Posts by Sparrow

    Great update, but the parking brake doesn’t work at my place, am I the only one?

    The same for me.


    I also have the problem that the full indicators show 'no fuel' when turn on the battery switch. The full indicators show 'full fuel' as son as the engine has started.


    Their is also a problem with the sound of flaps if flaps are assigned to a joystick axis. You hear the sound only when the flaps are extended from Up to 10°.


    I have already reported this to Just Flight.

    Thank you for all your help.


    I did several test flights with following conditions:

    No wind

    Flaps up

    Rotate at >71 kts

    Climb speed 85 kts

    Gear up when stable climb


    Results:

    Take-off distance / take-off duration / average climb rate first 1000 ft


    My Duchess ~1800 ft / 25 s / 600 ft/min

    Youtube video ??? / <= 20 s / 800 ft/min

    Diagram 1100ft / ??? / 1100ft/min


    All values can be lightly unaccurate. This values show a low perfomance of my Duchess. It seems in real the Duchess take-off earlier and climb faster as my bird. I wonder why Overloaded hasn't my "problem".


    I have checked my installation and configuration:


    Use Just Flight Ducess 76 newest version.

    Deinstalled and reisntalled Just Flight Ducess76 . No difference.

    Aerofly FS2 file check don't tell any problems.

    Fly with mouse only. No joysticks. No difference.

    Aerofly FS2 Version 2.04.05.31 (20190326)


    I haven't idea what is wrong. I will install Aerofly FS2 alpha version and test the Duchess again.


    Same problem with Alpha version.


    Several configurations changed. Same problem.


    Same configuration (wind, runway) as Overloaded. Performance is worse. See Image.


    I have problems with the climb rate of the Beechcraft Ducess 76. The Ducess doesn't climb at all at 80 knots. It only climbs when it is accelerated to 90 knots, better 100 knots.


    This is a problem at the departure in Birrfeld, Swiss (LSZF). After taking off, you have to keep the nose down to accelerate to 100kn and then climb with at a good rate (1500ft/min). However, the hilly terrain around airfield Birrfeld does not allow this.


    The runway (727m/2385ft) seems to be too short for the Ducess. The Ducess takes off at the end of the runway.


    Is this behaviour real? Is the Birrfeld runway really too short for the Ducess? Does the Ducess needs a flat terrain after the runway?

    Quote


    But I'm not yet hearing anyone that says: no I want the landing light switch in aircraft A to be on my switch 1 but it in aircraft B it should be on switch 2.

    I always have the switch for the parking brakes below the landing gear lever. When I put the landing gear lever on a different axis, for whatever reason, I put the parking brake on a different switch too. So I think aircraft specific switch configuration is neccessary.


    A standard controller configuration is good, but with higher user demands, there is also a need to create an aircraft specific controller configuration. It makes sense to create profiles and then assign them to the aircraft.


    IPCAS like it to make it simple. That's right for beginners and gamers, but for demanding pilots it is important to offer a comprehensive configuration. I think the most user of a flight simulator are demanding pilots.

    What is the functional status of an ILS landing with the Cessna 172? The Cessna is willing to perform an ILS landing in APR mode, approaches the runway, but mostly next to the correct radial. The glide scope is right. I tested it with LSZH Rwy 14.

    I flew the R22 the other day. Once with VR Oculus and Thrustmaster TM16000M and then with a simple joystick (without centering spring) and monitor. While I flew very useful with the VR headset and the good joystick, flying with the bad joystick and the monitor was not possible. The 3D view helps a lot and a quality joystick with low restoring force is a must. And then you have to practice, practice, practice.

    Quote

    and that is the fear factor

    That's my reason why I don't allow myself to crash. I have to bring myself and the plane down healthy at all times. I act as if the crash in the simulator is as bad as in reality. On the other hand, the simulator allows us "little" people to fly an Airbus or Boeing with respect but without fear. :thumbup::):)

    Only AFS2 is still installed on my computer. I never liked XPlane and FSX always crashed. I fumbled more than I flew. ATC traffic and mega airports made flying impossible (frame rate). That all gone with AFS2 (and new hardware). :):thumbup:


    I am really glad that IPACS is developing a new flight simulator and I support you (by purchase). I am convinced that Aerofly will be a very good flight simulator, maybe the best.


    I am a software developer myself and know how long it took to program functionality. In my opinion IPACS has done a very good job so far with a very small team.


    I go with Aerofly and I can wait for ATC, weather and other things for one or more years because I think there will be no alternative. ;) But every body should feel free to fly what he likes. 8)

    Thank for your answer.


    For easy rotation, perhaps at different speeds, but without a specific target, no information about the current camera position is required. You simply rotate around so and so many degrees and is good.


    But if you want to reach a certain destination, you have to know where you are. At the moment I'm noting down the current position based on my own journeys. On the one hand these should become more and more inaccurate over a longer period of time, on the other hand I can't prevent the user from changing the direction with the mouse or buttons.


    I wanted to solve this problem by first setting a center request and then a move request in the same update. But then the movement shrugs.

    The view angle (field of view) information is necessary for the rotation speed. With more zoom in the eye tracker has to rotate with a lower speed. It makes more sense to rotate with a speed unit of screens per second as with degree per second, but for this I need the information how many degree the current screen (fov) has .


    The FS2 API is not very well documented and is no longer up to date. I would be very happy about an update.

    Hello


    I'm developing an own Tobiit Eye Tracker solution, which use the gaze point for control the direction. It is already working, in window mode too. Now, the camera ride is not so comfortable and needs improvements. I will do.


    To implement a good functionality I need following informations from the API:


    1. Current camera direction

    2. Current camera position

    3. Current camera view angle


    I want to map the gaze point to a direction to know where (the angle) the user is looking.

    For this I need the current camera direction and view angle.


    View angle is the angle (from left to right display border), which the camera current shows.

    The view angle depends of the zoom. With more zoom in the angle become smaller.


    I also want to set the camera direction to an absolute value. It's seems that the API currently not support it.

    With the information of current camera direction and the function to set direction relative, I can set the direction absolute.


    4. If current camera mode is a head camera (camera rotate around itself)


    Eye Tracker function make only sense with a camera which rotate around it self.

    I want to enable the Eye Tracker function only in this mode.


    How can I get these informations from the API?


    Thank you for your support :)

    I'm not a real pilot. I flew two times with a C172, one time I had control. So I don't have much experience. But I know a Cessna is heavy, has a bad glide scope and I have seen how fast a Cessna can sink. Of course, you can land a C172 with throttle idle, but you can do this also with C172 in AFS2.


    I fly Aerofly RC7 too, the software FS1 and FS2 is based on. I had always the feeling that the planes are too much depending of the thrust. The glide scope is too bad without thrust. This is only my feeling, based on my experience with real RC model flying, but I can be wrong. On the other hand it confirms your observation.


    I think there are good and experienced pilots in this forum, who can rate it better. :):):):)