effte

This is where it gets tricky. :) If the airfield QNH is 29.92 inHg, then your altimeter will read 1000' at the airfield, regardless of temperature - that's the way QNH works. However, at 20 below ISA, climb to 3000 feet indicated. On an ISA day, that would mean 2000 feet above the airfield. As it is 20 below, you subtract 4 percent of the altitude above your datum for each ten degrees. Your true altitude above the field will be (3000-1000)*0.92, or 1840'. If 3000 was your minimum safe altitude, guaranteeing 1000' of clearance above terrain, you just lost 150' of your safety margin. Normally you never bother when it's warmer. All that does is increase your terrain clearance. As the temperature drops, however, you need to start adding to all altitudes to make sure that you do not impact cumulugranitus. Cheers, Fred

Moustasche? Naw, go full beard. :) And yes, Track-IR vector hat + headphones gets comments. "Are you going geeking/flying with your alien again?" (The "alien" being the TrackIR 3 sat on top of my monitor - the appearance of a TIR 5 didnt' change that.)

You're free to play the game or use the simulator. Each to his or her own.

Also says it's not a primary reference and not to be used for AS/alt during take off and landing either. Edit: I e the A model -1.

You're not supposed to use the HUD as your primary source. It's in the book.

You have the INS, which when properly updated knows your speed, heading and direction of travel. You have yoir air data compiter which knows the speed at which you travel througjh the air. Speed and direction through the air mass. Speed and direction over the ground. The difference is the wind, which the aircraft can tell you.

Most VSIs these days have an inertial compensation built in, essentially a spring suspended bobweight in a tube, adding a pressure difference as a climb/descent is initiated before the pressure sensing components are able to react. This adds in the right direction, i e up when pulling up (unless you are inverted, of course). This makes them IVSIs, Instant variometers. No idea whats fitted to the Hawg - possibly it goes through the ADC. Check the dash one. Cheers, Fred

That list is a bit un-precise. 7000 is not Europe but ICAO. I e worldwide, for all ICAO member states, unless they have filed a deviation.

Inflatable cushions in the seat/seat back works wonders. Really fools the senses. Unfortunately it also replicated the seemingly mandatory badly placed buckle and associated discomfort. :D

...and in US airspace? ;) Bet you are eagerly awaiting the re-release of Nevada!

Something good came out of it then. Regarding the brakes hitting the friction threshold, have a look at what the brakes are really doing using RCtrl+Enter. They seem to be operating as an ABS system, pumping rather than modulating. That will do the braking efficiency no good, so I still suspect the A/S. Definitely a tricky one to get right, I'd say. Cheers, Fred (Now I'll prowl the forums for some other issue to keep Viper awake over ;))

No suggestion regarding the priority to be given to the issue, by you, by ED or by any other tester, has been made as far as I can recall - certainly not by me. The issue was pointed out for the information of the devs only, as a service. "Hey, this is broken, have a look at it sometime will ya?" Nor have any claims on anything being amiss been based on the feeeeeeel of any forum member. They have been based on what is pretty much the end-all, be-all as far as aircraft performance goes - the official performance document and hard data. (I'll admit to ice being an exaggeration though - data corresponds better to a rather wet runway.) I respectfully suggest you're the one with the AN/APS-13 activated here. And you're still wrong... on the interwebs! If you push it I'll requote my own quoting of me! :D

