aerofoto

There´s a bit more to it than that :) HJG´s "later" livery version/s features the slightly resized font due do the additional titling .... and there´s other subtle variances too. It´s represents more accurate depiction than just a changing of the font colour .... this being the way HJG prefers doing things ;) MRC

Not sure what you´re on about there COL :confused: .... BUT .... the texture I presented below, was only produced by one of the HJG painters just a few days ago. It will accompany HJG´s already downloadable ORBITAL livery (orange titles) produced back around 2010 .... or thereabouts. What I hinted today .... that "may possibly" be comming later on too is a 3rd livery .... featuring the same aircraft once again but with NORTHROP GRUMMAN titles .... and which will accompany the ORBITAL ATK titled texture version presented below. Not aware of any other versions of these liveries currently avilable .... and even if they were HJG would still be doing "it´own versions" anyway. MRC

HJG "may" also add yet another variation of this livery for this same aircraft too .... featuring the "GRUMMAN NORTHROP" titles. "No promises though .... so .... we´ll see what happens ;) MRC

HJG "will" be offering a new texture representing this aircraft .... L-1011 TRISTAR 100 N140SC .... in the ORBITAL ATK/STARGAZER livery as follows .... HJG "don´t guarantee being able to offer an edited model featuring the lower fuselage rocket .... BUT THEN AGAIN .... it "doesn´t guarantee this might not happen in the future. MRC

I don´t feel the least bit "rubbed the wrong way" :) Regardless whether I be "perceived" to be quick to correct or not .... the fact remains my stated "corrections" were necessary and absolutely relevant .... and the quicker such be commnicated/shared then the better for everyone else´s clear/er understanding and benefit. There´s nothing wrong with any of the said DC-8 simulations .... not that anyone here´s implied there is. These simulations have only been available since 2000 .... over 19 years now .... and have been progressively updated and improved a number of times since .... the last edits/updates (both FDE and sound pack expansions) having been applied during 2016. Each works well .... and flies well/more than acceptably .... provided each are flown properly to start with .... BUT .... in order for that to be the case it´s essential to "follow the prescribed procedures in respect of what´s been/being advised" .... and "THIS", more than anything else, is the point I´ve been trying to impress herein :) It could well be that the OP is simply "out of his comfort zone" with regard to these particular simultions. HJG design with emphasis upon reality .... "in so far as it´s own skills, information available to it, and certain FS limitations conspire to permit" .... and not in regard to simplicity .... and which is also why it´s seen fit to apply time in, in this particular case, in order to "TRY" and assist the OP as best it can .... albeit on an external/non-HJG related forum. I wasn´t going to do this .... BUT .... under the circumstnces I do, now, see fit to present a selection of FS videos presenting these DC-8´s in action, along some of their panels and sound packs too, and which can only aid confirming that eacch function perfectly fine. It should also be noted that within each of the following videos these DC-8´s are supported by the current/last updated FDE, sound packs, panels, and effects .... and are being used right out of the box (so to speak .... no secret modifications that aren´t yet publicly available), and are also being used strictly in accordance with all that´s been recommended here-in so far and with no issues (such as have been exprerssed within this particular thread) being the very least bit apparent .... DC-8-10 external .... internal .... DC-8-20 & DC-8-30 external .... internal .... DC-8-40 external .... internal .... DC-8-50 external .... internal .... DC-8-60 internal .... external .... DC-8-70 external .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LnALBs9FPU internal .... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBG2g6YBfZo NOW THEN .... I´m happy to continue trying to assist (on behalf of HJG) .... but .... doubt I can successfully do so (I´m certainly not reluctant to try´n do so) until the OP demonstrates he´s adhering precisely to what´s been recommended so far .... and by those whom know and can best advise FLIGHTQUARTERS .... get back to me here (or at HJG .... "preferrably") and we´ll be glad to try´n assist you accordingly since that what we specialize in trying to do ;) MRC

