New FSX demo

[Daube]

Yes, we have all had to deal with other a/c not under the supervision of ATC (birds bees etc) and if FSX had engine failure due to bird ingestion then that would be quite realistic.

That's a pretty good example. So you can see wildlife is not completely negative, even for you

[vololiberista]

That's a pretty good example. So you can see wildlife is not completely negative, even for you

Yes, but if it was a choice between a herd of elephants in Africa or simulated acquaplaning then I would choose the latter!!!

[Daube]

Yes, but if it was a choice between a herd of elephants in Africa or simulated acquaplaning then I would choose the latter!!!

And I completely agree with that.
But if I get elephants and no aquaplanning, I will complain about the lack of aquaplanning, and I will not complain about the elephants

[Mobius]

So, is there a big difference in big jets?

[ashaman]

The job of a reviewer is to evaluate an object / item and try to pursuade the reader that the reviewer's opinions about that are accurate and worthy of consideration in evaluating something like a possible purchase.   In that sense, I see the word "convert" as applying reasonably well.

Please. Should we now begin to criticize a manner of speaking?

I'm making no reviews here on SimV, not even of FSX. I only stated that I'm a long way far from happy for whar was NOT done.

End of the story.

Then I don't understand. FSX has also an improved weather engine, so you should upgrade to FSX as well. Because yes, you get better cloud layouts and rendering, you get better turbulences, you get finally some turbulences made out of the new automatic thermals generator, you get improved visual impression for snow and rain, with actual wet runways that are as much part of the weather improvements as the graphical improvements.

This is probably the worst point. FSX, for all I've seen about it, has a degree of control on the weather FS9 didn't have. The weather engine is the same, you can simply control it better without having to buy a software like AS6.

I have to admit though, while I'm in the middle od quoting, that this exchange is getting nowhere.

Maybe you are right. Maybe I am. In the end the use of the final program will see who is right.

And with this I'm going to stop answering to this thread. It seems that the more I try to explain that I'm speaking for myself, explain that the real steps forward under my point of view were little and poorly done, the less some among you people get that I'm speaking of my point of view.

Should I begin to hail FSX blindly only because it's new, no matter how disappointed I am?

I don't think so.

For me, and this is my point of view, FSX is a missed opportunity to make something good.

You have your point of view. I Respect all your points of view, even if it seems there are people that aren't going to respect mine.

I salute you all, to the next thread.

[JBaymore]

Yes, but if it was a choice between a herd of elephants in Africa or simulated acquaplaning then I would choose the latter!!!

So would I.  And I'd pay a LOT more for the sim if it had those kinds of features....... $150 to $200 would be well worth such seriously heightened realism llevels if there were enough of them.  For ME!  Probably over 90 percent of the current users would say, "Are you out of your MIND!" to that kind of price.

The MARKET determines what Microsoft will include in the sim...pure and simple.  tdragger basically said so much here a few weeks ago.  People with real world, multi engine ratings and even REALLY hard-core simmers are NOT the vast amjority of the market.

While I don't KNOW that aquaplaning is not included in the new version........ I am guessing that if it is not included, but elephants are,......... it is because Microsoft studied it and the majority of users want elephants.... not aquaplaning.

It is a business making and selling flight simulator as an entertainment product.  

If someone wants realism to that kind of level... maybe they should go book time somewhere in a real simulator....... and they'll pay for that realism at  a level commensurate with the realism factor.

It's an under a hundred dollar piece of software folks!  

best,

.......................john

[JBaymore]

End of the story.

Ditto.

best,

.....john

[vololiberista]

So, is there a big difference in big jets?

I assume you are pertaining to acquaplaning.
It's not solely a big jet problem. The minimum initiating acquaplaning speed in knots is approximately nine times the square root of the tyre pressure in pounds per square inch. A typical jet transport with tyre pressures of 170 lbs sq.in will acquaplane at 112 kts gnd speed. A normal dry rwy surface has a braking coefficient of 0.3  a normal wet surface 0.15 and and icy surface 0.05. Acquaplaning equates closely to the latter. The important thing to remember as you listen to ATIS is just how wet is the rwy. If you have full reserve reverse thrust on all engines then you WILL need at least 25% more stopping distance than on a dry rwy.  If you have only moderate reverse thrust then you NEED at least 50% more rwy in order to stop.
No twin engined a/c is likely to qualify unless both engines keep operating and an emergency power is available, because asymetric reverse must not be used under slippery conditions. So now you know why so many a/c have accidents on wet rwys.
If you are in any doubt at all overshoot and go to an alternate.
Vololiberista

[Daube]

Ashaman, I had already understood your point of view and I was just complaining about the way you were presenting it. That's all.

And I'm sure the weather improvements included in FSX, that n4gix and myself already listed, will at least help you a little bit not to dislike FSX too much

[Daube]

Vololiberista, thanks for those infos, I wasn't aware that the effect of aquaplanning was so important on aircrafts.

