5 hours ago, jcomm said:

If I had the chance I would offer Aerowinx PSX to mSparks, so that he could do an even better job...

Ive actually been quite insistent that people dont do this.

Its not a pmdg clone or aerowinx replacement, I actually get a little sad everytime I see another flight factor pirate or any of the other import/export of other peoples stuff that wasnt intended to be shared.

Much rather go through the motions, study a system from original documentation pictures and videos, work out how to build it, try something, test it etc.

Help anyone else who wants to do the same get started.

That's where the pleasure is for me, and I assume everyone else who has contributed, in the creation, learning and sharing knowledge.

Thats not to say pmdg or aerowinx do it this way and this doesnt is something to ignore, but plagiarism is for the feeble minded, the proper way to do it imho is to research and argue it out what is the right way.

Then there are the emotions that come from seeing her being flown, the 747 is a truly phenomenal bird, good looking, still really "top of her class" even after 50 years.

There was real tears of happiness seeing the video alphasimmer made above and that fselite story, there would have been none of that if it was just copying other peoples homework.

 

It's not at all about plagiarism, but rather for the "perfectionism" which, like any "ism" can have it's drawbacks 🙂

When I mention Aerowinx PSX I mention it as a reference for testing each and every feature of the true aircraft not having access to it ( btw, I never mentioned PMDG... because it's a different league... can't compare IMO )

Say, one doesn't know under which circumstances different messages are displayed on the EICAS, when and why waypoints are sequenced in a certain form, how this or that anciliary systems interact, etc.. Then, without access to a full flightsim or the real aircraft, or the money to license a CAE Simfinity desktop solution, we can use Aerowinx PSX...

If as a programmer and aviation passionate I decided one day to model a 744 for X-Plane, MFS, etc..., yes I could invest on some good literature, and seek advice from some rw 744 drivers, but Aerowinx PSX would provide me with more than enough details whenever I encountered some problem / unknown...

I would not be reverse-engineering PSX into my platform, just using it as a source of information, like having Bill Bulfer's guides on my bedside table...

This being said, of course you would still find all of the limitations imposed by X-Plane's generalist approach to flight modelling, systems modelling, weather modelling...

The alternative for many PSX users has been using this sims, FSX, XP, P3D and now MFS as "Visuals Generators" for PSX, and in that way they can really shine 🙂

 

P.S.: Ahah! So, I'm not the only one hinting about Aerowinx PSX 🙂

 

Edited November 23, 20205 yr by jcomm

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

btw, I never mentioned PMDG... because it's a different league... can't compare IMO

You may not have, but the number of times "PMDG does it this way" comes up in the discord.... stiff slap on the back of the head, and tell them to find it in the fcom, I dig into the other manuals if its not clear.

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

When I mention Aerowinx PSX I mention it as a reference for testing each and every feature of the true aircraft not having access to it

The kick off of the project was getting pretty much all the documentation from someone in Lufthansa, ground maintenance manuals, fcoms, training materials, 10,000 pages rounded to the nearest 1000 - these I obviously can't share - and most aren't useful anyway, but when for example someone starts complaining the aircraft does a great simulation of the Q400 in Aberdeen, I can point to the system that was just simulated that caused it (aux on hydraulic system 4) in the FCOM and then wheel chocks get added.

It also makes people stop and think. For example, complaining they can't enter CG in the FMC - ok, but what happens if you enter the wrong CG? Where is that number going and what does it do? (open question btw, not found it in the docs yet)

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

"Visuals Generators" for PSX

However

omg VR

Edited November 23, 20205 yr by mSparks

mSparks,

interesting read here: Use of erroneous parameters at takeoff (bea.aero)

and... question asked here: Entering a wrong CG on the FMC... (aerowinx.com)

From the Boeing 744 FCTM we have also:

"possibility of tail strike due to Mistrimmed Stabilizer" 

Edited November 23, 20205 yr by jcomm

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

"possibility of tail strike due to Mistrimmed Stabilizer" 

Now that makes me think, how does PSX deals with the limitations of PC controls compared to real ones?

For example, say I'm flying at 300 KIAS in PSX: what does it happen if I deflect the joystick at max? Will the elevator immediately deflect at max? Is the deflection reduced to account for dynamic pressure? Etc.

17 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Now that makes me think, how does PSX deals with the limitations of PC controls compared to real ones?

