airforce2
-
Posts
204 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Posts posted by airforce2
-
-
Bigvette, dude, I think your thanks for a reply may have been a bit premature...
Alex--do you work in customer service or the legal department? This customer asked if there was a way to fix a shortcoming in a product, and the non-answer he got was half of the EULA. A polite "no, there's no easy way to change this part of the scenery because it's compiled into the BGL" sure would have been a lot more appropriate than a lecture on legal things that, in this case, don't even apply.
Give us a break.
Regards
Bob
-
bump
the fix in the first posting was modified and is current as of Jan 6 2003
-
I posted a panel.cfg modification to add a trim gauge to the Twin Otter fairly soon after its release. I still highly recommend it.
Cheers
Bob
-
Jeroen;
No intent to harm anyone here.
You seem to be overly sensitive to any criticism of Lago and its products, to the point where you aren't objective. Are you a major stockholder or a paid shill or something? Just wondering...
Cheerio
Bob
-
Francois;
Interesting viewpoint...so you cannot imagine "ANY" office in this world without at least one piece of pirated software. OK...got it. That's an interesting "way of thinking" you have there (your words)...so your position is that there's a little larceny in us all?
So let's follow your assumption to its logical conclusion. Assuming that your inference also applies to Mathijs' office as a member of the "ANY" class, your generalized assumption is that he, like everyone else, has pirated software. And assuming that, wouldn't his vocal opposition to such piracy then be hypocritical? If EVERYbody does it, how can ANYbody be against it? You can't take both sides of the issue.
I won't assume that someone I don't know (e.g. Mathijs) has pirated software of any kind. And you would be quite wrong to assume it about me, I might add. I just know that I watched the Lago Otter debacle unfold, and as a result, it taints the folks at Lago as spokesmen against piracy, given what I saw. What was or what wasn't isn't the point...it's what I was able to observe that forms the basis of my perceptions.
Analogy: if I quite accidentally fell asleep at the wheel of my Citroen and ran down the mayor on the street, I'd still be a poor choice to be doing TV advertisements for the local Citroen dealership, accident or not. Lago was asleep at the wheel when that Otter was released with that renamed Microsoft airfile in it. I'll accept that it was accidental, but it was still an accident they were responsible for.
My stated opinion is that this simply looks off, and nothing more. Lago is free to pursue the pirates as they wish, but the public chest-beating on piracy in the forum looks dichotomous to me given this recent incident.
Regards
Bob
-
Jeroen;
I just think it odd that so soon after the airfile incident I find an anti-piracy crusade getting underway here. It strikes me as a bit conflicted...if I had made such an error I'd be the last guy you'd find speaking out in public on the topic, if for no other reason than it causes others to wonder aloud about my credibility in such an endeavor.
It's sort of like a guy who "forgot" to pay taxes last year running for the office of tax collector. It just comes across badly, regardless of whether the prior incident was the result of an error or malicious intent. Lots of people are probably thinking it...I will be bold and come right out and say it.
In public relations, it pays to remember this sage advice: "Perceptions are reality to everyone but you."
Regards
Bob
-
Seems like a lot of tough talk coming from some folks who just weeks ago released a certain Twin Otter add-on with another company's copyrighted air file after merely renaming it.
I wonder if those guys had to buy a copy of every Microsoft product three times that week?
Bob
P.S. the last guy I saw bragging about his action against software pirates was soon thereafter the victim of a denial of service attack that nearly shut his business down. Anyone who can hack your authentication can also do worse things...I would think it best not to make yourself a target.
-
You'll find your steering in the amphib version works a LOT better if you turn off the yaw damper. With the damper turned on, I get just a few degrees of rudder travel...with it off I see the full 30 degrees, and coupled with differential power, I have no problem steering the amphib on the ground and on the water. With yaw damper on, I have the maneuverability of a dart...i.e. none.
Regards
Bob
-
The wheeled model is heavily overpowered...engines should be 652 SHP each--the model is configured with ~860 SHP engines, i.e. more than 30% too much. And it performs like it, too.
The elevator is too sensitive...a reading of forum posts suggests that maybe you have some CG problems with the model. Folks who added aft loading seem to have better luck.
The float/amphib version weights and power are all wrong. MTOGW for a 300 is 12,500 lbs, not 20,000 plus.
The trim neutral light is too sensitive...needs a wider "neutral" band so light doesn't just flicker as you're running the trim trying to find center. IMHO what you *really* need is a trim gauge somewhere.
Flap drag is insufficient...acft does not lose energy as it should with nearly span-wide flaps hanging.
Flaperons are only supposed to lower by half the flap angle...i.e. if flaps go to 20 deg, ailerons should be at 10 deg down.
Twin otters have a mechanical flap-trim interconnect that automatically compensates for the trim change when flaps are lowered...in other words, the pitch should lower, but there should be no trim change required when going from 10-20-40 flaps.
Regards
-
Jeroen;
Which version of the Twotter are you flying? Wheeled? Float? Amphib?
