Sayuuk
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Sayuuk
-
-
I'd be really interested in some sort of bi-weekly get-together...
But rather than a fly-in, I think some sort of different tours - or a series, so that we are not limited to always start in EAFS - would be nice =)
The only thing you say in advance (the planner) is the speed at which you want to go (say 150kts, then everyone can fly whatever they want - Warbirds, Helicopters, GA, etc.) and the route (or you can just lead the pack)...
I think around 2h per flight are alright, but varying the speeds will introduce a nice conformity, but also it won't get too bored, because you fly the same plane all the time... =P
So, if you think you can fly your F18 at 150kts, you can do so. If you want to fly a (probably empty) 747 at 150kts, you can do so =P
Maybe we can talk about something like this when the RTWC is over.
Cheers, Stefan
-
Hi,
First I love to fly the Katana. And why not together.
I'm member of Ivao but I stopped, because of too many rules. DX10 problems. Not allowed to park a day online and looking around. Too many children and ... some aggresive e-mails.
What are the possibilities? And special with the Katana.
Regards
Karel The Netherlands
Have a look at this forum-part, over at avsim:
http://forum.avsim.n...ubs-world-wide/
I've never tried anything besides VATSIM and the A2A-MP sessions, but you should find something there!
Stefan
edit: Ok, now I had a look at those forums, they are pretty much dead...
I know aussiex has a "working" club, that flies regularly, but I'm afraid their hours are ridiculous for us Europeans... =/
I'd be all interested in a flying club, but with varying planes and sceneries =P
-
I had it also, but after I let repair the engine, I thougt it would be an idea to repair the "Elec.Comp." also,although it wasn't marked yellow. Now, there is no longer that "tick,tick" at 10-12MP... :-)
Cheers, Stephan
I'll give that a try, thanks!
Stefan
-
P.S.: Jetstream "Ferry" - although I'll try to edit in some extra fuel tanks, instead of annoying passengers ;-)
@34.000ft - almost the aerodynamic ceiling...^^ (assume 2 Pilots only, full fuel - no extra ferry tanks - pilots on oxygen, as the cabin altitude gets high): 2200+ NM range =)
edit:
"Long Range" version
#1 - additional ferry tanks (discontinued)
I added additional ferry tanks instead of passengers, meaning I used the stations normally occupied by seats (8.9 and -1.3 or something)
=> @24.000ft, 1040lb/hr@300kt TAS
==> 11h endurance, resulting in a range of around 3300NM
Now the tanks I used for the test were actually too heavy, I hadn't considered that FSX uses a rather heavy fuel-weight of 6.7lb/gal, instead of my 6lb/gal.
Also the J41 does not see the fuel - which is realistic - but since there is no way I can "crawl back" and have a look myself, and I'm not sure whether the engines would use those tanks anyway, due to the custom engine modelling by PMDG, I won't use this solution.
#2 - "enlarged main-tanks"
I simply enlarged the main tanks, assuming that one could feed the ferry tanks into the wing tanks and from there to the engines.
This time I used the correct amount of fuel, adding 250 gallons per tank, which - with 2 pilots only - leaves you with 150lb to spare to MTOW, enough for catering for the long flight plus some baggage.
=> @24.000ft, 1040lb/hr@300kt TAS
==> 8:30 endurance, resulting in a range of about 2550NM
OR
=> @32.000ft, 970lb/hr@300kt TAS
==> 9:00 endurance, resulting in a range of about 2700NM
But the range at 24k should be enough and it even let's you stay in the normal operating range of the pressure cabin =P
============================================
All ranges are absolute ranges, no reserves left.
==========>>>>>> The J41 should be pretty much the most complex aircraft (for now), that one can bring down there!
We'll see when PMDG releases their Dash 8, that should offer a pretty nice alternative, with a shoulder decker being more realistic to be used at the South Pole =)
P.S.: Now I've just got to do a Trans-Atlantic flight on VATSIM with this, although I can't fly Mach .8 ;-)
P.P.S.: Okay, you may continue with the original topic for this thread, I just thought I'd let you know ;-)
-
Everyone: It is hard and very time consuming to read all the off topic messages (perhabs there is at least one more sentence on the topic which needs to be answered by me?). It would be very nice if we all could concentrate on the Katana here.
The less time I need reading, the earlier the next DA20 Update, PC-6 or DA20 C1 can be finished.
Thanks a lot!
