Jump to content

Bt103504

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Neutral

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    Other
  • Virtual Airlines
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

600 profile views
  1. Needless to say I'm thrilled that there has been such a positive response and great discussion regarding this topic. Hopefully someone at Asobo might bring these issue to a roundtable at some point in the future. I agree with @robert young that the friction model is simply atrocious. Luckily to some degree we had things like the latter versions of EZDOK in P3D that allowed you to tweak some of the ground friction instantly. Also in terms of with the Advent of realturb + EZDOK in P3D you also were able to get much better turbulence in sim as well. I know the criticism for this sim comes from a place of deep love and passion for this franchise (at least for most of us), but its important to keep in mind that this iteration of MSFS is still in its infancy. Personally I've never encountered a Dev that has been so transparent with the community about discussing internal projects and improvements that are being made. There is MUCH work to be done even Asobo has been clear about this, the good news is that they are actively working on it and are committed to long-term development. Back to the original topic. I'll do some testing today with one of the default aircraft tweaking. From what I gather Robert is that I should focus tweaks to following areas of a contact point if I'm wanting to fiddle with suspension (per the example you provided); 15 (max steering angle of nosewheel - note: optional value of 180 means it doesn't "steer" but is free castoring -useful for tail draggers) = entry #9 0.245 (amount of stiffness/resistance/rcompression of wheel when contacting the tarmac - low values stop tire from descending below surface when braking) = entry #10 1.33 (amount of travel in suspension or ratio of static compression) = entry #11
  2. Robert thank you so much for this extremely thoughtful and enlightening response. This is really helpful. Just to see if I am understanding the formula you are describing can u see if this formula is correct. Let's use one of the main landing gears with the following config line; point.1 = 1, -15.8, -6, -4.14, 2000, 1, 0.5, 0, 0.33, 2.8.0, 0.05, 0, 0, 2, 0, 0 If my understanding of what you discussed is correct then each of the entries (seperated by a comma) for this specific contact point would be described as below; point.1 = (type of contact point 0 = nosewheel OR contact point 1 or 2), (length relation to model center), (width relation to model center), (height relation to model center), (stress/impact crash detection value), (radius of wheel), (potential steering angle of nosewheel/tailwheel), (suspension stiffness), (extent of suspension traversal), (suspension inertia), (remainder of values are retract and deploy values of contact point) So in the example point above .33, 2.8.0, and 0.05 are the specific suspension settings that would need adjusted? Do I have this correct? Is there a way of doing this real-time in the sim? Perhaps in Dev Mode?
  3. I know Seb mentioned in the most recent developer stream that they are working on a much more comprehensive ground physics and airframe modeling for aircraft to help them feel a bit more weighty. But one thing that has bothered me since the sim has launched has been the almost RC plane suspension physics when it comes to landing, takeoff, or any sort of bush trip. I'm seeking a little bit of assistance on identifying where the suspension parameters live within the flight model cfg? I know I'm going to get flamed for this, but I bought and tested this product; https://secure.simmarket.com/illuminators-improved-physics-special-edition-msfs.phtml Yes, I know the dubious nature of the "publisher", which is why this is the only product I've ever purchased from them. I do have to admit, despite the physics being a little overdone, it does provide a lot more weight to the aircraft. I've searched high and low for how they seemed to accomplish the ground physics. All I've been able to find is criticism from folks saying "how dare they publish a product that is just flight model cfg edits that everyone already knows how to do" but then never elaborating on the how end-users might be able to make these changes themselves. I did use notepad and did the compare plugin to compare to the current flight model cfg's and needless to say there have been so many changes to MSFS since the product was released the effort seems to be futile in terms of identify the individual changes that were made. Would any kind simmer with knowledge of the flight model cfg files care to provide some insight? Are these adjustments to the contact points section? Or should I be looking elsewhere in the flight model cfg? Thanks all!
  4. I know this is a fairly niche inquiry but is anyone aware or heard anything about plans to improve the aircraft lighting. I'm a GA flyer mostly and the aircraft lighting (strobes and beacons specifically) are erm.... underwhelming to say the least. Almost impossible to see and incredibly faint anytime that is not nighttime. I think back how to A2A's Shockwave lights addon basically transformed the look and feel of aircraft lighting in FSX and I guess just miss that level of impressiveness, relatively speaking. Don't get me wrong I think Asobo nailed the beacons on the tubeliners. Does anyone recall hearing anything in any of the dev Q&A sessions about the aircraft lighting? Are the effects that are implemented currently just placeholders? It was only recently that we got ground/water effects so I assume that's the case but was curious what other people's thoughts were on this topic? p.s. I know there's a couple "lighting" mods out there on other sites but I haven't noticed those improving anything except for at night time.
