Mad Dog Modifications

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

I like it when we have "a quiet forum" .... because (1) it tells me there's no pressing problems/issues needing to be addressed .... and (2) because I can also then get "a hell of a lot more done" without risking what I'm working on being distracted/interrupted or otherwise shelved in order to deal with other intermittent problems/issues

A wee while back it was reported (by only 2 folk incidentally) that our MD simulations manifested "a degree of resistance" to rotate easily at what should be considered normal TO speeds .... especially when operating at/near MGW .... and/or .... these simulations otherwise seemed require what might also be considered "an abnormally high" trim setting in order to assist their easy rotation for TO.

A quiet forum belies what's actually going on behind the scenes here among HJG's in-house "development team/experts" .... given the number of projects being juggled at any one time .... however (and coming back to this MD related issue which is the main thrust of this particular thread) .... it's been "a problem" trying to determine precisely what was causing this particular performance related disadvantage .... and the other part of this problem has been the problem of trying to find time to address "the problem" given FDE work is "the most time consuming, and potentially frustrating, aspect of FS development". If it wasn't .... then .... everyone would be doing it/able to do it .... but which is simply not the case at all

ANYWAY ....

I've taken the scenic route to say we've now located, and fixed, this particular problem which has (prior to now) molested our MD flight line, so, as soon as can be scheduled .... among our other plans and priorities .... we'll be re-releasing each of our MD base packs with corrected and otherwise revised/improved FDE.

The nature of the corrections applied now enables these MD simulations to be rotated for T/O .... and without difficulty .... at anything between 137 through 147 KTS .... ensuring one is then airborne at between 147 through 157 KTS .... "depending entirely upon the MD version being flown, its simulated weight, and engine thrust and applied TO power setting" .... whilst also not forgetting any possible overriding influences associated with certain FS airport altitude environments too

The following imagery should/"WILL" confirm my above allegations (in regard to this problem having now been identified and fixed) .... each of which demonstrates these simulations on departure from the default FS9 KSEA, at MGW and assisted by both FLAPS 15 as well as a much more modest trim setting also ....


MD-81



MD-82



MD-82SF



MD-83



MD-83SF



MD-87



MD-87ER



MD-88



MD-90-30



MD-90-30ER



MD-90-30 (IGW)




In order to try'n satisfy any potential critics and "doubting Thomas's out there .... I've left the FS data visible within the top left portion of each image (it should be readable by most) .... and which clearly displays both airspeed and fuel quantity .... the later being being "a basic" confirmation as to the simulated weight of each subject .... which "is" seen here operating at MGW, no payload adjustment at all, and just minor "FUEL" only reductions in order to ensure each simulation is indeed set at/near (no more than a couple of suit cases over) its certified MGTOW.

These upgrades "WILL NOT" be accommodated with our next website update .... or possibly the one beyond that either .... but .... we're hopeful of a December/Christmas release all going well .... and which will be for the better given I also want need to use this time/opportunity to address the fact that some these simulations do tend accelerate far too quickly for applied engine thrust (meaning power settings required in order to keep airspeed under control have been too low to date) .... so .... the long and short of this is "patience should be rewarding" .... for those whom are prepared to "wait"

A note for those whom I sent a sample FDE suite to try out ....

Don't use that FDE suite for anything other than the aircraft type version it's intended to represent. The solution/fix needing to be applied to each individual MD simulation is different/specific to each subject. I also recently mentioned the supplied FDE was the final version .... I now retract that .... because it's "NOT" .... given other minor issues I've since discovered that need attention also, so, further "TEST" FDE's will be circulated in due course.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Now I know precisely what the problems are .... and where they're located .... as well as how to resolve these too .... I'll be restarting this FDE project ASAP .... and which might also extend to our B717-200 as well.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[Nathan Ford - HJG]

Fabulous work Mark and others involved. It’s so wonderful to see the constant tweaking and modifications to what is already a great range of aircraft. There is a dedication amongst the team here that a couple of commercial companies out there (two starting with the letter “C” that standout) could learn from.

Thank you

Nathan

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

The primary issue/s with some of these simulations are something I/we've been aware of for some time.

It's not so much a matter of not being able to address them sooner .... but rather .... it's been one of how to best, and most effectively, address them that needed to be learned .... and now I know precisely what to do, and where, and also by how much too, I can finally proceed with "a greater degree of confidence" .... and from there its just "a matter of time"

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

Time for an update in regard to the progress of this particular project .... which incidentally covers our MD-81/-82/-82SF/-83/-83SF/-87/-87ER/-88/-90-30/-90-30ER/and 90-30 (IGW) simulations .... and may also include our B717-200 simulation as well since this particular aircraft is "historically" part of the MD-80/90 flight line development although I've not, yet, made a firm decision on this latter possibility, so, we'll see !.

