light_blue_yonder

*This may be the dumbest post on Avsim yet, but this is my true experience.* So, like most people with a mid-spec PC (see below for specs), I was struggling with FPS at places like ImagineSim Atlanta and FlyTampa Toronto. I figured that since dynamic lighting is FPS intensive, I should keep those sceneries on polygon lighting. In P3D settings though, I had to keep dynamic lighting on for the PMDG NGXu's landing lights to work as designed. One day, I went to the FlyTampa forums to see how to resolve the lighting polygons appearing and disappearing at certain view angles, and didn't come to a satisfactory conclusion. So for a laugh, I decided to turn on dynamic lighting and see just how close I can get to Microsoft PowerPoint. Except I didn't. At FlyTampa's Toronto, at early dawn in overcast conditions with Tomatoshade (i.e. FPS-intensive time), in the Qualitywings 787 with all the lights on, with all the terminal area in full view, I was getting a stable locked 25FPS. That is a solid 3FPS improvement from using polygon lighting. Not wanting to believe what I just saw, I moved over to ImagineSim Atlanta, spawned on RWY26R at dawn, in the PMDG NGXu with all lights on, and got the same locked 25FPS, another 3FPS improvement. Next one, FlyTampa Vienna, FSLabs A320. This one was not an improvement, since I had steady 25FPS before, but it didn't drop below 25FPS, again, at dawn. Now I am utterly baffled. Isn't dynamic lighting suppose to slaughter FPS? What is the explanation behind this apparent magic I'm seeing? In the mean time, I'm certainly not complaining about having better visuals with *more* FPS. Here are my important settings and specs: P3D AA settings: 2xSSAA (I find this better than 8xMSAA and doesn't slaughter FPS like 4xSSAA) CPU: i7-6700K (OC 3.7Ghz, HT off) GPU: Gigabyte GTX 1060 6GB (stock speed) RAM: 8GB Corsair Vengeance LPX 3000Mhz, single channel DDR4

I have actually read both of those posts; I just needed someone to confirm that my interpretations are correct. Yes, I'm that into this new ground physics model, don't judge me. PMDG has spoiled me into wanting more and more over the years. 😆 Thanks for the confirmation!

I have tried that, but I was also 100% certain it's a hardware problem. I have a new one on order since the Saitek isn't in stock right now for my area; I'm hoping this set will be better. I guess this is the inconsistency that has me concerned. It seems like for every person who had a bad experience, there's also one who had a good experience. If this set of CH pedals turns out to be the same, I'll go order a Saitek pair from another store who has them in stock.

I've recently noticed a new option in the NGXu where you can assign a separate tiller axis to the rudder axis and replicate the real aircraft controls. The next logical step was to dive into the 777 to setup the same system, but there was nothing there. I went through the PMDG manual, but couldn't find anything. Is this a feature that's available on the 777 as well or no? If not, is there any plan to bring it in a future update? Seems like a small thing, but I am absolutely in love with it! Thanks! Edit: I also scoured the PMDG update posts. It seems like there is a *major* update coming, with things like improved ground handling physics, etc. but no *specific* mention of this feature. Hence I decided to ask here.

I heard the Saitek Cessna line of products is very good, many problems just aren't present. Things like the deadzone on the Pro Flight Yoke isn't there on the Cessna Yoke, that kind of thing. The reviews have mostly been on the Pro Flight Pedals, the generic kind. I would go for the Cessna line, but it's apparently rarer than Russian caviar here in Canada. My wallet tops at around $250-$300 of the finest Canadian Rupies. I'm not poor enough to be unable to get a good pair of pedals; I'm poor enough to be scared of the post-pandemic economical crash. 🤪 That's why I'm limiting at around $300 for this one.