According to what you said, I would have one question: what happens if a twin-engine plane with engine problems has to land on a wet runway ? In your example, we get an aquaplanning speed of 112 knots. With full flaps and airbrakes, this speed is quite quickly reached on the ground, then the aircraft can brake, right ? But I suppose the needed runway length is much higher...

[Felix/FFDS]

Of course, with FS-X now out in the stores (at least in the US), this thread can slowly churn to a stop....

[Bindoe]

Multiplayer, I dont use. New planes, I have already as third part freeware. Updated engine... pray tell?

Graphic engine? It's the same since FS2002. Sim engine... too is untouched since FS2002. What engine are you talking about?

The planes, well, I have third party freeware, and NOTHING comes close to this:

Mind you, I was getting a constant 30fps there, ingame that looked, sounded, and feeled vastly better than fs9, I thought I was there. I took that screenshot just for this thread, and I actually wanted to keep flying when I exited. fs9 could not do this for me.

Yeah, it does have an updated engine. FS9 dosn't support 27cm textures, FS9 dosn't support costom shaders, FS9 dosn't support many types of mapping technique, FS9 dosn't support negative flaps, FS9 dosn't support going into space, FS9 cannot draw the curvature of the earth, FS9 dosn't have 5.1 soround sound, FS9 has a bad view system, FS9 dosn't have missions, FS9 dosn't have failures that actually work, FS9 is hard to directly modify (FSUIPC) compared to fsX. Yeah, looks like a significantly modded version of the fs8 engine to me!

Space flights perhaps, but I want a flight sim, for space I can always download Orbiter. Thermals, with AS6 I have all the thermals I need already...

Well AS6 is expensive, and the thermals in that aren't even accuratly simulated perfectly. As for the space issue, lots of simmers want to fly the NASP.

Why have thermals when I have to slew to get into the air anyway?

[vololiberista]

Vololiberista, thanks for those infos, I wasn't aware that the effect of aquaplanning was so important on aircrafts.

According to what you said, I would have one question: what happens if a twin-engine plane with engine problems has to land on a wet runway ? In your example, we get an aquaplanning speed of 112 knots. With full flaps and airbrakes, this speed is quite quickly reached on the ground, then the aircraft can brake, right ? But I suppose the needed runway length is much higher...

If there is any risk of asymetric performance on landing as would be in your example, then either divert or be certain that the rwy length is long enough to cope with the increased stopping distance. To be honest an asymetric landing on a wet rwy shouldn't be attempted unless you are sure you can control the a/c all the way to a full stop!!

It is a far more serious problem landing than take-off as one has to bang through the layer of water to make contact with the surface. (it's advisable to flare only slightly or even not at all!! In my previous example quoting 112kts that was the minum acquaplaning speed. So if you are landing your chance of acquaplaning from the point of touchdown is significantly increased!!!!!!!!!!!

If you HAVE TO take-off from a wet rwy then the "Water Equivalent Depth" table in the a/c manual will give you a guide as to take off distance. This accounts for the "drag" factor of heavy water or slush! This is related to the density and depth of the water/slush. for example  a "W E D"  of 15mm can increase your take-off run by 60% !!!!!

There is NO provision for engine failure on take-off!!!!

If you wish to take account of a possible engine failure on take-off then you must consider these points:-

1. An attempt to stop from V1 will almost certainly result in a rwy overrun!!

2.An attempt to continue engine out will be compromised by a significantly increased take-off distance.

V1 -10knts is recommended and results only in a reduced screen height by up to 20ft in the worst cases. It's a balance between improving your stopping distance chances against further degrading your take-off chances.

Don't attempt to take-off in more than 12.5mm of slush 20mm of water.

Up to 12.5mm slush etc go for a wet V1 and be prepared to stop up to this speed. After dry V1 you should be able to make a successful engine out take-off. But, you cannot be sure of success on a limiting field (because of lack of stopping distance) If in any doubt stop at V1 anyway. It's safer to slide off the end at 40kts than fail to get off at all having lost an engine!!

Fortunately in a well written a/c manual there will be well written graphs and tables giving the pilot advice on take-off speeds. And if he bends the a/c then he must have a cast iron reason for doing so. There's no excuse for bending the passengers!!!!
Vololiberista

[Daube]

Hmmm OK, thanks.
So, in FSX we will get some physical effect due to the wet runways... I wonder if those effects can be tweaked, to increase them if needed and make them as problematic as you describe them...

I'm not hopping anything about aquaplanning in FSX, I think it won't be there, unfortunately. But At least we could already work something interesting out of those water drag problems you just described. That would already be an interesting improvement.

[Wing Nut]

Let's see FS9 do this...

http://www.simviation.com/cgi-bin/yabb/ ... 1160026397