I just decided I'm much more into model railroads than flight sims... out! :D

Peter heter?! Hot damn... I do not want that! :D

Have a look at the dash one. If the official flight manual, used for actual safety of flight critical flight planning by the real-life pilots flying the aircraft, is not considered a solid source then what is? Note what it says on the very top of the pages concerned regarding the sourcing of the data. It is the ultimate first hand testimony. Every time your LDA (Landing Distance Available) is between 890 and 1470 meters in length, you'll run off the far end if you follow normal landing procedures in the sim under the conditions used for my tests above (20° flaps/speed brakes), whereas you'd be able to stop in the real aircraft (if the flight manual which is, and it bears repeating, what real-life pilots use for their pre-flight planning of whether or not it is safe to land, is to be trusted). Fact remains, the simulated aircraft doesn't do what the real-life aircraft it is simulating does. If you call that a simulator working as well as it should, well, then we'll have to agree to disagree as it would mean a difference in view of what a simulation should be on such a fundamental level that it precludes ever finding common ground. However, from past exchanges I do not believe us to be that far apart in our views of the world so it's all just words. I think it is glaringly obvious that I don't. You'll never find me saying anything of the kind, so please don't suggest I do. In fact, allow me to quote the very post you replied to: Nor have I made that suggestion - the ease with which an issue can be fixed depends entirely on the complexity of the programming containing the flaw. Trust me, that is a fact I'm painfully aware of... do not ask me how many weeks you can spend trying to pinpoint a problem with a simulated turbo prop engine, because I'm still trying to make myself forget how I know... :) Really? If it is that easy, please point me to the thread where a developer or a representative of the developers recognizes this issue? Perhaps the links are in the bug tracker. If I had set it up, they certainly would be. However, that's not accessible to users and the forum search functions are not the greatest tool there is for finding references to a particular issue you are having. That's the core problem when it comes to bug reporting here. Problems are raised in the bug forums and elsewhere, but there is usually no response from the devs. If there is, it can be darn near impossible to find even through extensive searching. Eventually, after the frustration and the complaining threads (with associated badwill, even though I honestly don't think that's much of an issue as ED rightfully have a pretty solid reputation which won't be tarnished easily), someone with bug tracker access steps in and says the issue is known. I understand the situation of the devs. They have jobs to do, and spending their time sifting through these forums shouldn't be too appealing. Frankly, I much rather have them working on the code than in the forums. That's where a cleaned up bug list would be an elegant solution, keeping the users happy and off the developers' back, letting the devs work undisturbed. We'd know not to worry about the issues we see, and ED would not have to worry about issues they are working to resolve being dragged around in public, or the badwill of being perceived as unresponsive to customer complaints when they are in fact hard at work resolving same complaints. ED have a devout testing staff. Some representative of said testing staff could surely spend a couple of hours picking out the items from the bug list which are noticeable to the users and listing them on the wiki, after running it by ED for approval? Wouldn't take too many hours away from the flying. Testing done right is 80% about hard work, being systematic and documenting anyway, so the time spent is only a 20% loss... :joystick: Cheers, Fred

If it feels like braking on ice, the fact that the runway is long enough for you to stop before running off the far end does not change that fact. Besides, there are short runways where you will not make even the last turnoff. That will do suspension of disbelief no good. Lastly, there are those of us who actually bother to check what performance we should be getting and note where the sim fails to deliver. Edit: Flying into the ground or landing downwind is even rarer than maximum performance braking in normal ops, but I don't see anyone suggesting it could be removed without detracting from the feel of the sim. :) It's a known issue and will be fixed - let's leave it at that. We can argue whether it is an insignificant issue or not for weeks and it won't change a thing. You'll still be wrong, and it will still be fixed in due time... :P Now, wouldn't the small amount of time required to prep a list of the known issues for public consumpiton be worthwhile, considering the frustration saved and the reductio of "XYZ doesn't work right" threads? One was started in the wiki but isn't maintained.

In the first post - 37500 lbm GW. :)

Thanks, Viper. Not just me, then. 25 below speed and you get a ground roll which about equals the published figure for on-speed PLUS the 380 m air distance for an on-glide landing... didn't exactly give it three seconds after TD before braking either, right? Something is amiss, it would seem.

Using the measuring tool, it's precise enough. That doesn't mean very precise. We should be able to add objects based on coordinates though? That way, it will be very precise indeed if you know your geodesy. If that's possible, and if there's interest, I could create a mission with very exact markers. Calculating geodetic points on runways is something I have more than a little experience of... :) Cheers, Fred

sobek, that has to be tried. Now, problem is - you should be skidding on the rims rather quickly, and they'll have a lot lower friction than the tyres... Slamming her down at the threshold rather than at the TDZ at 15 below Vref (10 below recommended for minimum run) gets you down to around 1000 m LDR... but it's hardly recommended procedure. I think I recall being able to do a lot better in earlier versions. On a sidenote, checking the relative performance of maximum performance braking and AD braking (about the same, which probably feeds the forum infatuation with aero braking as the end-all, be-all for stopping), I found an interesting capability to do loooooong wheelies when you leave the speed brakes closed - see attached track. 2500 m wheelies down to 60 KIAS. :D Wheelie.trk

.--. . - . .-. --..-- .. _ .... .. -. -.- ... . ... .-.. --- --- -.- .. -. --. ..-. --- .-. .--. --- .--. .-.. . - --- - .- .-.. -.- - --- ..--..

If you can handle the full truth, here's a bit of reading: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1150637&postcount=23 If you let go of the stick and trim, the stick will move. Normally, this is not how it is done though. You hold the stick in a fixed position and trim until it requires no force... or, rather, you keep the aircraft doing what you want it to do and trim until doing so requires no force. The truth is out there - both of them! :D

I can't understand a word. Are you encrypting your transmissions?

I know. I planned to include the track as well as the .miz but forgot when I rushed off to prep dinner. Saffron cod with aspargus! :thumbup:

Yes. Now. D'oh! :doh: Please have a look. With any luck, I'm doing something wrong... Also started a thread in the appropriate forum.