|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 23, 2018 13:27:02 GMT
TCAS .... so far as I´m aware .... wasn´t made mandatory until well into the 1980´s (many of oor DC-10 operator liveries pre-date it´s implemetation) .... BUT .... as you say it´d be a nice addition anyway .... HOWEVER .... as George also correctly states also "space" can often be the linmiting/governing factor in regard to what´s applied (at the exspoence of something else)in some panel versions.
Mark C BOG/CO
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Sept 23, 2018 13:48:59 GMT
We all owe more thanks than we really know how to give to George .... for the unaparalleled excellence of his work in producing these DC-10 panels for us. This also applies to Mike in regard to his superb efforts with the associated flight dynamics/physics .... and also Benoit too in regard to the fidelity of his supporting audio .... and last but by no means least of all the talent of each of our texture artists must be acknowldeged as well .... "ALL OF WHICH" harnessed together constitutes this "NEW" DC-10 project.
There have been some very minor issues to address recently. That´s normal and to be expected with any release .... but .... upgrading, improving, and expanding what we already offer (where we can) is a large part of what HJG does .... and has always done .... over the past 18 years.
I´ll now comment briefly in regard to some of these latest points raised today ....
I view the variations of layouts represented among the 2D panel range which HJG started out with as possibly being an equally major impedement to our ability to produce VC´s .... but .... that´s the way it all should be done, if panels are to be represented properly, rather than offering a one configuration fits all type of panel scenario. Doing this results in greater fidelity, variety, and character among what we offer. Few if any other groups/indviduals compile their panels this way and which is one of HJG´s strengths .... and let´s not forget it´s also something that´s been more than appreciatively supported by any number of commentators in the past both on and off this forum too. What this implies though is that separate VC´s would need to be produced for each 2D panel layout/version offered by us .... and which represents "a hell of a lot of work" .... not to mention also the difficulty now in accessing FD´s (even for me) since 9/11 in order to obtain the vital photo reference material.
It´s not that we don´t want to do so .... of course we´d like to be able to release almost instantaneously. It´s just that there´s, on this occasion an "accumulation", of files (rather than a backlog of them) which have to be got out first .... and the other aspect of this is 2018 has become one of HJG´s busiest years in regard to what we´ve so far been able to release. There´s a limit to what we can can get out as part of each update .... without overburdening ourselves.
On this forum, and from time to time also, we´ve occasionaly seen people asking for more updates and more product. And after working for 3 years to release our recent DC-10 project .... we even saw someone recently reply that he´d´prefer B737´s .... and which I don´t mind saying was something of an irritant to some of us given the work we´d applied to get our DC-10 project finished and released. I don´t think some people really understand the amount of work/planning required (around our real world commitments) in order to release what we do .... even in regard to getting small or modest sizes updates released. To be quite frank about this .... I, personally, was hoping to have October and most of November "FREE" .... for myself .... BUT .... I don´t believe that´s going to be possible now. I estimate 3 lots of updates are required in order to clear the accumulation files we already have on hand (I´ve even been delaying releasing my own work over the past 22 months in order to try´n prioritze everyone else´s) and then we´re into the December/Christmas releases. So .... if we stick to the anticipated plan, then, I can´t see any base pack or gauges/core files revisions being released by us before December. That´s not a bad thing though .... because it allows our development team more time to test and be "DOUBLE SURE" in regard to integrety of what´s going to be released .... not that this´s ever been in doubt previously.