As reported above and evidenced per information visible within each of the presented images .... the cause of the "resistance to rotation" that has plagued each of these simulations since they were first released here (they each required excessively high TO speeds in order to be able to begin rotating in response to control input) has been identified and resolved .... to the extent that each now rotates "smoothly and nicely" and for much more modest/credible TO accelerations of between 140 KTS and 150 KTS (depending upon aircraft type and its simulated weight was well as how each is loaded and trimmed) .... and resulting in each then becoming airborne "before" 160 KTS. Totally unlike has been the case for with all of these simulations prior to now and this fix being applied.

I quickly need to add ....

"DO NOT" go running off to HJG DOWNLOADS expecting to find these fixes available now. These "HAVE NOT YET" been released. It'll be announced when they're available. So .... sit tight and remain patient .... because such should be rewarding.

I also need to say that whilst we've been aware of the problem/s affecting these simulations for quite some time past .... finding the time to try'n successfully address the issue/s, among everything else we've been developing and releasing too, has been a greater problem than identifying and fixing the actual cause of the problem/s.

In addition to the above-mentioned fixes .... the FDE for each these simulations has also been reviewed (with just that for the MD-90's .... and possibly the B717-200 too .... still remaining/needing to be completed). Previously .... most of these simulations (if not all of them) also suffered from a tendency to accelerate "far too quickly" following TO. "THIS ALSO" is being/has been addressed .... so far successfully. This "rapid acceleration rate" affected these simulations throughout the climb, and in the cruise regime in particular, typically being manifested per engine N1/N2 indications that were "way too low" to be realistic for credible cruising airspeed/MACH velocity. With these FDE fixes having now been applied the engine indications for each of these simulations is "FAR BETTER" .... for the recommended AT controlled velocity of MACH 0.79 and the virtual FL310 as evidenced below ....





Of course these simulations can each go higher .... and faster too .... but .... MACH 0.79 at FL310 is "realistic" (so why abuse one's virtual aircraft by going "balls-to-the-wall" ? Fly sensibly .... if not economically too .... if one wants a relatively authentic experience). The virtual FL310 is a very practical "initial cruising altitude" for these, and most other civil jet simulations, following any MGW TO.

This re-release will be composed of "NEW" aircraft base packs containing the upgraded FDE's .... there will be no modifications to any of the existing 3D models.

There will be no further additions to our existing MD-80/90 aircraft base back flight line either.

Nor will alterations be applied to any of the panels .... or their supporting gauges suites .... currently offered by us for each of these simulations. Unlike has been the case with any number of other panels that aren't our own but which we've been authorized to edit/improve .... such "WILL NOT" be the case for any of these simulations. Whilst the panels we offer for each of these simulations are "FS2004" (only) compatible .... there "IS" an FSX compatible option/package available at FS.COM and which features most of (but not all of) the same panel versions we offer, but, those electing to use this FSX alternative also need to be aware that this particular MD-80 panels package "IS NOT" an HJG production therefore we "CANNOT" provide support for it. Be reminded that HJG can, and will, only provide support for those files hosted on this website.

As has already been announced within the following link on our "NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS" forum page ....

tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/9908/kick-start-2021-fs-year?page=1&scrollTo=69346

.... re-release of the MD-80 (only) simulations will also be accompanied by "another surprise" intended for use with them.

In addition to all this .... and only subject to personal convenience and my ability to be able to do so .... I may (possibly) rework our current forum based MD-80/90 manual, but, "NO PTOMISES".

I may add more to this later .... "IF" I consider I have anything else of value or significance to report.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

As I mentioned I might do .... I did have a look at our B717-200 simulation.

Probably just as well I did .... because it too "was" in need of "a bit of FDE assistance" .... and for essentially the same reasons as mentioned above in the case of the MD-80's .... although our B717-200 simulation has never been plagued by the resistance to rotation that issue that "prior to this recent round of editing" affected our MD-80's/-90's.

In particular the cruise power indications of our B717-200 simulation at the virtual FL310 and for a respectable MACH 0.79 were "way too low" (worse than the MD-80's), so, through the application of progressive adjustments I've managed to coax these indications "up somewhat" as is evident per the images below ....





