Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Donations

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
  • Virtual Airlines

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thank you Al - your effects file does help in P3D4,5 - mostly by day which now looks reasonable. By night there are still problems with the lights not having any angle downwards and thus needing super wide light cones coupled with very high intensity in order to show the ground ahead. This, in turn, can still cause building wipe-out right to the top of hangers when you are approaching them. (The effect is worse in some sceneries than others. I've found). But I can live with all this a bit better now... Ariel
  2. I have reported this issue months and month ago, both in a post with attached pictures and also in another thread by someone reporting the same issue yet again. No response to either. I even asked WickedBacon if he would take a look at the issue before leaving his last recent textures exercise (he said he would, but clearly never had the time). For me it really spoils the Falcon, so yes please, I'll try the effects file. PM on the way. Ariel
  3. I too have not been in a real Falcon. However, one thought re. this:- The sound file that comes on with the battery power switch is called "FALCON_GYRO.wav", but despite it's name it isn't the sound of gyros running up, but is a just a faint power hum with possibly a fans sound. This could well be right, as the gyros themselves don't power on and erect until the inverter switches (AC power) are switched on - this is when you would expect to hear the whine of the gyros running up (they do erect visually at this point). I think someone might have forgotten to add a gyro sound to the visual effect. Being a gauge nincumpoop, I don't know if this can be done, but it would be nice. The battery power-on hum is very weak, even if that's realistic, so I personally have boosted the .wav volume a bit in my Falcons. Ariel
  4. I have already raised this issue back in March, using P3D 4.5, but with zero response. I thought maybe I was the only person in the world seeing this. It's certainly a serious defect for me. I also mentioned it on WickedBacon's thread (with examples), and he did say that he would take a look at the lights when he finishes the project, so I live in hope. Beats me why no one else has raised this if they have the same lights that I see. Ariel
  5. P3Dv4.5 HF3. No additional shaders etc. Dynamic reflections set to Low (if that's relevant). I mainly object to the way the Falcon lights blow out detail in the daytime, let alone at night. also the taxi lights illuminate high structures. Way more powerful than the Lear. See this link for pics (if it works - I'm not very good at doing this). https://www.dropbox.com/sh/8b01r0zmto3zkil/AADUQFtF95ItVOd9WOdCd3Ona?dl=0 Ariel
  6. Respect WB. Great work. Now, I hardly like to mention this, but... Any chance at all (when you've done the interior) that you could take a quick look at the exterrior dynamic landing and taxi lights? Get them more realistic like the ones you did on the Lear? I have raised this before, but Mark is way to busy with other matters to look at it, I gather. They are way too powerful and aligned straight ahead, lighting up the roofs of hangers across the airfield. It just gets to me, considering how good the rest of the aircraft is. I'll creep off now. Ariel
  7. As a follow-up, I have now tested a small tweak as suggested. As Jim's 250lb static thrust increase to the EX engines is 7%, near as word not allowed, I increased the thrust scalar to 1.07 as per Al's suggestion. I repeated my previous air test with the same weights and speeds, but will spare you all the data table word not allowed and cut to the chase. It felt much the same but the high level performance did improve. The climb rate decrease at high level was not quite so consistent this time - I held the 1000 fpm minimum up to 39,000 ft, and even (almost) to 40,000 ft, but it then fell right off the table. I could only crawl up after that, and stopped at 41,000 ft. So with a half fuel load my reasonably attainable cruise level went up from FL340/350 to FL380/390. At 41,000 ft in level flight and full power the speed crept up to a max of M0815, just below the barber's pole at M0845. The fuel burn at this time was 700 lbs per engine, which sounds ok to me. So I think this was a good result, and after reading what Jim B. said above, plus what I've gleaned elsewhere, I think it equates well enough to the real-world FA50. I shall stick with this small tweak anyway, it felt better. Thanks again for the advice, Ariel
  8. Great stuff Jim and Al - thanks. Lots of fun to be had now! (Wish it didn't take so long!). Ariel