"PRECISELY" .... mess with thrust curving "after" any soundpack has been developed .... and one´s potentially up for a recompile of the sound pack/s,
Mark C BOG/CO
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Sept 23, 2018 14:04:43 GMT
TCAS .... so far as I´m aware .... wasn´t made mandatory until well into the 1980´s (many of or DC-10 operator liveries pre-date it´s implemetation) In 1993 the United States became the first country to mandate TCAS. The second country to mandate it was India, as a result of the horrific mid-air collision in 1996 between a Saudi Arabian Boeing 747 and a Kazakhstan Airlines Ilyushin Il-76. George
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Sept 23, 2018 16:07:39 GMT
Thanks a lot for your reply George, I enjoyed all the extra information, I really appreciate it! As much as I like them, the lack of VCs in HJG simulations is one of those "shortages" I've never even thought about, let alone suffer from. But I did mention them in my comparison since there was nothing else (in my opinion) the CLS products were superior to their HJG counterparts, other than 3D model quality. This, I believe, would only matter for those simmers who place visuals above operational realism. I understand very well (as well as a simple, "non-developing", end user can understand) the reasons why VCs are simply not practical in HJG simulations, both the reasons you invoked as well as those Mark did, being more than understandable. And I for one couldn't care less about such a "limitation". Mark too explained me why and how the wing flex animations suffered as the simulations advanced. 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 occasionally perform comparatively piece of cake-ish tweaks on various lite freeware simulations and bits of them, using my laughable tweaking skills, as a regular simmer who's not involved in developing at all. Even that takes a heck of a lot time and energy for me to obtain something acceptable (for me). I can only begin to fathom how time, energy and nerve-consuming your activities are, all invested in developing stuff you offer for free, when you could just as well spend time relaxing and minding your lives. So rest assured, I for one will greatly enjoy anything you guys have to offer, WHEN you can and care to offer, and IF you can and care to offer. I certainly am not one of those who "want it, and want it now". And with this occasion I want to take the opportunity to apologize if any of you ever got the impression I am impatient to have any real or perceived bugs or inconsistencies fixed ASAP, due to my fairly extensive listing, analysis and description of systems, procedures and parts of various simulations, as well as their real or perceived abnormalities. I can assure you it's just my curiosity to know more about these digital flying irons and their real counterparts. 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? Yep, the anti-skid warning lights stay on after gear retraction, as long as the system is turned off. No idea how the real thing behaved... Lack of space I'm afraid: I thought so. These are just some of the limitations we sometimes have to live with in home flight simulators. And happily we will. I even agonized about releasing a panel set where there was no landing gear indicator and lever on the captain's panel. I personally, am very, very glad you went for this approach. Other simmers prefer commodity in FS, but I for one would much rather prefer realism - which in this case translates into placing various simulation controls, knobs, dials and so on, as close to the locations of their real world counterparts as practical. So in this case, a "cozy" simmer would prefer having the landing gear lever on the captain side panel, despite being inconsistent with reality. I've seen many fairly advanced and good simulations with all sorts of controls stuffed on the main panel "for commodity and ease of use in FS", despite those controls being nowhere near those locations in the real aircraft. While I certainly respected the decision of the developer, that really hurt my eyes, and was less than impressed with them. On the other hand, there are those simulations which require that you open up several complex and "overcrowded" subpanels of all sorts and sizes, in order to access a few knobs and controls, just to be able to perform a very simple task. It is more "tiresome" and "uncomfortable", but boy I love it so much, because I know those are the locations you'd access those controls in the real thing as well, and that's exactly how I want it to be in the simulation too, as much as is practical and achievable of course. So if those landing gear indicators and lever are on the left, yeah, leave them there. This is of course just my preference - I'd much rather sacrifice commodity and stick to realism than vice-versa. Similar space limitations were also why I omitted the constant speed drives on the electrical section of the F/E panel. That reminds me of another nice thing the CLS DC-10s features. Because the FE panel is so big and full of gauges, making it difficult to include all the necessary instruments and still have them readable, CLS opted to make subpanels of the FE subpanel. So you can operate the entire FE panel from the main FE panel itself (which is relatively difficult to read), OR, you can open each section of the FE panel (such as upper electrical for instance) as an enlarged additional subpanel, making it much easier to read and operate the instruments. I've no idea if something similar is even remotely doable in your marvelous panels, but it is a very helpful functionality, where possible. The red arrows indicate magnifier icons, which call additional subpanels into view, that are basically a magnified version/subpanel of that section of the FE panel. Click on the pictures to see them in full size. Magnified upper electrical section: Magnified lower electrical section: 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! I did say "I won't be able to test these simulations any time soon due to my job" when they were released. I finally did find some time, by sacrificing a bit of my bed time. This is what happens... 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"? I suspected this to be the case, but I wasn't convinced. I know most operators did not like the feature and opted it out, or had it disabled later on. Moreover, all pictures I've seen are fairly recent - I don't think I've seen one older than the mid 90s, when CWS was even less present in the DC-10s than it had been in the beginning, I presume. Kind Regards, Dorel
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Sept 23, 2018 16:22:57 GMT
Presumably the AC buses are not simulated as accurately as in the HJG panels though, as I don't see any button to parallel the generators?
George
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Sept 23, 2018 17:03:02 GMT
I attempted to start up the CLS from cold and dark using Mark's flying guide for the HJG DC-10, just for fun, to see how closely I can follow those checklists in the CLS, how many systems found in your panels are to be found in the CLS bird, and to what extent they are simulated. That button is indeed one of those things that's lacking in the CLS.
