|
|
Post by walterleo on Mar 27, 2024 14:58:00 GMT
Hi: After some more trials: 1) AJPC will not work with turboprops which are declared correctly as turboprops in the aircraft.cfg. 2) I helps a lot saving money for real airplane manuals, which often not coincide with the simulated counterparts flight dynamics. 3) It helps also answering quickly question like: Could have taken off a Comet 4 C from MMMX at 25 deg C and fly 3000 NM with full load? YES half of the MMMX runways, full load and full tanks 3000NM range.   Small wonder, Mexicana bought these airplanes and were happy with them and did break none! Kind regards Walter |
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Mar 29, 2024 14:04:18 GMT
Hi friends:
Still something to add:
If one owns a real manual for an airplane one can see, how well the airfile and aircraft.cfg are coming to the real airplane's flight dynamics. For me: congrats to the HJG simulations I have tested (e.g. DC8-21)!
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
|
Post by joscyriacv2 on Mar 30, 2024 15:36:01 GMT
Hi friends: Still something to add: If one owns a real manual for an airplane one can see, how well the airfile and aircraft.cfg are coming to the real airplane's flight dynamics. For me: congrats to the HJG simulations I have tested (e.g. DC8-21)! Kind regards Walter I have tested fuel calculations of DC-9-30 with real world documents and it has come out very correct. Glad to see you're making very good use of AJPC, Walter. Cyriac |
|
|
|
Post by fitch on Apr 7, 2024 7:27:52 GMT
Hey all,
I tried to use this with the DC-8-63F v6.0 and it's giving me the following error message. "Weight_and_balance section read error [Invalid or missing station_load.11 data values]"
The various other HJG birds aren't giving me any issues.
EDIT2: I lied, the other 2 DC-8-63's I have the JT3D-3B and the Passenger -63 are giving me a "Unable to retrieve aircraft air file name" errors.
EDIT1: I might have found an issue with this planes .air file. I'll post in the Douglas Forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 7, 2024 9:23:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by joscyriacv2 on Apr 7, 2024 17:23:03 GMT
Hey all, I tried to use this with the DC-8-63F v6.0 and it's giving me the following error message. "Weight_and_balance section read error [Invalid or missing station_load.11 data values]" The various other HJG birds aren't giving me any issues. EDIT2: I lied, the other 2 DC-8-63's I have the JT3D-3B and the Passenger -63 are giving me a "Unable to retrieve aircraft air file name" errors. EDIT1: I might have found an issue with this planes .air file. I'll post in the Douglas Forum. Hey fitch. I've got the fix for you. For the issue 1: Open aircraft.cfg and check the load stations lines. For station 11, there's a misplaced period(.) and a missing comma. Also it's mentioned 109 whereas it should've been 10.9. You'll know the error once you see this line. Mark C, for your kind attention. I was actually gonna post this aircraft cfg error in Douglas forum as i had noticed this a couple of days ago. Fitch, for issue 2, try changing the .air to .AIR. I don't exactly remember but it was something like that. I too had the exact same issue. |
|
|
|
Post by fitch on Apr 7, 2024 18:35:39 GMT
Hey fitch. I've got the fix for you. For the issue 1: Open aircraft.cfg and check the load stations lines. For station 11, there's a misplaced period(.) and a missing comma. Also it's mentioned 109 whereas it should've been 10.9. You'll know the error once you see this line. Mark C, for your kind attention. I was actually gonna post this aircraft cfg error in Douglas forum as i had noticed this a couple of days ago. Fitch, for issue 2, try changing the .air to .AIR. I don't exactly remember but it was something like that. I too had the exact same issue. Thanks A Lot, that did it......As for the second issue...I realized it's because I just had the Base pack in the folder without any Textures installed...i.e. it needs a fltsim entry in the aircraft.cfg to know what to look for..so that was my idiocy that caused that.... Thanks for the first fix, it worked! |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 8, 2024 4:24:22 GMT
Thanks "JOSYCRIACV2". Been tied up on business all day today (that time of year again for annual fiscal reporting) and just returned home now .... insufficient time to reply to this (also) earlier today  ANYWAY .... Fortunately "a typo of that minority" doesn't impact the COG position or manner in which the simulation is intended to fly. A load generation program might detect such a discrepancy though and "throw a wobbly" .... and is maybe what "FITCH" initially experienced if I understand him correctly (?). On this particular subject: Bear in mind there were multitudes of different configurations among DC-8 aircraft type/sub type versions (given the way DOUGLAS tailored these aircraft in accordance with customer requirements). What we offer's "just one standard configuration only for each DC-8 aircraft type/sub type" and regardless of operator .... supported by the correct/appropriate weights and which also varied somewhat among aircraft types/sub types too. Also and FYI (if you're at all unaware) the "final section/last page" of our following-linked DC-8 manual .... tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/8019/hjg-panel-installation-handling-notes.... features Flying Guides stating our recommended loading for each individual DC-8 aircraft type/sup type/engine type version .... "at MGW only"This data also states maximum TO power settings, ROC (along with altitude