TedK

I'm running P3D V4.5 and just installed the MU2. The landing and taxi lights are so bright that they illuminate the ground and sim objects even on a bright, sunny day. I recall getting a fix for this issue for the FA50. What can be done to make the lights more realistic?

On 8/3/2020 at 12:31 PM, ark said:

Yes, you can try that potential fix in V4.5. Backup the original Falcon50.cab file as suggested above so you can easily reuse it if necessary.

I will pass on the landing lights issue to Mark at FSW so he is aware of your input.

Al

The new cab file worked fine. The breaks come on with the first notch and go back off when the switch is all the way up. Thanks!

6 hours ago, ark said:

Yes, you can try that potential fix in V4.5. Backup the original Falcon50.cab file as suggested above so you can easily reuse it if necessary.

 

Thanks, I will try that fix and let you know what happens.

On 7/31/2020 at 8:00 PM, ark said:

What sim?

If you have brake pedals they should release when you tap them after moving the brake selector into the #1 position.

Al

I'm using v4.5. I don't have break pedals. Haven't found a set that resembles realism, so rather go with none. I've tried using the (.) key and also the 2 keys I have assigned for differential breaking, also clicking on the parking break at the top of the panel, with no success. I see you posted a fix for Pilatuz but he has v5. Will it work for V4.5?

As mentioned before, the new landing lights illuminate the runway beautifully. Can the Taxi light be aimed down a bit? It's illuminating the sim objects more than the ground, even during the day. Thanks for your help.

Just downloaded the most recent update. I noticed 2 things:

First, the new Dynamic lighting is great when operating at night. Runways and taxiways look fantastic. The only thing is, the Taxi/Landing lights illuminate everything during the brightest part of the day. Bright sunlight and the Taxi lights are lighting up the side of the hanger and other objects like a nuclear blast. Also, you shouldn't be able to see the glow of the Nav and Strobe lights from inside the cabin during daylight hours.

Second, when moving the hydraulic system selector up (towards #1 On) it applies the toe breaks and locks them there until you reboot the airplane. I don't think that's supposed to happen.

Actually there is some type of passenger cabin modeled but you can see it only by using the spot or chase plane.

9 hours ago, polosim said:

Strange , because a have a QW B787 modeled interior 

 

 

I've seen those, They are add-ons. I would love to see someone come up with a private BBJ-type interior.

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-787-dreamliner-private-jet-kestrel-2016-6#the-master-suites-sleeping-area-features-a-large-california-king-size-bed-according-to-vella-the-suite-is-designed-to-be-an-oasis-of-silence-in-fact-the-noise-level-in-the-room-during-flight-is-just-48-decibels--on-par-with-a-quiet-suburban-home-6

Well, I remember a PMDG model from the past that did have a cabin interior. But I much rather spend a few minuets visiting a nice cabin than looking at myself from a spot plane. After all, one DOES occasionally need to use the forward head. And of course, the simple answer was, "no, they do not model a passenger cabin interior."

Wow. For 80 bucks I'd think you'd get a couple of seats. Wondering if they do this to save on fps.

I've used Google to search for this but can't find anything that answers my question. I just added the QW 787 to my hanger. Using the default QW livery. There is no passenger cabin interior; only a flight deck. No where did I read that's all you get. Is this typical of QW? Do the add-on liveries have interiors? It almost seems as if questions regarding QW passenger cabin interiors have been filtered out of all Google searches.

Thanks for the info. VNAV is most helpful for RNAV/VNAV arrivals with multiple altitude restrictions. Over the years I'm able to figure TOD in my head. Y'all have answered my questions. I wasn't familiar with Milvis.

Yeah, The default FMS in FSX will not go "direct to" from current position without deleting the entire flight plan, or it will attempt to join aroute from your departure airport or previous way point.

I was wondering about the VNAV function. That was another downfall of FSX. Also, a lot of add-ons FLC functions are unstable. They porpoise up and down trying to hold the IAS. Like the Flight1 Mustang, FLC porpoises under FL180. So it's useless on climb-out.

At least the Flight1 B250 has a reasonably functional G1000 unit. Carenado's is still piggybacked on the dysfunctional FSX nav system.

Not that I have noticed.

Anyone try this model out yet? The tutorials on YouTube are very poor quality. In the one video it seemed to porpoise up and down a lot in FLC mode. Wondering if the VNAV actually functions like the real thing? And wondering if DIRECT TO works correctly if the nav system is just piggybacked on top of the same old default FSX FMS system.  None of these functions were demonstrated in the video, so I am skeptical. I can't see spending $80.00 to find out.

Anyone try this model out yet? The tutorials on YouTube are very poor quality. In the one video it seemed to porpoise up and down a lot in FLC mode. Wondering if the VNAV actually functions like the real thing? And wondering if DIRECT TO works correctly of it's just piggybacked on top of the same old default FSX FMS system.  None of these functions were demonstrated in the video, so I am skeptical. I can't see spending $80.00 to find out.

Seems to be related to ORBX Open LC North American Lights folder. If you deactivate the folder the stuttering seems to diminish significantly.

I have 8 cores. I actually had better luck disabling HT and used affinity masking to have P3D run on cores 0,1,2,3,7 because those seem to be the cores P3d favors on my particular setup, leaving the 4,5, and 6 for system and misc. ops. I'm looking into the advantages of having a separate SSD for the add-ons. Don't know if that will help. There just seems to be a bottleneck when complex scenery loads. Especially approaching custom airports.

