No failures? A more simplistic simulation?
-
Hi guys!
So far I got the impression that the Fokkers are a more simplistic simulation than the 146/RJ. For example, the fokkers (As far as I can see) dont have any kind of failures implemented.
Im wrong? Justflight was moving into deeper and deeper simulations. The fokkers seem like a step back from that. Im wrong?
-
I agree with you, even though they've left it as an incognito, failures and more complex simulations were a thing I was waiting as day 1 features.
-
We would strongly disagree that the lack of failures equates to a simplified simulation. All of our aircraft have a high level of systems fidelity, coded from the real aircraft documentation, training software and input from real-world pilots and engineers. The systems aren't just coded to make them appear as though they function correctly; the underlying logic is also simulated to ensure that systems are powered from the correct sources and accurately integrated with each other, ensuring that the consequences of improper aircraft operation are accurate.
To give one example, in the F70 & F100 Professional, if you switch off one of the hydraulic pumps, or even shut down one of the engines, that will have no effect on the aircraft's hydraulically operated systems. That is expected behaviour, as the aircraft has a pump for each hydraulic system in each engine, so a loss of a single pump, or even an entire engine, has no impact on safety. If the aircraft loses both hydraulic pumps in one system, then the knock-on effects will be noticed. Landing gear may need to be deployed via alternate extension; flight controls may revert to direct inputs (which includes servo tabs becoming unlocked on the ailerons, and electric motors for the Flaps and Stabiliser trim becoming operational, causing heavier and slower-moving flight controls); and the hydraulic pressure in the brake system may begin depleting with every brake application, eventually leading to inoperative brakes.
In the most basic terms, a failure system like the one found in our 146 Professional and RJ Professional uses those core aircraft systems as a foundation and applies a series of random timers, triggers and other variables to disable systems and cause "failures". Having the core aircraft systems already coded to a high level of fidelity makes the implementation of a failure system much simpler than if the systems were coded to a lower level of accuracy, as it means we can turn off (or "fail") certain electrical buses or other underlying system components that have already been coded.
The work required to implement new features, such as a failure system, takes time, and the reality is we have to draw the line somewhere and call a product feature complete and ready for release. Based on community feedback, we are satisfied that we have delivered a product with a solid feature set at release.
Like with any of our products, there will always be a large list of feature requests from the community, and every one of those requests gets logged on our internal tracker for our development team to consider for future updates. Although we can't promise a certain feature will get added, we do discuss them in our internal meetings, and we try to implement as many of them as we feasibly can.
Mark - Just Flight
-
What most simmers think (at least what I understood after reading a few threads) is that this product is in a high-range price tag that compares it with e.g PMDG that get a deep realistic coding like this Fokker, so no problem, but also a failure menu. Currently we only can cause an intentional failure by switching something off or in the wrong way in cockpit even if it acts like in real life. So some exterior unexpected causes like armed or random failures are missing. For exemple, how to trigger an engine fire right after v1 ? Not possible or only by disconnecting the fuel switch manually (Air India way...)
-
I have to agree. I was eagerly hoping to get stuck into the QRH and MFDS procs on day one with this - it’s a fairly serious omission for an expensive add on like this.
