PAYWARE aircraft?????

[Gjalp]

Hi Dozer,

Ah, that might be it.....the review never really stated what "systems" were left out. The circuit breakers might be useful....so I have been told They only put one picture of the "pit" and left it at that.....although from what I could see it didnt look that inspiring.

back when I was running FS9 full time I stayed away from ABACUS for a reason, they werent that flash. I had a few PMDG planes but most of the planes i ahd I picked from the exhaustive list of freeware planes available. my favourite was the Hughes H-500 (it looked a lot like the D18s....), sounded great and came with a very nice 2d panel. It had a 3d pit but that really sucked and ate FPS like it was on a rampage!!!

Still, have been flying XP since ver 7 and have never looked back.....tempted though, but not enough to leave a great sim!

Slainte,

Andy

NZCH

[Dozer]

I have no idea how useful it is to have working circuit breakers in a simulated plane, unless perhaps if the rest of the electrical systems are modelled in enough depth that they can fail in violent ways and blow the circuit breaker. What do real pilots do with the circuit breakers? There's only 4 on the Pitts S-1 as modelled anyway.

The AVSIM reviewer really liked that aircraft; he says he was doing a Hammerhead, and stamped on his rudder pedals so hard they physically jammed full left. And his reaction was to see if he had enough height to recover, and then start going through his real-world glider-pilot 'about to bail out of an aircraft' drill - released stick, prepared to release canopy, and looked down to make sure he was reaching for his non-existent harness release and not the parachute ripcord! I would love to see what he'd make of Nils' Yak-55M...

[Ben Russell]

From memory; the Falco models a circuit breaker failure for part of the landing gear system if you give it a negative G kick.

Something to do with the nose gear strut actuating the motors and sending an eddy current or something. The real one does the same thing, Tom faithfully reproduced it.

And yes, you're right. Modeling "circuit breakers that animate" with no real failure modes behind them would make about as much sense as animating 5 million ash trays or drawers you can't put anything in. Windows go up, windows go down, windows go up.....

So... have a hunt around, Tom explained the breakers, a few users have been caught out being aerobatic and not being able to get the gear down without checking them.

[Dozer]

WOW - I did not know that about the Falco! 2d stock gauges on the panel notwithstanding, it is possibly becoming my all-time favourite simulated aircraft!

[Jack Skieczius]

I always valued AVSIMS reviews back when i flew in FSX. Having a well thought out review for a payware plane is a joy to have all together. I rather have someones opinion then none at all if i am going to spend money.

And for circuit breakers in the real world all i have to do is make sure they are all pushed in before we start the 172 up. I believe they are really used by the aircraft mechanics to test systems and take things offline like you would do in your house if you had to work on a part of the electrical system.

And talking about the Falco makes me wanna go fly her around. Maybe i will even review it come january. I remember flying the Falco online once and i must have done this high G Kick that kills the landing gear cause i came in to land and it wasn't down. Came in skidding to a halt right in front of all my buddies. Good times.

[Lukasz]

Circuit breakers are mainly for physical isolation of faulty circuitry or device. Think runaway trim servo for example, as such incidents and accidents took place before. That's why circuit breakers are usually mounted inside flight deck, gathered on easy to access panels, divided logically into several groups, so the crew can quickly find the needed one and assess the situation. Indirectly, popping out breakers are indication that something is wrong and in doing so, they complement warning lights panel.

Also circuit breakers can be used in double role, as both breakers and on/off switches, to save on weight, space needed and cost of using separate switches.

[tkyler]

The idea behind the circuit breaker simulation is simply to simulate reality, mostly in regards to failure simulation.  The Falco is a "stepping stone" in simulation that hopefully I can apply to more complex aircraft for those who wish to experience such reality.  The MU2 POH describes several scenarios in which the pilot must diagnose a problem and turn off relevant circuit breakers to ensure 'safe' operation.  Since it was my desire to simulate "reality", which includes realistic behavior during failures...then I wanted to simulate the electrical systems properly also.  Most won't appreciate the work that's gone into the circuit simulation simply because electrical systems rarely fail and they'll never notice it; however, I want it to be there anyway.  I pride myself on having features that people don't even know exist and may never know...but when it is discovered by the savvy, then folks will know that I go the extra mile for "real" reality...and not marketing reality.  The MU2 is in overhaul to a much higher level of reality than current, but probably will not incorporate the fancy circuit simulation until well into the V10 run, where I hope to have new electrical simulation options from Austin.

What is "real reality"?  As an example... a certain product out there allows you to change radio frequency with a click-drag like the Falco does...but the Falco radio frequency will "wrap around" during a drag like the real radio whereas this other product will not.  This is hardly noticeable by the end user, but one of those things where if I experience it in a real plane, it darn well needs to be in my products as best as technology will allow.