Does that mean the order will be DA20 Update => PC6 => DA20 C1? =)
-
Theres nothing wrong with the CS C130. How ever, on the other hand the A400, well thats a fugly aeroplane and doesnt deserve to be in any flight sim
2D gauges??
There are very few "exceptional" airplanes that look nice at the same time =P
I may have high standards regarding the looks, which is why the CS130 doesn't do it for me anymore... =P
http://captainsim.com/cgi-bin/imgview.pl?i=/products/c131/img/screenshots/vc/c131_8.jpg;x=1
-
And you will need something with better range to get you somewhere like Australia, I hear they dont get much snow there
If you refuel at the "edge" you can do the jump in a Jetstream... =D
No, I'm just saying. The Islander is too slow, an F18 is too fast for my taste ... =P
It's time someone did a nice Iljushin 18/76 or better yet an An-72 (or simply a newer C130 (or A400)) and you're set ;-)
-
Or the PMDGs J41. But anyway for flying around a whole continent I'd take something like the F16 or the F18. Everything else is just to slow for that task, or do you want to sit in front of your computer for 6 hours just seeing snow, snow and even more snow?
Yep, the Jetstream fits =)
If you don't like snow, you're on the wrong continent down there xD
-
Only problem with the BN2, its sooo slow, it would take for ever to get round Antarctica with it
Yeah... =P
Lovely aircraft, but it's barely crawling... ;-)
Don't get me wrong, nice for sight-seeing (for which there are better aircraft...), but slow if you want to cover something remotely resembling "distance" =D
Well, maybe the upcoming Q400, that should work =P
-
Hmm...
what I've been thinking:
1. Central airpark (like the original AF, only bigger), or maybe "regional airport", where you can change from your airliner/jet to something more "bush" =P
2. lodges/cabins in the vicinity, not as detailed as e.g. "Bear Gulch Aviation", but something similar... I think this would reduce the FPS issue, as the scenery is spread over a wider area + it would reintroduce the kind of individuality that my be lost in a huge airpark with ~200+ plots...
-
Strange, I didn't change the rudder trim tab meanwhile... the ailerons should work correctly witht he new version.
Then I probably didn't try bending them to the right =P
==> the tabs are still inverted, but that shouldn't be hard to fix, right?
Tab to the right => Rudder to the left
Tab to the left => Rudder to the right
-
1.1 Beta, in 1.0 I couldn't get the trim tab to compensate the movement at all. (althought I can't remember how hard I tried bending them the wrong way... =/ ) => I don't know if this changed with the patch...
Now in 1.1 Beta I can see (external model) that the trim tab moves as indicated on the settings screen.
However, they behave "inversed". Right now it is bent to the right and produces a moment to the right, which obviously is the wrong way around =P
I've got it pretty much under control now, finally =)
Flying is so much more relaxed now, only having to balance turbulence out and not constantly fighting against a "static force"...
Now if I had a basic autopilot in the VC, it would be really perfect ;-)
Cheers, Stefan
-
Are you using v1.0 or v1.1 beta?
1.1 Beta, in 1.0 I couldn't get the trim tab to compensate the movement at all.
Now in 1.1 Beta I can see (external model) that the trim tab moves as indicated on the settings screen.
However, they behave "inversed". Right now it is bent to the right and produces a moment to the right, which obviously is the wrong way around =P
I've got it pretty much under control now, finally =)
Flying is so much more relaxed now, only having to balance turbulence out and not constantly fighting against a "static force"...
Now if I had a basic autopilot in the VC, it would be really perfect ;-)
Cheers, Stefan
-
Finally...
I've always had the problem that the Katana tends to turn to the left on its own (normal, moment produced by the prop).
I had experimented with the trim tabs a lot, but no matter how far to the left I bent them, the plane was still turning to the left.
=> Is the rudder trim tab reversed??!!
==> The settings show how the rudder will be pushed, not the trim tab itself...
When I bend it to the right, it will compensate for the left-turning-moment...
Reality:
Trim Tab, bent to the left => pushes rudder to the right ==> right turn
Trim Tab, bent to the right => pushes rudder to the left ==> left turn...
AS Katana:
Trim Tab, bent to the left => pushes rudder to the left => left turn
%%
I'm very glad that I noticed this by accident, this will make my flying much more enjoyable, once I find a working setting... =P
Just thought I'd let those of you know, who had this problem as well..
Cheers, Stefan
-
It looks stunningly good Sascha. Take your time, I can wait. I wont get off the continent for a long time, once I get on it - from the looks of this. Fantastic work...
