Leading Edge Simulations Saab 340A Experience

[Goran_M]

Reflections aren't hard to do at all.  But we would rather do them properly now...with shaders.  Not textures.

We're trying to keep moving forward with every aircraft.  Adding new stuff.  We don't want to recycle old techniques.  

[Goran_M]

@Goran_M

 

Well my takeoffs are performing much better now, they are smooth, climb profile after 500 agl + ias climb later seems to work best

 

Now i am perfecting my approach and landings (while i am able to touch down centered and soft, i want to be sure i am doing it right), a few questions, hopefully you can confirm:

 

Winds calm day

 

-While approaching i should keep a bit more speed than suggested 115 kts (120 kts), otherwise i have to pitch the nose up more to keep rate of descent at 700 fpm. As consequence runway visibility gets compromised. Is this plane supposed to approach nose up a bit more than others? i also noticed this plane cruises having the nose up a bit more than others. is it right? or am i doing something wrong on weight distribution?

 

-What would be VREF for landing? how do you calculate it for this plane?

 

-I have been experimenting adding payload weight on xplane menu, it like how the weight feels during climb phase, but again while landing how to calculate proper speeds to keep the plane under proper pitch levels during approach and landing?

 

-My last question for now would be: how to you handle weight distribution, is there any tab i am missing for setting passengers or cargo in the desired position?

 

thanks

manuel

 

It's been a while since I've flow the Saab, but we have included charts for the landing in the manuals folder.  You should check those out and adjust airspeed accordingly.

 

For the loadout, the Saab uses the default X-Plane load manager in the aircraft dropdown menu within the sim.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Goran_M

[ointment]

So you need a reflection to tell you there is a window there?  Really?

Yep. Or something to give the impression that there is something there…and not just a hole in the fuselage.  It's about immersion.  Whether it's done by shaders or by some "older" technology (that still works) it helps give the "feeling" that you are enclosed.

[Goran_M]

Our Saab cabins are cleaned by some of the best cleaners in X-Plane.  We also have military grade polarizing skin attached to the windows to totally eliminate reflections.

[JGregory]

Yep. Or something to give the impression that there is something there…and not just a hole in the fuselage.  It's about immersion.  Whether it's done by shaders or by some "older" technology (that still works) it helps give the "feeling" that you are enclosed.

Doesn't the lack of wind in your face tell you that there is a window there?

[eMko]

If I could vote about features in this airplane, I'd vote against reflections. They're not needed at all. And if the creator of an add-on permits me to turn off the windows or instruments reflections, I do it. They are the effect which is negative actually - it lowers the readability of instruments and makes harder to see through windows. You can however buy a glossy display and put a lamp to shine into it if you want to cause a pain in your eyes ;-)

 

Honestly, there are things in this aircraft which I would like to have more ... much more.

[JGregory]

Honestly, there are things in this aircraft which I would like to have more ... much more.

Don't be shy.. tell us what you're thinking.

[Longranger]

Having just purchased the King Air it feels absurd to me to "look out the window" at the wing tip and see a completely faked texture that does not display a true reflection but instead shows me some preset reflected angle that only matches the exact angle of the pilots default head position.

Well, I wouldn't call it absurd it is simply a rather cheap trick that doesn't take a lot of resources or development time.

In fact there is nothing absurd behind it. Dan and his Team simply take a step by step approach and they simply learn some things, that you can only learn in the real world. A Carenado machine normally works quite well, even if the computer has to handle Sky Maxx Pro 2.0 with a ZL 17 photoscenery and a world2x-pplane OSM map in Munich with every available airport in this environment.

And now do the same with the Saab and a HD texture...

 

In fact the B200 was probably a very cheap aircraft for Carenado, since it only used HD textures and was prepared for the new GNS 430. Otherwise it was more or less a copy of the C90. The B1900D on the other hand... better sound , better graphics, more features and only the same or even less resource consumption.

