Post by M.I.B. on Sept 16, 2018 0:15:31 GMT
I finally had time to dig into the wonders of the brand new HJG DC-10, and take it for a couple of test flights. And because I am genuinely passionate about classic/old jetliners, the -10 being (how else?) one of the most legendary and remarkable of such machines, and among the ones that captivate me the most - in my case, such test flights are bound to arouse my curiosity about various systems, flight behaviors and procedures, and make me want to know more, so they'll inevitably prompt me to ask questions, out of my thirst for knowledge in this field. So if my curiosity/questions are annoying you, just send me to take a walk.
We'll get to that later on, but first, I'd like to keep my promise to George, and make a comparative analysis of the HJG DC-10 and its older, payware, CLS counterpart, which I own and have been enjoying for many years. It's just that...I'm afraid there's really not that much to compare. As expected, the HJG simulation is vastly superior to the CLS one in terms of almost everything - the number of functional systems modeled, their level of realism and fidelity, not to mention the diversity of aircraft, engine and system types, sub-types and versions being provided (as is customary at HJG), the quality and diversity of soundsets. And although I myself lack the know-how and intellectual prowess necessary to verify such things myself, I am more than convinced the flight dynamics, as well as the behavior of the various systems, are superior in the HJG product as well, owing to the proven high level of knowledge and expertise in this field, among the HJG developers.
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.
I also think the AP mode annunciator in the CLS bird is completely drunk. The first (AT) light correctly displays the AT mode, but the second one, which should normally display the armed AP mode, displays the roll mode. All those lights keep changing their duties apparently, and never seem to get them right.
Moreover, there are plenty of systems included on the FE panel of the CLS DC-10, but plenty of them are also missing, even more of them are only partially simulated, and even more still do not really behave the way they should. And as is usual with F-lite (light, easy to operate) simulations such as the CLS DC-10, the end result is that you do, apparently, have a lot of systems modeled, but it doesn't really feel like you have them, since they don't have a lot of actual influence. You may even skip or misconfigure crucial systems which should normally render you powerless for instance, and the plane will still work like a charm, as if those systems don't even matter. That's not the case in the HJG DC-10. The CLS DC-10 also has ONE single soundset and ONE single panel for all DC-10s, which is kind of hard to swallow even for a lite simulation, especially that soundset used for multiple engine types.
All in all, as I mentioned previously here on the forum, the CLS DC-10, like nearly all CLS products, is an F-lite simulation - the kind of simulation which is meant to look very good, to include quite a lot of systems you can play with, which look very much like the real thing, but which is ultimately meant to be very easy to operate, so if you follow the provided checklists, you can play with those systems in a more or less realistic-ish way, but many important steps and systems are omitted or greatly simplified. In other words, it's meant to be a lightweight/easy to use simulation, but also one which gives you a basic impression of the real thing's innards, unlike "mega-lightweight" simulations, such as the ones from Overland.
That's pretty much what the CLS DC-10 is, a lightweight simulation, meant to be easy to operate, so it only replicates the DC-10 systems mainly superficially. Which is not bad, to be perfectly clear. Many people prefer just that kind of simulation, including me, depending on a/c type. But for those of us who want a more serious DC-10 sim experience, the CLS product is only an appetizer. An appetizer us DC-10 loving, die-hard FS9-ers just had to make do with, simply due to the fact there was no better alternative...until now. Who would have thought this old FS platform will get its best simulation for an aircraft like the DC-10, some 15 years after its launch? Yes ladies and gents, it's perfectly safe to say (as if we don't all know it by now) the best DC-10 simulation for FS9 has just been born. And it's freeware.
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. 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...
I haven't taken that many screenshots actually. I've got more words and thoughts to share than screenies today. Here I am ready for takeoff in the 10-30, today's test subject, after a complete cold and dark start-up, following the APU assisted engine start-up and APU shutdown (combined full procedure) checklist.
Love that working wingflex on the 10-30 and 10-40. Or am I the only one who sees those wings flexing upwards a bit when in flight?
Takeoff. Note that instead of manually advancing the throttle levers to full power (all the way to the N1 limit bugs), I did something else instead: after manually spooling up the engines a bit to have them stabilize, I activated the N1 AT mode, as evidenced by the "N1" indication on the AP mode annunciator. That way, the AT automatically puts the engines to the maximum allowable N1 value/all the way to the N1 limit bugs. I see no way why this procedure can not or should not be used at takeoff. But is this really something that can be done? I know this is doable in the A300.
Words are pointless here...
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.
