Feature question fokker 70/100
-
Thank you for your answer. You would have my voice for a proper wear and tear failure systems. I allready have the f28 and it is really awesome but it is missing this little part wich would make it unique in my eyes. Anyway iam sure the f70/f100 is worth every cent.
-
Sad to hear no failures. Not going to hold my breath since those never seemed to materialise for the F28 either
-
Yeah that there are 0 failures gives this immortal feeling during flight, like there will be a 100% change that 0% will happen. This does giveaway some of the joy of it. I know no one is here to crash the heck out of a plane, but knowing in the back of your mind that MAYBE something COULD happen, gives that edge.
-
Yeah that there are 0 failures gives this immortal feeling during flight, like there will be a 100% change that 0% will happen. This does giveaway some of the joy of it. I know no one is here to crash the heck out of a plane, but knowing in the back of your mind that MAYBE something COULD happen, gives that edge.
@SwissairMD11 100% agree. I mean we have all these procedures and temp gauges but in the end it will have zero consequences if the engine runs full speed with an itt of 800c. This is so sad to see while the core simulation of the plane is so good. JF did a great job. 3D Model, systems, sounds, flight model, cabine ambient, all top notch, but unfortunately without consequence if operated incorrectly.
I really hope justflight will go the next step and put the icing on the cake of there work with a failure system.
-
@SwissairMD11 100% agree. I mean we have all these procedures and temp gauges but in the end it will have zero consequences if the engine runs full speed with an itt of 800c. This is so sad to see while the core simulation of the plane is so good. JF did a great job. 3D Model, systems, sounds, flight model, cabine ambient, all top notch, but unfortunately without consequence if operated incorrectly.
I really hope justflight will go the next step and put the icing on the cake of there work with a failure system.
@knollo Indeed. For the price range of 70+ it should've been in there from the start. Amongst PMDG and Fenix and many others who has it build in. I've done 5 flights now with it, and am like "yup.. I've seen it now" Am really thriving on the failures systems, thats what I absolutely love on the DC6 from PMDG or the MD80 from Maddog, they are very extensive.
So like many I do hope they will get this on with in a future update.
-
Completely agree. I do think this product is a little bit A-B just have a bit of a normal line flight in it and no more. Even doing something out of the ordinary, like a go-around, and it doesn't like it. Did one yesterday and it was mad. I like to be able to do things out of the ordinary in the sim and deal with failures to put myself to the test a bit. You can't do that with this product at the moment.
-
It's taken four years and considerable investment to reach this stage on our first modern-ish airliner. We will continue to develop and improve the aircraft, like we do for all our aircraft, but we have been clear about what the product does and doesn't include at this stage. I think it's important to note that many other airliner developers have been upgrading their airliners for several years by this point.
If you are encountering an issue with included functionality, such as go arounds, then please report that and we'll address it ASAP.
We are very happy with the end result of all that work and think it's a product that delivers value for money.
Regarding failures and wear, it's something that we'd like to include if there is sufficient demand. After what seemed like a lot of requests, it was something that we added to our 146/RJ and PA38, but unfortunately we saw little interest in that.
Martyn - Development Manager
-
It's taken four years and considerable investment to reach this stage on our first modern-ish airliner. We will continue to develop and improve the aircraft, like we do for all our aircraft, but we have been clear about what the product does and doesn't include at this stage. I think it's important to note that many other airliner developers have been upgrading their airliners for several years by this point.
If you are encountering an issue with included functionality, such as go arounds, then please report that and we'll address it ASAP.
We are very happy with the end result of all that work and think it's a product that delivers value for money.
Regarding failures and wear, it's something that we'd like to include if there is sufficient demand. After what seemed like a lot of requests, it was something that we added to our 146/RJ and PA38, but unfortunately we saw little interest in that.
@Martyn Thanks for coming back at this thread. Am not sure how many people got the 146, seems like more people awaited the F70/100 due the more modern aircraft as you just mentioned. And I assume (including myself) that the failure system is a deeply appreciated feature amongst all the current products that has it. No response means it doing what it's suppose to do, keeping us busy.
It would be cool to see a feature within the F70/100 with "MTBF" and a option with wear and tear based from "off" "realistic" "high"
And yes am 1 of those guys who would pay for a high extensive failure system, how would that look like? Same as TFDI called "XS" Extended Simulation, it's an extra feature which you have to pay for that opens up a list of possibilities.
Wich is based on how the aircraft is handled, such as slamming the throttles to firewall power to often, to long etc.. Hard landings damage tires, many landings wear them out, overheating them will melt the defuse plug, brakes wear out, oil is being consumed that evenetually lead to engine damage if not maintend and so the list goes on.
Besides my ramble up here, I again have to state that how it's modeled + the textures are top tier! Like everything else is spot on, the failures system would be a "chefs kiss" to this good looking product!
-
I came here to ask if there is a failure system planned... For me it is a "no buy" without failures. It feels like a waste of time watching parameters or completing procedures when there is zero chance for anything going wrong. The RJ and 146 are so much more immersive in that regard.
I also would pay extra for a MTBF system. Why not make it optional?
-
I'm in line with all what was said. No buy for me if no failure system. Will stay on the RJ which is so great.
I know that adding that feature is more work, but developing aircraft with so much detailed systems during several years is a waste of time... on the product pages we often have very long list of all what is simulated in detail.... and knowing it won't fail seems a bit useless....
We can play with the systems to see how it works and react and see how well it's implemented... but we don't do that on every fligh -
I'll add my voice to the chorus of those asking for failures; especially pilot-induced ones. An aircraft of such high fidelity should punish you for making serious mistakes. Hot starts, blown tires, etc. Especially on an older aircraft with fewer automated protections against such errors. Also, I see that state saving is intended, based on the EFB options, and one of the great uses of that is maintenance simulation.
It's a great aircraft, and I'm absolutey enjoying it. -
@Skrelk said in Feature question fokker 70/100:
I have a strict no failures, no buy policy
Yes, I follow the same.
-
If there are no failures then why even simulate it all on such a deep level? I say yes add them. It brings an older aircraft fully to life especially if it's a wear and tear system that reacts to how you handle the aircraft. I would even pay extra for a system like this
-
I think they will do it. I can't wait to keep focus on it, checking engine vibration, checking oil levels, checking oil pressures etc..
-
I think they will do it. I can't wait to keep focus on it, checking engine vibration, checking oil levels, checking oil pressures etc..
@SwissairMD11 I am not do sure if they do it. It was already said that they might think about it if there is demand (as it was for the RJ/146).
Maybe if we show interest here in the forum (in a respectful and civilzed way)
