|
|
Post by mmattyk on Nov 2, 2009 20:32:39 GMT
I use the models from HJG in my exploits with flightsimming in the fsairlines world, using FS9, and was doing some digging around for the type information in their database, as the information seemed a little suspect; and in doing so found this link from BAE systems: www.regional-services.com/pdf/BAe_146_General_data_brochure.pdf and also data from the caa type certificate data sheet No BA16 issued in march 1999 www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/srg_acp_ba16-16.pdfI have no experience in adapting/changing models, but thought that those who can and know what they're about, might find it useful in updating the current aircraft config file, or then again not knowing how much time effort and resources go into making a fantastic simulation model, perhaps not ;D I would appreciate some feedback even if only to tell me to wind my neck in lol |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Nov 3, 2009 5:00:33 GMT
A "GOOD" proposition .... BUT .... it must be remembered that the BAe 146/RJ100 model/s we host aren't HJG productions. These are actually the work of Jon MURCHISON/Aircraft Repaints New Zealand. We/HJG only "host" the BAe 146/RJ100 model/s (by Jon's authorization) .... as is the case also in respect of the B727's, and CARAVELLE's, and some other aircraft we may be planning to introduce here in the future too, but, we don't own these models. As a result we also don't hold Source Code data for these models and therefore are unable to modify them With regard to the future of of the BAe 146/RJ aircraft series    We were originally "hoping" to expand this line of aircraft .... particularly in respect of the BAe 100/200/RJ75 .... BUT .... the last I heard from Jon (over 1 year ago now) regarding this project was in relation to compilation problems he had apparently run into with these new models .... and has still not yet been able to resolve. I hate to disappoint folk .... BUT  .... under these circumstances the future of any further BAe 146/RJ expansion project "HERE", at HJG, doesn't look at all promising  .... unless we can locate an alternative BAe/RJ product and then accordingly negotiate rights to host it Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by peteham on Nov 3, 2009 6:26:31 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by mmattyk on Nov 3, 2009 12:19:01 GMT
Thanks for the feedback guys... and I believe that having seen and used Mr Murchisons other aircraft in fs2000 upto and including FS9, I have every confidence in his decisions regarding updates or not... he knows infinately more about it than I do ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Nov 3, 2009 13:43:38 GMT
I actually have that data, and used some of it when I did my work on the BAE a couple of years ago (wow! has it been that long?!)  OEM data is generally good. I have found however, that the best certification data comes from the TCDS's from the FAA. Depending on the aircraft, all sorts of good stuff with regard to loading, fuel tank locations, engine types, etc in those TCDS's. Between those two types of sources, one can usually find out just about everything needed to make the FS plane as close as possible to the real thing. Mike |
|
|
|
Post by Tony Madge - HJG on Nov 3, 2009 16:25:30 GMT
Sadly the AFG 146 project has stalled maybe the designer may carry it on and one day it will come to light, it certainly looked very promising
|
|
|
|
Post by mmattyk on Dec 7, 2009 17:06:18 GMT
Can anyone please explain the rudimentaries of both the .cfg file and the air file associatred with models? The reason I ask is because having downlaoded several -300 and -300QT models none of the .cfg files are the same in their body. How can you tell if the entries in the file are metric or imperial, KIAS or KTAS. What does the reference point relate to as its datum? How many load stations should the 300QT have... the cfg files I have seen have only 1 load station with maximum load, with nothing for the aircrew, and I'd like to try and make this more realistic for flying as in imported model in 'Air Hauler'. It seems that the flaps extension time (which in original models downloaded was set to 4) needs to be more in the region of 25-35, but don't have any references for that, so have set my current model (Atlantic shuttle) for 25 seconds. I'm not using the fantastic panel as yet but is there a site available wher the most current and accurate .cfg and .air files can be downloaded? Sorry for all the questions, but I'd like to try to gain the knowledge if possible
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 7, 2009 18:51:20 GMT