I gotta say, these must be the only 3D models with built-in humor I've ever seen. Talking about the animation assigned to the tailhook command. So unnecessary, so discreet that you don't even realize it, but it just had to be there.
So here's my set of questions and curiosities:
- Like I mentioned earlier, I followed the APU assisted engine start-up and APU shutdown (combined full procedure) checklist. The pre-APU power supply checklist says I should make sure the battery is turned OFF. Then, as part of the APU start-up checklist, I need to put the APU master switch in the "Run" position and keep it there until the F/E panel announciator displays the "APU DOOR OPEN" message. But there's a problem. Since the battery is OFF (as required by the pre-APU power supply checklist), the F/E panel annunciator cannot work, it cannot display any messages, so the "APU DOOR OPEN" message will never pop up. The checklist only asks me to turn on the battery after the APU has been fired up. So what I did was I turned on the battery before starting the APU, otherwise the "APU DOOR OPEN" message will never appear on the F/E panel annunciator, which cannot work without electricity from the battery. So why does the checklist ask me to turn on the battery only after starting the APU?
- The checklist says that after the APU has stabilized following its start-up, the APU N1 should stabilize at roughly 96%, while its EGT should stabilize at 361 degrees. Instead, after the APU has stabilized, in my case, the N1 stabilizes at 87% (instead of 96) and the EGT stabilizes at 269 degrees (instead of 361). However, when I turn on the APU bus switches, the "proper values" mentioned by the checklist, do appear. Specifically, after turning on the APU bus switches, the APU N1 does rise to 96% while its EGT rises to 361 degrees, but only AFTER turning on the APU bus switches. The checklist however, says those values should be attained as soon as the APU stabilizes. How come?
- 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 Nose lights switch is slaved to the landing lights, and it does not control the actual nose lights. The runway turnoff lights instead control the nose gear lights, is this correct or is it just a compromise that needed to be made? Just curious.
- The post-engine start-up checklist says to put the O/H AB selector to "ON", but there is no such position for the autobrake selector. It can only be set to T/O (takeoff), OFF, MIN, MED and MAX. Would I be correct in assuming that when the checklist asked me to place the selector to "ON" it meant to place it in either MIN, MED, MAX or T/O? Since those positions basically turn on the autobrake.
- 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?
I also have a few curiosities regarding general aircraft systems and their placement in the simulation compared to the real life. I searched for pictures and videos of DC-10 cockpits, but I could never find the following layouts, which are present in the HJG DC-10 panel:
- 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?
- 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.
- 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?
Please note that I do not question the quality or realism of these panel components, I am simply curious to know the story behind those instruments, and their relation to the real thing.
A son 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!
We'll get to that later on, but first, I'd like to keep my promise to George, and make a comparative analysis of the HJG DC-10 and its older, payware, CLS counterpart, which I own and have been enjoying for many years. It's just that...I'm afraid there's really not that much to compare. As expected, the HJG simulation is vastly superior to the CLS one in terms of almost everything - the number of functional systems modeled, their level of realism and fidelity, not to mention the diversity of aircraft, engine and system types, sub-types and versions being provided (as is customary at HJG), the quality and diversity of soundsets. And although I myself lack the know-how and intellectual prowess necessary to verify such things myself, I am more than convinced the flight dynamics, as well as the behavior of the various systems, are superior in the HJG product as well, owing to the proven high level of knowledge and expertise in this field, among the HJG developers.
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.
I also think the AP mode annunciator in the CLS bird is completely drunk. The first (AT) light correctly displays the AT mode, but the second one, which should normally display the armed AP mode, displays the roll mode. All those lights keep changing their duties apparently, and never seem to get them right.
Moreover, there are plenty of systems included on the FE panel of the CLS DC-10, but plenty of them are also missing, even more of them are only partially simulated, and even more still do not really behave the way they should. And as is usual with F-lite (light, easy to operate) simulations such as the CLS DC-10, the end result is that you do, apparently, have a lot of systems modeled, but it doesn't really feel like you have them, since they don't have a lot of actual influence. You may even skip or misconfigure crucial systems which should normally render you powerless for instance, and the plane will still work like a charm, as if those systems don't even matter. That's not the case in the HJG DC-10. The CLS DC-10 also has ONE single soundset and ONE single panel for all DC-10s, which is kind of hard to swallow even for a lite simulation, especially that soundset used for multiple engine types.
