HamSammich

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

About HamSammich

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. HamSammich

    X-Plane 11.30 Beta is out!

    To actually offer something helpful, the Q-A answer in the dev blog (Not an entry in its own right, so perhaps easy to overlook.) says these are non-consequential lines for desktop users, and thus can safely be ignored. Will be cleaned up in the next drop. Best, marshall
  2. HamSammich

    Thoughts on Brunner CLS-E NG Yoke?

    3M Velcro picture frame mounting strips. About 10 of them held my CLS-E securely.
  3. Nice! Does it have an identifier? Best, Marshall
  4. Looks great. Is this a fictional airport, or does it exist RW? Best, Marshall
  5. The point is, after so many years, with such a well-known problem, it's absurd to be asking for more bug reports. This must be one of the most-bugged issues X-Plane has. Asking for more bug reports is part of the problem, not the solution. That's the point. Austin has designed a wonderful product. However, on this, he is either incapable of, or resistant to, fixing the problem. I suspect, and it's only a suspicion based on his thinking on the rest of the sim, because he doesn't know how to fix it from first-principles. And that, again, is my only complaint: There's no need to fix it from first principles--it's a luxury and, at this point, self-indulgent. Just fudge it. However it works best, whether it's theoretically pure or not. Fudge the thing. Believe it or not, when time and resources are not infinite, but some sort of solution is desired, that's actually the best engineering practice. Best, Marshall
  6. >>He need decent input not whining ...<< No whining. I and others can only tell him whatever it is, it doesn't work. And if this were a new problem, I suppose more data-gathering would be useful. It's not. X-Plane has had lousy ground handling for a decade. We sent people to the moon in eight. And designed the atom bomb in three. More theories from the customers won't help. Nor will a eureka moment. That's my point. Fixing it from first principles, though admirable, may not be possible or practicable and, in any case, is not even needed. Practical engineering, at this point, calls for a nice, inelegant, 80/20, kludge. I don't care WHY the plane slides all over the runway, I just want it to STOP sliding all over the runway, with the quickest solution and fewest tradeoffs possible. Best, Marshall
  7. >>It'd be more reassuring if he wasn't still telling people to file bug reports.<< Exactly. More user information is NOT going to help here. Nor is an endless search for some fundamental "key" to understanding the problem. It's like not wanting to do your homework because. . .The universe is expanding. This cries out for an empirical fix, not some ground-up "discovery." Austin's futile search for more data hinges on the assumption (fallacious) the X-Plane is fundamentally "correct" at all. The dirty little secret is that all flight modeling, all of it, is based on assumptions, and limiting conditions, and pragmatically allocating computing resources that won't be free or even cheap for decades of hardware development, yet. So the answer is, just fix it, whether it's theologically correct or not! Best, Marshall
  8. HamSammich

    PMDG 737NGX Handlandings

    There's a good (and heated) RW debate here: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/279544-t-speed-mode-landing-737-a.html Enjoy!
  9. I have a 3.5 Six-Core Pro with the D500. It's pretty dreadful. X-Plane now resides on my ugly, stupid, noisy, clunky monster Windows rig I built for simming. A shame.
  10. I heartily concur--with your assessment of the bad and the good. It seems we're all prisoners of Austin's enthusiasms, misconceptions (see his blanket statements about turboprops), and blind spots--for better and for worse. I think, though, that every software developer needs "An Austin." They just also need a normal human being for the other, more customer-facing aspects, of running a business. Remember War Games? "Remember when you asked me to tell you when you were acting rudely and insensitively?. . . You're doing it now." "Mister Potato Head. Mister PoTAAAAYto HEAD!!" Best, Marshall
  11. The A2A T-6 spins and even does hammerheads.
  12. I find it all unfortunate. Simulating a real and complex thing is hard. Putting something in front of the public is harder. Dealing with customers is tougher still. Do only two of those three things well and you've got something less than a fully realized product. Which can be all right, too. Just make up for it in other ways, like bringing developer and customer together in a community and giving each a feeling of investment in the other. Fall short on that, though, while charging big money for a product, and you've got a recipe for unmet expectations and ill-will. Hope that's not the case, here. best, Marshall
  13. HamSammich

    FF 757 v 2.0

    And I'll add that I think the plane is vastly better than 1.0 and shows much promise. There are a few glitches and oddities, though. Might be deal-breakers to some and not so important to others. We'll see what FF does with it. Best, Marshall
  14. HamSammich

    FF 757 v 2.0

    Jim, thanks for watching. Just heard from Rush, at Aerosimgaming, that a Twitch member named MissCopilot is a RW 757 pilot, and she's not too impressed with the flight model, either. But I'd love to hear what (if anything) specifically is not right--and what, if anything, can be fixed. Best, Marshall
  15. HamSammich

    FF 757 v 2.0

    Just bought it and have severely mixed feelings. So many gimmicks that come off, well, as gimmicky. I'm thinking of the oxygen mask with the hose that dangles, unconnected. Or the coffee cup that's out of scale. There are typos, not just in the documentation, but on the overhead panel text--e.g. "anti **colission** lights. OTOH, the FMC seems solid, perhaps best-in-breed. VNAV works well. Sounds are nice. Flight model is the big question. Others have already mentioned the RR thrust numbers when fully configured for landing are too high. In my own flying, I see what appears (to my amateur eyes) to be massive amounts of roll-coupling, such that keeping a wings-level crab and de-crab is well-nigh impossible. Just to set expectations, I've extensive time in the IXEG, as well as a lone, single hour in a Level-D 767 (not 757), years ago. And whatever BS small hours I have in small planes. So I know just enough to be dangerous--and stoopid. That said, my simmer's seat-of-pants raises suspicions. So does seeing how extensively Jan Vogel's RW experience shaped the the IXEG--and how different that is from this. In addition, knowing how far Boeing goes to maintain a "house feel" when it comes to flying characteristics, I'm left seriously questioning whether the real 757 could be as odd-feeling and divergent as the FF one is from "known-good-flying" other XP Boeings. I'd love to hear from RW 757 pilots on this. I will run the plane past a RW 767 and 777 skipper and see how he feels. Should be interesting. Barring that, my first impression is the plane's not much fun to hand-fly. Best, Marshall