Piggles

Thanks Mark, will take a good look at your code. :smile:

Hi to all, not been on here for a while but back with questions once again. This is more of a LUA question but this seem the best place to post my query. I haven't yet got seriously into LINDA but I am playing around with some LUA Plugins handled by FSUIPC to get myself started with things. I've run into problems with toggle switches. I have at the moment 11 physical switches which are SPST - so either on or off. I'm struggling to keep these synchronized in FSX. They operate a start panel on Aerosoft's F3 Lightning. The following code works to move the switches up and down in the sim: while 1 do -- -- Prgramming Starter Panel Switches -- --Pitot Heater if ipc.testflag(0) then clearflag(0) ipc.control(65858) --Fuel Cock No 1 elseif ipc.testflag(1) then clearflag(1) if (ipc.readLvar("L:Lpcock1") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:Lpcock1", 1) ipc.control(66494) else ipc.writeLvar("L:Lpcock1", 0) ipc.control(66494) end --Fuel Cock No 2 elseif ipc.testflag(2) then clearflag(2) if (ipc.readLvar("L:Lpcock2") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:Lpcock2", 1) ipc.control(66495) else ipc.writeLvar("L:Lpcock2", 0) ipc.control(66495) end --D.C. Pumps Port elseif ipc.testflag(3) then clearflag(3) if (ipc.readLvar("L:Pump01") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:Pump01", 1) ipc.control(66340) else ipc.writeLvar("L:Pump01", 0) ipc.control(66340) end --D.C Pumps Starboard elseif ipc.testflag(4) then clearflag(4) if (ipc.readLvar("L:Pump02") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:Pump02", 1) ipc.control(66341) else ipc.writeLvar("L:Pump02", 0) ipc.control(66341) end --Battery elseif ipc.testflag(5) then clearflag(5) ipc.control(66241) --Cabin Air elseif ipc.testflag(6) then clearflag(6) if (ipc.readLvar("L:Lit01") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:Lit01", 1) else ipc.writeLvar("L:Lit01", 0) end --Instrument Master elseif ipc.testflag(7) then clearflag(7) if (ipc.readLvar("L:instsw") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:instsw", 1) ipc.writeLvar("L:oxy", 1) ipc.writeLvar("L:hyd", 1) ipc.writeLvar("L:gen", 1) else ipc.writeLvar("L:instsw", 0) ipc.writeLvar("L:oxy", 0) ipc.writeLvar("L:hyd", 0) ipc.writeLvar("L:gen", 0) end --Engine Master elseif ipc.testflag(8) then clearflag(8) if (ipc.readLvar("L:eng_master") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:eng_master", 1) else ipc.writeLvar("L:eng_master", 0) end --Windscreen Side elseif ipc.testflag(9) then clearflag(9) if (ipc.readLvar("L:Lit03") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:Lit03", 1) else ipc.writeLvar("L:Lit03", 0) end --Windscreen Front elseif ipc.testflag(10) then clearflag(10) if (ipc.readLvar("L:Lit04") == 0) then ipc.writeLvar("L:Lit04", 1) else ipc.writeLvar("L:Lit04", 0) end end ipc.sleep(50) end However I'm not sure if this is keeping in sink all the time and I'm ending up with switches that are appearing ON in the virtual cockpit, but act as if they are OFF! As windows can easily recognise if a switch is actually on or off, is there a way to code this in LUA so things don't get reversed? What would be really nice is to be able to read the state of the physical switches when FSX starts up and set the correct 'on' or 'off' value from the start. I'll just add the FSX controls used as it isn't always easy to read the FSUIPC values For the first six switches are: PITOT_HEAT_TOGGLE TOGGLE_FUEL_VALVE_ENG1 TOGGLE_FUEL_VALVE_ENG2 TOGGLE_ELECT_FUEL_PUMP1 TOGGLE_ELECT_FUEL_PUMP2 TOGGLE_MASTER_BATTERY The remaining 5 switches have no FSX control, using only Lvars.

