Octal450

Member
  • Content Count

    251
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

2 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

1,474 profile views
  1. I'd love to see the options of RCWS and Flap Drooping as optional features. RCWS is roll CWS, in manual flight mode (Assuming the AFS levers are up and some other conditions are met) Aileron droop is in the performance improvement package McDD put out, including the 4 degree droop of outer ailerons with flaps/slats retracted, and the larger droop at the takeoff flap settings only (do not droop on landing) The KLM FCOMs + diagrams I submitted to y'all should have all that info in it Kind Regards, Josh
  2. Alright, that is quite unfortunate. I know PID tuning can be a bit time consuming at times but I still think it would be worth it. Best Regards, Josh
  3. Hi Collin, Thank you for the reply. I think it depends on how you have modelled it - I don't know as I don't have your code. If you have modelled it with a PID or similar control system for the FADEC, I think you are right - it could cause some problems that would require re-tuning the controller. But that may also eliminate some other issues such as the ATS sometimes undershooting/overshooting the speed target simply due to the nature of how PID control system works. Perhaps this is why. However, since you have a custom EPR calculation I suspect no PIDs are nessesary for EPR-driven FADEC modelling and thus it depends on how you have modelled the ATS system - which I assume does use at least one PID as most autothrust systems do. So I definitely understand how this could impact things. However I still think its worth fixing as it would greatly improve the feel of the aircraft all the way from taxiing to well, taxiing to the gate. I also firmly believe people would be happy about it as this is the sole reason the aircraft is touchy to taxi. The rest of the AFS system issues have largely been ironed out so if this could be fixed, it would add further polishing to the system. Best Regards, Josh PS: is TFDi still making corrections to the aircraft or is it no longer going to be updated? I have a few other minor inaccuracies that I could grab some proof for as well that would polish it up a bit
  4. Hi, I'd like to open a quick discussion about the FADEC here as I strongly believe the current response is incorrect (since V1.0 even) - this also explains why many people complained that taxiing was difficult. I want to make it clear that I am NOT talking about the response SPEED of the engines, as I see no issues with that. I did a lot of research into EPR FADEC systems and how engines with EPR as primary parameter respond. As you know, the EPR is not a linear function and you've modeled it correctly. However, where the mistake is, is that the throttle COMMAND is linear at the moment. Thus at lower N1s the response will be extremely sensitive due to EPR not changing that much, wheras at high N1 the response will be unresponsive due to EPR changing a lot - and indeed this is what happens in the TFDi 717. Now lets look at some information: in a classic airplane without FADEC, the response of the engine's N1 to the throttle command is fairly linear - this is good because it makes setting the power fairly easy to do, without thinking. The engine speed is fairly proportional to throttle lever. This can be observed in Flight simulator add-ons as well, I will name a few that I have experience with: - Leonardo FlyTheMaddog, all versions from FS9 to the latest FlyTheMaddog - Coolsky DC9/Super 80 series - Any stock FSX/P3D aircraft - Captain Sim 727/737/707 Now lets look at FADEC airplanes in the simulator. The throttle command "bug" does not move linearly with the throttles, but moves using the same response curve as EPR. Why? To preserve the correct throttle response, while still having the advantages of FADEC control on an engine with EPR as its primary control valve (such as these RR's). Thus, the N1 response stays linear, and the EPR throttle command moves only slightly at low positions, and more at high positions. Lets throw some examples here of again aircraft, that I have personal experience with. - PMDG MD-11, Pratt and Whitney engines - PMDG 747 QOTSII Pratt and Whitney or Rolls Royce engines - FSLabs A320 - IAE V2500 engines - Aerosoft A320 - IAE V2500 engines - Captain Sim 757 V3 - Both engine types In all these aircraft, FADEC is modelled, and the EPR bug/engine response moves how I describe. N1 response is linear, even though EPR is the primary control parameter. This allows fine control of engine power throughout all power levels. I've also asked a contact of mine who pilots A320 as captain aircraft a while back who confirmed this behavior is correct, to maintain control over the engines without difficulty. In conclusion, asumming you have correctly modelled the FADEC to have the engines followed the EPR command, I believe the FADEC's EPR command should be modified to be on the same curve as the EPR indication (as its custom coded, the default P3D one is totally wrong). I will probably making a video soon describing this behavior and demonstrating the issue exactly - I would also suggest asking your 717 pilots about this, as I would find it extremely odd if the 717 is the only airplane which had such a imprecise control system. Please let me know if you need any further info or clarifications. I really like the 717, and I'd love for this to be solved as its one of the very last gripes I have with the aircraft. Kind Regards, Josh
  5. Would be awesome! I'm an MD-11 nut so I've been grasping my PMDG MD-11 for years now and would like something a bit more "up to date" Josh
  6. Wow.... that is dumb. I love their MD-11, and would love to have a new MD-11.... Kind Regards, Josh
  7. Octal450

    Boat Data?

    ... I knew it was a joke the second I opened it... lol
  8. PMDG MD-11 and LevelD 767, my 2 favorite addons from all time. Occasionally the Maddog MD-80. All working in P3D V3.
  9. Octal450

    Boat Data?

    I found it funny
  10. I do as well! MD-11 or maybe an MD-88/MD-90 would be nice. But I think they should get the 717 completely finished first
  11. Of course. I'm talking once the 717, is finished, stable, etc...
  12. Nice. I see you using the Tablet there, I for some reason never use it. I just use charts on my iPad mini, or printed ones. I prefer a stock cockpit. But it is very nice for managing the aircraft.
  13. Well, the MD-11 uses different avionics slightly. The 717 is more similar to the MD-10. They are similar, but far far from the same. But, yeah I'd like an MD-11 from them also