciated, but these issues aren't a dealbreaker for me, and I'm looking forward to more flights.
-
Not sure exactly what you're referring to: Magnetic headings / tracks in procedures? Shouldn't these get taken care of through AIRAC updates though? The magnetic variation that X-Plane simulates when working out what heading a wet compass (or a heading indicator driven by a magnetometer) should display? According to this blog post, X-Plane contains a model for how magnetic variation will change over time that should be accurate until June 2028. I think there's a third possibility for the issue you're seeing: On aircraft that use IRSs (such as most airliners), the IRSs directly provide a true heading; the magnetic heading displayed on the HSI/ND is actually calculated from the true heading using an on-board database of magnetic variation. (In other words, this is the exact opposite of what is done in small aircraft, where true heading is calculated from the measured magnetic heading.) If an addon simulates this accurately, the addon's own magnetic variation database may be out of date and may need to be updated.
