Hi Trev
Good to hear from you. Congratulations on the visual model and textures. Really excellent.
Obviously I've never flown a real one (!) so I can't comment on the accuracy of the fde compared to the genuine article. But what I generally do when I look at an FDE is chop it into three stages - the take off and climb, the en route and the descent and landing.
OK, the following comments don't all refer to the Bone but some do.
I do expect a heavy to take off and climb with full fuel at the 'right' sort of speeds with 'reasonable' flap settings within a reasonable distance. I don't expect when it's on full power in the take off phase climbing at a reasonable rate for the aircraft type to be like flying on egg shells in case it stalls out. That is not realistic. On the other hand I don't want to see the opposite, a climb rate like a rocket that could never be achieved by the plane in reality.
Same goes for the climb to altitude. You expect to be able to get there but not at a steady 2000fpm. POSKY had a probelm that they just would not admit to a couple of years ago where it was almost impossible to get any of their large aircraft to realistic cruise altitudes with fuel without stalling out, something that bore no real comparison to the flight envelopes of the real aircraft. Anyone who has done a flight across the Pond in a 747 knew that.
Finally the descent and landing. You expect there to be enough drag especially with flap to be able to hold, or even reduce airspeed during the descent at a reasonable rate. You don't want to leave your cruising altitude at say 350 kts and be doing another 100 by the time you get to 10000ft!
You also want to have flyable attitudes (eg not wildly nose up, or even down!) with flaps progressively applied at low speeds, including the approach, plus you expect the flap to have the right balance of lift and drag to give the 'right' approach attitude with control over sink rate in conjunction witrh power. The landing should be with the pilot in control at the 'right' speed, not a stalled out, nose up, ungainly return to earth with enough sink to doom the Titanic!
Lastly, in general terms I want the plane to handle in a way that reflects its type - eg heavies don't have pitch and roll rates like an Extra!
OK, these are general comments and the things I look for with all the planes I redo. One thing I would say though is that in my opinion, forget applying the 'real' aircraft specs to the cfg and air file. In MY opinion the M$ model is just not that accurate eg if you put all the 'correct' numbers in I don't think you then get something that flies perfectly like the real thing.
The answer is to play with the files until it 'feels' right, which I think is (my opinion) what explains that old POSKY blind spot that I mentioned above. If it feels right it probably is.
Well there ya go. Probably a bit contentious for a few people but I say what I think and my opinion's as good as the next so-called expert! I like the I3D Bone a lot now I've tweeked the FDE in my own way. It's still a challenge although it's not totally 'right' because I've only spent about an hour or so on it.
I'm certainly keeping it in my collection. Pity about the afterburner effect though - I'd have liked to have kept the landing lights with the burners done a different way maybe
Roger
by ozzy72 » Mon Apr 19, 2004 6:34 pm 
!
