Posts by Overloaded

You can get an honest Mach 0.8+ out of the Aeromacchi and it has a single tunable ILS/VOR + DME. I really like it up the glaciers!

Forget the route stuff, plan a great flight in advance and have a ball.

Quote from J van E

Isn't this a reply?

I edited my offering the second it was posted, you just missed it

I got no response to suggestions that the CDU could be used to enter the nav override page allowing the Aerofly customer to manually control all of the nav frequencies.

I wanted it to at least display the actual NDB in use as obviously the 737 leaves us guessing, the difficult 737 ADF control box does not operate and being a needle dial it would definitely need a working audio ident. The Aerofly 737 hopping NDB tuning would have to be based on virtual FMC operation.

The 747 ADF frequencies displayed on the CDU are false unchanging numbers. The 737 ADF dial and knobs do not move.

Of course Tübingen can do whatever they want, it is perfectly 100% their Simulator program, the suggestion would just be giving some more optional control of the simulation experience to the user.

(Just after posting!) Just saw the very wellcome post from Jan, sounds really good!

Looks like Boeing just left out the EPR gauges, the next one down in a -200 was N1. The Aero version swapped around the top two '-200' gauges instead of leaving one out as in your real -500. I see the right seater got to play with the CDU. I'd thought the Aero HP fuel cocks sat a bit low in 'on'.

Well done Ray, you have an actual N number after all and someone has the original performance manual, some nice homework to be had there!

I wonder if the Aero fuel flow numbers in the cruise are JT8D or CFM56 ? There should be a two or three fold difference. Of course it doesn't matter in Aeroland, fuel lasts for ever.

Try late dusk new Monterey!

I posted 'edited -200' hints ages ago but got no nibbles.

I had posted several pre-FS2 comments along the lines of it is obviously a -200! The facebook preview images included a vague sideways view that was a bit engine ambivalent - remember that both the -100/200 and all subsequent '37s all had high mounted engines not at all like the B-47 or Dash 80 engine pods.

I base my performance around reducing to 170 kt = flaps 25 and increasing past 200 = flaps up. We have no performance manual or weights so it is all suck it and see.

(It might posibly be a virtual 'one off').

The centre console is also 2 boxes wide. The only -500 pics I found were of glass panel, 3 boxes wide centre console cockpits. Getting in and out of these seats must have been easy.

Seeing how few -500s were built there cannot be many planes with this odd configuration.

Some more 737 cockpit for Ray.

Some 737 cockpit for Ray.

Some 1080s posted.

When the first facebook screen shot previews were released I thought the new FS2 737 was a -200. After a lot of searching online I found a few references to analog panel -500s. They must have been selected by less flush operators and those wanting as little retraining of their -200 crews as possible. The single FMC/CDU and the Cat II autopilot also suggest a cheap fit.

The presence of a pair of EPR gauges makes it look like an edited -200 panel. Calculating EPR in a high bypass turbofan is very complex as the ballance between the fan and the core shifts during different phases of the flight. Rolls Royce offer it for their big 3 spool engines, rpms alone would be a handfull to assess.

The basic wing design, wingspan, flaps and length of the -200 and -500 are very similar. I wonder if the Aero 737 started as a late autopilot -200?

Ray what sort of resolution and lighting do you want?

Try using the HUD or an aeroplane with an angle of attack guage. With flaps up see if it stalls at about 15 degrees angle of attack. Look at the AoA guage or the difference between the HUD's aeroplane pitch and flight path vector symbols. Lightly loaded planes can fly at amazingly low speeds compared to flying at normal weights.

Thanks as ever Jan, they are not expensive so I'll try one with a few cheap pots and if it works well I'll invest in a second with a batch of more expensive pots including a multi-turn for elevator trim. The cheap pots will do for on/off axes such as gear.

There are something like 18 slider options in the control settings menu not counting the multi engine combinations. What sort of controllers do the developers have in mind to make use of these options?

The Arduino Leonardo appears to windows as a joystick and it can read 12 analog pots. Can it be used to provide many of the extra axes and can two Leonardos be connected to give control of 24 pots? The Leonardo joystick USB emulation is in hardware.

In March this year Purus posted

"I have several input devices (Saitek Yoke, Saitek Cyborg Evo Force, Saitek TPM, Saitek Flight Quadrant, ...) my problem is that in AFS 2 only one input device can be actively selected."

Is this true in the current FS2? I had hoped to use a joystick and a multi pot Leonardo in combination.

Stratus would be a more authentic choice for good bad weather flying. It would allow a realistic break out of the murk in an instrument approach and would look good overlying high ground. Cumulus tufts lying over a wide area, hard on the deck looks wierd, it would need some sort of downwind plateau crossing without updraught (!) scenario to be remotely plausible. Perhaps cumulus was chosen as a pretty sales-friendly stills photo feature?

Is there a place for maintaining legacy nav-aids just for fun?, a bit like Chicago Miegs field.

Sorry Roy, I didn't notice that your name slipped through (as an empty quote) purely I assure, by accident. I hope no offense was caused. I will try to be more attentive in future.

Kenneth, I took part in the trawl for experienced pilots or flight sim software experts to help the early mobile development. 'Knowing my place, refered to my input there, I tried my best to give just what was requested.

May I question if a public forum is really the best place to communicate any expert knowledge on the direction of the company? The email and physical addresses of IPACS are well known, I am sure direct communication would be well received.

Your suggestion that "It would also help if we, the users and enthusiasts for AFS2, begin to contact the third-party developers ourselves" in isolation does, to be fair read a teeny-weeny bit like the pupils operating in the headmaster's office. I regret using " We should try to not go out of our way to be insulting or outrageous" in a post that included a quote from you as an unintended personal link could have been infered, may I apologise for causing offence.

I do not for a second challenge your gravitas, I was unaware of your expertise and I accept that my phrasing was crude and clumsy, it reads much worse than I intended.

Smaller airports will be relying more on augmented and RNP GPS in the future as their costs will be much less than in maintaining ILS installations. The number of ILSs in up to date databases will fall.

Look up the airport online and check the instrument approaches for example San Diego has an ILS on 09 and a Loc on 27.

I meant consider if we were getting a bit carried away with ourselves. I haven't seen any requests from IPACS for suggestions on how to run their business. I think ideas on how to develop the flight sim program are different from how to manage their company.