No problem regarding the questions .... but .... I'll restrict my response to what I do know for sure in relation what "WE/HJG DO" and "THE WAY WE PREFER DOING IT" .... What we've currently got here now, in terms of BAe 146-300/RJ-100 FDE, is one hell of a lot better than that which we started out with .... nearly 2 years ago (as may be ascertained if one takes time to revise "ALL" the early BAE 146 SUPPORT forum postings on this subject) .... but .... doesn't imply that what we've got is perfect or can't be further improved later. We've only got 2 versions of BAe 146-300/RJ-100 represented here at HJG .... as you're aware .... both PAX and freight configured aircraft versions. The load data applied to both aircraft types has been done on the basis of information we obtained, at the time, from British Aerospace .... and .... it "IS" different for each of the 2 aircraft .... simply because the load data needing to be applied to the PAX version FDE is necessarily different from that of the freight configured aircraft. Just because no obvious reference to CREW STATION LOAD might appear within any CFG by no means implies that such data hasn't been incorporated into the overall greater equation. There's a number of different ways in which LOAD DATA may be compiled. What I'm about to say might not apply specifically to our BAe 146 aircraft .... BUT .... the number of STATION LOADS stated within some CFG's may not necessarily correspond with actual the number of STATIONS applicable to an aircraft type. This's usually due to FS limitations .... in fact it's particularly true of our SUPER DC8's. In the case of these aircraft (the SUPER DC8's) a compromise needed to be made which resulted in the number of STATION LOADS within each CFG file being reduced, in order to avoid a CTD when aircraft loadings were adjusted within FS, but, with the weights for each of the remaining STATIONS then increased in order to be able to arrive at overall accurate weight loadings/distributions for each of these aircraft. Remember .... this's FS .... and certain liberties do "sometimes" need to be taken in respect of such details and in relation to FDE editing generally .... among which can, for some aircraft, also include things like FLAP EXTENDING TIMES etc. This kind of editing is by no means easy .... and .... if folk meddle with what's provided (end user choice of course) then they do so at the risk of "possibly" buggering everything up .... which can then potentially implicate both aircraft performance within FS as well as panel compatibility too in some cases. Another thing we/HJG also do .... intentionally .... is have all (most of) our aircraft load into FS with both 100% fuel and payloads. This then results in a nominal "OVERLOAD" .... requiring the end user to adjust either fuel, or payload, or both, at the start of each flight and in order to ensure aircraft weights are within MGTOW limitations for an aircraft type. In this respect .... if one wants to fly for range then payload should be reduced to promote fuel load .... and .... if one wants to prioritize payload then fuel loadings need being reduced accordingly. That's how we/HJG do things !!!! Our stated CFG loadings are normally calculated in imperial measurements .... with speed references usually being stated according to KIAS. That's about as much as I can tell you !!!!  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by mmattyk on Dec 8, 2009 17:03:01 GMT
Thanks for you answer above. Using CAA and BAE figures, I have modified my model file for a 7.5 pallet fit. Each pallet being 88" or 7.33', I've used this figure to position each of the pallets (the half pallet being positioned at the rear of the aircraft) and 3500 lbs per pallet and 1500 for the half pallet. The MTOW from the pre mentioned references is 99500 Lbs. These changes seem to have worked for me. Pleas note that I've only changed this in the file for the Atlantic Shuttle download which does not have the enhanced panel, from the .nz website and is a John Murchison model, so please bear this in mind if thinking of experimenting in your own. I've only done this to make the model loading more versatile for use when importing to Air Hauler. The changes sem to work well for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Dec 8, 2009 17:39:54 GMT
Actually .... all the BAe 146-300/RJ-100 models we current host are by Jon MURCHISON (as labeled on the downloads pages) .... and complimented by the panel by Mathias LEIBRECHT. I don't know if the panel we host is more advanced than that available from Jon's website (I haven't heard from Jon for ages) .... or .... vice versa. I do know the LEIBRECHT panel we currently host is indeed Mathias's last/latest version though.
I must see if Mathias will authorize our uploading of his RJ-100 specific panel version too .... since the version we currently host is BAe 146-300 specific only !
Mark C
AKL/NZ
|
|
|
|
Post by Mike Monce - HJG on Dec 8, 2009 17:46:41 GMT
I hadn't looked at these in awhile, but our QT does have station_loading for the pilots and a set of pallets @ 3700lbs each. If you can still find a copy of the MS SDK for FS9, that will help you ALOT in figuring out the cfg files.... air files are another beast entirely Mike |
|
|
|
Post by mmattyk on Dec 9, 2009 18:50:06 GMT
|
|
.... under these circumstances the future of any further BAe 146/RJ expansion project "HERE", at HJG, doesn't look at all promising 
.... unless we can locate an alternative BAe/RJ product and then accordingly negotiate rights to host it 
