Modeling, animations, sounds
All discussion and support on models, animation and sound.
480 topics in this forum
-
Pinned topics
-
- 6 replies
- 8451 views
-
- 7 replies
- 7540 views
-
- 3 replies
- 5092 views
-
- 0 replies
- 5395 views
-
- 0 replies
- 4818 views
-
- 0 replies
- 3566 views
-
Topics
-
- 6 replies
- 611 views
-
- 0 replies
- 160 views
-
- 0 replies
- 191 views
-
- 2 replies
- 293 views
-
- 2 replies
- 331 views
-
- 3 replies
- 472 views
-
- 0 replies
- 396 views
-
- 0 replies
- 409 views
-
- 1 reply
- 452 views
-
- 2 replies
- 498 views
-
- 1 reply
- 474 views
-
- 0 replies
- 553 views
-
- 0 replies
- 692 views
-
- 3 replies
- 665 views
-
- 0 replies
- 624 views
-
- 5 replies
- 904 views
-
- 7 replies
- 815 views
-
- 4 replies
- 742 views
-
- 0 replies
- 738 views
-
Posts
-
By Emanuel Hagen · Posted
I can only comment from my real life experience with the CFM56, not on an A320 though. In my airline we do a takeoff config check before we start taxiing where we push the thrust levers all the way to the forward stop and pull them back again in order to trigger the takeoff config warning to find out if we forgot anything. Doing this in other CFM56 simulations I always see the engine running up to about 40%, in real life they will hardly start to react, mostly not even react at all. Jet engines are very responsive at low altitude and thrust settings typically seen during approach, usually they react almost instant (say around 60%N1). In ground IDLE or at very high altitudes and lower thrust settings (below about 70% N1) you get almost no reactions though. I am yet to see an addon which would represent this behaviour really well. The stable call at 40/50% N1 is really a lot more meaningful in real life than it is in flight sim at the moment, even considering the highest end addons currently on the market. -
In that case you might haven't stated the setup of EGLL as administrator. Anyway, you still need to set the "Library Insertion Point" within "FTX Central 3" properly. This is mandatory when using Orbx/FTX Global products. -
By Mathijs Kok · Posted
I would not throw money at that. Your gain will be very limited. -
By Emanuel Hagen · Posted
Sounds quite believable however, especially if you did not have calm winds and zero turbulence. I was quite surprised how "bad" autolands can be in real life when I started flying airliners. They get by far not as close to what a pilot can do. And this is still talking about calm conditions with only a couple of knots. Keep in mind what autolands are build for: Foggy conditions with bad visibility and low cloud bases. Those are usually associted with calm winds, else the fog could not develop. If you have a very low cloud base and strong winds you would rather fly a monitored approach in real life than an autoland. I do not want to know what it would look like getting close to the operational limitations listed in the LVP checklist in the QRH or the Limitations in the FCOM. It sometimes really can smash it down onto the runway, a soft landing is not the goal of the system, the goal is to get the aircraft where it should be: In the touchdown zone, on speed and on centerline. And it will do everything it needs to adchieve these targets. At the end of the day it just remains what it is: A dumb computer which has to be closely monitored by the pilots. It is not a replacement for the pilots and it'll take decades, if not centuries, until it might become one. FIrst of all make sure to use it only when it's within the prescribed windlimits from the FCOM. If there's too much turbulence I wouldn't use an autoland either, those AP's just aren't trustable enough. If it actually deviates from the limits there is just one correct action: Go around! (or even better: Recover manually before it exceeds the limits) -
By Mathijs Kok · Posted
That's basically our point of view as well. You really need a 4k screen for it to start making some sense. On the other hand, if nearly all cockpits have it, it seems silly to leave it out. It's an open discussion in our team.
-