Jump to content

Emanuel Hagen

admins
  • Content Count

    9837
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

Everything posted by Emanuel Hagen

  1. Add to this that you have to encounter some very specific circumstances for the brakes actually to start smoking. The aircraft has to be near the maximum takeoff weight, reject very close to V1, etc. I've done a couple of rejects flying "the line" in the PMDG's, which simulate the brakes glowing red if they get really hot, and never I even got into that range. Let alone smoking brakes, melting fuseplugs, etc. It might be simulated in those aircraft, but even though it is and even though I did some RTO's, I've simply never encountered entering that range as it is the absolute extreme of an already very unusual manouver.
  2. That is not quite right Patrick, if done right a hand drawn groundpoly will look at a LOT better than photoreal. The developer simply has to put a lot of time and effort into it. Photoreal is very limited since the pictures are taken from high altitudes and therefore limited in their resolution. If a developer tells me about a 1cm/px resolution the first thing I'm asking them is: Is that the resolution of the groundpoly or of the photo you used for it? The recent trend I see with many developers is to use a quite blurry photoimage and then to paint some details on them. Looks rather bad if you ask me because the difference is easily visible and, at least for me, ruins the whole feeling and immersion.
  3. Sorry, no support given for the competition here.
  4. Your comment could easily be misunderstood, that's why mopperle answered the way he did. You might not have meant it that way but since written speach misses all non verbal clues you'd normally give in real life it is very easy to misunderstand, not to see irony, etc. Don't take it personal, just like I never took your comment personal because of the above mentioned issues writing in a forums. Regarding the documents you read, what exactly is a "normal" flight though? Airbus can give you the numbers of certain states of flight, however if you're kept high and need to catch up with the path you won't get anywhere following these numbers.
  5. If you manage to crash in 10.000ft then yes. If you're an extraordinary talent and smash it into the ground like that you can be sure it is a controlled crash. As a good old aviator saying says: The trick is, to crash in a controlled manner. The landing is good if you can walk away from it, it is perfect if you can reuse the plane.
  6. The descentrate will never bother the passengers. Deck angle and the rate at which the cabin altitude changes might, however it is a myth that the actual climb or descent rate would affect passengers. I regularly use at a deck angle of -5° and 5000fpm descent rate if I'm really held high and as long as the cabin altitude doesn't change too rapidly the passengers won't even notice. If your cabin is climbing or descending at 1000fpm, that the passengers will notice and complain about but what the aircraft is doing does not really matter to them at all.
  7. Do you mean this one? I don't see anything wrong with it.
  8. Ja, da hat jemand einmal zu häufig den Anker geworfen (und damit meine ich nicht das CRJ Projekt)
  9. Of course it depends on what rate is refered to. A rate of -400 can be normal depending on conditions while -700 as Eduard listed is too much. Well, it can happen, but it's rare. On the retard, keep in mind guys, it is a reminder, not a rule which is set in stone. Depending on conditions it might make sense to retard the thrust levers earlier or later. In real life on the jet I fly I personally find it can help a lot to smooth the landing out if you keep the thrust on a bit longer, if you're really low on energy all the way to touchdown (reduced of course, not the full ~60% the CFM56 normally gives you on approach. It's all a very dynamic situation and having the right feeling for the aircraft is crucial here.
  10. Maybe, let's wait until we get closer to release to see how things are progressing and whether it can be integrated immediately or whether it would hold up the project and thus rather get part of a service pack.
  11. If you want something for this summer I'd rather suggest you to go for the 747, it is a magnificant aircraft! Keep in mind though that in order to use the PMDG 747-8 you need the -400 base pack. You can get both of them in our shop: https://www.aerosoft.com/en/flight-simulation/prepar3d-v4/aircraft/2618/pmdg-747-400-v3-queen-of-the-skies-ii-for-p3d-v4?number=AS14575 https://www.aerosoft.com/en/flight-simulation/prepar3d-v4/aircraft/2594/pmdg-747-8-queen-of-the-skies-ii-expansion-pack-for-p3d-v4?number=AS14566
  12. Ein solcher Einblick wird kaum möglich sein da sich solche Dinge bei jedem Flug ändern. Es werden sehr sehr viele Entscheidungen basierend auf der aktuellen Wetterlage, Verkehrslage, etc. getroffen, welche alle für diverse mögliche Flugverläufe sorgt. An manchen Wochen fliege ich 3-4 Mal an aufeinanderfolgenden Tagen die gleichen Umläufe und trotzdem ist jeder Flug und jeder Tag anders. Pauschal gesagt für Köln-München wirst Du eine SID erhalten, dann im Steigflug zwischen 5000-10000ft einen Direct zu irgendeinem Wegpunkt innerhalb von ca. 100NM des Abflughafens erhalten, diverse Handoffs durch verschiedene Sektoren, die dich alle jeweils etwa 5.000-10.000ft höher freigeben (im oberen Luftraum eher 3.000-5.000ft), möglicherweise erhältst Du eine Steigrate zugewiesen (meistens 1000fpm or greater oder 1.500fpm or greater), möglicherweise auch eine Geschwindigkeit. Generell