  9. An interesting thread. Thanks - lots of good stuff. Like Al I have now done a flight test climb to see just where I would get to in term of realistic cruise levels with the current 2.0b model. I assumed a mid-range configuration with 50% fuel, two pax and their bags, so not too demanding. With regard to a realistic cruise level - the international ATC world assumes a basic minimum performance capability of 1000 fpm up or down - so I used that as the measure for the max cruise level. Of course (with special clearance) cruise climbs can take place at less than 1000 fpm, so I went on up to the point where the climb rate was less than 500 fpm and quit there, levelling out to test the max level speed. I show below a table of numbers that I noted on the way up, for what it's worth. I had to use full forward throttle max power from 27,000 ft upwards until the end of the test (!). Engine temps seemed to hold within what I think are the limits. My conclusion was that the max realistic initial cruise level was FL 340. With an assumed permission for a cruise climb I did get to FL380, but at that point I was clearly nearing the aircraft's service ceiling (an old term, maybe), so I levelled at that and waited for the maximum level speed . This was M 0.81, way below the barber's pole. So... I am full of admiration for what FSW has achieved for simulation on a home PC, using old FSX software as a base. The numbers are in the right range and I really enjoy flying it. Nevertheless, from what Jim says above I'm certain that we've gone from the original "way overpowered" to an underpowered version. The real FA50 may heve been a bit short of breath at high level, but considering the gross weight I used in this test the FSW version doesn't get there any more, at least for me. I hope this won't offend the builder of the last flight model - the fuel burn wasn't right before that - and the software is limited. But I would definitely like to trade a bit of the economy for a little more N1 power in the stratosphere! Ariel FSW Falcon 50 v2.0b Climb Test – short range configuration Gross Weight: 34,510 lbs. (3 crew, 2 pax, 300 lbs bags, 50% Fuel). Fuel Weight: 13,188 lbs OAT set by Active Sky P3D weather engine. Dep. AD elevation 340 ft. OAT 19° C All numbers as read from VC instruments (N1’s ± 1). Temperatures are Total Air Temp (TAT). Alt. TAT °C AP Mode Climb Rate fpm Av. N2 % Av. N1 % Comment 10,000 -1 ALT SEL + IAS (290 kts) - 98 99 IAS climb set 20,000 -24 2000 98 96 25,000 -36 2000 100 98 Power increase 27,000 - - 100 97 Throttle full forward (max).to the end 29,000 - ALT SEL + MACH (0.70) - MACH climb set. (290kts = M 0.70) 30,000 -46 1600 99 95 34,000 -52 1000 96.5 93 Realistic (normal ATC) max cruise level. 36,000 - 800 96 92 Slow cruise climb 38,000 -60 500 or less 95.5 91.5 38.000 -60 ALT - 95.5 91.5 Full power maximum level speed M 0.81
  10. Ok, fine, and of course it's good that the fuel burn is now more realistic. The question is, was the general Falcon performance (climb rates, service ceiling etc) way over the top before the mod, as you imply? Although I have time as a real-world military pilot in my younger days - I have never been in any series of Falcon, let alone the FA50 - so I'm just guessing. But it does seem to me that it has become surprisingly sluggish above 20k, and the climb rates have dropped noticeably. Compared to it now, the FSW Lear seems a hot ship. Any real-world Falcon jockeys out there who can comment? I don't have any detailed weight/temperature climb performance tables to do any worthwhile flight testing. Do you? Still like flying it however. Maybe I should try going off with minimum payload and fuel and see how high I can get... Ariel
  11. AS Gazzareth said, the last change to the engine power has caused a bit of a problem. It probably isn't possible to get it right for all parts of the flight envelope, but the the change to reduce fuel consumption at cruise levels has reduced the power available to the point where you can't get a reasonably high cruise level now. Overspeeding is a thing of the past in level cruise, and I'm frequently flying flat out at 100% N2. I preferred the previous high fuel consumption and more power available. Ariel
  12. I also see this blue effect in P3Dv4.5 (with dynamic reflections on). Is it the sky..? Ariel
  13. I also have found that there is a problem with the APU start-up when the start switch is selected to External Power. It won't work properly until the power switch is put back to the Normal setting. I'm sure that you should be able to start the APU when connected to external power (a GPU) - but in the Falcon I have to switch to "Normal" internal power first. If I don't, the APU sort of half starts but without the usual sound, as best I can remember. Ariel
  14. On this topic (vaguely) - I've never understood where the power comes from to switch on the instrument lights before the battery masters have been switched on... Graham
  15. It's been good getting the Falcon external dynamic lights in P3D4, but I wonder if they could be fine tuned a bit in a future update? 1. They seem very bright. In my P3D4.5 the taxi light sometimes "whites-out" big hangers hundreds of yards away, and is also visible by day. (This includes their roofs - see point 2). 2 The taxi light seems to be set parallel to the ground. This means that for most of the time half the light cone is only used for lighting roofs of buildings ahead (above). The bottom half of the cone is the only bit lighting the ground, so maybe that's why it has to be so bright... Maybe things would be better if the taxi light cone was angled down a bit, and I suspect that the landing lights also could do with a similar small adjustment. The brightness might then be able to be reduced a bit. As I know nothing about how this can be done I can't experiment to find out, so it's just my suggestion. The lights on the Lear seem to have got this adjustment and the light levels set more successfully, or anyway they work better for me and look pretty realistic. Thanks for all the other continuous update work, by the way. We really appreciate it out here.
  • Create New...