All in all, as I mentioned previously here on the forum, the CLS DC-10, like nearly all CLS products, is an F-lite simulation - the kind of simulation which is meant to look very good, to include quite a lot of systems you can play with, which look very much like the real thing, but which is ultimately meant to be very easy to operate, so if you follow the provided checklists, you can play with those systems in a more or less realistic-ish way, but many important steps and systems are omitted or greatly simplified. In other words, it's meant to be a lightweight/easy to use simulation, but also one which gives you a basic impression of the real thing's innards, unlike "mega-lightweight" simulations, such as the ones from Overland.
That's pretty much what the CLS DC-10 is, a lightweight simulation, meant to be easy to operate, so it only replicates the DC-10 systems mainly superficially. Which is not bad, to be perfectly clear. Many people prefer just that kind of simulation, including me, depending on a/c type. But for those of us who want a more serious DC-10 sim experience, the CLS product is only an appetizer. An appetizer us DC-10 loving, die-hard FS9-ers just had to make do with, simply due to the fact there was no better alternative...until now. Who would have thought this old FS platform will get its best simulation for an aircraft like the DC-10, some 15 years after its launch? Yes ladies and gents, it's perfectly safe to say (as if we don't all know it by now) the best DC-10 simulation for FS9 has just been born. And it's freeware.
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. 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...
I haven't taken that many screenshots actually. I've got more words and thoughts to share than screenies today. Here I am ready for takeoff in the 10-30, today's test subject, after a complete cold and dark start-up, following the APU assisted engine start-up and APU shutdown (combined full procedure) checklist.
Love that working wingflex on the 10-30 and 10-40. Or am I the only one who sees those wings flexing upwards a bit when in flight?
Takeoff. Note that instead of manually advancing the throttle levers to full power (all the way to the N1 limit bugs), I did something else instead: after manually spooling up the engines a bit to have them stabilize, I activated the N1 AT mode, as evidenced by the "N1" indication on the AP mode annunciator. That way, the AT automatically puts the engines to the maximum allowable N1 value/all the way to the N1 limit bugs. I see no way why this procedure can not or should not be used at takeoff. But is this really something that can be done? I know this is doable in the A300.
Words are pointless here...
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.
I gotta say, these must be the only 3D models with built-in humor I've ever seen. Talking about the animation assigned to the tailhook command. So unnecessary, so discreet that you don't even realize it, but it just had to be there.
So here's my set of questions and curiosities:
- Like I mentioned earlier, I followed the APU assisted engine start-up and APU shutdown (combined full procedure) checklist. The pre-APU power supply checklist says I should make sure the battery is turned OFF. Then, as part of the APU start-up checklist, I need to put the APU master switch in the "Run" position and keep it there until the F/E panel announciator displays the "APU DOOR OPEN" message. But there's a problem. Since the battery is OFF (as required by the pre-APU power supply checklist), the F/E panel annunciator cannot work, it cannot display any messages, so the "APU DOOR OPEN" message will never pop up. The checklist only asks me to turn on the battery after the APU has been fired up. So what I did was I turned on the battery before starting the APU, otherwise the "APU DOOR OPEN" message will never appear on the F/E panel annunciator, which cannot work without electricity from the battery. So why does the checklist ask me to turn on the battery only after starting the APU?
- The checklist says that after the APU has stabilized following its start-up, the APU N1 should stabilize at roughly 96%, while its EGT should stabilize at 361 degrees. Instead, after the APU has stabilized, in my case, the N1 stabilizes at 87% (instead of 96) and the EGT stabilizes at 269 degrees (instead of 361). However, when I turn on the APU bus switches, the "proper values" mentioned by the checklist, do appear. Specifically, after turning on the APU bus switches, the APU N1 does rise to 96% while its EGT rises to 361 degrees, but only AFTER turning on the APU bus switches. The checklist however, says those values should be attained as soon as the APU stabilizes. How come?
- 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 Nose lights switch is slaved to the landing lights, and it does not control the actual nose lights. The runway turnoff lights instead control the nose gear lights, is this correct or is it just a compromise that needed to be made? Just curious.
- The post-engine start-up checklist says to put the O/H AB selector to "ON", but there is no such position for the autobrake selector. It can only be set to T/O (takeoff), OFF, MIN, MED and MAX. Would I be correct in assuming that when the checklist asked me to place the selector to "ON" it meant to place it in either MIN, MED, MAX or T/O? Since those positions basically turn on the autobrake.
- 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?
I also have a few curiosities regarding general aircraft systems and their placement in the simulation compared to the real life. I searched for pictures and videos of DC-10 cockpits, but I could never find the following layouts, which are present in the HJG DC-10 panel:
- 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?
- 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.
- 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?
Please note that I do not question the quality or realism of these panel components, I am simply curious to know the story behind those instruments, and their relation to the real thing.
A son 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!