For example, say I'm flying at 300 KIAS in PSX: what does it happen if I deflect the joystick at max? Will the elevator immediately deflect at max? Is the deflection reduced to account for dynamic pressure? Etc.

Good question....

In PS1 Austin had a different approach, while Airline Simulator 2 followed the one that Austin now uses - no attenuation, other than the one imposed by the limitation systems that the aircraft itself has, but, otoh, there are variables you can use to fine tune the fancy hardware you can use with it using even hydraulically constrained controls... well, other than a generic fine-tuning that was introduced 2 years ago to give non-linear response to joystick elevator input, called "USB elevator bias"

Rudder, due to rudder ratio limiters, is a different case.

Yet... :

"The 747-400 aircraft is controlled in pitch by means of 4 elevator surfaces and trimmed by means of an adjustable horizontal stabilizer. The elevators are operated by the pilots' control columns which are connected to a common cross-shaft beneath the flight-deck floor. This operates mechanical connections which in turn operate elevator-up and elevator-down cables routed along one side of the aircraft and a similar pair on the other side, to ensure system redundancy. These cables connect to quadrants mounted on a vertical shaft at the rear of the fuselage. The pitch feel actuator and the 3 auto-pilot pitch actuators also connect to the vertical shaft by means of levers mounted thereon. Thus all operating signals (both manual and by any of the three autopilots) are transmitted by means of rotation of the vertical shaft, and the pitch feel forces resist such rotation. Operating rods from 2 further levers on the vertical shaft provide input movement to each of the 2 tandem hydraulic Power Control Units (PCUs), which are mounted in respectively the left and right horizontal stabilizers, driving the corresponding inboard elevators. Each outboard elevator is driven by its own PCU. The input to each of these outboard PCUs is driven by a system of levers connected to the adjacent inboard elevator. Each outboard elevator thus responds to movement of the adjacent inboard elevator."

( quoted from pp. 3 of : Boeing 747-436, G-BNLB (publishing.service.gov.uk )

Edited November 23, 20205 yr by jcomm

4 hours ago, Murmur said:

Now that makes me think

This.

Its really about the process for me, I get much more enjoyment from the questions that arise and then the hunt for (verifiable) answers than I do from hitting the toga button, dialing a few knobs and coming back to it in 6 hours.

Even when you have some answers its then all about putting the pieces of the puzzle together, and as you do even more questions arise.

And yep, theres also those trim and pitch feel systems to play with sometime, very little actionable detail around on them other than they change control responses with airspeed so the same control input gives the same response at all speeds. (not looking to start those anytime soon, bigger fish to fry first).

12 hours ago, jcomm said:

perfectionism

That was the original lofty YA goal, wasnt really mine, the trouble with striving for perfection is its not an achievable goal, no fun trying to get there, and if you're not careful all you end up with is redoing the same thing over and over again.

Not the approach i took, I "just" started from what pieces of this gigantic puzzle were missing and started learning about them and building simulations of them as i did, starting from the system that seemed the most important to simulating the real one - the hydraulic system.

This is the #1 reason I dont really care for a tablet (unrealistic anyway) and despite being by far the most requested change the [epic] job of fixing the ND text is so far down my list of things to do, I'd much rather make a good ECS synoptic than a better ND, even tho the ND is most of what people look at and probably more than half will never click the ecs button. If people really want an ND that badly they should go complain to the original author (aka Laminar) and/or try it themselves.

If you consider trying to fine tune the flight dynamics, you have also a good source for investigation regarding pitching moments due to thrust, which are - as the real 744 drivers point out - just perfectly modelled in PSX, but very poorly in pretty much all other platforms, X-Plane included, where the "reaction" to thrust changes, usually quite noticeable in landing configuration, is way "sluggish" in these other sims...

I believe there's a lot behind this in the core fdm, but still, I believe there might be some way to get a better depiction of reality.

5 hours ago, jcomm said:

fine tune the flight dynamics

dunno about fine tune...

I'd say the most significant change to the flight model over default was adding the missing outer aileron to the flight model - so it has sufficient roll authority to not fall out of the sky when hit by strong crosswinds.

Working that out was akin to an ntsb investigation.