I don't blame you for thinking they should be perfect, but the answer to your original post is that it is normal in reality that they are not. Most of these problems simply do not show up until the aircraft is in service, full of passengers and being used on a daily basis. I doubt if anyone who bought the A380 expected some aircraft to develop cracks in the wings soon after it entering service, it happened though and that is reality. If you read about the A380 you will see this was a fault that appeared in the aircraft design more than a decade ago - airbus laid the blame entirely on the competitiveness of the industry, they felt obliged to reduce the weight of the aircraft, they used hybrid metal/carbon-fibre ribs which was less than a proven technology at the time and they paid the price (well actually in several cases their customers did!). Similar problems occurred with this constructions in the Euro Fighter and also gave problems early on because nobody knew at the time the best way to make a good bond between the materials. Now it gets to the bottom of it all. If the industry did not demand cheaper to buy and cheaper to operate aircraft to maximize their profits, the manufacturers would not feel obliged to push the boundaries so hard. In all, it is the customers who fuel these issues, so they really should not be moaning about it when the designers and manufacturers push the boundaries and goof up. So taking that down the line a step further, it is the passengers wanting the cheapest air fares that drive the airlines to demand from the manufacturers the cheapest and lightest aircraft. This pushes the industry in one direction - innovation. If you have innovation then you have unproven technology. It would be perfectly possible to build a perfectly reliable aircraft using yesterday's proven technology. But what would be the market for an overweight, under-powered, expensive and fuel hungry airliner? With a background in Engineering I can see the appeal of Lithium-ion batteries, lighter with more energy. Having seen what happens to them when they are damaged or overcharged, personally I would not have taken the option of fitting one in an aircraft (other than an RC model lol). They can literally burst into flames giving off huge clouds of noxious fumes and heat. The fact Boeing opted for them, would suggest they were pushed on the weight budget to keep the customer happy. It has back-fired, but it will have one of two results. 1) They fix it and lead the industry with the use of Lithium-ion batteries 2) They go back to the old style battery and the customer suffers the weight penalty Either way no big deal. There is no doubt the 787 is a superb plane. I just hope Boeing are not seriously damaged by the current bad press and are allowed to get on with business as usual.. (normal!) If you think Boeing should have tested the batteries more before using them, they conducted over 1.3 million hours of testing before deciding it was safe to use them on the 787 and further tests so they could use them under special condition under the FAA rulings. It's just Murphy's Law that the things started to play up as soon as they were used in the real world.

Try a search for '737 grounded' in Google or '767 grounded' Lots to read. So following the pages and pages of hits on Google, grounding starts to look pretty 'normal' or at least common. There seems to be a bit of a media circus over the 787, yet there really is nothing different to usual, other than the amount of coverage the teething problems are getting in the world press. Which just makes me wonder what the agenda behind it is. The FAA have acted as they would with any aircraft showing numerous issues. Which is what keeps flying relatively safe - because it is normal for aircraft to have problems and develop faults before and after they enter service, as the Google searches will reveal. If it wasn't, there would not be an entire system in place that allows them to be grounded until ADs are complied with or the fault identified and rectified...

Sounds perfectly normal to me. If we have hundreds of people working on hundreds of components and systems we can't expect to get everything perfect. Are there any aircraft in the air that are actually perfect as opposed to being extremely complex machines with extremely competent people working to keep them working most of the time? Have we not had airliners that flew around with a built in fault for a decade or more before enough deaths prompted action? Do the companies count lives in cash, yes they do in reality. Flying is about risk management. If anybody thinks it is about no risk, they are blissfully unaware of reality which can be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective! Have to agree with the mechanics stories, such as the lump hammer that was left behind an inspection panel and was bouncing around the air frame doing all sorts of unnoticed damage until it was picked up on a routine inspection I was told about..

I would go for both, but a particular aircraft I've purchased recently was let down by poor interpretations of the systems/instruments which really spoils it, despite the graphics and overall representation being really excellent. So I think systems and instrument modelling just has the edge for me. One could live with it but when a main reference instrument is of a completely different type and performs so badly as to affect the simulation experience it gets really annoying. It's not that I found it difficult to find documentation for the aircraft in the public domain either, so if one looks at cost per unit, whoever did the VC could have at least read the easily available pilot's notes or flight manual or even taken a quick look at previous versions of the aircraft for flight sim, which got the representation correct. The other main reference instrument for this particular plane simply left out several modes and simplified others, what a shame considering that for most of the mission one is going to be staring right at these two instruments.. So nice graphic please but a reasonable amount of research into how systems/instrumentation operate. It might only affect the more hard core simmer in many cases, but you can bet they will be the ones looking at your products still in 6 or 12 months rather than moving on to a different hobby. Quite rightly too they will be the ones to complain loudest about faults or omissions in a product. So not making them happy but cutting a corner for no reason other than a lack of research doesn't make good economic sense. (This particular developer has now lost my trade on 3 other products because I checked more carefully before purchasing, and similar issues appeared in each product from feedback I was reading). For most aircraft I would at least hope to be able to follow the real world start-up and shut down sequences and not find obvious things like the avionics master switch miraculously relocated for no apparent reason other than someone thought it was a good idea to use real world location for a switch to flip the yoke on and off grrrr! Get the systems right and I might overlook the graphics a bit, but I don't see why the effort can't be put in to get a good balance of both and make a superb product.