I don´t want to prolong this thread more than may be considered absolutely necessary in order to .... (a) correct some of the errouneous advice that been offered so far .... and (b) to also try´n assist the original poster understand what he should be doing/how certain things "need to be done" also .... otherwise we´re at risk of simply going around in circles or possibly starting WW3 .... but .... I do need to correct , and advise (if not stress), as follows .... :) 1. This data "is not" missing .... it´s stated within the AIR.FILE .... as is the case with some other prameters too that are often represented within CFG infomation. There´s a number of ways in which to compile FDE data .... and this´s one of them/the other options. By far the greater majority of DC-8 "were not" AT equipped and the time of their construction prior to 1972 .... therefore no AT is represented aming any of HJG´s DC-8´s panels/simulations .... and no speed hold function is implementerd into the HJG FDE or panel/gauge programing for any of these simulations anyway either. Power must be set "manually" .... and airspeed performance then constantly monitored .... with power being eqully constantly adjusted, as required, in order to maintain performance .... particular during cruise and subject to the impact of progressive fuel burn off. That´s the way the DC-8 worked .... and was typically flown. The DC-8 should therefore be regarded as "a hands-on" aeroplane and "not" an automatic one" ... so .... one must stay ahead of it at all times. An AP IAS HLD MODE is featured wthin the HJG DC-8 panels, but, should be used (if at all .... I seldom do ever use it) during climb and descent only. This particular AP mode "is not/should not" be regard as an AT feature .... since it´s an AP CLIMB/Descent MODE only. DOUGLAS "did" actually implement an early form of AT system into some DC-8 SUPER 60 SERIES aircraft, but, it was found to "not" function reliably in some operational coditions .... and virtually every operator throughgout the 1960´s, 70´s, and 80´s avoided using it for this reason. 2. I assume he´s referring to the actual AIRCRAFT.CFG file here .... and not the FUEL & PAYLOAD schematic within MSFS. At the end of the day people can do "whatever they wish" in regard to configuring/reconfiguring their HJG FDE´s .... but .... as stated previously, by me, within this thead (and indeed many times previously over past years and on both this, the HJG, and other FS forums too .... the FDE, as supplied by HJG, "should not ever be edited" .... since doing so "WILL" lead to otherwise unecessary and then self-imposed problems .... particularly in regard to people whom try to implement recommendations, but, whom are less aviation or FS savvy and only end up making a mess of things .... "and which is precisely what HJG strive to try´n avoid happening" .... hence its advice that´s occasionall contradictory to non-official recommnendations in regard to HJG simulations. Any number of other FS designers have are of similar opinion in regard to these matters too and not just HJG. In any case and in the event that people do modify their HJG supplied FDE´s anyway .... THEN .... they need to be aware that in the event of issues HJG "will not" be able to provide support. PLEASE NOTE: HJG can only support what it offers that´s been proven to function well prior to public release. HJG do also update/improve some of its releases .... as it see´s or is otherwise deemed fit for it to do so .... and such updates are generally announced per forum NOTAMS or per its website updates. 3. Excluding the early-to-mid 1980´s SUPER 70 SERIES upgrades .... the DC-8 is actually a 50-60 year old jetliner "in so far as it´s technology is concerned" .... but .... that´s neither here nor there in regard to this particular thread. 4. "NO" .... that´s not correct at all :) The default PANEL.CFG and SOUND.CFG files supplied within each HJG DC-8 aicraft base pack are aliassed to the MSFS B747-400 and B737-400 panel anbd sounds respectivel .... BUT .... HJG does, abnd always has, offereed its own customized 2D panels and HQ sound packs "for each DC-8 version. The panels are FS2004 compatible and FSX portable. The sound packs are available as separate FS2004 and FSX versions .... be sure to apply the correct FS sound pack version to one´s FS version of choice. IN SUMMARY .... The best advice that´s been offered within this thread so far (beyond what I´ve been endorsing all along if not previously too and as the person whom has overseen HJG ´s DC-8 development/s) is that first provided by "F16 KJOCKEY 2" and more recently by "JETHROM" too .... both of which is consistent with what HJG advises and thats ´been proven to work or otherwise be a good procedure/result in good FS performance. .... despite certain FS imposed limiurtations. Again .... and as stated within my own very first reply below .... the default "MAX" payload and fuel configurations provided by HJG within all of its DC-8 simulations (and all of its other simulations too) and which result in the "apparently" excessive overages "are correct". Once again .... HJG provides 100% fuel and payload capacity in the interest of folks whom like/desire to be able to flightplan .... and which can be achieved with a "reasonable" degree of fidelity. It therefore needs to be stated also that HJG has always designed for/catered for a primarily different/more advanced level of FS enthusiast. The simple solution to FLIGHTQUARTERS issues are .... - Reduce the fuel or payload using the MSFS FUEL & PALOASD schematic. - Preferrably flight plan .... it´s not complex or difficult (per a formula HJG advise) and which it is prepared to assist people undertanidig and hopefully implementing. No simulation .... or even R/W aircraft either .... is going to T/O, climb, cruise, descend, or land properly "if flown with both maximum payloads and fuel capacities. Yet again I stress .... flight planning (normally per payload and/or fuel adjustment/s) is "ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL" in regard to "all HJG simulations". That´s the way HJG designs. - Set T/O FLAPS and ELEVATOR TRIM correctly prior to departure .... as recommended within the HJG flying guides. - "READ THE MANUAL" .... particularly those sections of it which have been recommended within my last posting .... since virtually everything that "must be understood and implemented" is actually covered within this particular reference data. I don´t think I can possibly offer better or even additional advice .... short of repeating myself and which I want to avoid doing. Per my next statement I mean no offence to any of the FS.COM team .... whom have been good to HJG over many yerars and whom we rely upon too .... "BUT TECHNICALLY SPEAKING" .... technical support/advice for HJG simulations is best sought "on the HJG forum" where all of the expertise for these simulations is located. It´s as "a courtesy only" that HJG often "TRY" to assist in such external cases/postings as these .... but ... only when it becoms aware of such postings which can otherwise be easily missed. HJG does go out on a lin to try ´n ensure all users of its offering have an en enjoyanble FS experience usuing is products. In the past HJG have seen some wrong and/or otherwise very bad advice offered in regard to some of its simulations. It´s dificult for HJG to endeavour providing support over a number of extenal forums .... so once more .... technical assistance should always be sourced directly from the designers of "any particular simulation" .... or to put things more basically perhaps .... I don´t think an AIRBUS operator consults with BOEING in regard to any arising maintenance issue or even vice versa ;) MRC

