|
Post by walterleo on Sept 19, 2018 13:40:41 GMT
Hi Dorel:
Correct and more it is according FAA (see my cited text of the incident investigation) the procedure for climb in the real DC-10.
Kind regard
Walter
As Mark and I have crossed our messages, Marks coments are to the point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2018 14:18:41 GMT
wow it amazes me that others are very very very accurate and well-detailed in realism of flying DC-10 on flightsimming!! I am embarrassed to admit that I am having hard time understanding stuff that everybody is talking about here. LOL
Regards,
Aharon
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 19, 2018 14:30:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Sept 19, 2018 18:04:23 GMT
Ooookay, I think I got it. So you're saying that you're aware the HJG DC-10 cannot maintain AP IAS and AT N1 modes activated simultaneously, but you're saying the real DC-10 SHOULD be able to do that. Is that correct? No, you certainly should be able to have AP IAS and AT N1 modes activated simultaneously – I've used that combination all the time for climb! However the AT does engage in SPD mode by default in-flight, so if the AP's IAS or MACH mode is already selected on when the AT is engaged, the AP will switch to VERT SPD with IAS and MACH modes locked out until the AT is switched to N1 mode. I hadn't noticed that little wrinkle because I always turned the AT on before take-off in order to use its TOGA mode. I'm unsure if this is realistic behaviour, or whether the AT should initialize in N1 mode if the AP IAS or MACH modes are engaged (the latter seems logical, but nothing in my documentation suggested it to be the case). George
|
|
|
Post by ozflyer on Sept 19, 2018 19:43:06 GMT
I also have been using the IAS AND N1 mode as well. Works amazing. What a great freeware add-on.
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Sept 19, 2018 22:41:19 GMT
Oh dear, it really does work! AP IAS and AT N1 modes DO work simultaneously, and do so wonderfully. Don't even know how that escaped my attention. I guess I was too focused on other systems and procedures. But if this is the case, would I be right to assume that the instruction highlighted in red in the screenshot below, from Mark's flying guide, is partly incorrect? So instead of saying using "IAS" pitch mode AT "N1/EPR" and "SPD" modes cannot be engaged. should it be using "IAS" pitch mode AT "SPD" mode cannot be engaged. instead? Since the AT N1 and AP IAS modes do indeed work simultaneously, quite to the astonishment of some of us here. These simulations keep getting ever more captivating day by day.
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Sept 19, 2018 23:34:13 GMT
In the meantime, I managed to find earlier versions of the DC-10-10 and DC-10-15 3D models hosted at HJG, form 2015. I was trying to see if those models, as they were back then, did or did not have the minor wing flex issue the current models have (wings are flexed fully upwards at all times). And it turns out the 2015 models are free of that issue, their wings flex just fine. I am aware those old models lack certain subsequent improvements and bells and whistles, so in the end it comes down to choosing between having models with slightly more bells and whistles but with a minor wing flex issue, or models without a few bells and whistles but free of that minor wing flex glitch. I guess I myself prefer having the wings that flex properly, so I'm inclined to keep the old models as a personal preference on my part. Note that I'm only using the 3D models alone from those old base packs, NOT the FDE/aircraft.cfg and air files too. I simply replaced the -10 and -15 "model" folders with the 2015 ones, everything else remains unchanged. So I suppose the behavior of the simulations should not be affected at all, only their appearance. Regardless, I would not seek help on the forum if I were to experience any difficulties with those hybrids, since they lose their warranty, being non HJG-sanctioned "home-made" hybrids.