I can now add that I was able to rollback my Gforce driver to a point that would predate the start of the stutters. No luck. I'm thinking it may be a DirectX update that triggered.

It's under C/users/(your name)/App Data/Local/Lockheed Martin/P3Dv4    Be sure to not delete the faders folder in the main P3D directory. It won't boot without that one.

Well, I need to update my last post. The stuttering is back, but this time I've actually pinned it down to ORBX OpenLC North America. All the other ORBX add-ons work very smoothly. However, add OLC to the mix and stutters galore. Especially in heavily populated areas. I'm using only one monitor, have the latest hotfix for V4.5 and usually get 40-50 fps. I did the experiment with hyper-threading, adjusting this and that and the other thing, but no luck. All I know is it wasn't doing it a month ago. Can't wait for FS2020 to be released. P3D's platform (in my opinion) is the same old engine they've been using since FS9 but with 64-bit clothes on.

I had this issue as well. Seemed to appear after either a Windows update or NVIDIA driver update. Tried everything listed above. Only thing that worked was deleting the shaders folder and letting it rebuild on the the next bootup. So far, no more stuttering.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1dEC8VLRcmdREpR5IoUDe2InkGhnRL00u

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1yeEpMPkDuKd_dbtiqlxrMeOCRF6j3HEb

First photo: The real thing in CRU FL320 2-crew no pax

Second photo: Carenado's version. Situation duplicated right down to the OAT.  Someone decided 96.9 was going to be CRU power for anything above FL300. Thankfully, in the real world, it doesn't work that way.

On 1/21/2020 at 1:38 PM, FDEdev said:

 

 

You've got to love the forums. I can post a statement like, "Real airplanes are easier to hand-fly than the Flight Sim versions," and someone, sometimes a developer, but usually someone whose never flown anything more than a kite is going to take offense, and tell me I don't know what I'm talking about. Never fails.  And of course, they must have the last word in the thread. So be my guest.

In the 46 years following my first hour of dual, I (officially) accumulated 5,100 piston; 15,500 turbojet. I began flying at 14, soloed on my 16th birthday and retired on my 60th.

The M.71 came from referencing the wrong POH. My mistake. Listen, this bird is going to the hanger until Carenado comes out with V1.2. Too many bugs to be any fun. I have sent in bug reports. Let's see if they agree and fix them or just accuse me of "not holding it right."

I contacted a colleague who has extensive experience in an XLS and Excel. The majority of their company flights are between FL370 and FL430. FL410 would be the average altitude for East bound flights over 400 km. FL400 for West bound, depending on weather and winds aloft, of course. Average pax load is 4. He said "Rarely" do they ever have to pull the throttles out of CRU before TOD to avoid an over speed. He also flew the C750. He said that as long as you fly at the "optimum altitude" as calculated by the FMS, you could fly all day in CRU and never over speed. My only experience in light jet with FADEC is the C510, which is a very forgiving aircraft. Set it and forget it. Almost intuitive. Difficult to unintentionally over speed.

But I'm not interested in debating the FADEC issue any further. We can disagree and leave it at that. Life's too short.

Wasn't this thread about the Primus 1000?

1 hour ago, WarpD said:

I am the guy who did the flight dynamics, the systems and the avionics, including the FADEC for the Citation X at Eaglesoft... just so we're clear on my knowledge level.

FADEC ensures consistent thrust based on selected throttle position, regardless of altitude.  It does not control aircraft speed whatsoever.  Never has, never will.  If you are in the CRU detent, as has already been stated, that means the FADEC will ensure the engine RPMs are set to provide the maximum cruise thrust level.  This does not directly correlate to either VMO or MMO.

All of that being said... having not touched the Carenado XLS... I would not know what is right or wrong regarding it.. but I do know that most business jets (even the Mustang!) will exceed VMO at low altitudes with maximum cruise thrust.

Just so we understand, I've been flying in the real world for 45 years. I DO understand how FADEC works. I KNOW it DOES NOT control airspeed. I don't understand how anyone has interpreted my comments as to thinking otherwise. It IS designed to operate the engines at optimum efficiency for the power setting selected. Manufacturer's words; not mine. The EEC uses air density and temp as 2 of several factors in calculating optimum efficiency. And as I have previously stated, the Eaglesoft Citation X FADEC modeling performs exactly as it should (BTW, I hope Eaglesoft offers a P3D V4 udate). Given the same conditions in both your Citation X and Carenado's 560XLS, taking off at MTOW, climbing to FL400, and after achieving level cruise, the XLS will over-speed in CRU detent. After the climb it's probably down to 19,000 lbs gross weight. I have screens shots of a similar test made at FL450. By the time the fuel had burned off and the gross weight was around 18,500, it was over speeding at >M.74. Last night I experimented by reducing the static thrust from 3991 to 3800 and it performed, in CRU, exactly as per the published performance charts for Max Cruise. ~M.71. As for power reduction from CLB to CRU, it was less than 1% difference at FL400. Something like 97.3% in CLB to 96.7% in CRU or something similar. I don't have my notes with me at the moment. The XLS fuel-flow display is skewed. I have no idea what they're using as a measuring unit, but the fuel flow as indicated by the GTN750 was pretty darn close to the performance charts.