 

You don't really have to think, that people are incapable to fill their machines to the maximum. You find a lot of newbies that tend to believe that Real Terra Haze is an absolute necessity for X-Plane.

 

Carenado simply doesn't ask for perfect solutions, since there are none.

Sure real reflections in the Window would be nice to have, but how much time and money does it cost to develop this feature, what is the additional resource consumption, how many people rerally want this feature and how many people will damn this feature since it slows their planes down?

For a perfect solution you would really need three options:

1. No reflections

2. Faked reflections

3. Real reflections.

 

Different users find different aspects that they need. In fact, when I started with PilotEdge, I learned pretty fast to go through my planes with a very fine comb. And the plane that really didn't fit was the Saab. In fact I think that for Dan Klaue it is more a necessity nowadays that a new plane has to work well on PilotEdge, since more people will stream it... more people will see it and more people will buy it.

Edited October 11, 2014 by Longranger

[JGregory]

Different users find different aspects that they need. In fact, when I started with PilotEdge, I learned pretty fast to go through my planes with a very fine comb. And the plane that really didn't fit was the Saab. In fact I think that for Dan Klaue it is more a necessity nowadays that a new plane has to work well on PilotEdge, since more people will stream it... more people will see it and more people will buy it.

So if we add reflections you will suddenly be able to fly the Saab on PilotEdge ?

[scotchegg]

I appreciate it might not be everyone's priority but it really does help some of us with the immersion factor. On the other hand if you've gone to the trouble of adding some very nice muck, grime and other wear and tear to the surfaces in your VC, it does make me wonder why you wouldn't also spend a bit of time on the windows. If you don't agree fair enough; I doubt it'll affect your sales very much either way.

 

As for the Carenado reflections, I see your point that dynamic reflections would be much more convincing, but they're a pretty good compromise and certainly add to the feeling of 'being there' when in VC mode.

[JGregory]

On the other hand if you've gone to the trouble of adding some very nice muck, grime and other wear and tear to the surfaces in your VC, it does make me wonder why you wouldn't also spend a bit of time on the windows. 

I would have much less of a problem with adding some dirt, scratches, etc. than I would with adding baked reflections.

[Longranger]

So if we add reflections you will suddenly be able to fly the Saab on PilotEdge ?

No. This was a slightly different point. For the PilotEdge case you already had my feature request. This came up since at the same time I was writing I received a new twitch invitation for PilotEdge.

 

But I am very confident that I could find  a lot of situations where real reflections simply are the killer that suddenly brings your GPU into swapping mode.

[JGregory]

But I am very confident that I could find  a lot of situations where real reflections simply are the killer that suddenly brings your GPU into swapping mode.

That depends on how they are implemented.  There are methods of using the GPU (shaders) that have little to NO impact on performance.

[scotchegg]

I would have much less of a problem with adding some dirt, scratches, etc. than I would with adding baked reflections.

Clearly.

[Ben Russell]

Clearly.

I see what you did there.

[Longranger]

That depends on how they are implemented.  There are methods of using the GPU (shaders) that have little to NO impact on performance.

Don't believe on NO impact. That's the problem. There are a lot of other kids on the same playground. And they all want to do their own thing and everything works fine in their test cases! But bring them together...

Edited October 11, 2014 by Longranger

[Ben Russell]

Meanwhile, in actual news...

 

Gizmo64 changes have delayed the Saab update by a little.

We're finding subtle unreported bugs and errors that keep shifting our internal release predictions.

 

 

On the bright side, on my system, after extensive performance tuning, Gizmo64 now runs the Saab about 35% faster.

[JGregory]

Don't believe on NO impact.

I said "little to NO" impact… there's a difference.

But bring them together...

Do you really believe that we test our products in a vacuum?  Come on.  We do everything we can to "beat up" our own systems, as well as using as many beta testers as possible with many different add-ons.  Now, of course we can't test every possible combination of other products, but we do "load up" the systems to see what they can take.  In addition, we are continuously looking at ways to optimize.  Ben Russell has recent made some significant changes in Gizmo regarding performance that I believe our customers will be thrilled with.    Its one of the benefits of having "active and ongoing" development of a product.