The 1 in 60 rule is so you don't have to do trig in your head! It comes from small angle theory and allows one to set a new course to the destination. I prefer Standard Closing Angle calculations, which again were derived from small angle theory. It is not so good for low speed (It's a fast jet thing really) but can still be used for light aircraft (with fudge factors if required). Worth taking a look at for those interested. (I won't attempt an explanation of the calculations as Google is your friend with this one!) The idea with SCA is that rather than giving a new course to the destination, it returns you back on your planned course with a revised ETA. A good idea if you are negotiating terrain or airspace. The calculations can be done before you fly as an example the standard closing angle at 100 kts (TAS) is 36 degrees. Which is useful because as soon as I get in a plane even 2+3 seems like a bit of challenge to me! So one would have a magnetic heading of say 172 degrees. Then you find you are one nautical mile off track to the left, you need to turn right to regain the track, the calculated SCA gives 172 degrees + 36 degrees = 208 degrees. Fly this heading for 1 minute for each mile off track and one will regain the original track and can then turn back on 172 degrees. A separate calculation gives that for each minute you were flying the SCA you add 15 seconds to the ETA. The great thing with simulators is we can try all these things out in a simulated flight and see how well they work for us. (Or not as the case may be!). In the real world and before a sim flight I calculate the SCA and apply the correction to each of my planned headings for deviations left and right (simple task in a spread sheet), that way it's there for me during a flight at a glance.

Another fan here of VFR navigation in single engine GA planes. I use charts, plan the flight from scratch, check weather, forecast winds, calculate times and the wind correction and go fly. I find doing all this reduces the difference between simming and real world flying, making the whole sim experience in light aircraft more enjoyable. GPS and RW - I always plan navigation in the real world the same way as above though for flights over the Channel or at night I will use VOR. I do carry a moving map GPS as a back-up. It really helps occasionally to glance at it and get quick confirmation that position correlates to where I think I am, I don't though 'follow the line' as I would rather be looking outside and to be honest with calculated headings and times I find navigation really relaxing and enjoyable. I've been a passenger once too often with PPLs fiddling with a GPS that they don't understand properly or isn't working properly (or how they expected), whilst I was looking out the window thinking ' why don't they just fly it the easy way'. So not for me a trap I want to fall into, especially not in the UKs crowded and busy airspace.(I do though find my moving map GPS with its CAA charts helps with situational awareness of airspace boundaries - so it's all about how one goes about using the device) I think though this is very much an environment thing, for a long distance flight across the US it might well be a totally different proposition to rely on the GPS more, so I respect different views on the topic.

Yep, real aircraft yokes have a greater degree of movement. So it could be said the more you have on your sim yoke the more realistic. For a lot of flying though you are unlikely to need the full range of movement as you only need tiny inputs, so for example your not likely to go much over 30 degrees of bank most of the time, you won't notice much difference with a more limited yoke. As said above full deflection of the limited yoke will still eventually roll the aircraft in the sim, the only difference is the yoke in your hand hasn't physically rotated as far before it reaches its limit of rotation. If I want to fly aerobatics or fighters, I switch to a joystick, they are much more accurate in my experience, but for sedate flying a yoke is great. If your simming and real world flying with a yoke, it might be worth the investment of a yoke with a large range of movement, personally just being aware there was a difference was enough for me. Generally try to remember that precise control inputs are one thing our current PC sims are not great at teaching, they give the gross movement OK though, so degree of movement of the yoke just becomes a personal choice and I've been happy to live with one that is quite restricted.

You might figure it out why it is such a common scenario - set the trim so the plane will take-off anyway, keep it straight with your feet.. and the 75 year old Grandmother with no previous sim or flight experience just took off all on her own. Your attitude that you were a born sky god certainly is enough to provoke a reaction from most experienced pilots, we've all heard it or seen it before. Yep it is that easy, now one can assume you would easily land a 737 on your own too.. You don't even start flying until you are on your own and things are not going to plan, doing a trial lesson with the instructor covering every eventually does not make you a pilot. Fortunately this thread has ended now with professional input as far as I am concerned. Anyone still continuing to try to win points or argue otherwise is getting nowhere in my mind. The answer was entirely predictable.

