Jump to content

Emi

admins
  • Content Count

    10131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    110

Posts posted by Emi

  1. I kinda doubt it, you're among the first I remember to ask for an A310 ever since I'm in flight simulation and that is a couple of years now.

    The A300 back in the day wasn't much of a success either if I remember right. But who knows, there's a dev working on an A300 for MFS if I'm not mistaken, maybe they'll do an A310 afterwards. We'll see.

  2. 1 hour ago, safakcayli said:

     But also bring us smoothies for hand flying and smooth Flight director movement.

     

    The smoothest PFD is worth nothing if the whole sim lags though.

     

    I would not know any way to increase it manually. However, the PFD is programmed in XML, you can change anything you like manually. Beware though that no support will be given. So make sure to back the file up!

  3. It should be 18fps if I'm not mistaken, that's the best compromise between visuals and performance.
    I recall a couple years ago we tried increasing it but there was a substantial fps loss which was decided is not worth it.

    It's been a couple years but I believe for an increase to 30fps on the PFD there was a loss of about 5-10 fps in overall simulator performance.

  4. 4 minutes ago, Abriael said:

     

    You can disagree as much as you want, you're missing the point. 

     

    But first, let's address yours. The default aircraft are in general superior to default aircraft in any other simulator and not by a small margin. The bar is pretty low, but expecting more from default aircraft simply means not understanding what default aircraft are for. 

     

    While IFR and airliner simulation isn't at the point of maturity of other sims with hundreds of dollars in addons piled on top of them, it's already superior in many aspects to their default state. VFR simulation is superior to any other sim regardless of how many addons you pile onto them simply by virtue that VFR simulation is actually supported, which other sims simply do not, because they don't preproduce the environment with nearly enough precision. That's the whole point of VFR.

     

    While some seem dead set on preaching that "Serious" simulation is just IFR and airliners, that's very far from the truth. VFR is just as "serious." They're simply two aspects of simulations and one isn't more important than the other.

     

    We agree to disagree.

    The only part of VFR flying that is superiour to any other sim is the navigation. So what about flight planning, aircraft handling, ATC, etc.?

    Flight Planning: I am yet to find any planner similar to P3D's. Surely P3D's planner isn't the best, but at least you can do more than with the MFS planner.
    Aircraft handling: None of the default aircraft can be flown by the same numbers as their real life equivalents that I have flown. Nor do real life procedures have to be applied. In this aspect they are on par with P3Ds default aircraft.

    ATC: 1:1 copy, same unrealistic procedures. Not usable for anything close to real life anywhere outside the united states.

    You see, my point is: Surely MFS beats any other sim out there in the navigational part, but there is SO much more to flying than just navigating.

     

    You can simulate any way of flying seriously. But seriously includes all the steps and aspects of flying that you do in real life. Not just navigating.

     

      

    4 minutes ago, Abriael said:

    ncidentally, there isn't any "lack of SDK." The SDK exists. It's simply in progress and I'm rather surprised to see someone with an Aerosoft tag making such a grossly inaccurate statement. I hope it's just a matter of language barrier. This not to mention the fact that I'm fairly sure that it's very possible to create "something serious" at the moment, as Aerosoft itself is doing with the CRJ. From everything Mathijs has said while talking about the project, it seems to me a fairly serious piece of kit. Feel free to correct me if "serious" simmers need not apply, but I seriously doubt it, no pun intended. I really don't think only PMDG-level aircraft can be considered "serious."I

     

    Well, what is an SDK that can not be used worth? Nothing. That makes it a lack of SDK, doesn't it? Have a read in some other developers forums, PMDG, FSL, they're all saying the same. With the current SDK it's simply impossible to do what needs to be done.

    "Serious" simming is a matter of what you want to do with the sim. You can use for example the Aerosoft Airbus to practice exactly what is done during the first 4 sim sessions in a real type rating. Learning the SOP's. I tend to call that dead serious, training for a type rating. At the same time others will laugh at me if I tell them the Aerosoft Airbus can be used for serious simming.

    You only want to practice VFR navigation? Fine, MFS is a serious sim for that. No doubt. What simmers most commonly call serious is having to follow SOPs, with the consequences of not following them, while having to handle the aircraft "by the numbers" and of course having realistic navigational possibilities. In MFS I currently only see the last part.

      

    4 minutes ago, Abriael said:

    Now, to what define a "serious" platform. It's a platform in which the first-party developer and publisher invests enough resources not only to evolve it progressively, but also to expand and push the industry and with it the market. That's most definitely what MSFS is doing and what P3D isn't doing and has never done. 

     

    I agree to your definition of a "serious" platform, however the moment it actually becomes serious, for me, is the moment when you can do what in your personal opinion is a serious flight. And we haven't quite reached that state with MFS yet.

    They're working on it, but as many developers out there say, it'll be  year or more until they reach that point.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 1
    • Downvote 1
  5. 1 hour ago, Abriael said:

     

    I can guarantee with zero doubts that you're part of a vastly overwhelmed minority, so you may want not to cite "many, many," because it's actually "few, few" comparatively.  I thought it was clear by this point of the discussion that numbers do your argument no favor.