[Longranger]

Do you really believe that we test our products in a vacuum? 

Errm, that was exactly the question that several people came up with, when the first version of the Saab was released! No small wonder since for some of them the Saab was pretty much unuseable!

 

But I can guarantee that you won't test it with the setup that people will use, when the next version is released. You aren't the only party that improves their product and you will not have tested them with some features that were just released a few days or weeks before your product.

 

Furthermore you will only test A FEW features together with other programs. Otherwise your testers would go insane. There will always be situations that you didn't expect in the test runs.

 

In fact I am a software developer myself, and in fact we just now had a release. So don't try to tell me what you can test and what you can't test. There are always a lot of bugs that you didn't found in your tests. And there are bugs that you wonder why they didn't gave you this report just two weeks earlier...

 

You always have the problem that a bug is only fixed for customers, when they have the next version!

Edited October 11, 2014 by Longranger

[JGregory]

Errm, that was exactly the question that several people came up with, when the first version of the Saab was released! No small wonder since for some of them the Saab was pretty much unuseable!

I didn't ask what other customers thought, I asked what you thought.  But never mind… it's obvious now what your agenda is.

 

You aren't the only party that improves their product

I never said we were.

 

...you will not have tested them with some features that were just released a few days or weeks before your product.

I never said we would.

 

There will always be situations that you didn't expect in the test runs.

Did you NOT read my post?  I said… "Now, of course we can't test every possible combination of other products…"

Edited October 11, 2014 by JGregory

[Longranger]

I didn't ask what other customers thought, I asked what you thought.

Sure I read your post. But it isn't really easy to tell people : "Trust their next update!", when you know exactly that it is a question of WHEN not IF someone replies: "Sure, I remember the DC-3 update and how long they took to fix the compass!"

 

Sure, I know such problems (A quick update of the update installer that killed the update installer, for example), but I can tell you for most companies such a problem with an update is a show stopper for the whole crew till the update is fixed!

 

People have a very long memory for this kind of things.

 

So, sorry but I don't feel extremely confident if I hear: You will be thrilled when you get the next update. There will be a lot of people that will only wait and see.

[JGregory]

Sure I read your post. But it isn't really easy to tell people : "Trust their next update!", when you know exactly that it is a question of WHEN not IF someone replies: "Sure, I remember the DC-3 update and how long they took to fix the compass!"

I was not involved with LES as far as the DC3 is concerned, so this is completely irrelevant to me. In addition, your mixing two different things. What does people trusting the next update have to do with my asking you if you read my statement about not being able to test "everything"?

 

Sure, I know such problems (A quick update of the update installer that killed the update installer, for example), but I can tell you for most companies such a problem with an update is a show stopper for the whole crew till the update is fixed!

I have no idea what you're referring to.

 

So, sorry but I don't feel extremely confident if I hear: You will be thrilled when you get the next update. There will be a lot of people that will only wait and see.

The update is FREE, so what difference does it make whether they believe that statement or not?  Everyone will be able to try the update and judge for themselves… they don't have to "rely" on, or be confident in, a statement made in a forum post… they will see for themselves.

[Goran_M]

All this over window reflections????

Really???

Pass me the popcorn!!

[Longranger]

IThe update is FREE, so what difference does it make whether they believe that statement or not?  Everyone will be able to try the update and judge for themselves… they don't have to "rely" on, or be confident in, a statement made in a forum post… they will see for themselves.

 

This is correct for existing customers! Now think about an environment where you have mostly FSX/P3D users and I try to think around how to write a News Update around Leading Edge before we get every week or every few weeks: Carenado has released ... and added .... . That's the thing I am currently "working" on. .. By the way, thanks to Goran and Ben that I really have something substantial to write.

And I have try to write it in a way that not to many people voice "their" opinion about Leading Edge.