Let's just make it clear what my point is. The simmer knows on the sim how to set a transponder. Real world Pilots also know how to set the transponder. There is no difference right? Sorry yes there is a big difference. Your post I have quoted above documents it. You do not understand what happens when you operate the system. You know theoretically how it is operated (without actually I assume ever using one) but not what actually happens when you do. If you squawk 7700 - ATC will be trying to contact you. Not through the transponder, but on the coms radio, if they cannot get you on frequency, they will try others. Which rather negates arguments before that a PPL would not be able to find the PTT button on the yoke for some bizarre reason. Well lets assume they actually couldn't, ATC could, if not getting a response put out a blind call to the aircraft stating where the PTT button was.... Add to this they already know you have a problem, your heading, altitude and position - which makes the Mayday call all that much easier. They expect a Mayday call to follow the emergency squawk also, so you can be very sure you have everyone's attention. It is just one example of what happens when someone learns things in a sim with no background understanding, operating a switch or turning a dial is not enough to qualify as being able to fly an airplane. I can see though this thread will remain never ending. People join it and change the nuance of the discussion, then quote people out of context of the responses they have given. Suddenly one would not set 7700 because the aircraft is now on the ground being started by a simmer for a little jolly around the airfield - when at the time I was responding to the notion that a simmer would calmly jump into the left seat when the crew all drop dead for some unknown reason as if it was the most normal thing in the world and no big deal. With respect to all, this thread really is not worth more of my time. Fortunately I enjoy sims and I enjoy real world aviation, I have plenty of friends who fly for the airlines, I have seen plenty of people go from flying light aircraft to their first airline job. Not one of them has the attitude of some of the posters on this thread - all I can say as a new poster on this forum is I'm getting a pretty clear picture painted here. All the best, Gemma

Wow they are superb, thanks for the tip.

No it doesn't cost more - the hour I had cost £150 to hire the sim, a Warrior wet in the UK currently costs £170 per hour (obviously I am quoting my own flying club, you may find them cheaper elsewhere) - check the web they run the sims for the public at a far lower cost than for real training sessions. I assume it is better to have them up and operating than left standing for long down periods. You can pretty much sum up the thread with the line 'I would not bother with the transponder' I guess that particular simmer didn't realize that setting it to 7700 would light up the radar controller's entire screen to alert them to the 'hypothetical' (i.e. if I don't have a clue about it, it doesn't matter) situation lol.

I've got say the sniping between PPLs and simmers is far more entertaining than the OPs original post. As mentioned above by a few posters, I found flying pretty easy. Crosswind landings took time, partly because I had two instructors with different approaches to technique. In the end I realized neither were wrong or right, a combination of both techniques worked really well for me, with consideration that this might be modified for type. I don't know how much of that was simming experience, though I had only dabbled with it when I started flight training. On the other hand I've seen 17 year olds get in planes and fly them easily with no apparent sim experience. Some of those may have had parents that flew though, so it is hard to judge if it was really new to them. Still none of that is the same as jumping into the cockpit of a 737 with no previous flight experience and nobody in the other seat in an obvious emergency situation, well at least not in my limited mind frame. That is all it is about, nobody is trying to put down anybody, or make out flying is harder than it is. It is simply would simming only prepare you to take the controls of a plane in the air for the very first time all on your own? If as some posters have insisted it is all entirely theoretical, so what they are really saying is 'could I fly a CAT D sim' based on my ngx experience, sure you could, go book an hour in one and enjoy it! (It shouldn't cost much more in the UK than hiring a light aircraft for an hour).

Happy New Year everyone! I have a roller blind presentation artificial horizon from an EE Lightning. It wasn't long before I started to to take it apart and see what was going on inside. At this stage I've removed (and stored) all the original solid state circuitry, The plan (at the moment) is to use the original servos and lighting of the unit. For several reasons I'm not keen to swap them out for DC servos, I don't want to replace all the servo motors, some are in very tight spaces then there is the consideration of the torque involved to move some fairly involved mechanical drives in the instrument. There is also a certain neatness to the concept of keeping them, all the original circuit boards unplugged from what looked a lot like standard LPT/Parallel port style connectors, this leaves me with all the wiring and the servos in place to drive the instrument. So I am hoping to find a suitable PC compatible encoder/board. The unit also contains a Syncros unit, this I assume is for returning the position of the roll indicator (the whole assembly of the roller blind rotates to indicate roll). It would be nice to somehow make use of that too. So where do I start? I've been searching the web for information, some of the theory is beginning to sink in. At this stage an off the shelf plug and play solution would have a lot of appeal, but I'm not sure if there is one available for 3 phase 115v 400Hz servo motors? I will need to be able to control a good number of them too, there are several of these servo motors in this instrument, and plenty more to come as the project progresses. So any thoughts on what I should take a look at? I'm looking to run the instruments from FSX. I have posted this elsewhere on the web, though I've found with some of the specialist cockpit building forums one gets plenty of views but not too much in the way of replies.