I have looked at the airfile and the config for the wheeled version 1.02, and they have configured the engines to produce far more horsepower than they should. I'd be willing to bet that the FM designer couldn't tell us right now how much power those engines produce. That, I think, is the problem...I think that when it comes to flight dynamics, we're dealing with amateur newbies that look at/understand a flight model in the same way a dog watches TV...they see it, but they don't understand it. Panel writing and visual modeling...different story...there's some real talent at work on those aspects of this package.
I'll be interested to hear what others are finding. The wheeled Twin Otter should climb at ~1,500 fpm fully loaded at a best-rate climb speed of 100 knots. The float/amphib versions should climb closer to 1,300 fpm due to increased drag from the pontoons. This latest Lago FM climbs at well over 3000 fpm and 100 knots. Not a shock at all considering the steroid-enhanced powerplants Lago just hung on the wings...
What kind of flight controls are you using? I use a fairly high-end Precision Flt Controls yoke, and even with the elevator response curve tapered way down, it's jerky beyond accepatbility. Again, one close look into the flight model tells me why.
But...as Dennis Miller says, that's just my opinion...I could be wrong.
Any other observations?
Regards
Bob
-
I run the two monitors attached to the GF4 Ti4600 (both 22" NEC flatscreen CRTs) at 1280x1024, 85 Hz refresh rate. The two monitors attached to the GF2 MX400 are both 15" LCDs running at 1024x768 75 Hz.
Cheers
Bob
-
Folks;
Just flew the Twin Otter (wheeled) with Lago's version 1.02 flight dynamics. No happy news, I'm afraid. Here is my first impression.
It is extremely sensitive in the pitch axis...with even small inputs the nose jerks around like a huntin' dog trying to pick up a scent. The prop response is too slow...engines take inordinately long to spool up/down. Take off the yaw damper and kick in some rudder...moderate rudder inputs result in an abrupt and massive yaw.
Airplane is difficult to slow even with flaps extended.
It's grossly overpowered--it climbs like it has a JATO pack strapped to its butt. At full power it climbed through 5000 ft with the VVI pegged at over 3000 fpm at 130 knots IAS.
Sorry, it's back to the drawing board, boys... :(
Regards
Bob
-
It's even better on 4 monitors!
I run two dual-head video cards in a 2.8GHz P-4...an eVGA GeForce 4 Ti-4600 (AGP) and an eVGA GeForce 2 MX400 (PCI). Frame rates locked at 30, and it rarely drops below that.
Usually, though, I run 3-monitor with monitor 4 switched to a slow 1 GHz P-III that runs Sim Systems' FSGarmin as well as Squawkbox and Roger Wilco via the LAN.
Cheers
Bob
-
Mike;
That'll teach ya for running FS Maintenance! :mrgreen:
Nice screenshot...did the fire handle work?
Cheers
Bob
-
My impression is that the FSGarmin program does not put much stress on the video card...keep in mind it's a simulation of the 256-color ~6" LCD screen on the real thing. I'd recommend giving it a try with the P II before you upgrade...it may turn out to be the perfect use for the old beast.
Cheers
Bob
-
Jeroen et al;
The Sim Systems Garmin 530 is probably the best avionics add-on I've encountered since I first found Enrico Schiratti's Project Magenta a few years ago. Its interface with the A/P is a bit clunky so far...hopefully they'll work on that, but it is a full (I mean full...no feature left out) implementation of the real-world Garmin Nav 530. The 530 is finding its way into airplanes as diverse as business jets to the Cessna 172...having avionics like it in the Twin Otter is entirely realistic.
In answer to your question, I think it works like FSFlightMax (I don't have that). But I run it on a separate networked PC anyway (at 200% it's a real beaut). It also works exceptionally well on a 2nd monitor...but on a separate PC there's zeeeero hit on frame rates.
Cheers
Bob
-
Folks;
I spent Sunday writing a complete set of flight dynamics for the wheeled version of the DHC6 which are compatible with the Lago panel. The indications of oil pressure and ITT are correct, prop rpm governor controls rpm at 2200 rpm, torque and prop speed reflect speed and compressibility effects (torque falls as aircraft accelerates through takeoff) and fuel flows are now right on what the tech data I have says it should be. Pitch stability is much improved, and climb/cruise performance are dead on. Configuration is for a 10,780 lb aircraft with full fuel...you can change that by editing the weight_balance section of the config file.
This work is released as freeware...it may not be packaged or redistributed in any form without my permission. Enjoy.
Bob
-
Maybe this'll put into perspective where I am coming from on this whole debate. Here are my favorite sim setups:
I run the PSS B747-400 systems panels and flight model with the MelJet visual model, and Project Magenta avionics.
I run the Dreamfleet B737-400 FM and systems panels with the Ariane visual model and Project Magenta avionics
I run the Wilco B767-300 with Project Magenta avionics and Project Opensky visual model.
I run the Flight1 Cessna 421 with the Sim Systems FS530 (Garmin) integrated nav unit.