These improved high-altitude/high-speed cruise power indications are probably still "a wee bit too low though" (for the B717-200 only), but, that could also be partly panel/gauge related (the MD-80/B717-200 panels we offer aren't our own and haven't, and won't, be modified by us), however, there's "a limit" to the extent I'm prepared to go with FDE editing such as this .... simply because exceeding such limits can begin to stuff-up other details .... then forcing a major FDE overhaul, but which, I'm simply not prepared to risk. What's been achieved per this round of editing "IS" an "IMPROVEMENT" though .... and I'm perfectly content with "THAT"

In addition to the improved high-altitude/high-speed power indications .... the AI pitch attitude within this same flight regime (again for the B717-200) was similarly in need of "adjustment" .... so .... it got "adjusted" too. Got to be careful adjusting this particular parameter though .... because whatever's applied to it also then influences the approach to landing attitude of any simulation as well .... then requiring adjustment/s being applied to another parameter in order resolve any new issue/s created there, but, as is demonstrated per the following images "I'm now satisfied" with what's been achieved in respect of both flight regimes ....

MACH 0.79 FL310 CRUISE (following a MGW departure)




APPROACH TO LANDING (20% total fuel remaining/full payload/gear down/FLAPS 40/V-APP 137 KTS


Just a few tips flying these MD-80/90/B717-200 simulations.

Getting the approach to landing attitude right is absolutely dependent of the following ....

- WEIGHT .... avoid landing heavy/with in excess of 20% total remaining.

- AIRSPEED .... with a full payload and the above recommended total remaining fuel load, and with both full flaps and gear down too, our MD-80/-90/B717-200 simulations like to fly the approach to landing airspeed at between 135/6 through 138/9 KTS. Each one is "SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT" though .... because the weight assignments for each simulation varies .... and as such even just 1 or 2 KTS of airspeed variation "can" make a difference.

It's best to flight-plan (plan fuel loading for all virtual flights prior to departure .... sometimes doing this in reverse) in order to ensure arrivals are never overweight .... whilst also ensuring such loading is sufficient for the completion of all virtual flights so as to avoid emergency diversions, and/or, everything otherwise suddenly running quiet on one prior to arriving anywhere

- Fly the approach to landing too heavy .... and the nose pitch attitude will increase .... possibly to the extent of obscuring RWY visibility.

- Fly the approach to landing too slow .... and the nose pitch attitude will also increase in proportion to airspeed deterioration .... and once again possibly to the extent of obscuring RWY visibility if not corrected.

- Fly the approach to landing too fast/over-speed .... and the nose pitch attitude (captive with the influence/s of both FLAPS and SLATS) will reduce in proportion to airspeed increase .... possibly even to the extent of inducing a dive with the added risk of bashing the NG upon landing if this isn't corrected in a timely manner also.

Flying the approach to landing properly will/should ensure an AI pitch attitude that never exceeds -1* through +1* degrees .... at the very most .... whilst additionally ensuring acceptable RWY visibility as well .... BUT .... only depending upon how well/meticulously one flies/manages such approaches to landing of course.

Just the MD-90's to correct now .... probably tomorrow .... all going well.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

The last of the edits for each our MD simulations have now been completed (save for their MOI revisions/adjustments) .... again these cover the MD-81/-82/-82SF/-83/-83SF/-88/-90-30/-90-30ER/-90-30IGW and also include the B717-200 too.

This latest round of editing has now gotten our the MD-90's sorted out.

As has been the case with each of these simulations to date .... having now been subject to similar FDE editing the resistance to rotating at sensible speeds (137 through 147 KTS and aided by a modest trim setting) previously demonstrated by these MD-90 simulations too has been "successfully resolved". Their previous tendency to fly with too high a pitch attitude within the high-speed/high-altitude cruise regime (MACH 0.79 at FL310), and during the approach to land as well (impairing RWY visibility somewhat), has also been similarly "successfully addressed" as well.









Just as has been the case with our other MD family of simulations also .... yet other edits have been applied in order to try'n increase the engine N1/N2 RPM's "somewhat" too as these were previously "way too low". Although these indications are still tending toward being "a little low" (as is the case for the B717-200 as well) they're now much higher/better than they was previously the case.



To address these engine indications properly/more desirably would likely require thrust curve editing .... but which I'm simply "NOT PREPARED TO DO" .... since doing so would also risk adversely impacting our sound packs for these simulations (all of which are compiled on the basis of FDE based data) and to the extent of then imposing need for this audio to be recompiled.

