Failure Timer Seems To Run When Aircraft Is Idle?
-
There is a reason private aircraft inspections are based on calendar months, and not the number of hours flown
This is also why I chose the MTBF method for my failures, rather than wear based only on time in service. The latter is not really reflective of what you see in the real world. As any boat or aircraft owner can tell you, things will break the moment you take your eyes off the vehicle.You will notice that, despite new failures be generated, they do not take immediate effect. For instance, an electrical circuit failure does not cause the circuit breaker to pop out while the aircraft is shut down. Only when you power up the aircraft and activate that system will you see the consequences of the failures that happened since your last flight.
-
@Black-Square
Ok, by design. Thanks for the answer.But on that note, sure the Annual, the Pitot Static, the Transponder and the ELT is based on calendar months, but the 50, 100 hour and phase checks are all tach time.
@Buzz Which is why your engine condition and catastrophic engine failure rates are also based on time in service
-
@Buzz Which is why your engine condition and catastrophic engine failure rates are also based on time in service
@Black-Square
Honestly, I haven't noticed engine condition degradation (As viewed on the tablet) as long as you sim the addon within the limitations and this is with failure acceleration at 50%. Does the failure rate multiplier increase the rate of engine wear? -
It does not increase the rate of mismanagement engine condition, but it does increase the rate of catastrophic engine failures.
-
It does not increase the rate of mismanagement engine condition, but it does increase the rate of catastrophic engine failures.
@Black-Square Thanks!
-
@Black-Square So, if someone were to fly the addon for, let's say, 1600 hours (these engines rarely made it past TBO without a top overhaul), while never mismanaging the engine and staying within operating limitations, would the condition of the engines remain at 100%?
-
The condition would remain at 100%, but the probability of a MTBF failure in that time would still likely produce a catastrophic loss of power with continued operation. If you wanted to simulate a less reliable engine, you could lower the MTBF intervals on the failures page for the catastrophic engine failures, while keeping the rest of the failures at their default rate.
-
The condition would remain at 100%, but the probability of a MTBF failure in that time would still likely produce a catastrophic loss of power with continued operation. If you wanted to simulate a less reliable engine, you could lower the MTBF intervals on the failures page for the catastrophic engine failures, while keeping the rest of the failures at their default rate.
@Black-Square
Ok, noted. But actually, what I was hoping for was over the course of normal engine use was to see an increase in engine wear that would cause the usual symptoms of an engine approaching mid-time to TBO. Maybe an increase in temps, dropping oil pressure over time, a prop governor reacting slower, a gradual but subtle loss of compression (Power) etc.. This would give the user a better reason to pay attention to the engine trend monitor. Maybe even some engine asymmetry. For a future feature, maybe having an option that allows the user to hide the failures and engine conditions in the tablet to use the runup and aircraft performance trend to decide when to rebuild or reset the engine condition. -
This thread was an interesting read. So, if I understood it correctly, the MTBF is used to calculate the chance of failure based on the passing of real time, even without the sim loaded? Effectively calculating retrospectively the chance of failure occurring during the time the sim was not running?
Example: I load up a Duke in MSFS, then don't touch it for 2 years. After 2 years, I load up the Duke again. At this point, are the chances of a failure being triggered (on or just after load) greater than if I had loaded up the aircraft on two consecutive days?
That's a great touch if so. I had assumed the calculations only 'applied' during the time the sim was running, and so the greater the MTBF, the smaller the chance of each failure occurring. Leaving the sim off for 5 years would then have no effect at all.
I know that A2A model passing of real time, so oil degradation and corrosion will occur, accelerating wear if you don't fly an aircraft for several months, but assumed that was unique to them. I know that BS aircraft don't do 'natural wear' or degradation in the same sense (though it would be the icing on the cake if they did), but knowing the failures run in a similar 'real time' way is a bonus I did not appreciate (assuming I understood it right).
As for hiding the failures in the tablet, I just resist looking at it! I stick to the payload and cabin tabs only, with rare exception.
-
This thread was an interesting read. So, if I understood it correctly, the MTBF is used to calculate the chance of failure based on the passing of real time, even without the sim loaded? Effectively calculating retrospectively the chance of failure occurring during the time the sim was not running?
Example: I load up a Duke in MSFS, then don't touch it for 2 years. After 2 years, I load up the Duke again. At this point, are the chances of a failure being triggered (on or just after load) greater than if I had loaded up the aircraft on two consecutive days?
That's a great touch if so. I had assumed the calculations only 'applied' during the time the sim was running, and so the greater the MTBF, the smaller the chance of each failure occurring. Leaving the sim off for 5 years would then have no effect at all.
I know that A2A model passing of real time, so oil degradation and corrosion will occur, accelerating wear if you don't fly an aircraft for several months, but assumed that was unique to them. I know that BS aircraft don't do 'natural wear' or degradation in the same sense (though it would be the icing on the cake if they did), but knowing the failures run in a similar 'real time' way is a bonus I did not appreciate (assuming I understood it right).
As for hiding the failures in the tablet, I just resist looking at it! I stick to the payload and cabin tabs only, with rare exception.
@Mustang I think MTBF is calculated only when the addon has been loaded, regardless of its panel state, (Running, flying, tied down, engine and electrics off).
True, just don't look at the tablet. But it is tempting. For instance, I was simming the TDuke and on approach I had the left engine producing 50% of the power of the right engine. Landed and did a run up, and couldn't figure out what was wrong. Opened the tablet and it was the low bypass door or valve.
-
@Mustang I think MTBF is calculated only when the addon has been loaded, regardless of its panel state, (Running, flying, tied down, engine and electrics off).
True, just don't look at the tablet. But it is tempting. For instance, I was simming the TDuke and on approach I had the left engine producing 50% of the power of the right engine. Landed and did a run up, and couldn't figure out what was wrong. Opened the tablet and it was the low bypass door or valve.
@Buzz you may well be right. Given that the majority of the time the aircraft is loaded in the sim, it will be in a running state, that approach won't make much of a meaningful difference vs a failure timer that only runs when engines are running.
Nick said there's a reason for real inspections being "based on calendar months", which I took to mean that all the elapsed time between flights would be considered for failure generation when you next load the Duke in the sim, but I may have read too much into it.
I suppose one way to test might be to set my computer clock to 1995 (furthest back Win10 will go), reinitialise the Duke by deleting any saved/state files, then load it in the present day and see if any failures had appeared. But I'll just wait and see if Nick clarifies first. If your idea is right, then maybe my idea can go on the wishlist instead - perhaps as a toggle option