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 20, 2018 2:46:29 GMT
Not trying to defend our position, but, as I´ve menitoned "several times" now .... both pre and post re-release .... The original models from 2014/15 were produced by CANTU .... a GMAX modeller .... a resource we "do not have available" within this group. Each of the original models were also found to not only have been produced during different periods but also compiled differently too. In addition to this the model source code we inherited was found to be "incomplete" .... although enough data was available and with which we were able to successfully compile newer models with a number of adjusted features. Whilst each of the current models do still feature GMAX both the evidence and extent of this animation may be seen to vary between these models .... for the above and previously stated reasons. DC-10-10 MODELS .... which also implies the DC-10-15 model too since it´s been compiled fron the same data .... DC-10-30 MODELS (animatd image) .... which also (so far as I´m aware) implies the -40´s too .... What we currently offer is "as much as we can possibly achieve" at this time .... given the resources available to us Another thing I need to state also .... Some of the current models are composites of the older versions. We cannot guaruntee the old models will fly quite as fly as well (in regard to some flight paramenters) as the current ones. When models are edited .... depending upon the nature of edits applied .... it can, sometimes, impose an effect .... and in this/our case it must have done so .... because one of the first things we discvovered during pre-release flight testing is some of the new models didn´t fly as they previously did .... and for this reason we were forced to edit some flight parmters to ensure that they did. If people want to revert back to the old models .... then that´s fine/their peroquiative (of course), but, as Dorel correctly states .... "we can only provide support for what we currently offer" MRC
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 20, 2018 7:49:50 GMT
Hi friends: Climb procedures:Tried it also, it works: IS ONLY A QUESTION OF SEQUENCE. So one can establish a proper speed/climbrate combination with AT and VSI (according Marks manual) and when established on the desired values AT off AP IAS then AT on and select N1. Done properly no wobbling or VSI surges. Wonderful. Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Sept 20, 2018 15:02:03 GMT
I fully understand the reason behind the wing flex animation limitations on the -10 and -15, I for one did so ever since reading those earlier statements on the forum. And that is very much alright, I can't stress this enough. You've all already done true wonders with these simulations, that in all seriousness, far exceeded any of our expectations, especially given the often limited resources/shortcomings you were confronted with. The end result is nothing short of a masterpiece, I can say that without the slightest bit of exaggeration. Given the overall quality of the simulations, I'd eagerly live with many more shortcomings than the minor wing flex issue, which I fully understand is just not withing the group's current ability to address. I just figured, If I could exchange subsequent improvements in the 3D models with a "functional" wing flex animation, I would maybe prefer that, in which case, again, I'd be entirely on my own. But now that I read about how, to my surprise, 3D models can actually influence flight behavior, I may just go ahead and happily live with the minor wing flex glitch.
Other wonderful freeware simulations I've adopted over the years, feature many more limitations and shortcomings. The authors explained why they were unable to address them better than maybe recommending a set of workarounds, and kindly asked the simmers to understands that there's only so much they can do. Given the overall quality of those simulations, I happily live with their shortcomings of all sorts. To end up with only a minor wing flex glitch as a limitation, in the case of set of such advanced, realistic and complex simulations as these DC-10s, is truly an astonishing feat of skills and digital engineering.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 20, 2018 16:20:50 GMT
Hi another observation: CWS
If the AP is fully engaged and a vertical function selected pusching the button "CWS" gives to the wheel authority only in roll, selcting on the AP handle "CWS" gives authority in pitch also. Hope I did not overread in Marks Flying Guide that.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Sept 20, 2018 16:39:53 GMT
Hi another observation: CWS If the AP is fully engaged and a vertical function selected pusching the button "CWS" gives to the wheel authority only in roll, selcting on the AP handle "CWS" gives authority in pitch also. Hope I did not overread in Marks Flying Guide that. Kind regards Walter Yes, this is how the real DC-10 autopilot behaves. George
