|
|
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Jul 31, 2015 11:50:26 GMT
First of all, let me start by saying, in no way is this thread intended to increase the workload of Mark, Dan and the many others who put in enourmous amounts of time and energy to create and improve these amazing aircraft which so many of us love and enjoy for free. I also understand that there are many other projects to be developed first before HJG will even consider changes/ improvements to the DC-8 line. That said, when the time does come, here are a couple of things I would truly love to be considered  Firstly, I understand that a virtual cockpit is out of the question due to the high number of variants available in the DC-8 line, but I would truly love it if the wings and engines, like in the DC-10 panels, could be modelled in the VC view. This would allow the setting up of "wing views" during flights to take pictures and enjoy the scenery. Especially with a program like active camera. 2nd, I would love to see the fuel panel modelled and even better, some of the engineers panel modelled too. If the fuel logic was there, it wouldn't matter to me if the rest of the panel had dummy switches. 3rd, I would love it if the overhead panel was a better representation of the real overhead panel. Maybe with the ground power/battery switch moved to the engineers panel Although not as important to me as the other stuff, I would love it if the early DC-8-20 to 40 series engines where remodelled, with attention to the tail pipes and ejectors. Although very well modelled already, would be lovely if they where tweaked and a slightly refined. Lastly, and I'm not sure if this can be modelled, if it was possible to only select the inboard ejectors on the early models to be able to reverse thrust while flying. As the real "early model" DC-8's where not designed to use their spoilers inflight, the ability to use reverse thrust on the inboard engines (as per the real world procedures  ) would be a great addition in helping to get this bird to slow down. Once again, I want to point out that in no way am I saying that I am disappointed with this magnificent plane, that has been made available to us for free due to the endless hours of the members of HJG. But when and if you look at updating this superb aircraft, we may be lucky enough to see these changes. Thanks everyone, Nathan BNE/AUS |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Jul 31, 2015 22:51:16 GMT
Most of your observations/suggestions we're aware of and over the past 14 years development history of the HJG DC8 simulations a number of these have even been previously expressed .... some of which "have" even been explored by us albeit without much success  Starting with VC and wing/engine views: HJG is unable to undertake any VC projects, at all (given the work required in order to complete these to acceptable community expectations), and the current model/s can't be recompiled with VC's given that the original source code was (apparently) "lost" some years ago. In regard to wing and engine views: We used to be asked about these, quite a lot, during he early days of HJG, but the truth is, that the wings, and engines, on DC8's, can't be eyeballed from the flightdeck .... unless one was to wind back the crew emergency escape windows/hatches and stick ones head "rght out there". DC8 wing views may be available within various FS libraries (not supported or endorsed by HJG), but, what's offered either isn't great (IMHO) or isn't consistant with the type of wing/engine views (or both) applicable to each version of DC8 type aircraft .... since these do differ considerably throughout the family. I think its possible to generate wing/engine views (from a PAX cabin perspective) using ACTIVE CAMERA axis points .... but .... I'm not entirely sure. A fuel panel .... or rather .... a F/E panel featuring some degree of functionality (like that of George CARTY's HJG B707/720 panels), was mooted very early in the dvelopment of the "original HJG DC8 panel series" (what we currently offer represents further advances of these original projects .... limited though to technical details such as better/more accurate engine indications in particular .... along with a few other improvements we've added since), but, that was also during time when these sorts of features weren't common .... I believe .... so the decision made, back then, to not bother. These features could, possibly, be added now, but, time, skills, and a lack of resourses are the prime reason why it probably won't happen. The overhead Panel featured within each of the HJG DC8 series is probably one of the most functional panel features represented within these simulations .... "FUNCTIONAL" being the key word here in that virtually all of what's featured on these particular OH sub panels has a function relative to some aspect of these simulations .... even if the general shape of the OH sub panel doesn't resemble the actual OH panel shape and layput on RW aircraft. I don't think there's a lot more we can add to it .... given the limited number of system related functios supported within FS anyway. If a reshaped/more accurate looking OH BMP was employed, then, it would probably result in a lot of whatever else was visible on it probably not working/having no function at all .... and which would probably be a "turn-off" for some. To try to explain what I mean here .... I was recently looking at a B787 panel. It featured quite a nice looking OH sub panel BMP .... which was the right shape and seemed feature everything that should be up there .... but .... "very little" of what was featured actually worked/had any function at all In regard to the DC8-10-40 series: "YES" .... minor differences should be evidient in both the engine nacelle diameter .... and the engine tail pipes on the DC8-40 SERIES in particular. We're aware of these minor discrepencies. Again .... the current HJG DC8 models were produced back around the advent of FS2000 (possibly even earlier), and are a reflection of the way things were done back then. I think we're all (like the author too) surprised/amazed