fliegst Du nur in den seltensten Fällen die geplante Route aus, meistens wird entweder alles durch Directs gekürzt (meistens bekommst Du schon vor Erreichen des freigegebenen Direct Waypoints schon wieder den nächsten Direct) oder es wird Vektoriert. Im Sinkflug bekommst Du in Deutschland meistens an irgendeinem Punkt die Freigabe "Descend FL240, 1500fpm or greater" und zwar weit vor deinem Top of Descend, so dass Du am Ende noch etwas in FL240 level fliegen musst, bevor es weiter runtergeht. Anflüge sind hier erfahrungsgemäß meistens per Vector an Stelle von STAR/Transition, eventuell fliegst Du noch den ersten Teil der STAR oder bekommst einen Direct zu einem Transitionwaypoint, fliegst einen Teil der Transition und wirst dann vektoriert. Im Final wahrscheinlich Speed Control, oft im Bereich 160kt until 4DME oder ähnliches. Wie Du siehst können so viele Variablen deinen Flug beeinflussen, dass es garnicht möglich ist, diese alle aufzuzählen. Auch wird in keinster Weise protokoll über jeden einzelnen Vektor oder jede einzelne Speed geführt, die man zugewiesen bekommt, daher dürfte es sehr sehr schwierig werden, einen genauen Flugverlauf zu bekommen.
  13. Nothing has been forgotten about, we took a close look at the need for a full 3D cabin and decided against it. A detailed explanation has been posted when the first previews of the fuselage have been shown in the past, the short summary of it is the follwing: Go to an airport and have a look at an aircraft. How much of the interiour will you actually see from the outside? Not a lot. The reason is that the cabin is so much darker than the outside that the human eye can hardly see anything inside. Therefore we asked outselves if it is actually worth the fps loss. And decided against it.
  14. Nein, Details dazu haben wir schon häufig geschrieben und daran hat sich nichts geändert.
  15. Even IFR you should keep your head out of the window. In class E airspace there can always be VFR traffic and even in C or D airspace there is a good chance to encounter VFR traffic. Keep in mind you still have to avoid that traffic if he's coming from the right, regardless of the flight rules. A 737 does not automatically have priority over a Cessna. One of the reasons why my airline wants us to slow down to 220kt or minimum clean speed in E airspace below FL100.
  16. There are so many more factors involved in real life like the weather conditions in the past (has it rained or snowed before? Is the ruwnay maybe already covered in ice/snow/slush, etc.), relative humidity, the actual runway (how easily can water flow off, what's the surface condition, etc.) and so on and so on, it would seem very hard if not impossible to actually use the variables available in the simulator for a fully realistic braking simulation. Generally: Yes, of course it is. The Boeing data package for the flight dynamics alone costs about 4.5 million Dollar and that's just the flight dynamics. Of course there are other aspects where P3D is also doing very well, if not even better: Mainly: Visuals! In a full flight simulator you don't need a lovely landscape, you don't need HD clouds, you don't need nice sunrises or sunsets, you don't need shadows, you don't need animated cars, people, etc. What you need is an airport looking like the one you operate into, a horizon and some mesh. Even that is usually on an FS2000 level however as that's all you need to show a pilot that there's a mountain ahead and if he comes close this is how the systems will react. My airline in fact only has our two main operating bases in our simulators in a highly detailed version (which btw has a lot lesser resolution than what most FS addons have nowadays) and the rest is just generic airports. Generic in these terms does not mean a default P3D airport btw, but simply a runway and maybe an adjacent taxiway. Apart from that, let me try to summarize and comment a little, but please be aware that these comments are mainly based on my comparably few hours spent in these simulators during my type rating: Flight Dynamics: A LOT better than P3D. When I say a lot I really mean a lot lot lot. And still shitty compared with the real aircraft Systems: Of course much more detailed than any addon available for P3D, X-Plane or AFS2. Even PMDG and FSL look like toys compared to a full flight sim! Yet many FFS's still lack behind the real aircraft when it comes to some tricks and hacks you use in your daily life. They're pretty damn solid however! Visuals: As described above. Weather: Again, a lot better, especially in terms of effects of the weather on the aircraft as well as the different weather phenomena, weather systems, etc. However: When I asked my instructor to do some max crosswind and full gusts training at the end of my last session when we had a couple of minutes left he only told me it would be negative training because the simulator would not even come close to how the real aircraft handles. And I probably have to agree with him based on even the lesser effects I noticed earlier on with weaker winds. As a final word: Keep in mind what those flight simulators (all the way up to the full flight sims) are. They are devices to train pilots in flows, SOPs, abnormal and emergencies. They are basically system trainers and they are not meant to replace any actual hands on flying skills. No simulator can replace good judgement and experience. And that you only gain flying the real thing. A simulator is there to give you a solid base of understanding how things work. It will give you insights into how certain situations might look like. Reality on the other hands side will always be different. One failure will never come alone and chances are things will evolve in a different way than in the simulator training. Look for example at that Southwest flight which had the engine separation in the climb at FL300. They got both, a rapid decompression and an engine severe damage (I believe a fire bell as well) at the same time. On top of that they had injured and, as far as I recall, even one dead passenger. The simulator might train each of these things at a time to give you an idea of how to handle those. In real life it is the good judgement of the crew, both captain and first officer, as well as cabin crew, which will lead to a safe and successfull outcome of the situation. No simulator can ever simulate that and in fact they are not intented to do so.
