Hi friends two years ago there was a longer discussion on the question how to make look the Tristar landing view as ist should be. What came out was more or less: "Put your eye-view one notch up!"
What had been not discussed was, that a widebody with high deck angle as the Tristar or the DC-10 looks differently and is flown in real also something differntly on shortest final.
I have read somewere that DC-10 pilots have to fly the last meters before crossing the runway end HIGHER than in smaller aircraft (and commanded by ILS glideslope), as the high pitch angle together with the distance between the mainwheels and the pilots eyes (and the antenas of the radar altimeter and the ILS) would bring the mainwheels too close to the approach lights. So a correctly landing Tristar or DC-10 looks from pilots view point quite differntly as a B 737 or so.
From FS standpoint one can correct the view also scaling lower the zoom factor (say to 0,65) and not using the default factor 1. This also helps for landing a CV 990.
So: Ajust the outside view before taking off:
At final so the view is nice:
Stay high over the fence:
At 50 ft starting the flare you will see still the runway:
Before touchdown the nearer part of runway disappears, but in real also you dont see down to the concrete but concentrate on the far end of the runway.
P.S.: landing wheight 346.000 pds (14 % in all tanks) VREF 33 flaps 140 according book.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 12, 2016 20:04:35 GMT
I'm "pleased" this has come up .... BUT HONESTLY .... using any of the HJG supplied L-1011 panels I wouldn't recommend setting a reduced panel ZOOM factor of less that "0.85" (if one feels they need to resize the default panel/scenery view at all) .... otherwise .... the scenery horizon line "will" progressively drop/fall behind the main panel view to become obcured in proportion to each increment of reduction .... and .... outside scenery objects located at the peripheral edges of the resized panel view will also then begin to distort.
Set a reduced panel ZOOM factor of "0.85" .... if one feels they must .... BUT .... a value of "no less than this" is recommended. Then .... use keyboard commands SHIFT + ENTER (in FS2004) to raise/readjust the height of the scenery horizon line "in accordance with ones preferences". This "IS" discussed within the "KNOWN ISSUES" section of our forum based manual for our L-1011 TRISTAR simulations .... tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/3888/l1011-tristar-panel-installation-handling
I also feel the need to say there has recently been a complaint expressed ..... posted on another social network .... in regard to these L-1011 panels and what happens when resizing the panel/scenery view in particular. The community should know that we/HJG tried .... a number of times .... to assist this particular complainant, but, he flatly refused (publicly uttered) to follow our council. The advice we posted in attempt to try'n support him was "removed", by him (since it obviously didn't suit his intentions), and was replaced with a somewhat less then complimentary statement by him. We never bothered to try'n assist this complainant further (some people simply can't be helped .... and why bother feeding trolls at the risk of creating public entertainment anyway ?) and assume the negativity of commentary will remain as "his own personal testimonial against himself" in the minds of most fair-minded viewers. I need to say that it "DOES NOT" bother us .... in the very least .... that some people seek public media in order to criticize. That's "their right" of course .... but .... as hard as we try to please we/HJG do have our limitations (in regard to the extent of technical expertise) and "CANNOT" cater for everyones individual tastes .... and which is all that really needs being borne-in-mind.
In any case .... we/HJG .... do take "ALL" reports seriously (if anything needs fixing, then, we try to do so .... and often with great success .... if it's something within our capacity to be able to rectify all). Upon investigating the subject of this particular public complaint (some 2 months ago) I compiled an internal report/analysis in regard to it (which I'll post below later on). Despite the fact that the "minor issue", which is the subject of this other individuals public complaint/axe grinding, the issue is known one that we/HJG can't do anything about .... other than to offer our best work-around recommendations which "DO", more than satisfactorily, resolve this matter.
I also want to stress that Walter "IS NOT" complaining about anything here .... he never does. His often helpful commentarty is therefore "NOT" interpreted as a complaint and is, as always, "more than welcome".