at how well these particular DC8 models have continued to stand up over time since. I know our B707 series models do feature the correct engine tail pipes .... BUT .... these models are also of a much more recent generation than those of our DC8's .... having also been developed by a different author .... and during the period when community expectations began to become greater than had previously been the case, so, some inconsistancies are evident here (if comparisons are made), I know, but, is something we've all just have to live with .... I'm afraid .... since without the original source code none the DC8 models can (easily) be redeveloped. New DC8 models were mooted a while back, but (for reasons I won't go into publicly), this particular project was "cancelled by us/HJG". About the DC8's and in flight reverse ("idle reverse" actually): YES" .... all DC8 aircraft were capable of inflight reverse idle .... on their #2 and #3 inboard engines only ... in order to aid descending more rapidly where necessary. We did look at this feature, several years ago, but, it was, unfortunately, a no go" situation, since we couldn't implement it for a variety of technical impositions. Incidentally .... and just to digress for a moment .... inflight reverse idle on DC8's was later (around the very late 1990's banned altogether .... although this restriction might have applied to the CFM powered DC8-70 SERIES only). The use of inflight reverse idle created significant vibration thoughout the airframe (an ex DC8 F/E once described, to me, how the pylons and engine nacelles would start flexing in one direction whilst the wing tips began flexing in the opposite direction when subjected to the rigours imposed by inflight reverse) .... and which (apparently) resulted in some aircraft actually shedding/losing engine nacelle covers. "THANKS" again for your input "FTWD" .... in regard to what you've raised as well as the manner in which you've presented it too .... "MUCH APPRECIATED"  There's "A LOT" we/HJG would like to be able to do/offer .... if only it could .... BUT SADLY .... and since we're just "a small group of volunteer FS enthusiasts" (not much more than that) with limited skills/resources available to us .... we're often trapped somewhere between what we'd like to do and what's practical for us to be able to achieve .... with relative ease Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Aug 1, 2015 10:07:14 GMT
Thank you Mark for your detailed and informative reply. Having only just recently discovered the amazing aircraft here I am in awe at the years of hard work that you and others have put into giving us the best product you can all for the love of it. All I can really do is encourage you all to keep up your amazing work.
Hope you are enjoying your weekend.
Cheers,
Nathan.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dee Waldron - HJG on Aug 1, 2015 14:25:22 GMT
Our DC-8 model can trace its linage all the back to FS5 and Project Freeware. I came to realize a while back that any further improvements to this model were out of the question. It's going to take a fresh sheet of paper, producing a completely new model. That means it's out of my hands now, as I don't have any spare time for this kind of stuff any more.
Working with a team like HJG, it takes a solid 2 to 3 years to bring a new model of acceptable quality to general release. Then throw in all the different versions and variations and it goes well beyond that (time). So what am I trying to say? Mark has already touched on it. Getting a new team of 2 to 3 people to commit to a new airplane model is difficult. I would even say it's pie in the sky.
So, the old HJG Jurassic jet is probably going to be the only (freeware) game in town for the foreseeable future. Of course, there is a payware model available.
Enjoy flying the old jets. And remember, it is about FLYING them! Eye candy is a distant second place. (Does anyone remember me, making jokes about Microsoft Door Simulator? Ha ha ha!)
Cheers!
Dee
|
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Aug 1, 2015 23:27:05 GMT
Thank you Dee, I am very grateful for all that has been done since FS5 (I think I downloaded it then) to the product that you make available to all of us now. And yes, I do enjoy flying the plane, even more than the buggy payware one which seems to just sit in the hanger.
Hope you are having a great weekend,
Cheers,
Nathan.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 2, 2015 20:40:15 GMT
Thanks once again for your acknowledgements Nathan .... because it "IS" appreciated A lot of things are often asked of groups like HJG (and not just HJG solely) .... and as a result there's a great deal of expectation on the part of some. We try to do what we can .... and folk have to (of course) accept what we cant't offer .... BUT .... despite whatever's asked and often as it's expected (by some) too .... I, personally, feel your method of approaching (as presented above) these matters is a good model of how it should all be tendered You have a good week over there in the "West Island" too .... the "The Land Of Oz/AUS" I'm sorry .... OOPS .... I mean "AUSTRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALYA" Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by Nathan Ford - HJG on Aug 3, 2015 7:04:59 GMT
Australia, where the men punch sharks  |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 3, 2015 8:25:02 GMT
.... and introduced (popularised) the word "CHUNDER" within the English language too  .... and from whence also came great bands like "MEN AT WORK" .... www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqp5Mq-Vli0Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Aug 5, 2015 12:31:16 GMT
Eye candy is a distant second place. Hi Dee: True BUT: Still it is a pity that the HJG DC8 FS9 visual model must live without the leading edge high lift device the later HJG DC-9s have.  Walter |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Waldron - HJG on Aug 5, 2015 14:21:25 GMT
Walter, you've got me totally confused! But its late and I'm headed for bed. Maybe I'll figure it out by morning! Dee |
