Jump to content

Bank Angle Saab 340


Recommended Posts

I know this has been brought up before by others and you have advised it will be corrected with the next patch.

But due to not knowing when the next update will be released....

My question is is there any possible way to get a hotfix for this. It is truly a hassle when you have a healthy workload and your being vectored to intercept the localizer but overshoot it becsuse it doesn't even make a standard turn bank. So you bassically have to hand fly and more times than not I'll not be able to hold the proper altitude while trying to set up for a instrument approach lol. It's doable. But would be very nice to just have that one update now than later.

I'm sure others would agree.

Maybe for the New Year? : )

Figured i'd ask.

Thanks,

Dave. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 5 weeks later...
58 minutes ago, N1K said:

If you still have a 1.5 installer you can go back to 27* of banking goodness. 
I stopped flying the 1.5.1, that update created more issues than it solved.

I would be interested in a list of problems that you feel were created by the 1.5.1 release.

Edited by JGregory
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm probably overstating and being too harsh. The 1.5 version feels like it fly's and handles better for two reasons;
Turning off half bank is the third thing you do after takeoff, its just so in your face compared to the rest of the changes in that update that it annoys me to no end.
The engines also feel like they behave more in 1.5 reference to the pulsating / surging. This one is pure perception without busting out with a stop watch. 
1.5 seems to have a bit of a wobble then stabilises relatively quickly after giving it a bit of power and returning to ground idle, remaining fairly stable, whilst 1.5.1 seems to carry on at a higher magnitude for longer and susceptible to destabilising itself back into swings. It also feels like it's worse in the air with power changes causing an overshoot and subsequent wobble.

Observations made using the same XP version, just switched between both versions a few times in the last hour or so before replying and would still suggest 1.5 has less excitable engines, but without digging deeper I can't say more than 'perception' on that front. Still far better than any other Saab, just personally I prefer 1.5, which would also fix the question asked in the OP.

 

Edited by N1K
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, N1K said:

I'm probably overstating and being too harsh. The 1.5 version feels like it fly's and handles better for two reasons;
Turning off half bank is the third thing you do after takeoff, its just so in your face compared to the rest of the changes in that update that it annoys me to no end.
The engines also feel like they behave more in 1.5 reference to the pulsating / surging. This one is pure perception without busting out with a stop watch. 
1.5 seems to have a bit of a wobble then stabilises relatively quickly after giving it a bit of power and returning to ground idle, remaining fairly stable, whilst 1.5.1 seems to carry on at a higher magnitude for longer and susceptible to destabilising itself back into swings. It also feels like it's worse in the air with power changes causing an overshoot and subsequent wobble.

Observations made using the same XP version, just switched between both versions a few times in the last hour or so before replying and would still suggest 1.5 has less excitable engines, but without digging deeper I can't say more than 'perception' on that front. Still far better than any other Saab, just personally I prefer 1.5, which would also fix the question asked in the OP.

 

1. Bank Angle:  I have made several posts indicating that this has been fixed, so it's a non-issue at this point.

2. Engine/Prop Behavior:  This is a much more complicated subject.  And, we didn't change the engine model in 1.5.1.  You haven't indicated which version of the sim you are running, which makes a considerable difference.  During the 11.30 beta run, and now in full release, Austin made several significant changes to turboprop behavior at various stages.  So, what you experience will be a combination of the version of X-Plane AND the version of the Saab.  Now that 11.30 is final and the turboprop engine model is mostly "stable", we are reviewing the engine and prop behavior and MAY make changes depending on what we find.  Keep in mind the Saab engine code is extremely complex and changes can have unexpected consequences so we have been very careful about what we do.  

So for me, the engine issues, while significant enough for us to look into at this point, were not "created"' by 1.5.1 but  were instead caused by changes to the turborprop engine model in 11.30.   My entire point is that you should be careful what you state in the forums as existing and potential customers may be negatively influenced by your comments.  We can tolerate "harsh" criticism, but it needs to be "accurate".

Edited by JGregory
Link to post
Share on other sites

I meant that quite literally..
27 degrees is proof in the pudding, I am running 1.5 because of the reasons I stated above and was intending to purely suggest the OP does the same if he feels that strongly about the half bank.

I mean no disrespect, I love your product, but you asked for my honest opinion and I gave it. I can fully understand that these are unintentional, and the changing XP code is partly the reason and that it is being worked on for upcoming versions, but from a flying aspect of what is physically available to an ordinary consumer, my honest opinion is 1.5 performs better than 1.5.1 in XP11.30r3.

1.5.1 does exacerbates the engines behavior, give it a go...
Hard numbers after bringing it out of feather

snip.JPG.1c7cab907fa51e4c71b22cc5a2f03120.JPG

Have the video, gizmo and x-plane log files for the experiment that produced those numbers.. 1 roll of the dice for each version, using the real method of CL start to min, once BG engages up to max. I understand pausing in unfeather may reduce the effect slightly, but I was trying to induce what happens when power settings are changed in both versions. Obviously this is the most extreme point, in flight its no where near this bad, but it does add weight to my earlier inference.