I agree. I've always wanted to explore the poles... =)
What plane are you goin' to fly there, btw?
The TwinOtter would be perfect, but the model is just too old by now... what (nicely done) alternatives do we have?
-
Hmm... I can't see what you see, but I guess that all depends on when you look...
Attached are comparison screenshots from yesterday night.
What I noticed though is that there seem to be (how do I put that politely) more younger controllers on IVAO... a lot younger, if you know what I mean.
On VATSIM you have the occasional youngster who hasn't been flying for long, which is perfectly fine.
But yesterday I had to listen to a pilot who had to explain the SID to the controller in a lengthy discussion... which is... weird...
Anyway, for the most part I don't care whether it's VATSIM or IVAO, as long as it is one of the two ;-)
-
Darn, I ought to have another look at IVAO then =D
-
East for me...
Altough I'd like the idea of a location on Hawaii, I think it is too remote to reach anything. You'll always need long-range jets for the journey to the mainland... (eastbound)
East?
Because it is closer to Europe =P
North/South?
I don't know... Florida would be nice, so would be the North, especially if someday OrbX does the Eastcoast, too =P
Florida? New York? Somewhere on the Keys?
I really like the idea though. And I believe it will be much bigger than the original. Many non-Europeans didn't buy Andras because it is far from where they normally fly.
If you give them the alternative of a similar project near their normal homebases, a lot might jump onto the train!
Stefan
P.S.: I think the plot owners on the original Andras field should get a little "memorial" of sorts, maybe plots (again, I think this could be much larger than the German version, so a few more or less won't matter) - if not for free you should give all the original owners a chance to get a prime plot without competition ;-)
(now why am I saying that... xD )
-
Stefan - Sayuuk? (Greenlandish???)
Great post. Nice valid points, and completely without bashing anyone. Thanks for this.
P.S. I am now more confused as what to think is the best, than ever...
No... more Germanish... =P
Sayuuk was my attempt on being English...
In the Homeworld saga there is a character (or actually two) that are called Sajuuk Khar and Sajuuk Khem. I thought - naturally - that it would be written with an "y" in the original version, which it wasn't... so that's left me with a nickname that's pretty unique (thought there are some others with the name now, but they weren't there "from the beginning"...)
Back to the topic:
My opinion is that we should try the VATSIM way. If we get it recognized and one of us (I'm willing to do it - hell I'm allowed to do it in real life, how hard can it be the virtual way... =P ) wants to "play controller", then we're pretty much set. No additional setup time for hardware required and pretty much set to go... if you have an event you might even talk to the VATSIM Germany guys in advance and see if they can staff the airspace around AF (from FL100 up).
You can even do the ATC without a radar client, this way it'd really be like in real life, where most of the small airports don't have any radar. The controller can basically sit in any airplane and do his stuff from there.
If that's not possible, I guess a Gamespy session would make the most sense. No additional software required and everything is built in. Couple that with a teamspeak server and we might get some radio communication going.
I mean, if you just want to fly VFR from AF or to AF you can just stay disconnected until there is nothing more between you and AF (airspace-wise) or you have descended below FL100. And if you leave AF you connect and as soon as you're clear you disconnect, you're flying alone then anyway...
I think most of those who say that VATSIM is too complicated have never really looked at the requirements. For pure VFR flight it's pretty simple.
I'd even offer a small orientation course (maybe on a bi-weekly basis) to introduce new pilots into VATSIM, explain the basics of traffic patterns, the software (Squawkbox) and radio communications.
Once you've tried flying online with VATSIM it won't compare to other solutions anymore, you should be hooked by then ;-)
Stefan
-
I was too late for the original discussion, so here come my VATSIM fanboy 50ct's now =P
(I'm not trying to "bash" anyone here... just my personal opinion)
First: why VATSIM, not IVAO
- seems to be the network more used in Europe (where AF is...), whereas IVAO seems to be better for US flying
- software is more integrated. One piece in FSX, nothing else needed (though I would indeed prefer "The Eye" from IVAO, awesome software! - for me the client in FSX is more important...)
Further:
- I don't think AF needs to be recognized by IVAO/VATSIM for the most part. It would be just like when you approach any airport and no controller is online.
- we could approach VATSIM and see if we can get an "Info" controller at AF (both Land/Water), the "certification" (which due to the very limited IFR procedures should be very manageable) could be done by ourselves (so they don't have to "waste" any of their ressources on a "fantasy"
==> actually AF is typical for many uncontrolled airfields in Germany (look at "Mengen, Schwäbisch-Hall, Donau-Eschingen, just to name a few).