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Aug 6, 2015 9:12:46 GMT
Hi Dee: Sorry confusing you but I am refering to a question raised by me two years ago: tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/6736/dc-8-63-performance-updatein my post of 9 th of dec 2013. As in the meantime the project of a new model for the DC-8 stalled, the problem is still open. For my feeling the flightdynamics and the panel are not so important as they are quite acceptable to good. Kind regards Walter |
|
|
|
Post by Dee Waldron - HJG on Aug 6, 2015 15:01:46 GMT
Yeah, there was an attempt made by HJG to get a new (clean sheet of paper) DC-8 model that would have been FSX native. That project fell apart for various reasons. And yes, one of the proposed design points would have been a more accurate wing design. But that's all water under the bridge now. Concerning the current visual model (e.g. wing slots), please refer to my old post on the thread you referenced. It's still valid. At some (undetermined) point in the future, a new set of FDEs will be produced. It is my hope that it will simulate a more accurate decent profile (heavy emphasis on the word "hope") that the wing slots would provide. But that is all that can be said about it at this time. I invite the public to not hold its breath waiting for it! Mark has also mentioned this numerous times in different posts. Remember what I wrote up above about the models long linage. The same goes for its FDE. Its all been a long and winding road that got us to where we are today. And I believe that it will continue to evolve into the future! It just needs everyone's patients. I'm not sure what else I can say about this, especially since I'm not really involved in the current program here (being retired mostly). Right now I'm more interested in my next fishing trip. I hear the fishing is really good down in NZ! Mark? Dee |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Aug 7, 2015 5:35:16 GMT
"YES" .... that (as some here already know) is still happening, but, as I keep saying .... it's "A LOT OF WORK" .... and only a few people, very few in fact, can (or are qualified) to assist me with the development of this project.
It .... could have been released by now .... save for a family bereavement which occurred a wee while back and which delayed "everything" further (even the DC10's .... which were a 3 year project, started prior to the DC8 FDE renovation, were released a whole year late) as priorities were necessarily "refocussed".
What's been done, so far, "IS" encouraging though (as some here already know also) .... and certainly better than what's currently downloadable too .... and also now expands the DC8 family quite considerably too given the extent of variation which exists between models right throughout the DC8 family and which are now represented.
The worst of the currently downlodable FDE's are those for the DC8 SUPER 62 and SUPER 63 .... in my opoinion. As Dee has already correctly stated .... these were inherited by us and from a long lineage of editing prior to 2006.
Of all of the HJG simulations the DC8's have undergone the very least FDE modification since 2006 .... in fact all they've ever had, since this time, is what was deemed necessary in order to ensure the modified panel/gauge functioalities.
I'm certainly seeing (what I believe is) an improvement in this particular respect (the decent profile) among what's been done so far, but, if one's not too careful, then, one can still get into trouble descending any of the DC8's .... and any other aircraft type simulation too for that matter.
The best/necessary procedure is to "SLOW DOWN (reduce power, but, maintain level cruise) BEFORE GOING DOWN" .... to less than 450 KTS/TAS .... and from approximately 150 DME to ones destination .... is the key to descending successfully without overspeeding.
The ROD and airspeed then needs to be constantly monitored .... all the way down .... and adjusted as necessary (meaning further reductions in both the ROD and engine thrust).
Following these "very basic procedures" I've never gotten myself into trouble with any of the DC8's .... even as bad as the current FDE's for one or two of them may be.
Descending these simulations well is "AN ART" .... which needs to be "PRCTICED" .... and "LEARNED" .... but .... I'll comment more definitively about these details within my new flying guides when the time comes/after I'm first satified with the new FDE developments.
Mark C
AKL/NZ
|
|
|
|
Post by walterleo on Aug 8, 2015 12:07:16 GMT
Hi friends: Thanks for your answers! As I work on the easy side of FS tuning already existing panels for more realism and functionality I know that some problems are being draged along for years thinking the solution is where´nt it is. Last example the NI-50 navigation computer of the Tu-124. SAMDIM developers said always, its "only" a snag in its programing. But never a solution apeared and the same gauge works faultless in other airplanes. So some weeks ago I decided that the system gauge of the Tu-124 is to blame. And know what: The KS8 compass system and the NI-50 of the Tu-134 do a marvelous job in the Tu-124. So soon I will publish that solution. But as in the philosophy of science they call such a momentanous "enlightment" serentipidy so one can hope that somebody out there has one day the flash of an idea to change the visual model at least of the DC-8-62 , 63 ff or somebody finds the lost source code of the old model. The flightdynamics and the panels are already in the best possible hands.... Kind regards Walter |
|
|
|
Post by dutchman2 on Aug 17, 2015 19:02:37 GMT
On the matter of in-flight reverse; I can remember seeing all 4 into idle reverse on some approaches where we were a bit on the high side and need to get down. It felt like we were literally hanging on the reversers on the descent.
Also remember on the 70's that the outboards were blocked at idle reverse with the inboards doing most of the work on rollout. This was supposedly to avoid control issues.
|
|
) would be a great addition in helping to get this bird to slow down.