 

8 hours ago, JGregory said:

We can tolerate "harsh" criticism, but it needs to be "accurate".

I think that in itself says a lot to potential customers, the fact that you haven't just deleted and ignored what has eventuated here like a lot of other producers would is fantastic. I definitely appreciate it and thank you for the conversation.

1167921511_X-PlaneScreenshot2019_01.24-07_18_58_50.thumb.png.a8c46651b4cb16c296a475f9592f574a.png

Edited by N1K
Link to post
Share on other sites

I also find 1.5 to be a more usable version. Since the update I haven't been able to enjoy the Saab as much as the previous version.

 

My main problems i have are:

Halfbank is always engaged - drives me nuts.

Engines turn off upon landing - drives me nuts

reflections on the engine instruments render them impossible to read.

Granted i havent used the product in a while because of these issues, i'm curious to see if the halfbank is actually cured.

 

there are other small niggles in the systems I would love to help improve if you would like my input. I have a bit of SF34 experience

 

regards

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love this plane to bits and looking forward to version 2. but there are some differences in the plane makers acf files from 1.5.1 to 1.5. Not sure if these are the reasons the engines perform slightly differently.

Here are some screen grabs of what I found. 1.5.1 is on the left and 1.5 on the right from the prop 1 page.

prop1.JPG.eb5b4c18408f9bfef8c34d6dca128c8e.JPG

prop2.thumb.JPG.24f18a0abcbbca939f6f2c4bb6b7a298.JPG

 

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

Engines turn off upon landing - drives me nuts

Same thing use to happen to me.  Maybe this will help.  Make sure on Final, that around 100 AGL you reduce throttle to idle.  Then after you have landed you can slowly place the throttle into reserve.  Then once your slow enough, let it idle again, before moving forward.  The short of it is, Let the engine stabilize first before reverse or moving forward.  I use to slam it into reverse from a high idle, then right back to forward and that would kill the engine every time.  

Dave. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great news that the AP will be tweaked.  That is much appreciated for sure.

Only other thing I'd like to see addressed are the annunciator lights on the instrument panel.  They glow dimly at night, and are not visible during the day.  Not a need to have, but would be a nice to have tweaked as well.

Either way, version 2.0 will be a first day buy for me. 

Tim

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Tim013 said:

Great news that the AP will be tweaked.  That is much appreciated for sure.

Only other thing I'd like to see addressed are the annunciator lights on the instrument panel.  They glow dimly at night, and are not visible during the day.  Not a need to have, but would be a nice to have tweaked as well.

Either way, version 2.0 will be a first day buy for me. 

Tim

I'm considering this for the next update, but no promises.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, N1K said:

Out of interest, being essentially the same systems, is there consideration for a B or even WT model in the V2 era of the aircraft?

 

21 hours ago, Goran_M said:

The only major hurdle we have is the FMC.  Whether or not @JGregory wants go down that road, is up to him.  

Eh, Jim?  ;)

I like the "idea" of doing the "B" version, but I'm not convinced this would be a good business decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JGregory said:

 

I like the "idea" of doing the "B" version, but I'm not convinced this would be a good business decision.

Personally I would be happy to pay for a new aircraft again to get the B version. This AC is still great after all these years, the best turboprop commuter by far but without new avionics, engines etc...it is in danger of being overtaken by a newer generation of releases. A B series with TBM900 features/failures/effects.....take my money!

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Tassierob said:

Personally I would be happy to pay for a new aircraft again to get the B version. This AC is still great after all these years, the best turboprop commuter by far but without new avionics, engines etc...it is in danger of being overtaken by a newer generation of releases. A B series with TBM900 features/failures/effects.....take my money!

I agree as well.  I'd pay for a FMC & glass cockpit for sure. Granted i'll still pay for the 2.0 version. Just because your customer support is great. But I'd like to pay more for a more modern flight deck.

Dave.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chase911 said:

I agree as well.  I'd pay for a FMC & glass cockpit for sure. Granted i'll still pay for the 2.0 version. Just because your customer support is great. But I'd like to pay more for a more modern flight deck.

Dave.

 

46 minutes ago, N1K said:

Jumping the gun on Saab a bit, LCD PFD/EHSI is about as 'glass' as it gets in the 340.
There is a nice cabin upgrade but still retains the small overheads my bag never fits in...

Whoa, hold on guys.  I am not aware of any Saab A or B the has LCD EADI/EHSI displays.

Secondly, a "B" version would definitely not be free.

And, while I appreciate your interest, 2 votes for a "B" version is FAR from what would be needed to make it a good business decision. 

Edited by JGregory
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...