I'm simply "seizing this opportunity" in order to air/remind folk of "a known minor issue" within these L-1011 panels
THANKS" for your respected input Walter .... and your much appreciated contributions to this forum community
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 12, 2016 20:15:33 GMT
As mentioned above ....
Here's that copy of my "INTERNAL" report (although reference to this subject "IS" made within our forum based HL-1011 manual) in response to the complaint recently aired per another social network ....
The main panel represented in each of the HJG supplied L-1011 panels is not only larger/deeper (by virtue of the original authors design concept) to accomodate all required instrumentation with the desirable clarity, but, the scenery horizon line, as is currently represented within each, is also, by necessity, raised somewhat on account of this and in order to ensure adequate ground/RWY visibility .... "during the approach to landing in particular".
We appreciate this default panel/scenery view may not satisfy everyones preference, but, this view can easily be ajusted (if on feels they need to), in accordance with personal preferences, in order to promote more advantageous visability and without any major consequences that cannot be successfully addressed .... "as is duscussed below"
Using any of the HJG/KM supplied L-1011 panels .... "THIS" is the panel scenery horizon line and view presented when using any of these panels in accordance with their default window/zoom value of "1.01" (note this value is displayed within the top right section of each panel image/view) ....
Should one desire to stretch the scenery horizon line (as some do) .... in order to create a more distant horizon effect .... then .... this may easily be accomplished, in increments, using SHIFT + - (minus) keyboard commands, and which will result in the following described view perspectives ....
Resetting the panel/window zoom function from its dfault "1.01" setting to a value "0.50" (using SHIFT + - (minus) keyboard commands) .... the scenery horizon line will be stretched so as to appear more distant, but, the scenery horizon height will also then begin to reduce too .... with the scenery view beginning to receed behind the main panel in accordance with each increment of panel/window zoom adjustmemt. Additionally .... airport related scenery objects, located at peripheral edges of the resized panel view, will also begin to distort .... as is evident within the following image ....
This receeding scenery height can easily be corrected/raised though (according to personal preference) using SHIFT + ENTER and SHIFT + BACKSPACE keyboard commands .... but despite this adjustment .... the airport related scenery distortion, at the peripheral edges of the resized panel view, will still remain evident .... as per the following image (note the panel/window zoom value remains set at "0.50") ....
Further resetting the panel/window function to an even lower value of "0.31" (this is minimum setting available for any of these L-1011 panels .... again using SHIFT + - (minus) keyboard commands) .... the scenery horizon line will become further stretched with the scenery horizon line then appearing even more distant .... BUT .... the panel/scenery view will also have completely receded behind the main panel. Airport scenery related objects, located at the peripheral edges of the resized panel view, will also appear even more distorted too .... as per the following image ....
Once again .... and using SHIFT + ENTER and SHIFT + BACKSPACE keyboard commands .... the consealed panel/scenery view may easily be corrected/raised (according to personal prefrence) using SHIFT + ENTER and SHIFT + BACKSPACE keyboard commands .... but .... the distortion of airport related scenery objects, located at the peripheral edges of the resized panel view, will still remain evident despite this adjustment .... as per the following image (note the panel/window zoom value remains set at "0.31") ....
If the panel/window zoom function is then reset to a higher value of "0.65" (using SHIFT + - (minus) keyboard commands) .... the scenery horizon line will be raised somewhat and the distortion evident in most peripheral airport scenery objects also resolved somewhat. The panel view/scenery height may also then be further adjusted (according to preference) using SHIFT + ENTER and SHIFT + BACKSPACE keyboard commands .... as per the following image ....
If the panel/window zoom function is further reset (again using SHIFT + - (minus) keyboard commands) .... to an even higher value of "0.85" .... and a minor scenery horizon height adjustment applied also (once again using SHIFT+ENTER and SHIFT+BACKSPACE keyboard commands) .... THEN .... not only will the general panel/scenery view be greatly improved, but, all evidence of peripheral airport scenery distortion will also be "COMPLETELY" resolved .... as per the following image ....
