Jump to content

serviceceiling

Members
  • Content Count

    802
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by serviceceiling

  1. From a simmers standpoint. Yes. But realistically speaking there is not much sense in spending so much money, time and effort on the development of a dying species that is the MD-11. While it sure is a tremendous and iconic aircraft, it's very outdated and unefficient in this day and age. From a business standpoint it would be a much wiser choice to develop something that has a future, like the 737MAX or the 787 and maybe even the 777-9/8 since the system infrastructures are very similar. Rotatesim are working on a MD-11 for X-plane so anyone who really wants to fly one has the opton to do this in X-plane.
  2. Agreed. Flying an airliner on your own is highly unrealitic and infact illegal IRL. And while you can perfectly fly highly automated airplanes like the 777 on your own, even with online ATC, try doing the same in the 737 or 747 and you'll quickly find yourself "behind" tha airplane and heads down in the FMS or adjusting the airplane's configuration when you should actually be looking outside, flying, navigating or taxiing. I think I am repeating myself at this point but I do think that at the current time the Majestic Q400 is the holy grail of shared cockpit flying. It's a very accurate full system simulation with excellent flight dynamics and performance. And you really need two people who know what they are doing to fly that thing properly. Another option out there is of course FS2Crew but I find using it is rather odd, as you're just following a script and feel like you're talking to Siri, who doesn't always pick up what you've just said. One solution I found to work rather nice is the scripted FO in the AS busses, since you don't really need to do or press anything for him/her to go through the flows and checklists during the various phases of flight. Especally aircraft configuraton changes after takeoff, on approach or when vacating/entering a runway work pretty well and you can focus on flying the thing as a PF. So yeah, maybe the best solution for PMDG would be do develop some sort of AI copilot that does all the normal flows and reads the checklists. I mean, there already is an AI flight engineer in the DC-6. Just needs some more advanced code and algorithms to adapt to an always changing and dynamic environment.
  3. They better fix the flight model before anything else. The lack of pitch moment during power changes is kind of annoying. The 747 is much better in that regard.
  4. There should be performance charts in the manuals - just use those. All these new automatic calculation features really do spoil people...
  5. Can't wait to fly this beast all across Alaska and Canada!
  6. Given Dovetail's last Train Sims and the failure that was Flightschool, I have very little hope regarding this "Sim" - if you can even call it that. I fear it will be a semi-sim for the broad masses who expect state of the art visuals, like in today's latest video game titles, and would like to get into flying. From the footage I've seen FSW comes with aircraft from a well known GA aircraft developer. Those addons are solid but not very accurate or groundbraking. Compared to the stock FSX and partially P3D stuff, however, they are just fine. The UI that can be seen in the official FSW video is rather simplified and strongly reminds me of DTG's latest train sim (Train Sim World), which is visually stunning but horrible in every other aspect. The reviews and comments on steam speak for themselves. The game/sim is also highly unfinished, which will most likely be the case with the early access of Fight Sim World. However, all of this is fine as long as they keep developing and improving this new platform until it reaches a stable and workable state, which is always the case with new sims or software (P3D, Xplane, PMDG Products and their Sevice Packs). What I don't understand, is how DTG could legally prevent 3rd party developers from selling their products from their own stores? To me this just sounds like greedy CEO's writing contracts with their greasy fingers. Should this be the case then I don't see any quality addons ever coming to this new platfrom. In that regard I currently see the next versions of P3D and Xplane become the next platforms for everyone to work with. Mostly the former of the two, since it is developed by one of the biggest aviation companies and holds the most potential. FSX:SE might still remain as an "older" alternative until 3rd party software runs ahead and becomes uncompatible.
  7. Military manuals are some of the best out there! I used the free C-69 manual from the web to prepare for the A2A Connie. Worked like a charm and all the performance tables are pretty accurate too.
  8. Looking pretty good so far! The rims could maybe use some more dirt as yu won't ever see them that white in real life.
  9. He also stated it was "quite abruptly" which describes the bahaviour as well.
  10. Awesome! Can't wait for this baby!
  11. I know this might be asking too much and be a bit too late in the development stage, but would it be possible to add 3D passengers to the cabin, like was the case in the J41? Or would this simply be too high of a VAS/FPS penalty in a such bigger airplane?
  12. It is also the same in the 737 and 777, just a bit less apparent/violent. I don't the author of this topic was referring to the bank limit per se but to the actual initial roll rate when said changes to the lateral modes are made. The initial roll rate is a bit violent and excesive. The only addons I know of that behave smooth in that regard are the ones that have an external flight model (A2A, Mejastic).
  13. Yup. The same applies to larger heading changes, LNAV course changes or radial/loc intercepts. The AP in the 747 is quite harsh when it comes to turns. This seems to be a limitation of the fsx/p3d flight model.
  14. Sweet! Will be interesting to see how this one holds up against the A2A L-049.
  15. They are called care bears. No joking about the care bears please.
  16. Thanks for the explanation, Dan! I figured It might be something sim-related. Again, a completely external physics calculation / flight model would eliminate this, like is the case in the MJC Q400, as mentioned above.
  17. That's a weird one. What I've noticed with the 744 is that it tends to take turns (both in HDG SEL and LNAV) quite aggressively. The initial roll rate when intercepting a new LNAV course, VOR radial or chaning the heading manually is quite high. The weather doesn't play a factor here, since it's the same with no weather on. The 737 and 777 were a bit smoother, but even the 777 tended to take things quite harsh at times. The smoothest and most spot on LNAV or FMGS behaviour in general I've seen so far is on the MJC Q400. But that one has a completely external flight model, which is the main reason I assume.
  18. You're welcome. The good thing is that you can also have some "fun" with the sim itself once you upgrade to a better system at some point. On a sidenote, full names are required in this forum.
  19. You should be able to "run" it. The FMS is also available as a 2D popup in the 2D view, where the 3D Model doesn't affect the performance anymore.
  20. Well, the -8 is currently listed as an expansion to the -400 base packege in the Operations Center. I don't see it being a seperate product.
  21. Ok, that's an easy one. If AUTOSTART is installed on your aircraft (AUTOSTART button on the engine start panel on the overhead) then you simply look for N2 movement and oil pressure on the engine display before you engage the fuel control switches. The FADEC will then manage the engine start on its own. If however, AUTOSTART is not installed you'll wait for around 25% N2 or max motoring and then introduce fuel with the respective fuel control switches, monitoring the engine parameters until the engine is stabilzed. It's still a turbofan engine, there's nothing different about how it works on a 737, CRJ or A380.
  22. OR you can just use this version by John Tavendale https://www.dropbox.com/sh/q1p1jw0db7daw1u/AAA2T7uD_0CNRuKMBEKN7VJda/PMDG%20747/Cathay%20Pacific%20Cargo?dl=0
  23. Allright, thanks for the info! Also just found out that some operators have no restrictions concerning ETOPS/LROPS, or whatever you want to call it. I'll report back regarding the range.
×
×
  • Create New...