  17. I apprechiate why you would like us to point these mistakes out Peter, but I do feel that the person whos video we'd be commenting on might take it very offensive. Therefore please understand that neither myself nor any other of our advisory pilots would actually like to comply with your request.
  18. It is not just hard, it is impossible. People are thinking too much into those full flight simulators. During the type rating when you start on the fixed base sim you think"wow, what a great airplane to fly", then you go to the full flight sim and you're thinking "wow, that fixed base sim was really shit". Then you go to the real aircraft and..... guess what After half a year you then go back to the sim for your first recurrence check. And believe me, it'll be the worst flying experience you'll ever have, the thing handles so shitty, you will hardly believe it is actually simulating that aircraft you just collected 400h on. From your second RST onwards you'll then be given couple free takeoffs and landings by your instructor as they know how different it is from the real aircraft. This is of course just the normal handling of the aircraft. You can imagine though what the abnormals must look like. To be fair though: I do not want to get any chance to verify or deny this.
  19. Yes and no. Yes on a dry runway or on a wet (braking action good) runway. These are the two states P3D knows. No for a contaminated runway or any other braking action than good. The sim simply does not know about the many variations you find in real life. The sim only knows: Runway dry/wet. I find it interesting how some other developers claim their aircraft would react correctly for all kinds of runway states: How should their aircraft even know whether there are 3mm of slush or 6mm? Whether it's Braking Action Medium or Poor? Or Medium-Poor? Or maybe patches or snow or ice? Frozen Water on top of compacted snow? These are all options we calculate for in real life. Neither P3D nor any weather addon can simulate those. In my last recurrence simulator we trained for proper actions in case of loss of control if the runway state is different than expected. Part of that training was the effect of thrust reverse and brakes on a contaminated runway and on a frozen runway. Believe me, no high end addon on the market is able to show even remotely what happened there.
  20. The difference is QW and PMDG read directly from Active Skies memory however our radar reads directly from the simulator. This enables ours to work with all weather addons and even with default weather while QW and PMDG can ONLY work with Active Sky and not with any other weather addon. AS2012 did not incorporate the ability to simulate a weather radar at all, therefore they simply injected everything in the sim. If you use AS2012 you will therefore see it all on our weather radar. With ASP4 they no longer do this, now it all happens in the memory of the program instead of in the simulator and they pretty much only inject the direct weather at your aircrafts position. This causes trouble to all weather radars reading weather from the simulator. You will see the same results in the REX/MilViz radar which also reads directly from the simulator. In other words: We show you exactly what is in your simulator. Active Sky does not inject many parameters such as turbulence into the simulator but only injects them over some hacks when you actually reach the turbulent area. That makes it impossible to read it in advance.
  21. I like my aircraft clean for instance Most "dirt" I usually see on those I fly in real life is dead insects on the gear struts. Even on brand new aircraft (flown one which was 10 days old at that time!) the front of the gear struts is already covered in dead bees, flies, etc. Apart from that even in regular service our aircraft are usually kept quite clean. Most "dirty" paints in the community I find to look like they were parked on a boneyard for 20 years or longer. I am yet to see such dirty aircraft actually in passenger - or for the matter of fact even cargo - service.
  22. Based on my experience they work quite fine if you simply install them and add them manually to the scenery libary. Of course no support given but you can definitely use them.
  23. Depends on what kind of zoom level you want to use. I use a 44" screen and have no problems whatsoever seeing all I need to see.
  24. No since there simply is no visible wingflex on the real A320. This has been discussed a thousand times, for a more detailled answer please simply run a forum search and you'll find your answer. Followups on the A320 wingflex topic will be deleted.
  25. We use P3D radios, so whenever Lockheed upgrades P3D to support 8.33kHz ours will also have it.
×
×
  • Create New...