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 21, 2018 1:04:27 GMT
Thousands cheers for that!!!!!! Walter
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Sept 23, 2018 11:21:43 GMT
Finally got around to looking at some of the points you raised! As George correctly pointed out, the CLS DC-10 does have an "ALT" button on the AP MCP panel which has no business being there, as it does not exist in the real aircraft. In the DC-10, the target altitude isn't reached by pressing an "ALT" button, as you would in a Boeing, and as is the case in the CLS DC-10, instead, one has to pull the altitude selector knob to initiate the altitude acquire mode, much like in an Airbus plane. But that's just one of the inaccuracies present in the CLS DC-10. In the real DC-10, as in the HJG one, other AP and AT modes, such as acquiring and holding a pre-selected heading, or acquiring and maintaining a pre-selected airspeed, are also activated by pulling their respective selector knobs. So for instance if you want to acquire a pre-selected airspeed, you just activate AT and pull the AS selector knob. Similarly, by pulling the heading selector knob, you initiate the acquiring and subsequent holding of the pre-selected heading. In the CLS DC-10, the acquiring and holding of a pre-selected airspeed is achieved by activating the AT and then pushing the "IAS" button on the AP MCP. That "IAS" button does exist in the real plane, but it's not an AT function the way it is simulated in the CLS product, instead it's an AP function - it maintains the airspeed the plane had at the time of pressing the button, by altering pitch. The HJG DC-10 replicates that correctly. I wasn't even aware how many inaccuracies there are in the CLS DC-10. And that's a shame, because if a system as basic and important as the autopilot, does not behave like the real thing, then you're not really simulating the airplane you're looking at in spot view. From what you describe, it seems like the CLS product's autopilot is just the default MSFS autopilot with the controls re-arranged to look more like a DC-10 autopilot. (I essentially did this when making a DC-10 panel way back in FS95 days!) The default MSFS autopilot uses a single ALT button to take care of vertical speed, altitude capture and altitude hold modes, and I'm not sure this behaviour is correct even for Boeing aircraft: IIRC their ALT button is for setting altitude hold or capture, but they have a V/S button to engage vertical speed mode, and a FL CH mode which controls pitch to follow airspeed like the DC-10's IAS and MACH modes. The DC-10 by contrast pulls the altitude setting button to set the altitude capture mode (thanks for letting me know that Airbus autopilots also have this feature), while vertical speed (or if set to zero) altitude hold modes are set by moving the vertical speed thumbwheel itself. The L-1011 is different again, with three separate buttons for these modes: ARM (grouped with the altitude setting) for altitude capture, V/S for vertical speed mode and ALT for altitude hold mode (with these latter two grouped along with IAS and MACH which behave the same as the DC-10). But because I ought to be impartial in my analysis, I have to say there's ONE thing (or maybe two) at which the CLS DC-10 is superior to the HJG offer. The external models and the presence of a VC. Needless to say, a VC is like virtual gold, but at least as far as I'm concerned, if I were to choose between a lite VC-equipped simulation (such as the CLS one) and a far more realistic simulation without VC (such as the HJG one), I would even forget there's such a thing as VC. Probably the same can be said about the quality of the 3D models. But I have to say, it's not easy letting go of those CLS 3D marvels, for the (comparatively) considerably less feature-rich and less detailed Erick Cantu oldies. I think the main obstacle to adding VCs to HJG's flight line is that looking at photos of flight decks doesn't tell me enough about where various controls are in three dimensions (I don't have the ability to access flight decks in person) for me to feel confident in building an accurate representation of the flight deck. I also suspect users would be more demanding that everything is located in the same place as on the real aircraft, and less forgiving of the various compromises made when designing our 2D panels – either to save space, or to improve the experience for non-expert users (for example the way in which I made the default MSFS GPS stand in for INS2 in the DC-10 panel series). But I can certainly live with them. What is probably the most difficult pill to swallow (for me) is the wingflex affair. More specifically - the constant "inflight"/upwards bent position of the wings on the 10-10 and 10-15 series. It looks funny when on the ground. The wingflex on the 10-30 and 10-40 seems to be working more or less fine, except on glideslope, with flaps down, it