[Ben Russell]

Unlearning is MUCH harder than learning.

[Lukasz]

[...] but the Falco radio frequency will "wrap around" during a drag like the real radio whereas this other product will not.  This is hardly noticeable by the end user [...].

It is noticeable, along with similar "features" At least for anyone actually using COM and NAV radios, instead of "empty skies" & GPS "purple line flying". Popping out breakers were one of the reasons behind buying the Falco, among other, mostly technical, things.

[Dozer]

The idea behind the circuit breaker simulation...

Music to my ears, Mr Kyler, music to my ears. I think you can join Nils Daniellson in my list of Authors Whose Products Can Be Purchased Unseen!

[captaind172]

I don't care if someone charges for their product or not.  They'll only get what the market will allow.  For me, I have a high expectation for quality and realism.  I don't want junk thrown together and sold.  Some people really do like that; some people don't want to be bothered with all of the mess of firing up an airliner, and programming the FMS.  Many people just want to hop in and go.  If X-Plane continues to improve and grow in the market, we'll see more developers come on board.  You may eventually see some of the high quality MSFS developers start developing regularly for X-Plane.  MSFS has X-Plane beat right there; the developer community is large and strong.  You can make an argument for which offers the better flight dynamics, but some MSFS developers offer such excellent aircraft that simulate so many details, that people easily overlook that.  Beyond aircraft, there are also many third party programs that enhances MSFS even further.

I primarily use MSFS right now because of the experience that many of my favorite add-ons give me.  I love going through the motions of planning a flight, starting my airliner up from a cold and dark cockpit, programming the FMS and autopilot, and flying my route; even better with live ATC.  It's not the flight dynamics that draws me, I don't think a simulator will ever bet that good.  Many pilots who use those multi-million dollar sims say the flight dynamics are not spot on, so how can you expect MSFS or X-Plane to be?  it's the experience of the aircraft that I like the most.

I'm hoping for the best with X-Plane 10 and its developers.  It's looking fantastic, and some of these developers have some very promising products on the horizon.

[Dozer]

I agree completely CaptainD, in fact I'm about to do exactly that with the MU-2. I am/was a glider pilot (haven't flown for fourteen months. Fourteen!) and don't expect a synthetic flight simulator to offer anything comparable to the real experience of wandering about the countryside from half a mile above it, at least not visually. Which is why I'm not phased by X-Plane insisting on dropping the draw distance down to about three inches whenever I load any reasonably complicated aircraft.

The reason I moved to X-Plane from MSFS is that MSFS is dead; MS aren't developing it any more. X-Plane is growing (although how motivated is Austin to keep working on it now that he's made $millions from iPhone app sales?) and can only improve. And I reckon the transfer of users and developers between X-Plane and MSFS is only happening in one direction. I used to love flying aircraft with well-detailed systems in MSFS, which is why I'm excited by Tom Kyler's work here - he appears to have the same appetite for systems simulation. And the only developer I know of who's simulated the circuit breakers, and made it relevant too!

[hobofat]

Unlearning is MUCH harder than learning.

You would be amazed at how fast my students "unlearn" absolutely everything.  :-\  Although I guess it would be more appropriate to say they never learned it in the first place...

[dpny]

. . .(although how motivated is Austin to keep working on it now that he's made $millions from iPhone app sales?)

1) Austin was a multi-millionaire before any app sales;

2) Austin is driven by an engineer's pedantic need to make the best flight sim he can, and I mean that in the best way possible. If no one was buying X-Plane, he'd still be developing it for himself, because that's what he did in all the years when X-Plane's entire install base could've fit in a 747.

[Cameron]

1) Austin was a multi-millionaire before any app sales;

2) Austin is driven by an engineer's pedantic need to make the best flight sim he can, and I mean that in the best way possible. If no one was buying X-Plane, he'd still be developing it for himself, because that's what he did in all the years when X-Plane's entire install base could've fit in a 747.

I believe you hit the nail on the head there, Dave. Couldn't agree more!

[dpny]

1) Austin was a multi-millionaire before any app sales;

2) Austin is driven by an engineer's pedantic need to make the best flight sim he can, and I mean that in the best way possible. If no one was buying X-Plane, he'd still be developing it for himself, because that's what he did in all the years when X-Plane's entire install base could've fit in a 747.

I believe you hit the nail on the head there, Dave. Couldn't agree more!

it's Don.

I have some understanding of Austin because my dad's an aerospace engineer. Only, instead of programming flight sims he learns languages.

[Cameron]

it's Don.

Apologies, Don! A simple glance at your site would have suited me well before posting 'Dave'.

[Dozer]

Well that's very reassuring. I'm looking forward to X-Plane v14!