The above panel view perspective experimentation tends to confirm that whilst the default panel/scenery view (a panel/window zoom value of "1.01") is perfectly satisfactory/"DOES NOT" present any major problems "AT ALL" in respect of ensuring adequate visibility during ground manouvering and approach to landing in particular .... a panel/window zoom adjustment of not less than "0.85", assisted by minor scenery horizon height adjustments too, is promoting of more than adequate visibility should one ever desire to stretch the panel/scenery view in order to create a more distant horizon effect.
This applies to all HJG/KM supplied L-1011 panels.
Stretching the scenery horizon line to panel/window zoom values of less than "0.85" will progressively impair panel/scenery visibility in accordance with each increment of reduction, but gain, this can be more than satisfactorily corrected per the scenery horizon line view adjustments discussed above. Even so .... setting panel/window zoom values of less than "0.85" is not encouraged/recommended in the interest of ensuring the best possible panel/scenery visibility whilst also avoiding excesive scenery distortion using any of these L-1011 panels.
The above observations are also supported by the following approach to landing view imagery .... each of which is based on a reduced panel/window zoom value of "0.85" along with a minor scenery horizon line correction ....
A. 4.0 miles (DME) from landing .... below 1,500 FT (RA) .... 139 KTS (AT) .... FLAPS 33* (degrees)/full .... gear down .... 3* (degree) AI pitch attitude .... using a panel zoom value of "0.85" ....
B. 3.2 miles (DME) from landing .... 600 FT (RA) .... 139 KTS (AT) .... FLAPS 33* (degrees)/full .... gear down .... 3* (degree) AI pitch attitude .... using a panel zoom value of "0.85" ....
C. Over the RWY threshold and prior to auto-flare for landing .... passing 100 FT (RA) .... 141 KTS (AT) .... FLAPS 33* (degres)/full .... gear down .... 3.5* (degree) AI pitch attitude .... using a panel zoom value of "0.85" ....
D. Auto-flare for landing .... "touchdown" .... 126 KTS (AT) .... FLAPS 33* (degrees)/full and spoilers "UP" .... 5* (degree) AI pitch attitude .... using a panel zoom value of "0.85" ....
It is only in the very last moments (a few seconds only) of any approach to landing .... during the flare to landing/touch down and prior toderotation .... that runway visibility becomes momentarily restricted .... but after which ..... visibility is then "more than adequately" restored.
This is all "QUITE NORMAL" .... for these L-1011 panels/simulations.
The following must also be borne-in mind too ....
1. These are 2D type (not VC type view) panels .... so .... scenery visibility is always going to be "artificial" and subject to enhancement, or even impairment, using the default or other view adjustments .... and that´s just the way "some" 2D type panels work.
2. L-1011 aircraft approach to land with a relatively high AOA .... and which is a natural characteristic of these L-1011 simulations also in keeping with performance of the actual aircraft .... SO .... "it is not" unreasonable to expect less runway visibility to be apparent during any approach to landing, but, as can be seen per the above (and following) imagery .... runwy visibility "is not/should not" ever be a problem .... "provided these simulations are flown properly to start with".
3. Different panel authors design their work in accordance with their own personal (and differing) preferences. Most HJG designed panels conform to particular standard in respect of their default view settings, but, in the case of a number of panels which we have "imported" to HJG .... we are obliged to accept what is provided to us and often "CANNOT" (easily) modify everything in accordance with our own established preferences.
4. Panel views may vary slightly between FS2004 and FSX .... and also in accordance with FS display settings too. We "CANNOT" provide a "one setting satifies all users" for any individual panel. Nor can we guaruntee that everything will display similarly on all PC systems and FS installations either. Therefore if folk are, at all, at variance with the default view settings we determine are best, and wish to adjust these in accordance to their own personal preference, then, this option "IS" available .... only in this particular .... case folk "must" experimement with these views in order to determine what looks best and in accordance with their own personal preference/s.