For the NewBies Leading Edge will be a small company and they have in their opinion nothing new to offer. They have Saabs, they have Citations. On the other hand it is pretty obvious how much work Carenado puts into this plattform and there are airliners from FlightFactor. Everything else will be small fry with the exceptions of PMDG and Aerosoft.

Perhaps my Advantage is that I only switched with X-Plane 10. It is really difficult to say if I would have made the jump without Carenado and slight promises for a jet, the CRJ from Aerosoft...Like many newer fans know the Boeing 777 or 757 from Aerosoft... And the work that was put into projects like simheaven, the work done by AlpilotX. This is X-Plane for them. After they have crossed the bridge.

 

Sure, I could wait to write something about Leading Edge but if they occur, when there is something substantial from Carenado or the release of the FlightFactor A350 I am quite certain that this will be considered much more important.

[Goran_M]

This is correct for existing customers! Now think about an environment where you have mostly FSX/P3D users and I try to think around how to write a News Update around Leading Edge before we get every week or every few weeks: Carenado has released ... and added .... . That's the thing I am currently "working" on. .. By the way, thanks to Goran and Ben that I really have something substantial to write.

Carenado products are converted from FSX to X-Plane. From what I know, as I have been approached at least twice to convert FSX add ons to X Plane, and I am in the process of 1 at the moment, most, if not all of these, do not involve creating new mesh and textures. It involves creating a flight model, programming systems and animating the relevant parts. At least half the work is done with mesh and textures.

 

And I have try to write it in a way that not to many people voice "their" opinion about Leading Edge.

We depend on our work to speak for us. Any other written article is a bonus, and we appreciate it. In saying that, everyone will have an opinion. Whether it's negative or positive is beyond our control. Like i said, we let our work do the talking. And we have faith in what we do.

 

For the NewBies Leading Edge will be a small company and they have in their opinion nothing new to offer.

If we had a choice between creating a "lite" heavy aircraft (Boeing, Airbus, etc...) or a deeply simulated, procedure level turboprop, we would choose the latter every time. When we have the time and funds to spend 3-4 years creating something like a properly simulated Boeing or Airbus, then we will definitely do that.

 

They have Saabs, they have Citations. On the other hand it is pretty obvious how much work Carenado puts into this plattform

Carenado add ons for X-Plane are recycled FSX add ons. Mesh and textures are supplied.

 

and there are airliners from FlightFactor. Everything else will be small fry with the exceptions of PMDG and Aerosoft.

If Flight Factor can complete a procedure level simulation of a 777 and 757, and make the mesh accurately according to boeing specs, all within the timeframe it took them to complete it, my hats off to them. That's not something we can even remotely do while implementing the systems depth we choose to.

PMDG, a team of at least 14 developers, took about 8 years to complete their MD-11. 5-6 years to complete their 744. And they are considered the best at what they do.

Flight Factor, going by their facebook page and other forum posts, have a large team that specialize in particular areas of development. This allows them to produce add ons in short periods of time.

 

Sure, I could wait to write something about Leading Edge but if they occur, when there is something substantial from Carenado or the release of the FlightFactor A350 I am quite certain that this will be considered much more important.

Considering Airbus are notoriously secretive about their aircraft, and the fact the A350 is only just out of the gate, I cannot see how ANY developer, doesn't matter who it is, can replicate the systems of that aircraft. Guesswork is not what we are into. We want hard data and information. Not speculation.

In closing, each developer has their own philosophy on how they want to approach add on development. We have ours and it works for us. We are not an aircraft mill that is just going to pump out aircraft after aircraft in a short amount of time. We have chosen to create hi fidelity products in every aspect, including 3D mesh, textures and systems. This is not something that can be done in a short period of time with a limited group of developers.

Lastly, there are only a small handful of people who truly know the sales figures of LES. So please do not presume that because you feel we are not as well known as these other developers, that we are any less successful. The new customers we get every day are a confirmation of this.