     

    Incidentally, MSFS is a very serious platform, and Microsoft and Asobo are a lot more serious than LM in both evolving it and creating a thriving business environment for third-party developers. This is clearly shown by the resources that they're pouring into the simulator, which LM can't even come close to match. That's what a "serious" platform is.

     

     I disagree. For now.

    MFS has nice visuals, but flight dynamics, systems, controls and so on are really lacking at the moment.

    The default jets handle like toyplanes, not even close to realistic. The props, while having certrain advantages over P3D default aircraft, are quite lacking as well, especially the avionics.
    MSF is about visuals for now, MS didn't care yet to add anything serious you could actually fly within the simulator. They wanted to leave that to addon developers. And they are probably right with that.

    The lack of SDKs however means that it's impossible to create anything serious at the moment.

     

    Gregg therefore has a point. Right now you can not do anything serious except maybe for procedural training (learning which button to press at what time) in the Cessna. And it'll be a while until you will be able to do anything serious.

    • Thanks 1
    • Upvote 7
    • Downvote 2
  6. 2 hours ago, Kristian1484 said:

    I've included a photo of what an instance of this looks like. I did not touch any controls, there is no weather application connected or anything. The speed of the aircraft randomly went into the VNE, the nose decided to pitch up and begin climbing.

    2020-11-16_22-53-16-652.jpg

     

    That's most certainly still an indication for a windshift. When you ran your test without weather engine, did you use default weather?
    The default weather scenarios also include windshifts. It most certainly looks like you're encountering one.

  7. 1 hour ago, robbyx said:

    Taking ages in my view compared to the other airports (Cologne to be released 1 month after preview for ex). Announced mid August showing a well advanced product from the screenshots and still not there almost 3 months later. 

     

    There's a big difference between converting (and of course enhancing) an existing airport and developing something totally new from scratch.

  8. 2 minutes ago, Christian Bahr said:

    Danke Emi 🙂

     

    Wobei man sich gerade die Frage stellt, wann der zeitpunkt erreicht ist, an dem man eine Szenerie veröffentlichen kann. Bis jetzt ging es nach wenigen Rückschritten gut voran und bis auf die Runway Lichter und die übrigen Flughafen Lichter ist soweit alles fertig für eine Veröffentlichung. Fehlt noch der Beta-Test, der die übersehenen Fehler ausfindig macht. Zuletzt ist es noch gelungen eine funktionierende Analog Uhr zu erstellen:

     

    Das ist in der Tat immer die gute Frage.

    Für Freeware würde ich sagen hast Du schon jetzt alle Standarts weit in die Höhe getrieben!

     

    Wenn Du noch perfektionieren willst, würde ich empfehlen an Apron und Taxiways noch etwas zu machen. Die Textur scheint mir sehr dunkel und die Variationen im Belag aus dem echten Leben scheinen nicht inkludiert zu sein. Ein paar Details mit Flicken, etc. wie sie im Luftbild von Google Earth zu sehen sind, wäre sicherlich auch noch klasse. Real ist der Flughafen ein einziger Flickenteppich. Da hat man sich kaum Mühe gegeben, ihn instand zu halten, weil da allgemeinhin davon ausgegangen wurde, dass er schon längst geschlossen sein würde.

     

    Das Gelb der Taxiway und Parkingmarkierungen müsste etwas heller sein. Du hast einen recht dunklen Orangeton getroffen.

     

    Beim Betatest kann ich dir gerne helfen, ich hab schließlich meinen ATPL in Essen gemacht!

    • Like 1
  9. 14 minutes ago, Der Merowinger said:

    That's not logical: The first release of an airport, no matter what kind it is, should be careful and responsable for somebody who will release his content later? Even if it was unknown of developing/releasing such later coming airport at this time?!

     

    Otto, everybody knows your point of view regarding Tegel; you meant this often enough, even in other forums. But please, be a little fair and objectiv: the second one has to care if another addon already exists, not vice versa ;).

     

    Well, see it this way round: WHAT IF they start using Tegels ILS frequencies in BER? Should BER *not* use those frequencies then because there is a Tegel scenery around? That's the kind of issues Otto means.
    Tegel will be closed in less than a month time, therefore if anything changes in real life that would create a conflict between TXL and BER, what should a BER developer do? Not implement it in order to not conflict with a non existing airport anymore?

     

    I'm totally with Otto here, BER should be done to its real life specifications. If that creates conflicts with TXL, it's TXL's problem. That airport doens't exist anymore. Those who realistically want to fly to Berlin will fly to BER and there is no reason why they should not be provided with BER's real life components.

    • Upvote 3
  10. Sehr beeindruckend Christian, die Szenerie wird von Mal zu Mal besser!

     

    Eine kleine Frage, Du hast natürlich Recht, dass das Stadtgebiet von Mülheim sehr gut abgebildet ist, wäre es aber möglich Landmarks und POI's, welche im MFS fehlen, mit deiner Szenerie zu ergänzen?
    Da fällt mir zB der Wasserturm ein, welcher einen wichtigen Teil der Platzrunde ausmacht und im MFS komplett fehlt.