Hello everyone, I ordered a pair of CH pedals a week ago, and used them for a couple of days. In short, they were massively disappointing - the rudder travel has a huge deadzone in the left extreme of its range but not the right, and an inexplicable bump in the sliding action going to the right but not the left. I decided to RMA the unit and come here for an opinion. After that experience, the next logical go-to is the Logitech/Saitek pedals. The reason I did not go for that at first is because of the negative reviews regarding quality control and longevity. The problem is: those posts were made years ago before Logitech's acquisition of Saitek. Now that Logitech has taken over, has the quality control changed? For people who use those pedals, how do you find them and what's your biggest complaint? For people who used the CH pedals, is my experience a one-of? I do understand that at this price point, there is no "perfect pedal," which is precisely the reason I came here for the "lesser of the two evils" answer. I am also aware of the VKB, MFG, Virtualfly, etc. pedals. Those are well out of my budget when brand new. If anyone has a used set to sell, I'd be open for some pricing discussions, but otherwise, I'm firmly stuck in the low end of the price spectrum. Any inputs on these issues are welcomed; thanks in advance!

*UPDATE* Two more Q&As on another recent flight of mine on this topic. 1. How fast can you go on idle thrust? The flight departed from Beijing with a long wait in line for takeoff. I noticed we rolled a long time on idle thrust, so the question was asked. The reply was fluctuating between 5 and 6 knots at around 10 tons below MTOW. However, all three pilots agreed that a) it took a long time to reach that speed and b) the aircraft doesn't always do that on taxiways with even a slight slope. In fact, the captain said that when on idle thrust and heavy, the airplanes kind of lurch forward to a crawl when the brakes are released and then slowly coasts to a stop within half a minute or so (his guess), and you wouldn't get very far. 2. Does the aircraft slow down when taxiing with idle thrust? Again, at that MTOW, the general answer is yes. The higher the speed, the more it slows down. Again, the captain gave his experience saying that around 10kts it doesn't really slow down, it kind of stabilizes (again, varies with taxiways). Above 10kts it tends to go back to around 10kts, and significantly above 10kts, it sometimes slow fairly sharply, requiring the occasional burst of power to keep the speed.

Yeah, that's what I thought, don't they all use leading edge boots? I guess I'll have to go back to Yellowknife one day and ask a FirstAir ATR crew...

I'll just hijack my own thread quickly and ask why that is. I see First Air ATR's flying all over northern Canada where it's not famous for being warm or dry. They must have something to deal with icing.

Oh beautiful!! Exactly what I needed to see. Thank you! Speaking of the Majestic Dash 8, I do have it. It's a beautiful piece of software, but it scares the living word not allowed out of me... 😂 I'm using the Aerosoft CRJ to transition over to airplanes like the Dash 8. Hopefully I'll take my brave pills eventually and get back to the Dash 8.

Yes. That's what I really want to know. The "three shaft design" meaning one behind the propeller hub, one turbine shaft, and one power shaft concentric to the turbine shaft that runs from the turbine element in the rear to the gearbox in the front. I can't find any diagrams of this, so I have no idea. If that is the case, why not just make it a reverse flow? Seems so much easier to maintain and cheaper to make then a complicated concentric shaft system.

I just watched these, and from these, the intake/exhaust path makes sense. However, the first of the two videos shows the turbine only. From that video, it almost looks like it's a direct drive engine since the shaft appears to run from the first centrifugal compressor through the front of the turbine into the gearbox. If the engine is a free turbine, is the propeller driven by a shaft concentric to the turbine shaft? Or else how can the propeller shaft (the one running in-line with the turbine shaft, not the one behind the propeller hub, just to be clear) be geared off of the turbine when the turbine is the rearmost element of the turbine? I read online that the engine has a "unusual three-shaft design." I can see one shaft directly behind the propeller hub and one in the turbine. Where is the third one that defines a free turbine engine?

😬😬😬 Yes, of course. I have no idea how that went over my head before posting. Thanks for the correction!