adjustments all the way up to cruising altitude .... an initial FL310 only .... which is the best "initial cruising altitude" following any MGW TO). It also states performance observations for each simulation (all well within the ball park of R/W performances for each DC-8 type) similarly in accordance with a MGW departure. Just want to stress .... this particular data "IS NOT" composed of randomly transcribed information from other sources and references, but rather, it "IS ALL" compiled on the basis of precisely what's been recorded, by me, for each individual simulation during extensive pre-release flight testing observationsI was going to respond to the above much earlier within this thread ..... BUT .... opted not to (before now). I didn't want to be perceived critical of your presentation. The information you've been looking for "IS" actually available here (those portions of it relative FS only) and provided within manuals for "every individual simulation we currently offer (with exception of just the DMFS BAC ONE-ELEVEN's and COMET's only which are both still undergoing performance evaluations before I can present final observations .... accurate recording of this data's an incredibly time consuming process). Again the data provided within each Flying Guide is based on MGW flight performances (only) recordings by myself and my tech team of FS specialists. In other words .... this information's based on "precisely how each simulation wants to (key words) fly within FS" following our FDE customization the aim of which is always to try'n get flight performances for each of our simulations as authentic as possible .... subject to certain limitations of course since absolute fidelity's simply "not practical in FS". Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 9, 2024 7:20:24 GMT
I've now had a look at the anomaly "FITCH" reported and which "JOSCYRIACV2" identified. I've confirmed the "typo" .... and have fixed it. Only the convertible/freighter DC-8-63F JT3D-3B, DC-8-63F (JT8D-7), and DC-8-73F Aircraft Base Packs featured this "typo" .... not the least bit surprising considering each of these 3 subjects use precisely the same W&B STATION LOAD data. None of the standard DC-8-61 and convertible/freighter -61F; nor any of the PAX standard DC-8-63 JT3D-3B, DC-8-63 (JT8D-7), or DC-8-63PF; nor the PAX standard DC-8-71 and convertible/freighter -71F, or standard DC-8-73 Aircraft Base Packs featured this particular "typo". Available evidence indicates this particular "typo's" actually been there since 2002/3 .... a very early stage in chronological advancement of the HJG DC-8's. The 2016 FDE update (the last involving FDE editing) addressed MOI and weight statements only but nothing else "among the W&B data" for these particular DC-8-63CF/F and -73CF/F simulations .... hence this anomaly wasn't detected at that time either. As stated within my last posting (above) this particular anomaly was also not of any magnitude that could impact COG positions or the flight performances of either of these simulations .... yet another reason why it was never previously detected before now. Replacement DC-8-63F JT3D-3B, DC-8-63 (JT8D-7), and DC-8-73F Aircraft Base Packs have therefore now been uploaded. These are accessible per the following linked "LATEST HJG AIRCRAFT BASE PACKS/3D MODELS/FDE, PANELS/GAUGES & SOUND PACKS" forum page (see the #2 "DC-8" section on this page) .... tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/10330/latest-packs-models-panels-gaugesALTERNATIVELY .... Those whom wish do so can simply manually edit/replace the W&B section "STATION LOAD 11" (only) data line of their DC-8-63F JT3D-3B, DC-8-63 (JT8D-7), and DC-8-73F Aircraft Base Pack AIRCRAFT.CFG files with the following replacement data line. station_load.11 = "4547.0, -10.8, 0.0, 0.0, Pallet 8"PLEASE NOTE: The above "is" the "correct" data. "DO NOT" apply this data to any other HJG DC-8 simulations.I've performed a brief test flight this afternoon to check the integrity of this particular data and all seems to be fine .... as it was prior to this edit anyway. IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE .... A few days ago I detected the "F5" texture BMP file in the recently recovered and reuploaded HJG "SEABOARD WORLD AIRLINES 1974 N8639 1974 DC-8-63CF" livery tended to appear "blurry" .... as is evident on the rear fuselage section within the following image of this particular texture ....  This anomaly might be evident with some installations and systems/graphics components only, but, the cause of this particular issue has now been successfully addressed and another replacement texture for it uploaded today. This particular texture can be accessed per the following linked "LATEST HJG SUPPLIED DC-8 TEXTURES" forum page (see the "DC-8-63F" section on this page) .... tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/10337/latest-hjg-dc-8-textures Use the above texture subject with the following recommended HJG supplied aircraft base pack, panel, and sound pack files .... "DC-8 SUPER 63F" Aircraft Base Pack. "DC-8-62/63 PANEL" (select standard or INS version). "DC-8 SUPER 63 P&W JT3D-7 FANJET" Sound pack (select FS2004 or FSX version in accordance with FS host program of use/choice). Refresh your internet browser "prior to" downloading any of the abovementioned replacement files .... select keyboard commands CTRL+F5.Thanks to both "FITCH" and "JOSCYRIACV2" for their HU's in relation to this resolution  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by joscyriacv2 on Apr 12, 2024 16:38:25 GMT