would seem the wings are bent downwards/on-ground position. But what a small price to pay for such an absolutely astounding treasure. Huh, I even forgot this is supposed to be a flight report with screenshots and all, hehe, so let's get the ball rolling. And then I'll present my queries/curiosities When I received the original GMAX models they included wing flex animations, but not the formula used to make them work, and I think I may have overlooked the effect of flaps when working out the formula myself (which explains why the wings are too far down when landing flaps are deployed, as my formula is underestimating how much lift they are generating). I already have revised the formula on my own machine (which I believe should correct the wing flex), but I suspect Mark and Tony won't want to revise the DC-10 base packs so soon after release, especially as they have a backlog of paint schemes they wish to release first. I'm happy and relieved to report that the CWS system works splendidly! It flawlessly maintains the amount of pitch and roll I command through the yoke. Something I can only wish my copy of Benoit Gaurant's A300 could do. Nice that you appreciated the effort I went to get the CWS mode working convincingly, especially as (as I'll point out further down) not all DC-10s had this mode! - In the DC-10-30, which I flight tested here, the checklist says that the engines should stabilize at 54% N2 after start-up. In my case, they stabilize at 59.9% N2, which is very close to the N2 value at which the DC-10-40 engines should stabilize, which is 60%. Any idea why this happens? The idle N1 and N2 RPMs are a product of the AIR file rather than the panel, and I think that 54% N2 may actually be more accurate for General Electric CF6-50 engines. Unfortunately by the time I learned this the sound packs had already been developed on the assumption of a 60% N2 idle, and I was told in no uncertain terms not to mess with the N1 and N2 numbers returned by the AIR files! - The takeoff and initial climb (manual mode) checklist asks me to turn off the anti-skid on the O/H panel. But that prompts the O/H annunciator panel to give me yellow warning messages, alerting me that the anti-skid is off. Is it normal to have those warning messages persist there on the O/H annunciator panel? Hmmmm, I wonder if the anti-skid warning messages ought to be extinguished whenever the landing gear is retracted (as they are clearly irrelevant then) – an oversight on my part? - Those two annunciators which are found above the thrust rating computer in the HJG panel, always appear on the left hand side of the computer in all the real-life photos I've seen. Have there actually been DC-10s which had the 2 annunciators above the computer, or is this just a sort of compromise to be able to render the whole thing into an FS panel? Lack of space I'm afraid: I even agonized about releasing a panel set where there was no landing gear indicator and lever on the captain's panel. Similar space limitations were also why I omitted the constant speed drives on the electrical section of the F/E panel. - Similarly, in the HJG panel, below the radio altimeter, there's an ADF gauge. Whereas in every picture of the real DC-10 I could find, that spot is taken by a backup altimeter. So were there DC-10s that had an ADF in that spot, or is this also an FS break with reality. If you look again at that gauge on the real DC-10 panel (and specifically count the ticks around the gauge face: there are 12 not 10) you'll see that that gauge is not a backup altimeter at all, but a clock! To be honest I've forgotten why I had a separate ADF gauge under the radio altimeter: perhaps it's just down to the fact that our original version 1.0 DC-10 panel had one there? - And lastly, is the CWS button only an FS thingie, or did it ever exist in any real DC-10 as well, because I could never see it in any real-life pictures? Obviously all the real DC-10 autopilots you looked at were from airlines that chose not to offer CWS mode: you'll note that in the image you showed me the middle section of the autopilot switch is labelled "MAN(UAL)" not "CWS". I wonder why such a switch setting existed at all though: why not just "OFF" and "CMD"? As soon as the panel first appeared on my screen, it became obvious this is gonna be so much fun. And sure enough, that proved so right within minutes. I can't say how grateful I am to every team member who contributed to make this gem a reality, finally an actual "hard-core" DC-10 simulation for FS9, which enables many of us to truly experience the -10 for the first time. I bow my head to you all, you've created a masterpiece once more! Thanks again for your appreciative comments! George
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 23, 2018 12:52:26 GMT
Hi George:
What one can see also: Most of its time of operation the DC-10 had a TCAS, which would be a nice add-on.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|