    Die Modelle hast Du ja schon, sie müssten nurnoch platziert werden. Das wäre wirklich klasse!

    • Like 1
  11. I can't comment on all, but here's what I can comment on:

     

    19 minutes ago, lupa2 said:

    ND2 draws VOR1: In VOR ROSE mode, the F/O ND shows VOR1 and the associated course, so when flying raw data (I know, Airbus, raw data VOR?!?) you can't really properly identify waypoints defined by radial crossing.

     

    Known issue and leftover from the previous versions without the split displays.

    Small comment on the identification of radial/radial waypoints: You can use the needles for them. That's how we do it in real life as well, generally you fly by only looking at your own display, not that of the other pilot.

     

    Hi all

     

    So in general I've been enjoying the A330 a lot, it perfectly scratches the itch I've had for ages for a long haul Airbus. However I can't but help and notice a few issues, most of those are very minor but it still would be nice to see them fixed. These are in no particular order.

     

     

    • ILS course marker on ND ARC mode is off: It seems that when the ND is in ARC mode the magenta cross indicating the ILS course is sometimes exactly 100° off, other times a random interval.

    Known issue, on the buglist.

     

    Hi all

     

    So in general I've been enjoying the A330 a lot, it perfectly scratches the itch I've had for ages for a long haul Airbus. However I can't but help and notice a few issues, most of those are very minor but it still would be nice to see them fixed. These are in no particular order.

     

    • PROG Page EPE value computed incorrectly: The EPE (Estimated Position Error) value on the PROG page currently works like the cross-track deviation figure on the ND, however its purpose is to tell the crew how "certain" the plane is about where it is, and not how far off the route it is. If you have an FCOM handy, section DSC-22-FMS-10-30 should have the info you need

    The problem with this one is, you always know your exact position in flight simulation. Thus the number should always be zero. I agree the present solution is not right either, however it's at least something that prevents simply seeing 0.0 all the time.

     

    • Nav Autotune makes interesting choices: This one I understand if it's basically unfixable since the bug description is so weak, however on both my flights as soon as the approach phase activates the plane tried to tune a VOR near my departure airport instead of one near my destination, i.e. on my ZRH-ORD flight it tried to tune KLO on approach to Chicago

    Sometimes airplanes are just plane (pun intended) stupid. I agree it shouldn't be THAT stupid though.

     

    • RMP MIC selectors INOP: You can switch between MIC on COM1 and MIC on COM2, however only by first deactivating COM2 monitor, then activating COM1 monitor and activating COM2 monitor again. For us online pilots it would be nice to be able to switch the MIC over without having to go through that dance every time

    Limitation of the default FS com system. The whole com system is still very much default, thus having this limitation. The MFS version will hopefully no longer have such issues.

     

    • (This one is nit-picky) Traffic selector on non ADS-B in plane: You have modelled the traffic selector dial, however it seems that you simulate a plane without ADS-B in, I don't think that combination exists IRL.

    Sounds like a typical case of "we have it installed, but are pending approval from the authority. Engineers, do something that prevents the pilots from using it anyway!

    Half of my airlines CPDLC integration looks like this...

     

    • APPR PERF shows TA instead of TL: On the APPR PERF page we should be able to input a transition level, not a transition altitude

     

    This is actually a customer option on the real aircraft. The A320 series models the TL, the A330 currently the TA. I agree that TL would be the better option for the A330 as well.

     

    • SEC F-PLN sticks onto the ND until you select F-PLN: SEC F-PLN route drawing on the ND should only happen while any SEC page is displayed on the MCDU, and AFAIK only on the onside ND though I'd have to check that. Here it sticks around until you select (primary) F-PLN again and it draws on both the onside and offside ND.

    Could this be an older real life FMS version? I recall it worked like this on one of the testplanes I've been in. Sounds exactly like one of those things you could see "fixed" with an FMS software update.

  12. Hi Michael,

     

    you would need to do hundrets of flights to get the data you need. I'm not quite sure if you actually want to do that.
    Basically what you need is data for all possible weight, Speed, etc. combinations.


    Also you'd always have to test under exactly the same circumstances.


    Real aircraft manufacturers take months to draw these tables up (mostly done by computers) and only testfly a couple of them as crosscheck.

     

    What I'd rather recommend you to do, just to avoid thouasnds of working hours: Take an A320 CEO profile, run it through the aircraft BIAS tools and then use that data.

  13. 7 hours ago, FlorianWolf said:

    Gäb es da nicht die Möglichkeit einfach wie bei zürich die Afcad switchen zu können? Die mit AI Traffic könne die Heavy nehmen und alle anderen können dann quasi selbst entscheiden.

     

    In diesem Fall wäre es nicht so einfach mit einem AFCAD Switch getan, wenn ich mich nicht komplett irre müssten dann ja noch Jetways, VDGS und so weiter angepasst werden.

    In wie weit das möglich wäre, weiß ich nicht. Das kann vielleicht @OPabst beantworten.

×
×
  • Create New...