"NO" .... :) Myself .... and "F16 JOCKEY 2" .... have covered this for you (and quite extensively too) explaining both why default O/W indications are the case (and which "are not" incorrect and "are quite normal" for all the technical reasons stated within my own reply) and how to address this. What I´ve advised you do do is as follows .... Use the FS FUEL & PAYLOAD schematic to adjust/reduce the default fuel loading, or payload, or both .... so the simulation is then set at/near, or below, MGTOW. MRW .... prior to taxiing and T/O .... can be up to 1000 LBS above MTOW and this sort of excess will normally be burned off during engine startup and taxi out to the RWY. The HJG DC-8´s can be flown with the default MAX PAYLOAD (no adjustments necessary) .... but .... to avoid the O/W imposition the default FUEL (only) loading "must" be manually reduced .... at the very least. Kindly refer to the following sections of HJG´s forum based online DC-8 manual .... linked within my last reply .... SECTION 4.00: DC-8 PANELS TUTORIAL - Taxiing, T/O, Climb, Descent, Landing - BASIC OPERATION. SECTION 5.00: DC-8 BASIC FLYING GUIDES. "SECTION 4" is a tutorial in regard to how to best fly the HJG DC-8´s "SECTION 5" is a tutorial in regard how best to fly the DC-8´s .... with maximum payload and with "fuel only adjustment7s" to ensure each simulation is set at, or near, its MGTOW .... prior to T/O. At the very least .... these 2 sections of the HJG DC-8 manual are "ESSENTIAL READING". PLEASE NOTE: HJG simulations are intended for use by those whom appreciate, or otherwise seek, a greater degree of operational/technical fidelity .... HJG´s simulations can´t be flown "properly" without studying the compiled reference material. Standard FS keyboard (or controller assigned) TRIM commands .... and which apply to all trim featured FS aircraft .... As stated within the HJG supplied DC-8 manual .... - The Elevator Trim scale and indicator tab are located vertically within the extreme left side of the Center Pedestal sub panel. The white Elevator Trim indicator tab can be adjusted/set using keyboard commands ("END" = trim up .... "HOME" = trim down) or controller device assigned buttons in order to set a Trim value on the ground or adjust Trim setting inflight during manual flight control. A Trim warning alarm will be auto-triggered in response to each increment of manual Trim adjustment. During AP controlled flight Trim setting is influenced in response to manual adjustment/s using the AP Vert Speed thumbwheel. The Trim warning alarm will not be triggered in response to adjustments during AP controlled flight. "KEYBOARD INDUCED" induced manual trim responses are noted to work best .... with most FS aircraft. "CONTROLLER DEVICE" assigned/induced manual trim responses have been noted to result in abrupt/aggressive adjustments .... with some (but not all) FS aircraft. I can´t really advise you better .... short of your own now studying the previously linked HJG suppled DC-8 manual ;) MRC

