MatzeH84

Not my decision.. I'm just testing

Issue number 1 is known and came up with the last update, where the switch was changed from 2-way to 3-way (as IRL). This was obviously overlooked during 2.6 beta. Should be an easy fix, and as Al pointed out, I would expect this one to be fixed with the next update. The AP thing is currently being worked on, and a solution to improve the overall IAS/ Mach/ IAS switching is in sight. Mark is currently working on the Falcon most of the time however, so at this point there is no timeline for a next update (I would have some more recommendations for it).

This is strange. Even without the jet pumps about half the amount of fuel should be gravity fed to the wings, the lower half needs the jet pumps in 2.6. What is your saved flight when you start up the sim? It should be a standard plane with everything shut off. The fuel system works as intended for me..

Did you flip the according switches in the audio panel?

For 2.6 we tried to simulate the fuel system more accurately. Unfortunately it's not well documented. So let me shed some light on this: Fuel from the tip tanks can be gravity fed to the wings until the tips are about half full. For the lower half the jet pumps are needed, as internal obstructions prohibit any more fuel from being gravity fed. This is correctly simulated. So the jet pumps will not starve an engine when shut down, as they are only used for transfer. The standby pumps only come into play during startup and if an engine driven pumps should fail; there is no mean to verify their operation though, at least with the equipment simulated in this particular Lear. In the real world there is a retrofit option that includes lights in the switch assembly as a visual feedback that the particular pump is operating. The fuselage tank will fill up the wings only, and its pump will shut off automatically if the wing tanks are full. So when you select the switch to transfer, the wing is filled up intermittently, as the engines consume fuel out of this tank. So you will see the wing fuel level be staying full and the center tank decreasing. Normal operations should be: Standby pumps always off, jet pumps always on. Let the tips drain empty, then use the wing tanks. Once around 600 pounds per tank used, you can fill the wings back up with the center tank. If you are certain that you indeed loose fuel, PM me with the configuration you had and I will try to verify that behaviour. Always start your sim with a saved flight using a standard aircraft with everything switched off (as it is recommended you any advanced addon).

It switched directly from IAS to MACH without obviously being off for a noticable time. I will do further testing when I find the time.

What rates did you fly? I just tried with deliberate high power setting resulting in around 3000fpm and got the pitch up.

Yay, that sounds reasonable! I am running at 4.3GHz and with the Lear it's usually very smooth. On slower PC's that problem may occur more often.. I will try to make some tests tomorrow with a light airplane and different rates of climb. I think you have a really good point here!

Many thanks for getting back to me. Will update and see what happens to the landing lights. Speaking for ASN, there are freeware weather radars available, so I guess this information should be available somehow.. don't know about other weather engines though.

Many thanks, I will take this info to Mark and see if he might considers it for a future update.

?

Sorry for the late reply.. maybe I can convince mark for another update on the Lear once the Falcon is out of the hangar. What would be need in order to make volumetric nav/ strobe effects possible? I saw them in your 737 videos for example and they look amazing; the Lear would profit from such effects as well!

Yep, this happened when I told Mark to make it a 3-way switch instead of a 2-way switch. This must have caused a hickup with the announciator light (the sound is still correctly played). I already reported this to him, he likes to continue work on the Falcon for now however; the last update was quite a big one delaying further progress on this project. Before it comes up, we also tried to fix the pressurization system; the current one is based on the standard FSX model, and all inputs to the FSX-pressurization model are correct; the system itself however is totally unusable. Therefore, to make it work like it should (including a correctly working rate selector and gauge) a fully custom system would have to be programmed. This was a too big thing for the 2.6 update, however I will try to convince Mark to do it for the Falcon and then adapt it back into the Lear as well.

I had overall smooth transitions from SPD to MACH during beta, however the aggressive pitchup occured one or two times (out of 20-30 flights). I was unable to determine the cause of them, so it's not related to the OS or installation, it must be something within the sim.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLRK-OvV-YM Same aircraft, a much better video.. looks more beautiful in my eyes and still has the standard fin attached. I am currently working on this one, however I am rather desperate painting the nacelles and the transition from fuselage to fin..

Back to the immersion package, it's not as prominent as in the airliners with wing and engine vortices and stuff, but still a great addition. Mainly effects in wet/ low visibility and night environments are enhanced. I think if you fly the Lear much, it's totally worth it.

It will get even better

At the moment it will only show UTC. Local time is not supported.

As you also enhanced some of the lights on the Lear, is it planned to add ground reflections for the nav, but even more important, the strobe lights? On the Lear with its short wing directly behind the cockpit this effect should be really prominent I guess, and I can well imagine an effect where raindrops are shortly illuminated with every flash.

As I already stated.. depending what version of the Lear you are using: Up to 2.4 (RXP Wx radar) you can use the mod I provided. If you have the latest update to 2.5 and thus the MilViz radar in the VC, someone else may provide input.

It does. It will use hidden clickspots on the radar screen itself. With the RXP unit in the VC and the setup I provided for use with Roland's gauge, this will be the case. It should also work for the MilViz radar, but the coordinates and the size for the gauge will be different, so one would have to change those to display Roland's gauge correctly within the MilViz screen.

Until version 2.4 of the Lear it came with either the Flight1 GTN or the Flysimware GNS. THE WEATHER RADAR however was a 3D model based upon the RXP WX500 unit. Since 2.5 it changed to the MilViz Radar unit. So up to 2.4 of the Lear you can use what I provided, if you use 2.5 and on, this would have to be newly implemented and tested for the new MilViz VC gauge. Since I own the MilViz radar, I don't have to use Rolands gauge no more, so I won't have to integrate it there. Maybe somebody else can provide a working setup for this case. In case you want to show the radar inside the GNS unit (which wouldn't make sense, because a usable weather radar gauge is also provided and you would restrict your navigational capabilities), you would have to test on your own. In my setup you would have a working GNS, plus the working radar.

RDR_GNS will include a GNS by Flysimware, which is based on the internal FSX GPS. RDR_GTN will include the VC for use with the Flight1 Garmin GTN750. Both VC's will feature the Milviz Radar, in order to make it work however, you have to buy it seperately from MilViz/ REX.

The instructions are not correct. I posted a working setup for the older panel with the RXP gauge in the pinned thread. You must not use a VC gauge AND a 2D gauge. You may use either, but not both.

The rain effect shows fine on the recogs, but shouldn't the landing/taxi lights also show such an effect? BTW it would be amazing to have a blinding effect with the landing/ recogs on while in cloud or fog.. I recall you said that you are working on recognizing an 'in cloud' state, is this correct or is it something far into the future?