Hello everyone, I don't know if this is the correct place to post this. Please forgive me if it's the wrong forum. I learned that the PT6 on the Q400 is a free turbine engine, but the external exhaust is in the rear. I, for the life of me, can't figure out how that works. Yes, the intake can be in front externally and run under the turbine to the rear and enter the turbine from there. But how does the exhaust go to the back if the space underneath is used for intake. If anyone can explain this to me, I will finally be able to sleep again. 😂

Makes sense, thanks! I guess I will have to confirm what the typical real world landing weight range is next time I fly. But still, leaving this post up just for the information at the beginning.

One more question: does this mean that the current 777 landing braking behavior is unrealistic? (In reference to the autobrake question.) Or does it simply mean that I'm landing a lot lighter than Air Canada typically does?

Agreed. I used to think that PMDG should've done it from the beginning, BUT now I feel like Lockheed Martin should be addressing these issues, not forcing third-party developers to do it. Anyways... just putting that stuff up there just in case anyone is wondering. I'm sure PMDG knows this and is doing something about it. They can't ever be fast enough though. 😉

*I know a lot of people have brought this up before, this post is NOT a complaint about the software.* Hello fellow captains, I know a lot of people have brought up the friction problem since the FSX days and continues to till this day. I managed to talk to an Air Canada 777 crew on a flight from Vancouver to Beijing about this, and I thought I'd share what they said. I don't remember their exact words and some things in quotation marks are paraphrased. These were the questions I asked: 1. How much throttle did it take to break away on that day with our weight? Captain's answer: "None, you release the brakes and it creeps forward." According to this captain, we were "really heavy" and "only slightly below max. takeoff weight." He said that yes, you do add throttle to start moving with that kind of weight, but you don't *need* throttle to start a creeping forward motion. Of course, if you don't add power, you probably won't go much faster than a slight creep, he added; he's never tried that, so he gave me the speculation only. Neither F/Os gave an answer. 2. How much power does it take to make the tightest possible turn and keep rolling? Captain answered that he always added a little power in a tight turn, because most aprons aren't 100% flat, there are almost always bumps taxiing into a gate that need a little power to overcome when the nose gear is turned to one side. Right seat F/O answered that at the end of most flights, you don't need any power to turn by following the taxi lines. You only absolutely need power when doing the overshoot-and-turn-hard technique (as he called it). The second F/O simply agreed with them and did not give any extra information. 3. When lightly loaded (I used their occasional YEG-YVR relocation flight as an example), how fast can you go on ground idle power in a straight line? Captain answered that he's personally never done it, the shortest 777 flight he's commanded was YYZ-YUL. He said exact weights vary, but you don't need power if you don't need to pick up speed quickly. However, in big airports like YYZ, he generally uses power to accelerate in a straight line to help the ground controllers out when it's busy. When you pull back to ground idle though, the airplane will continue to accelerate (fastest he's gone was ~30kts before braking). The right seat F/O answered that he's never done flights that short in a 777 and doesn't know. The F/O in the jump seat answered that he's done a YYC-YVR relocation flight and you don't need any power to taxi and the airplane does accelerate, albeit a bit slowly. He did not elaborate further. 4. What autobrake do you need to exit runway 26R at M6 landing at YVR? Captain said autobrake 2 or 3 depending on weight, because that's what they use at most airports not because he remembers exactly what they use in my particular scenario. I said I can exit on M4 (one highspeed exit earlier than M6) with autobrake 1 in the sim, he said that would be "unlikely." (Interesting how he didn't say that it's definitively impossible.) Neither F/Os gave an answer. Finally, the Captain added that what he said changes between the 200LR and the 300ER, but it's not immensely significant in real life. The jump seat F/O added that the training simulators they use also have this problem, but a previous airline he flew with used a simulator that ran a third-party friction code that was a little closer to real life. He did not give details on the airline, simulated aircraft type, or the name of the third-party code. I think the above information is fairly interesting and most of it contradicts the behavior inside the sim. That said, I don't develop the software, so I don't know what goes on behind the scenes. I'm just putting this out here and see if anyone finds this interesting. Edit: the whole conversation took about 5 minutes, so it wasn't an elaborate discussion about these things, just the rudimentary information shown above.

