jonfrederickl

1.21

68 posts in this topic

9 hours ago, Iain said:

Before the end of the week :ph34r:

Before the end of a week, yes! :lol:

7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I too look forward to 1.21. I'm hoping the taxi and landing lights are going to be a little brighter. I recently purchased this plane and it's already my favorite. The excellent/ very realistic flight model makes it a real joy to fly for me. I couldn't believe how well CWS mode works. This plane is a marvel in my opinion. 

Edited by Shanwick
3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I too look forward to 1.21. I'm hoping the taxi and landing lights are going to be a little brighter. I recently purchased this plane and it's already my favorite. The excellent/ very realistic flight model makes it a real joy to fly for me. I couldn't believe how well CWS mode works. This plane is a marvel in my opinion. 

I hope for next release something more about the cabin doors opening.

This is the only aircraft where it isn't possibile to load passengers because the doors are always closed...

Inviato dal mio SM-G900F utilizzando Tapatalk

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/12/2017 at 7:10 AM, pinco58 said:

I hope for next release something more about the cabin doors opening.

This is the only aircraft where it isn't possibile to load passengers because the doors are always closed...emoji4.png

Inviato dal mio SM-G900F utilizzando Tapatalk

Didn't you get the checklist ? You have to say "Open Sesame "!! :rolleyes:

Happy Christmas ! 

Edited by danhenri
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me, if you fly real passengers around you sometimes start wishing for a plane that has no doors! :lol:

Cheers, Jan

8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/12/2017 at 6:42 PM, Shanwick said:

I too look forward to 1.21. I'm hoping the taxi and landing lights are going to be a little brighter. 

The taxi light and runway turnoff lights on the real 300 are not very good at all. This was modelled accurately. :-).

Craig. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shifty said:

The taxi light and runway turnoff lights on the real 300 are not very good at all. This was modelled accurately. :-).

Craig. 

Thanks, Craig.

I know that this point is hard to believe for the general public - just like the fact that "heavies" are not lumbering monsters that can bank at a maximum of 1 deg/minute, either ;). Especially since "other" aircraft circumvent this discussion by simply giving the customers what they expect.

Cheers, Jan

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2017 at 6:26 AM, Shifty said:

The taxi light and runway turnoff lights on the real 300 are not very good at all. This was modelled accurately. :-).

Craig. 

Once I heard that the engineer responsible for the design of the taxi lights in the 737 was a blind man. I never doubted the truth of the statement.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24/12/2017 at 4:56 AM, Omykron said:

Once I heard that the engineer responsible for the design of the taxi lights in the 737 was a blind man. I never doubted the truth of the statement.

Hello the Staff,

I absolutely agree for the landing lights and the low impact on the runway !!
More, I noted an bad value for the engines thrust ! Your value is for an B737 NG engines, like the 737-800 and not for the CFM56-3b2. Other issue: why the bypass ratio value is "blank" and the value for RPM 100% N1 too ? (please, could you too verify the weights and the SFC hight and low altitude).
I read too in this forum, the issues for PAX doors...not usable. Today, the plane is flyable and pleasant but not "fully real". May be it will be better after the issues corrections. Happy New Year for everyone !!:D

Windows 10/64 (1703)  XP11-11 (last stable version)

 

Edited by lafonta
-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I noted an bad value for the engines thrust ! Your value is for an B737 NG engines, like the 737-800 and not for the CFM56-3b2.

Looking at Plane Maker values tells you nothing. We use custom programming and source code that you cannot see at all.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The light values for the landing and taxi lights are accessible in Planemaker, and you can increase and tweak them to your hearts content, I think.

The engine values are a custom calculation that we do - the planemaker values have little to do with the thrust output.

Jan

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, lafonta said:

Hello the Staff,

I absolutely agree for the landing lights and the low impact on the runway !!
More, I noted an bad value for the engines thrust ! Your value is for an B737 NG engines, like the 737-800 and not for the CFM56-3b2. Other issue: why the bypass ratio value is "blank" and the value for RPM 100% N1 too ? (please, could you too verify the weights and the SFC hight and low altitude).
I read too in this forum, the issues for PAX doors...not usable. Today, the plane is flyable and pleasant but not "fully real". May be it will be better after the issues corrections. Happy New Year for everyone !!:D

Windows 10/64 (1703)  XP11-11 (last stable version)

 

La fonta, we have a complete custom accurate cfm56-3-b1 model possibly the most accurate engine mdel ever made in any sim! What you see in planemaker has nothing to do whatsoever with our model, so your «observations» are all wrong. This also goes for most other planemaker values you might find.  Also your observations about landing light intensity are all wrong.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Oops! I'm sorry. I doubted the quality of your product. If "Morten" says " the most accurate engine mdel ever made in any sim ", he must be right.
Thank you for your explanations.

2 hours ago, Morten said:

La fonta, we have a complete custom accurate cfm56-3-b1 model possibly the most accurate engine mdel ever made in any sim! What you see in planemaker has nothing to do whatsoever with our model, so your «observations» are all wrong. This also goes for most other planemaker values you might find.  Also your observations about landing light intensity are all wrong.  

 

Edited by lafonta
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't really say how close to the real thing the engines are since I'm not a 737 pilot, however those who are seem to like the flight model.

In any case I'd trust the explanations of the developers quite a bit more than some random guy's rants, whose only merit seems to be the ability to look up numbers in planemaker, without knowledge how they are used.

 

Edited by mfor
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, lafonta said:

Hi,

Oops! I'm sorry. I doubted the quality of your product. If "Morten" says " the most accurate engine mdel ever made in any sim ", he must be right.
Thank you for your explanations.

 

It's more than " says ". It's hours upon endless hours of test flights doing curve fitting against performance profiles.

Now, you can either post a long series of cross correlated test flights and prove us wrong, or you can take our much more experienced word for it.

2017, Year of the " Opinion ". They don't apply here. Bring facts.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, lafonta said:

Hi,

Oops! I'm sorry. I doubted the quality of your product. If "Morten" says " the most accurate engine mdel ever made in any sim ", he must be right.

Well, you didn't doubt, you jumped directly to a bunch of undocumented conclusions based on something we do not even use! Your PlaneMaker understanding also appears low. Your conclusion was it is "flyable" but needed your "corrections".  Sorry to jump on you like that but we take our engine and flight model very - VERY - seriously and we have now spent 8 years (!) refining it, still are,  and are very proud of it.  (Also I said "possibly", unlike you I did not conclude it was the best...)

The hardest part of making an accurate engine thrust model is getting the detailed information you need on the specific engine in question - and understand what you read!  It took me 15 years to finally get this.  (Austin after 25 years in the business still has not got this good information...) .  Detailed engine data is highly proprietary information that you will not find laying around on the internet or in books.  You need engineering manuals, engine maintenance data, FDR data, empiric data etc If you want a really accurate thrust model you need detailed information on all altitudes, temperatures, mach, N1 etc.  And we do...

So feel free to question the flight/engine model, but we expect any claims/conclusions to be well documented and not just an "opinion".  Off course in new XP versions things get broken, so if something "changes" from what it used to be we would off course like to know about it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, jonfrederickl said:

It's Friday tomorrow boys :P 

it´s Friday...again :lol:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now