Most of those systems you see there look much more complex than they actually are. It's typical of the Just Flight F-lite range - good visuals, a fair amount of buttons to play with (more or less realistically, if you follow the checklists), but very superficial overall level of systems depth. Many systems are greatly simplified, omitted altogether or consist of mere dummy switches.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Sept 23, 2018 17:46:30 GMT
Hi friends:
Regarding TCAS:
The TCAS of the Tu-154M would fit as well as its electrionic altimeter switchabel between meters and feet. So one could speculate how the DC-10 freighter of AEROFLOT had been looking from the pilots perspective. Will google around a little and will post some screenshots with due regard to the wonderful work HJG has presented.
Kind regards
Walter
|
|
|
Post by M.I.B. on Oct 2, 2018 1:46:55 GMT
In the meantime, I asked about anti-skid switch position and indications after takeoff, and the MAN AP mode in those DC-10s with no CWS, in a DC-10 Facebook group, hoping any folks who worked on the thing might come across my queries. This is what they had to say: So as far as the anti-skid is concerned, and at least according to the last person replying, your panels should continue to display the anti-skid off warning message on the OH annunciator even after takeoff and gear retraction. Consequently, the anti-skid should apparently be left on at all times.
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Oct 6, 2018 14:32:48 GMT
Hi friends: Have specultated a little about TCAS. What I have at hand is the TCAS out of the PT-airliners. But as Mark commented: A question of space: Yes the VSI/TCAS display fits in the VSI, but is metric not in feet and the computer fits only badly into the panel. As all that would only be acceptable in the DC-10-30 freighter of Aeroflot I also cramped in an AoA indicator. Its possible but.... Kind regards Walter
|
|
|
Post by George Carty - HJG on Oct 18, 2018 14:51:53 GMT
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? OK – here's the Wikimedia Commons image of a DC-10-30 flight deck (from a Monarch Airlines aircraft) – this one certainly appears to have an ADF gauge separate from the (VOR) RMI, like that included in the HJG panels (although unlike the HJG panels, this one uses a tape-style radar altimeter like that found on HJG's L-1011 panels): George
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 18, 2018 15:55:40 GMT
Been away for the past several days and are only just now catching up with everything ....
A detail to remember whenever comparing aircraft panels is those among different airlines, though laid out similarly, were often equipped with differnt standards of instrumentation .... meaning .... different version of the same/similar instrumentation .... e.g round AI gauges versus a tape gauge versions .... all in accorance with the peference of customer airlines.
Additonally .... and aming those aircraft (not just DC-10´s) which stayed in service with a partcular airline over many years, it wasn´t unusual for certain instruments to be changed over time with later/better versions of the same, so, the instumentation on any panel can vary betwen its original and later presentation.
Similarly .... when aircraft migrate from oe airline to another it´s not unusul for the next aioperator to replace certain instrumentation with its own preferred standard. I saw this happen during the very late 1990´s when AIR NZ sold each of its 5 B747-200B´s to VIRGIN ATLANTIC .... our RR RB211 powered aircraft were among the few in in the world fitted with tape engine gauges (same as those installed on our DC-10´-30´s) intended to aid ease of crew adaption from the DC-10-30 to the the B747-200B from 1981. When VIRGIN acquired each of our aircraft they immediately changed our original engine gauges in favor of their preferred round analogue type versioms .... again for fleet standardization and ease of crew adaption.
Also .... the above illustrated panel is mentioned to be that of an/"the aircraft" operated by MONARCH .... since they only ever operated a single DC-10-30 (G-DMCA) from May 1996 .... and which was originally built for, and delivered to, ZAMBIA AIRWAYS (N3016Z) during July 1984. George .... I wonder if this imge might be representative of the front end of G-DMCA as it appears today and which is apparently preserved at MAN in the UK. Of course I don´t know if the panel of this aicraft is more-or-less intact as this images suggests. I do however note at least 3 missing gaugess/vacant instrument spaces (not uncommon among in-service aircraft either) in that panel .... so .... if the MAN located front enf of G-DMCA is more-or-less instact .... it may still have been canibalised "to a minor extent" .... suggesting .... its instrument presention may not true to that of the original aircraft whilst it was in service.
Once again .... instrument standards and layouts are usually customized in accordance with airline requirements at the time of the aircraft production .... and then updated/modified over time .... and whilst some instrumentation does assume a common place among operators the panel of no 2 aircraft of any 2 difeerent operators are standard or even look absolutely identical.
For the most part these are just a few details to always bare in mind when comparing the panels of any aircraft type.
Mark C BOG/CO
|
|