If PSX supports something like xplanes data out, commanded control surfaces and throttle, actual control surfaces and thrust, heading roll pitch yaw speed and density altitude- Id take test flights of those as the next best thing to an actual set of flight data recordings from a real one. real world FDR data would be ideal, even if a pita to process (and from the documentaries they only ever hold like 30minutes of recording anyway)

Edited November 24, 20205 yr by mSparks

On 11/23/2020 at 3:37 PM, jcomm said:

It's not at all about plagiarism, but rather for the "perfectionism" which, like any "ism" can have it's drawbacks 🙂

When I mention Aerowinx PSX I mention it as a reference for testing each and every feature of the true aircraft not having access to it ( btw, I never mentioned PMDG... because it's a different league... can't compare IMO )

Say, one doesn't know under which circumstances different messages are displayed on the EICAS, when and why waypoints are sequenced in a certain form, how this or that anciliary systems interact, etc.. Then, without access to a full flightsim or the real aircraft, or the money to license a CAE Simfinity desktop solution, we can use Aerowinx PSX...

If as a programmer and aviation passionate I decided one day to model a 744 for X-Plane, MFS, etc..., yes I could invest on some good literature, and seek advice from some rw 744 drivers, but Aerowinx PSX would provide me with more than enough details whenever I encountered some problem / unknown...

I would not be reverse-engineering PSX into my platform, just using it as a source of information, like having Bill Bulfer's guides on my bedside table...

This being said, of course you would still find all of the limitations imposed by X-Plane's generalist approach to flight modelling, systems modelling, weather modelling...

The alternative for many PSX users has been using this sims, FSX, XP, P3D and now MFS as "Visuals Generators" for PSX, and in that way they can really shine 🙂

 

P.S.: Ahah! So, I'm not the only one hinting about Aerowinx PSX 🙂

 

I wish Hardy H. would release a 744 for XP. Have nothing than good memories of it. Maybe I should fly it again one time.

Edited November 25, 20205 yr by Ralf Maylin

todays issue.

https://github.com/mSparks43/747-400/issues/36

and fix

 

On 11/23/2020 at 3:37 PM, jcomm said:

I would not be reverse-engineering PSX into my platform, just using it as a source of information, like having Bill Bulfer's guides on my bedside table...

In that respect, could I request a virtual flight test.

What does PSX give for Vmc at 

178381kg flaps 0

178381kg flaps 30

395991.0kg flaps 0

 395991.0kg flaps 30

Sparks, you mean Vmca right - top of the lower manouvering speeds ( yellow ) band right ?

Will have to check. Sent you PM.

Here ya go Sparks, the best I could get as an approximation to your proposed GWs...

All in ISA, GW 179t @ FL050, GW 396t @ FL100. When FL30, gear is also down, but I can try to run it with gear up.

GW 179t Flaps 0 FL100

GW 179t Flaps 30 Gear Down FL050

GW 396t Flaps 0 FL100

GW 396t Flaps 30 Gear Down FL050

 

Edited December 5, 20205 yr by jcomm

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Sparks, you mean Vmca right - top of the lower manouvering speeds ( yellow ) band right ?

Will have to check. Sent you PM.

Here ya go Sparks, the best I could get as an approximation to your proposed GWs...

All in ISA, GW 179t @ FL050, GW 396t @ FL100. When FL30, gear is also down, but I can try to run it with gear up.

GW 179t Flaps 0 FL100

GW 179t Flaps 30 Gear Down FL050

GW 396t Flaps 0 FL100

GW 396t Flaps 30 Gear Down FL050

 

Nice one, for reference it was

179, 0  = 210
179, 30 = 130
396, 0  = 220
396, 30 = 140

your flight test

179, 0  = 179
179, 30 = 118
396, 0  = 241
396, 30 = 190

plugging that into the formula (based on weight and flaps) gives

179, 0  = 179
179, 30 = 118
396, 0  = 251
396, 30 = 190

Was depending much more on flaps and much less on weight. I've just limited to top to 241, since 

GW 396t Flaps 0 FL100

has a much shorter distance to the red tape than the others

 

Interesting. just flight tested these with flaps 20... and.... doesn't work at all.

Please could I be a pain and ask for two more

179t, 20 =

and

396t, 20 =

When you get a moment

(I suspect GW 396t Flaps 30 Gear Down FL050 may actually be flaps 20)

Edited December 5, 20205 yr by mSparks