Jump to content

Shadowfrost

Members
  • Posts

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shadowfrost

Shadowfrost's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Dedicated Rare
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

3

Reputation

  1. Unsure at the moment if this is CRJ related or MSFS (I will test additional aircraft in the near future) but I repeated the same crash under the same conditions twice. KEWR to KDCA. DCT BIGGY V3 MXE CLIPR2 RW19 transition route. Descending just under 10,000 following the CLIPR2 arrival and both times MSFS crashes. Could be MSFS will try with new cache and A320 soon and report back (~48 hours).
  2. Any comment towards what changed with the flight model? I'm personally hoping ground effect tuning, curious either way. No worries if the answer is not readily available, will find out soon enough.
  3. Yep I thought you were 100% serious with that statement so... fair enough.
  4. You are good, for simulation purposes, the vectors legs aren't really necessary unless you are flying with online ATC through a variety of options. If you are in single player you can just remove them or elect to fly the headings you would expect if you are familiar with the arrival/departure. You can usually, just bring the next waypoint up and replace the vectors waypoint without too much issue but you'll need to look at the arrival/departure yourself to see if that works. But if you are flying with an online ATC you need to keep it and you will likely get vectored at that point until final or until another waypoint. And lastly, you can elect to use a SID/STAR that doesn't have them or use transitions within a given SID/STAR that aren't vectors where available if you want to avoid that issue completely.
  5. I'm not sure how the 100 pilots and most piloting is done in the cockpit is relevant, no one is saying to model the sounds as they appear elsewhere (as far as I know, quote someone that is if you see it). I only mentioned that some people wish to hear the sounds in the cockpit with the headphones off vs the headphones on approach. Both perspectives are completely reasonable in my opinion. By no means am I asking Aerosoft to change their approach as that is unreasonable, but there is certainly a market through sound mods currently available and those available in the future (like the one being voted on) to better appease those that wish to have a "headset off" experience.
  6. Headset on being the key indicator of the philosophy at work... I'd be curious to know what people's opinions are on the two main philosophies of sound design. One being modeling the sound as its heard with a headphone on and the other being to model a sound set with headphones off and the purpose of enabling sounds to compensate for the lack of tactile feelings from a simulation. To give the best example I can think of would be a WW2 prop plane, some sims model the engine very clearly and quite nicely over emphasize and balance certain elements to help makeup for the lack of feeling in a simulation but in actuality, being inside the cockpit at takeoff power it is just an overwhelming blanket of noise. Not quite the same problem as an airliner but its the best example I have of the creative choices that can be made. And I don't mean to highjack the thread, but if you are looking for a sound mod there is a good one (in my opinion) released at the moment that has a different philosophy to aerosoft's current modeling which you may prefer. Though it does have some minor issues, I prefer the over emphasis on certain items compared to the current approach but your mileage may vary. I would say the above examples are the two more or less most common approaches for sound design as an end result I've seen in the simulation industry technicalities aside.
  7. For reference, autopilot disconnect is set to low sensitivity. Description of the issue, if manual, counteractive yoke inputs are applied while the aircraft is in V/S mode, the autopilot has a habit of incorrectly following the flight director afterward in a dangerous manner. Scenario to recreate, lets say you are descending from 20,000 to 7,000 feet at 280 knots at a 2,000 fpm descent V/S descent and you forget about the 250 knot limit (at least in the U.S.) at 10,000 ft. At 11,000 feet you pull back on the yoke to reduce your speed to under 250 knots while the aircraft's autopilot is commanding nose down and will increase trim to counter manual inputs. In doing this manual input, you will disrupt the autopilot for future descents. Now completely disengage the auto pilot, trim to a neutral setting and re-enable the autopilot for a -2000 V/S descent. It will be unable to follow the flight director's commands in the vertical speed settings and initiate a significantly higher dive than commanded. If a -2000 V/S speed, I've had it reach -5000/-7500 before manual intervention. For reference, the holds/manual interventions are in a range of 10-30 seconds so while the appearance initially is that its correcting to a -2000 V/S descent rate overtime, even if that is the case, it appears to be more drastic than appropriate. After some testing on my end, it appears the longer you counter the autopilot it will correct more harshly. I am able to recreate the harsh corrections successfully but the lasting affect after autopilot disconnect/reset is more difficult and troublesome to recreate in testing. Edit- Also, I do understand there is a simple pilot based procedural fix for this problem (don't counter the autopilot with the yoke) the fact that at times it has made the autopilot unusable for the rest of the flight is the concerning matter.
×
×
  • Create New...