I run the Lago twin otter panel and visual model with the Premier Aviation FM and Sim Systems (Garmin) FS530 integrated nav unit.
In no case yet has one add-on package met my combined expectations for panel, flight model, visual model, and avionics. So I merge 'em to get the best of everyone's stuff working together. And how did I learn to do that? From other people in forums just like this. Look at all the people who are chomping at the bit to merge the new Project Opensky 744 v3 with PSS' panel. Do ya think Graham Waterfield is happy that he can't sell any more liveries for his 747 because those OpenSky guys are now giving away a better freeware VM than what he sells? Is he going to be going out of his way to help put these two great products together? This isn't anything new, guys.
Truth be told, it's highly likely that I'd have been publishing this merge even if Lago's first run at flight dynamics weren't such a disaster. Steve Small's air file is really that good, and I like what Igor did with the panel and visual model, other shortcomings aside. I think it beneficial to the community as a whole when we share the good things we find. Regrettably, it takes on the added dimension of helping to prop up a deficient product, but Lago will not sell many of these Otters if they do not hustle and put a complete package together before the cloud of stink surrounding it gets so bad nobody will go near it.
In the mean time, all of us are out in the middle of Sim Lake...and I have a paddle. Should I jump off the raft and just paddle myself to shore? Or should I throw the paddle into the water and wait with the rest of y'all to be rescued? C'mon, now, can you fault me for helping out??
Cheers
Bob
-
For those like me that find using the oversensitive trim neutral light to be a pain in the seat cushion, here is how to add a trim gauge to your Twotter.
This will put the default King Air trim gauge on the 2D panel in the open space to the left of the airspeed gauge. To do that, find the panel.cfg file, located in directory:
%FS2002%\aircraft\LAGO DHC-6\
Open it with notepad, and at the end of the [Window00] section, after gauge 45, add this line:
gauge46=KINGAIR!Pitch_Trim, 58, 489, 39, 91
Save the file and you will now have a working trim gauge on the 2D panel only. I find that takeoff and initial climb are much smoother when I set about 3/4 to 1 unit of nose-up trim.
Cheers
Bob
(revised 6 Jan 03)
-
And let me add to what Jeroen said...most companies will not allow pointed, sometimes even brutally harsh critiques of their products to remain on their forums. Phoenix Simulations Systems, for example, which makes some of the best payware airliners out there, will unceremoniously delete posts on their forum that have anything like the potential to make them look bad.
I was really quite dismayed by the King Air airfile issue when I discovered it. One of the biggest redeeming things Lago have done is to deal with it in the light of day...to allow it to play out, even in their own forum. Had they been guilty of pulling a Papa Tango-like ripoff, that's not how I would have expected them to act. So I gave them the benefit of the doubt, since I have no history with them before this.
Regards
Bob
-
My apologies...the file is dh6exe22.zip...no "C" in the filename.
Cheers
Bob
-
Stefan;
Check in your FS2002 settings that autorudder is not checked.
Cheers
Bob
-
OK, Dennis, it seems clear that you are in transmit-only mode here.
For the record, I have not, and will not publish anyone else's copyrighted work here, or anywhere else. I am aware of Barry Blaisdell's copyright on his work, and have no need nor a desire to infringe upon his good work. You apparently haven't taken the time to open my config file. Do so, and you will see that it is radically different from Barry's.
So, at the risk of re-re-repeating myself, note that I insist you get all copyrighted works via legal means from the respective copyright holders. That means you buy Lago's package from them, download Barry's freeware from one of the places he offers it, and download my freeware merge config file from here where I have offered it up. Then you put 'em together like I describe. :?
Lago dipped themselves in hot lava for distributing someone else's work without their permission. There's a HUGE difference between that and telling someone where to go find someone else's work and how to use it.
Bob
-
When you add flaps at a constant airspeed, the wings increase camber and produce more lift at a given angle of attack. Because the lift requirement hasn't changed (lift equals weight in level flight), the nose must pitch down to reduce the angle of attack at the constant airspeed. Usually, however, you are in the process of slowing down as flaps are lowered, so the airplane pitches down initially as a result of the flaps extending, then back up as a result of the need to bring the nose back up to increase the angle of attack as the airspeed drops. If you keep a constant airspeed and lower the flaps, the nose drops and stabilizes there. Put any of the flight models you mentioned on autopilot with airspeed hold on. Note the pitch attitude. Now extend the flaps. The nose stabilizes lower. It has to...the laws of physics rule here.
One of the Otter's strengths is that the nose-down attitude at landing flap settings gives it the abilty to see the touchdown zone as you approach. It tends to point straight at the aimpoint at final approach configuration and airspeed.
Don't want to take my word for it? You can read about this and more about Twotter flight characteristics in this excellent on-line article:
http://collections.ic.gc.ca/canadair/articles/00277.htm
Cheers
Bob
Combat Flight Simulator 3
in (Former LAGO Support Forum)
Posted
CFS3 won't work with my PFC flight controls or with FSUIPC, so I didn't bother with it.
Regards
Bob