Hey Mark. I'm very well aware of the flying guides. In fact it was a a chance visit to the DC-9 flying guide which opened up my entry into HJG aircrafts back in 2011. I really really loved reading the DC-9 flying guide and later the DC-10 guide when it was released. I always read all the flying guides when starting up a new/unfamiliar aircraft or one which is complex enough like the DC-10. The point where i deviate from the guide is when it comes to payload. I rarely fly at MGW as I like to maintain a realistic payload. Sometimes we're payload restricted when the flight plan distance is near the operational range of the aircraft. Sometimes the fictional cargo is light enough to not even weigh 50 percent of the max payload. Sometimes the airport is hot and high enough to restrict the takeoff weight. HJG aircraft are modelled well as they simulate a longer takeoff run in such circumstances. Hence MGW takeoff is a rare occurrence for me. Also, atmospheric deviations from standard atmosphere necessitate power settings which differ from the flying guides. I know no simulation is good enough to be as real as the real thing. It can only try to mimic the real thing as much as the designer wanted it to be, which in this case you have calibrated it to mimic conditions at FL310 and MGW. I personally like to pretend that I'm a vintage pilot/dispatcher so I plan the flight according to the documents of the era. Then I fly using procedures i think what they have followed back then accepting any deviations in the simulation's performance from the real thing. No offense intended Mark but i like to differ from you in this regard. |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 12, 2024 19:46:46 GMT
I typically seize any/every opportunity I can to remind people of the support data (guides and tutorials) we offer .... and where necessary point people in the direction of it all. Although what I'm about to relate hasn't happened recently .... one would actually be surprised at the number of people whom have, in the past, asked (publicly and privately) where are such references and do we offer anything at all. Such general reminders are, IMHO, a good practice and primarily intended for those less familiar with how we present everything here. Needless to say we do also revise our own handling guides from time to time too .... subject to additional experience gained, so, there's also a need to draw peoples attention to this as well per such constant reminders. I may in the future relocate my manuals for all HJG simulations into a common forum page .... "MANUALS FOR HJG SIMULATIONS" .... simply in order to try'n aid their visibility and (other) peoples awareness of them, as well ease of access to it all too, through uniting all this data in a common place. My constant reference to FL310 is in regard to this being a good "initial" (only) cruising altitude following any MGW departure, but, I also state climb to higher cruising altitudes is practical too "after" fuel (weight) burn off meaning much later during flights of long duration. Our simulations aren't calibrated to fly at just FL310 only. One can go on up to FL350 .... or even FL390 once light enough to do so .... and the simulation will perform equally well if not better, BUT, it needs to be remembered I only record performance data "up to" FL310 and which is fine/intended for shorter virtual flights of up to 1 or 2 hours duration since such is what the majority of users undertake  "ABSOLUTELY NO OFFENCE" taken at all Just a further explanation for general awareness .... again "not" directed at yourself We first analyze how each simulation "wants to fly". Then aided by the best technical data and RW anecdotes at our disposal we devise procedures which (hopefully) enable each simulation to be flown "relatively realistically" .... and upon which our guides and tutorials are then based. We always start this analysis based on the MGW performance observations of each simulation. We intentionally compile both maximum fuel and payload into all of our simulations based on "one only specification" for each aircraft type. This always results in a nominal overload which then needs being manually edited using the PAYLOAD & FUEL adjustment facility within FS in order to set each simulation at, or near, its MGW or much lower (such promotes better "basic" flight planning, but, which might also be out of kilter with the like of some flight planning programs that weren't designed for, or around, what we offer considering the majority of our offerings have been available since long before most programs/aids of this nature were ever conceived. Our general feeling is if each simulation flies well at MGW, then, these will also generally perform quite within all other virtual flight scenarios too .... subject to necessary minor handling adjustments needing be applied of course (such as the like of power settings primarily) and which users need to either anticipate or discover for themselves. As you correctly state though .... and as even I, myself, have also constantly repeated over many past years too, whilst FS can be made good "if developers have the necessary aircraft knowledge, FS understanding and skills, and apply the necessary effort too" (all of which our 4-man tech-team each have and do), then, at best we can only ever "MIMIC RW PERFORMANCE/S") At the end of the day though, and despite whatever we recommend, we totally understand and appreciate that people can, and will, fly the way "they wish too" .... and that's perfectly fine. In the meantime our data is provided "for those whom wish to refer to it regardless" Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
