|
|
Post by mirageiiic on Apr 1, 2020 0:21:21 GMT
Hello! I have a few questions regarding the newest 727-200 v2.0 models: 1 - In the "known issues" section of the manual, it's mentioned that the contact points need to be manually edited with some new values. I'm curious, what is the issue that is being corrected by the new contact points? 2 - The fuel subpanel fuel has an issue which I think dates back to the original versions of this 727 panel to be released by Richard Probst. If you switch off the boost pumps on a particular fuel tank and close this subpanel, the pumps will be turned back on when you re-open the subpanel. It's not a big deal as it does not seem to affect the functionality of the simulation in any way, i.e. leave all those switches on that subpanel alone. I'm curious if this is a known issue or if I have a specific problem with my installation. (on the 707 panels, by comparison, all the boost pump and crossfeed valves are operational and work fine). Not sure if the crossfeeds on the 727 work, but the individual engine fuel valve switches work very well...  3 - The loss of wing views is mentioned. Is this a permanent issue due to lack of a complete model as a starting point for the v2.0 upgrades, or is it simply something overlooked that may be corrected in the future? Thank you again for all the hard work and for taking the time to answer our questions!  Fernando |
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 1, 2020 1:00:07 GMT
The CP revisions help reduce the extent to which wheels/tires may appear buried into the virtual ground .... the extent of which may vary among these models based on their individual weight assignments. Can't say I've noted it .... and which, if such an issue exists, is why no mention of it appears within the "KNOWN ISSUES" section of the manual. I'll have a look at it .... when I can and might comment later (or add an additional note to the manual) .... now's just not a good time to be able to do so I'm afraid. Just one detail to (perhaps) bear-in-mind here though and as follows .... The fidelity of some systems, in some of of the panels we offer, may differ to some extent since among the panels we've imported (as is the case with the B727's) we can usually only edit in accordance with what source code we're allowed access to promotes our easily being able to do .... or otherwise in accordance with our own knowledge of various systems too, so, it's (perhaps) important to accept that not everything may be of the same degree of fidelity among what we offer here (some panels therefore having more or less systems complexity) .... and as such variation/s will be evident. Similar applies also in regard to the way some systems are compiled to work .... in that the same systematic (or functional) logic doesn't necessarily apply to everything we offer either, so, for this reason it's advisable to use the systems represented as we prescribe these should be used rather than trying to invent and apply another methodology .... and which might result in issues/problems. The loss/absence of the WV's "is" permanent. Such were featured within the original VL released models, but, the 3D models we host are "different/later edits" with some features not represented among the original VL released models. We lost the WV's because the data for these wasn't among the source code we inherited/were allowed to use. "Artificial WV's can be added to the B727's we offer though .... as per the following linked information .... tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/8143/wing-views-boeing-727s-fsx.... but .... these "are not" the same as the WV's which were compiled into the original VL models. Similar also applies too in regard to the B737 model versions we host as well. Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by mirageiiic on Apr 1, 2020 2:22:25 GMT
Mark Thank you for your quick and thorough reply, it was very helpful. Regarding the fuel sub panel, I think it's something that goes back to the early Richard Probst versions of it, so most likely an inherited "problem" It's just a small detail in any case, the sim works fine with it the way it is. It's perfectly understandable that the various planes will have panels with various level of complexity depending on the capabilities of the material you had to work with. I'll go edit my aircraft.cfg's with the revised contact points now! Thanks again for your help |
|
|
|
Post by DirkDP on Apr 1, 2020 22:22:44 GMT
Hi,
I did some tweaking of the B727-200 gear contact points, this is what I use:
point.0 = 1, 65.35, 0.00, -7.4022, 1181.100, 0, 1.50, 50, 0.8, 1.68, 0.9, 10.0, 10.5, 0, 200, 280
point.1 = 1, -8.10, -10.33, -8.1700, 1574.803, 1, 2.18, 0, 0.3, 1.43, 0.7, 11.0, 12.0, 2, 200, 280
point.2 = 1, -8.10, 10.33, -8.1700, 1574.803, 2, 2.18, 0, 0.3, 1.43, 0.7, 11.5, 12.5, 3, 200, 280
One odd thing was that I had to set the longitudes like this (not really at the gear locations of the visual model), because otherwise, when braking, the nose would dive into the ground.
But this seems to work, with the aircraft at OEW or MTOW, the wheels stay on the ground, and don't sink in...
Regards,
DDP.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 1, 2020 23:59:21 GMT
The visible effect/s of NG wheel/strut compression in response to brake application can vary somewhat .... depending on whether people are using a joystick or yoke and pedals type controller devices .... and of course how aggressively, or non-aggressively, they may apply braking action after landing too. Similar can also apply in regard to yaw responses as well .... as Mike and I have been aware of for quite a while. It could potentially confuse some if we were to offer 2 sets of such values (one lot for JS and another lot for Y&P controllers), so, we sometimes work up acceptable values average for what we consider to be best for either/both types of controller devices The only reason we currently offer a 2nd set of CP's for the B722's (within the "KNOWN ISSUES" section of the manual is because these represent our own further fine tuning of these values following the 2015 release, and because the V2.1 versions of these same files (which contain minor fixes and adjustments for both the models and CFG statements) haven't .... yet .... been released .... since there's just been too much else going on lately. I won't be lured into stating when these V2.1 files might be released either .... since most of us have other/greater priorities than FS at the moment  The "KMOWN ISSUES" advisories will all be removed once the new V2.1 aircraft base pack files are available. Just coming back to braking action for a moment though .... I must admit that landing at between 130-125 KTS (flying with a full payload one needs to be below 20% total remaining fuel in order to do this properly) .... de-rotating and then applying reverse thrust down to 80 KTS .... and then applying very moderate brake pressure afterward and down to a sensible taxiing speed .... I've never, really, seen anything (NG strut or wheel compression) that concerns me sufficiently to want to further adjust the CP's .... based on the controller device I use, it's calibrations, my own technique also, and the revised values we recommend. In fact one needs to be cautious when further adjusting CP's .... as we've found to our frustration during past development .... because excessive or inadequate values (not saying your recommendations are either .... just merely stating this as "a fact" ) can result in other undesirable issues .... "trust me"  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
The "KMOWN ISSUES" advisories will all be removed once the new V2.1 aircraft base pack files are available.