- the only thing that would be really, really nice is a fixed frequency for AF (maybe we could even host the controller 24/7, so that you can use the frequency as a UNICOM when no controller is online)
Why at all VATSIM/IAVO:
- even if no one specific to AF is online, you're still not alone
- as long as you stay below FL100 it doesn't matter that AF doesn't exist in reality, there are enough uncontrolled airfields in Germany...!
- I think complexity isn't really an argument AGAINST one of the above. I think most of the pilots that want to fly multiplayer to Andras Fields are already involved in VATSIM or IVAO anyway
+ even if we host it on another platform you still need someone to control it (or you will crash into other pilots), which means that you need to talk to each other, which means that you will basically just learn those few rules that you need in real life anyway...
If you just want to fly VFR then the instructions are pretty simple & since it's only an "Info" station you would do most of your flying on your own anyhow, you would just get traffic information, weather information etc.
IF we can't get VATSIM/IVAO to recognize AF:
- we could still create a "private voice channel", pilots approaching AF & departing would need to contact the "controller" to be invited to the chat and it could go on as normal, takes a few seconds at most... much better than texting the whole time...!
Why not VAE/Gamespy
- not to hurt anyone involved here, but I think these solutions are more for special events. For general flights in multiplayer you need a lot more members, others who do not fly to the same field as you do, that's what makes it realistic.
Alright, I think that's enough for now...
Cheers, Stefan
P.S.: I just feel that Andras field is too empty if you fly in Singleplayer, but maybe some sort of an General Aviation AI-package could help there, plus some AES movement at the parking positions & in the airpark...
-
Every time I see the Katana I get more greedy
Probably won't be long before it parks in front of AF52, even though I am away flying the Cessna 185 in the foreseeable future..
Any others hooked just on grounds of the looks of it?
I was... then I bought it... now I'm hooked because it's awesome =)
Really, everything I hoped for in this aircraft class. Really nice depiction of an affordable GA that's not too shabby anyway... =P
It's like AccuSim in a modern plane =)
-
But in my opinion there are more important issues to worry about first, e.g the night lighting in general, which is too dark at dark hours. Probably I am just a fusspot...
I think the argument here was that the Katana is supposed to be flown only in VFR at DAY... (however weird that restriction may seem, most C152 can also be used at night...)
I still agree though. For me it's less about the light being too dark, but more about the color banding being tooooo prominent...
I know it's something about real light effects vs. bump maps, but maybe that's still something that could be enhanced.
My suggestion here:
- add another option to the lighting setting to switch the following off
- add optional gauge background lighting. this may be in RL restricted to modified Katanas, but should not be unrealistic
- add "lighted bezels" to the important switches
I'm not talking anything too exotic here, more like what you have in a car. If you use this kind of lighting you wouldn't need the "flood light" for the panel.
Btw, you can find a lot about Katanas being used for night VFR (not too surprising), so this isn't some "Sim-Kiddies" idea of a perfect plane ;-)
Diamond Homepage regarding Night VFR refit for the DA20
I'm not sure how tucked in you are in your developing future projects (I'm so looking forward to the Porter, a definite purchase =P ), and I don't know how much you consider this project "done" feature-wise.
But if you either can think about adding this for the Katana or could consider it for the Eclipse (together with an autopilot ;-) ), it'd be great.
Thanks, Stefan
P.S.:
One of the reasons why I'm so interested is that I love to fly on VATSIM. Now most of the time I won't be online before it's dark outside, leaving me with no other option (besides "cheating" the time of day) than flying at night.
-
Sure.
In real life I can do without an autopilot most of the time, at least in this small class...
But back to my 4-5h over-water legs. I really don't want to sit there and look 4 hours at what FSX thinks an ocean should look like.... ;-)
-
1
-
-
You can access autopilot with a simple modification to the aircraft .cfg, same as with many other aircraft. Hdg hold and Alt Hold suffice for lavatory visits.
Yep, and that's what I've done so far.
But for me it's more for those 4-5h over-water legs that are inevitable when flying around the earth, and I'd like to use only installed systems (meaning in the VC), not "cheat"-popups! =P
Gamespy server for Andras Field is coming
in Andras Field - General
Posted
Since this is done on a "real server" in-house, could you add a TS3 server as well? (just for this particular flying online, of course)
The advantage is that even if you drop out of Gamespy for some reason, voice will still work...
Shouldn't use much resources anyway...
Stefan