  5. I would definitely be interested in seeing your settings for each of the filters used. Been using freestyle for a while but haven't been able to come even close to this effect!
  6. Thanks for your feedback ErichB. Unfortunately, I fly mostly GA aircraft as I prefer bush flying not big iron. Therefore light addons are slim to none with GA aircraft.
  7. Out of curiosity can the new light models/effects be used on the user aircraft as opposed to just the AI models? I know some developers tend to really miss the mark with lighting so I'd be curious if this was possible before buying the product. Thanks!
  8. Is anyone else experiencing the awful engine phasing noise when rotating around the plane in external view? Any solutions to this?
  9. My apologies @Jim Young I was not trying to suggest that Orbx was required to provided technical support for FSJ. I meant my comment as complimentary to them for including what files needed to be disabled in the Oahu FSJ island folder and Hawaiian Airports folder. I was more seeking clarification from the community here if there were any additional files that anyone discovered in the Extra Content Scenery folder from FSJ that needed disabled. Orbx stated that there are potentially files in the folder that need disabled, however some users are saying its not necessary to disable anything. Just seeking clarification as to people's experiences 🙂
  10. So I'm seeing lots of different information right now regarding the FSJ Extra Content Scenery folder. Has anyone found the need to disable any files in this folder? @DannyR you indicated you just reinstalled the the FSJ package. Orbx did a great job indicating what the files were in the Oahu island folder that needed adjusted and even the airport packages folder, but not so much the Extra Content Scenery folder. Looked at the forums on FSJ and they haven't been updated in quite some time. Any tips from folks here in the forums?
  11. Not to add more to your plate Umberto, but I was curious if GA aircraft support was still in the works for GSX level-2. Specifically GA aircraft support in terms of the animated passengers, baggage loading, etc. I know it had been mentioned as something in the pipeline for Level-2 development but was just hoping to check in and see if it was still actively being worked on or considered. Thanks!
  12. I wanted to chime in and share a few of my thoughts as well. I get the sense that the product will be released for the current gen Xbox and obviously will be compatible with the new Xbox when it is released as well in 2020. However, my understanding is that even current mid-range PC's can easily run the products currently released on this generation of consoles, at least that has been my experience. After watching the Microsoft E3 presentation and their emphasis on cross-platform support moving forward I have serious reservations that they would require a monster PC to run the new sim. I think there will likely be advanced features that users COULD utilize if they wanted, but so much of the technology that people are talking about (RTX for example) is still fairly expensive to the average consumer. I do think that there will be a "game" side to this that is somewhat similar to the Acceleration pack we saw in FSX. Perhaps a more modern take on some of these missions, after all that would be the path of least resistance for them. For simmers to completely write this whole sim off just because it is being released on a console is pretty sad. I really feel like the Acceleration pack, in particular, brought in a new generation of simmers into the hobby and that really helped grow the community exponentially. Lastly, I'm also not as skeptical that the footage we saw in the trailer was completely doctored (the hangar scene appears to be the most CGI of anything) but, if we look at the movements of the AI they still appear to be plagued by some of the same issues we remember from FSX (baggage carts driving through planes, road traffic driving through itself or into buildings). There's also very minor instances of texture popping. I'm more optimistic I suppose, but I imagine after seeing the explosive growth and popularity of P3D and X-Plane it wouldn't surprise me that Microsoft would spend a substantial amount of time developing a new sim. If they completely developed their own engine internally they would be perfectly capable of producing these types of results as they are not as limited as engines like P3D. I still remember when the trailer of the most recent incarnation of XP dropped everyone started making very similar comments to what I've been hearing now about MS Flight Simulator, claiming the footage is all CGI or not the actual sim etc.
  13. Does anyone know how to disable the damage or auto failures with this or the octopus-g aircraft? I know, I know, I SHOULD fly it correctly, but I'm a noob so any help on how I could disable it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
  14. Greetings Iceman. The general consensus of the community at this time is to create two profiles and uncheck cloud shadows (and any other sort of terrain/tree/building shadows) during for dusk/dawn/night flights. This will allow you to avoid this issue temporarily and easily switch profiles for daytime flight. Lockheed is aware of the issue and are "Working on it"
  15. Not gonna lie, I was a little disappointed with the stream. If you choose the automated announcements you don't actually hear any announcement. However, if you choose to make the announcement yourself there is also no PA sound effect either. These would be small but not able features in my opinion. What would be an even more cool feature is that if you made the announcement then PACX would play it back with a filter over it so it sounded like it came through the PA system on the plane.
×
×
  • Create New...