As mentioned earlier within this thread issues affecting these simulations "have been" evident for quite some time .... we know that. First released during 2010/11 there were things we didn't know how to address back then though that, through experience, we've since learned how to address .... and which is why these (and some of our other) simulations too, have only now begun to benefit from such knowledge gained .... although as also earlier mentioned finding time to try'n successfully address these issue/s, among everything else we've been developing and releasing recently also, has been a greater problem than identifying and fixing causes of the issues which we've finally been able to successfully attended to.

The result of this effort is that each of these MD simulations .... being a historical outgrowth of DC-9 development (both real and virtual world) .... will now fly "as good as" our DC-9's (and other) simulations too and which is precisely what this upgrade has been all about.

"DON"T" go running off to HJG DOWNLOADS expecting to find these fixed files available now. They've "NOT" been released yet. It'll be announced when they're available.

Mark C
AKL/NZ

[aerofoto - HJG Admin]

My last presentation (I think) .... in regard to these recent B717-200, MD-80, and MD-90 FDE edits.

As of several days ago final adjustments were applied to the MOI's. Most were previously "out of spec" .... it seems. Now everything's feeling, and flying, much better than ever before .... I believe. Flying as good as our DC-9 simulations at least .... and which makes sense given these aircraft are all DC-9 derived of course.

Need people to remember though this's been an "FDE EDIT" only.

"NO" 3D model or panel/gauge modifications have been applied to any of these MD-80/-90 simulations.

Bear in mind the panels we offer for each of these simulations "ARE NOT" our own. Whilst we're authorized to host what we offer we've never sought authorization to modify any of them to our own preferred specifications .... and likely won't be doing so anyway. So .... these panels continue to remain "as they've always been .... and .... "FS9 compatible only" (FSX versions of most are available from FS.COM, but, HJG don't, and can't, provide support for any these). Therefore the few previously reported and "very minor" issues associated with some of these panels remain. These "MINOR" issues are as follows ....


GOLDING WHITE & RED PANELS & SPADA PANEL

1. Disregard the yellow FLAP "DISAGREE" lamp which illuminates when flaps are selected using these panel versions. This warning is a "false indication". Set FLAPS normally .... then using the FLAP indicator gauge confirm the FLAPS have extended to the selected/intended setting .... and proceed normally.

2. The Flap gauge indication/s in these panel versions "HAVE NOT" been synchronized in accordance with what's stipulated within our own FDE (hence the above "false indication"). This "DOES NOT" create any problems whatsoever though. It simply results in the above-mentioned lamp indication .... and FLAP increments that read as 0/2/8/20/32/and 50 (approximately) .... and which are different from those indicated per the SOUTHEY B717-200 (EFIS) panel we also offer and which read as 0/1/5/15/25/and 40 (confirmed) increments. There's "NOTHING" we can do about any perceived discrepancy in regard to these particular details, so, it'll have to remain "AS-IS".

3. An "OUT OF TRIM" lamp will often illuminate on the OH portion of the Main Panel .... in reference to Elevator Trim setting/s. Throughout my extensive testing of the recently applied FDE edits, using these panels (the GOLDING versions only in this particular case), I've determined the optimum ET setting .... for TO (at MGW or otherwise) .... to be an indication of precisely "0.7" (in accordance with the latest FDE editing). Whether or not this's an authentic setting doesn't come into it .... because that's how/what these panels work/indicate and require "using our simulations". The best way to set this required/desirable ET setting is to use the keyboard based Trim commands for FS .... and which are the "END" tab for TRIM UP and the "HOME" tab for TRIM DOWN. It's probably best to initially set an ET setting of 0.8, which will then cause the "OUT OF TRIM" lamp to illuminate, but then, and using the "HOME" tab, tap this key slowly, but repeatedly, until the "OUT OF TRIM" lamp extinguishes .... and which should, once again, result in a displayed ET setting of "0.7". PLEASE NOTE: This "OUT OF TRIM" lamp cannot be made to function until "AFTER" the flaps have been set, so, always set the wing flaps first and in advance of selecting the ET setting. During approaches to landing .... this "OUT OF TRIM" lamp will again be seen to illuminate, but, can/should be ignored.

PLEASE NOTE: The above mentioned issues "DO NOT IN ANY WAY" adversely impact the manner in which any of our B717-200, MD-80, and MD-90 simulations each fly .... when assigned either of these panel versions. These notices simply serve to remind/draw attention to the fact these "MINOR" issues are exist (as has always been the case) .... and for the benefit of everyone's awareness.