This folks .... given the absence of any general or known issue (which there "is not") is the best we can currently advise
A wide screen LCD monitor was used for each of the above approach to landing view images .... the results of which are consistant with the following imagery using an old square CRT monitor and with the panel/window zoom function maintained at its default value of "1.01" ....
L-1011 RR RB-211-22B Analogue Engine Gauges Panel
L-1011 RR RB-211-22B Tape Engine Gauges Panel
L-1011 RR RB-211-524 Analogue Engine Gauges Panel
L-1011 RR RB-211-524 Tape Engine Gauges Panel
Mark C Bogota DC Republica de Colombia August 2016
I conclude that there are "no major problems" to be reconciled in regard to any of these L-1011 panels, but, if folk desire adjusting their panel ZOOM factor to values of less than "0.85" .... then .... they will create a view issue for themselves .... HOWEVER .... this "extremly minor" issue is "very easily" resolved as described within the above report and the "KNOWN ISSUES" section of our forum based L-1011 manual.
A wide-body airliner with a disgn to be flown at high deck-angle like Tristar or DC-10, is flown in real over the threshold higher than other airplanes (relative to the pilots eye-view) and seen from inside looks differntly AND SHOULD LOOK DIFFERENTLY IN SIMULATION ALSO.
My playing around with zoom factor also relates to the fact that I am using a wide screen on my laptop and a normal screen on my PC both running FS 9. On the wide screen I find a lower zoom factor beneficial for airliners which fly at high pitch angles over the runway threshold.
The other discussion went astray to my impression due to the fact that the person mentioned never did show screenshots and never defined what he wanted to see as "normal".
But nevertheless applying Aerofotos handling notes one can "fly" the HJG Tristar simulation without problems to touchdown.
The height of our "seat" in FS 9 is a problem which is more general than in the HJG Tristars, Staffan Ahlberg (real DC-9, MD-80, AB 340 captain) once adviced to raise our virtual seat in all FS9 simulations for landing. Most real pilots do something similar also before landing their real airplane.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 13, 2016 8:41:24 GMT
The other discussion went astray to my impression due to the fact that the person mentioned never did show screenshots and never defined what he wanted to see as "normal".
"PRECISELY" .... and Walter has "ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT" in regard to what happened within a certain past forum discussion relating to L-1011 panel views.
Even now .... and as Walter "QUITE CORRECTLY" implies also .... we still, don't know, if panel ZOOM adjustments had anything to do with this 1 particular, of 2 only, previously reported L-1011 panel view related issues that've been posted on this forum since 2010. The author of one of these 2 previous threads has never been "clear" in regard to his description/s .... and nor has he ever posted imagery/evidence for us to be able to more carefully analyse his particular issue. It's a pitty really .... because that sort sort of information is what often enables us to more easily analyse (see what other people are seeing .... and there's nothing this team likes doing more than resolving issues .... if we can .... in order advance peoples enjoyment of what we/HJG offer), and advise acordingly, rather than our guessing, and/or possibly misinterpreting too. It's information exchange, like this, that ultimately aids someone else in the future .... hence my decision to finally post my own internal HJG report above
The recently posted criticism (and we believe we know the individual concerned) on another social media (not here at HJG), and to which I referred above, is an "entirely separate" issue though.
Regarding that other complaining individual, you should have offered him a full refund
As 2 of my HJG colleagues would probably testify .... that's "EXACTLY" what I thought of replying Jim .... BUT .... I just as quickly thought ...."why bother feeding the troll only to create public entertainment".
Some things we can fix .... other things we can't.
Some people we can help (and most are a pleasure to assist whereas others aren't) .... and others simply can't be helped at all
AND .... that's just the way it "IS" .... and will likely always "BE"