Oh OK, that makes so much more sense. So the current "problem" is basically PMDG trying a new, more dynamic, and more realistic system? If so, definitely looking forward to a new system where it completely bypasses the frankly terrible friction system in P3D V3.4 and below. Also John, do you have a friction modification or just the default Sim1.dll? What I'm finding is I need to keep the thrust at 23% on zero payload and low fuel preset to stop the plane from decelerating. According the real 777 F/O, this is the complete opposite of real life where you need to occasional brake to stop the plane from accelerating. You can my original findings in a FSUIPC dynamicfriction thread.

Hello fellow captains: I recently got back to the 777 in P3D V3.4 after being away. When I was taxiing, I noticed that the airplane, at zero payload and short range fuel setting, will stop rather quickly at idle thrust. When I was away, I asked a real life 777 first officer on breakaway thrust. He said that the aircraft, even at heavy weight, will start moving forward at idle. This is obviously not the case with the 777 here in P3D. I recall reading something about the rolling friction model and how PMDG intentionally made it so that the aircraft won't move without adding thrust. But shouldn't the aircraft keep rolling at lightweight with the throttle at idle if the frictional model is implemented properly? Is there something I'm missing, or is this legitimately an existing limitation that can't be worked around?

No one else on P3D v3.4 has this problem?

Yes. I already checked, I have everything setup correctly, the log is correct. This exact config worked before with the same addons before I left P3D. I searched up my issue where a registered FSUIPC running lua files properly is not working with dynamicfriction, and all the threads point to the changes to P3D V3 frictions the same way it's changed in V4.

Hello fellow captains: It's been a while since I visited P3D, and there were some major updates (i.e. V3.4 and its hotfixes). After I installed the lastest version of V3, I noticed that the dynamicfriction.lua stopped working. FSUIPC is confirmed to be working properly and can access SIM1 Friction Table. There are sources pointing to a change of the friction table, but no one has confirmed the fact. If there are changes, it's not detectable from using the simulator itself. So is there anyone who has insight into dynamicfriction and friction tables who can point out what exactly changed in the friction table that rendered the dynamicfrictions.lua file essentially useless?

Anyone still here? Not all over the 747? Good, I'll begin: :smile: I'm sure these are well-known problems, but I am requesting (and praying that PMDG will take the suggestion) a couple of features. (No, it's not opening windows, read on ) 1. Anyone with GSX knows about this: if the tug turns you when you have hydraulics powered up (as per FCOM vol.1), the nose wheel tiller will jerk around. I have read here: http://www.avsim.com/topic/451673-gsx-push-back-tug-vs-pmdg-777-nose-wheel/ that GSX does provide an option for By-pass Pin simulation. Please, PMDG, can we not have to live with USD$139.99 worth of jerking tiller? :smile: 2. Ever tried testing the rudders while taxiing? Anyone else wants the Majestic Dash 8-style tiller control, mappable to a separate axis? If Majestic can do it, why not have it on the 777? (I am not a developer though, it might be impossible.) Now, I'm not saying the PMDG slacked off on the 777, it's a fantastic simulation even as it is. However, PMDG has spoiled me into always asking for more. Any chance of this happening? (After the 747 is all sorted out after release.)

I managed to ask an Air Canada 777 F/O today. He says even with heavy loads, all he needs to do is release the brakes and the aircraft would move forward. In fact, we shut down one engine while waiting for a gate. Even with only Engine No.1, it didn't take that much thrust to get moving. So, yes, the lua file is fantastic and (as) realistic (as it gets) on the 777. Looks like that DynamicFrictions.lua is going back in!