SOUTHEY B717-200/MD-80/-80 (EFIS) PANEL

There are "NO KNOWN" issues, at all, with this particular panel version, however, using it throughout my own extensive testing of the recently applied FDE edits, I've determined the optimum, ET setting .... for TO (at MGW or otherwise) .... to be an indication of precisely "5.0" for our MD-81/-82/-83/-87/and -88 simulations .... and "5.5" for our MD-82SF/-83SF/and MD-90 simulations only. Whether or not these are authentic settings doesn't come into it either .... again because that's how/what this panel works/indicates and requires "using our simulations".

IMHO .... this particular panel version also demonstrates the best/most accurate (although I won't venture so far as to say authentic) engine gauge parameter indications .... in the form of N1/EGT/N2/and FF (only) indications at least.


MOVING ON TO OTHER ASPECTS OF THESE UPGRADES

New sound packs will soon be released for our MD-80's only .... but .... not for our B717-200 and MD-90's. We continue to recommend our MD-90 sound pack (FS9 customized only though) for our B717-200's .... it's not too far out of reality in reference to the on board/RW video recordings presently accessible to us.

Our new MD-80 audio will be composed of both FS9 and FSX specific sound packs .... separate file versions for each of these 2 FS platforms. These new sound packs will also be offered as separate "FD" and "WV" audio.

The "FD" version sound packs are intended for those preferring high-quality audio based exclusively upon what's heard from a "flight deck perspective" .... and with high-fidelity external sound added. What's heard on the flight deck is quite different from the PAX cabin environment aboard any civil jetliner. For E.G .... using these "FD" sound packs one will be treated to the predominant sounds of flight deck based avionics, and wind friction in proportion to acceleration/deceleration and with "very little engine noise" actually being audible (particularly in the case of aircraft with rear fuselage mounted engines), and when selecting both flaps and landing gear one will only hear "clicking" of the associated levers .... and a whole lot more.

The "WV" version sound packs are intended for those preferring high-quality audio based exclusively upon what's heard from a "cabin perspective" .... and with high-fidelity external sound added. What's heard within the PAX cabin is quite different from the flight deck environment aboard any civil jetliner. For E.G .... using these "WV" sound packs one will be treated to the predominant sound of cabin air conditioning and a different type of wind friction in proportion to acceleration/deceleration and engine noise being much more audible too (as is to be expected in the case with any aircraft .... particularly in the case of aircraft with rear fuselage mounted engines), and when selecting both flaps and landing gear one will only hear the associated flap motors along with the muffled "rumble" of the gear being extended .... and a whole lot more too. PLEASE NOTE: The "WV" audio will be offered for FSX only but not for FS9.

Another couple of "MINOR" panel related details which are evident using these new sound packs (but which HJG has no control over) is in regard to the default volume of some of the panel sounds .... associated with the GOLDING WHITE and RED panel versions only. The switch "CLICKS" and "AIR CONDITIONING" sound accompanying these panels is excessively loud .... to such an extent that the panel "AIR CONDITIONING" audio (in particular) tends to mask over some of the sound pack features, but, which are engineered at "authentic volumes". In addition to this the panel supplied "AP DISENGAGE" sound is equally (if not more-so) incredibly/overpoweringly loud too .... and to such an extent that if one isn't drowsy or bordering on falling asleep prior to disengaging the AP (again in these panels only) then one certainly won't be afterwards. Upon doing so one will (without the slightest doubt or exaggeration) be snapped wide awake and with quite a startle .... with the added risk of jumping right out of one's chair .... TRUST ME

The Switch "CLICKS" and "AIR CONDITIONING" audio accompanying each of these 2 panels (only) "IS" accessible .... per individual WAV samples. Again .... we're not authorized to edit and resupply this data ourselves .... but .... using the built-in WINDOWS SOUND RECORDER/EDITOR one can do so for one's own personal use .... if one wishes to. I've already done so in the case of "my own" versions of these panels and can therefore recommend "reducing" the volumes of these particular WAV samples by -100% to -125% .... which, using the built-in WINDOWS SOUND RECORDER/EDITOR, equates to a volume reduction of approximately 4 to 5 increments (25% per increment) .... or so I find in accordance with "my own" personal preference/s. HOWEVER .... the "AP DISENGAGE" sound, so far as I can at this time determine, is composed within the gauge/s, so, it can't easily be accessed or its volume reduced. Therefore one will just have to "live with this fact". As I've stated a couple of times already within this report .... it would be nice if HJG could edit certain features of these panels for the benefit of everyone else, but, the reality is "WITHOUT AN OFFICIAL AUTHORIZATION TO DO SO" we're simply "NOT GOING TO DO SO"..... and we've "NO PLANS TO DO SO" anyway.

Mark C
AKL/NZ