The STARGZER livery "may" (no promises") be added to HJG´s L-1011-1 inventory "soon" (already discussed internally), but, there won´t/can´t be any model edit "with the rocket" :( .... for the foreseable future ;) MRC

WELL ... one won´t get better/more expert advice than per what Ive to contribute as follows .... since I (personally) oversaw HJG´s DC-8 development/redevelopment and wrote the FS manual for these simulations .... aided by my long time association with DC-8´s during the late 70´s through early 90´s :) As has been stated here .... and at HJG too .... many times since 2006 .... such overweight observations are correct and should not be interpreted as any anomally (or anything else either) .... ánd that´s in regard to not only the HJG DC-8´s, but, all other HJG aircraft simulations too. HJG compiles its FDE´s based on 100% payload and maximum 100% fuel load for each aircraft type .... as defined from FAA an manufactuer specifications (bare-in-mind that among DC-8´s of the same aircraft rype version some airframes were actually fuel and payload customised for the requirements of particular opertors so HJG offer one only/a common specification only for each DC-8 aircraft type version). The combination of these maximums result in nominal .... if not substantial .... overloads and which, again, are intentional/correct and perfectly normal too. Such W&B complation preferences are in the best interests of "flight planning" .... to the extent that if one wishes to prioritze range then one "can" and by needing to reduce the payload .... and if one wishes to prioritize payload then then one "can also" and by needing to reduce the fuel loading .... each respectively and in accordasnce with the requirements of their intended FS flights. This W&B methodology/preferencing promotes getting the very best out of each simulation rather than restricting the endurances of such to just a common loading .... end users can therfore plan as required. HJG´s forum based manuals, for by far the majoroity of its simulations, provide basic flying guides for each aircraft type version (see as linked below for the HJG DC-8´s) .... since no 2 aircraft type versions are ever precisely the same .... and within which the fuel burn at cruising altitude (for a given IAS airspeed/MACH velocity at an initial cruising altitude .... usually FL310) is also clearly stated .... and from which the end user "can easily" then plan their fuel loading for each flight whilst also ensuring arrival at one´s destimnation below MLW .... and with sufficient reserves remaining too (to enable diversion if necessary) .... and also without risking everything suddenly running quiet on one (fuel starvation) prior to arrival. Such flight planning "IS NOT" at all complex .... or difficult .... and HJG do go to great lengths to assist/advise in regard to these and other matters concerning all of its simulations. It "is not necessary" .... and "nor is it adviseable either" .... to change any of the stated FDE related data within any HJG supplied simulation. Doing so can, and most probably will, result in difficulties/problems .... of the type that are otherwise completely avoidable "if people use these simulations as recommendes/as they´re intended to be used" ;) "F16 JOCKEY 2´s" advise (below) in regard to some of the above matters is "ABSOLUTELY SPOT-ON" :) It all depends on their weight/loading .... but .... VR can be as high as 155 depending on the DC-8 version and its weight. The different DC-8 versions/series "DO" all perform slightly differently .... and are compiled to perform as such. A combination of drag related parameters (mostly) and engine thrust define performances of each of early/pre -50 DC-8 versions .... as should be the case .... but .... in so far as the liveries are concerned "for each individual DC-8 versions/series" there are no performances differences at all. Depending on the DC-8 version you´re using (again these do all differ in regard to thrir weight .... and in regard their engine thrust too) .... T/O performances will vary considerably .... and also be additionally impaired by the effect of geographic/airport altitude environments too and which is "reasonably" well replicated by FS. For all of the early DC-8´s .... -10/-11/-12 through -40 .... "MAX POWER" should be used for any T/O (the simulated water/methanol injection used for DC-8-10/-11/-12 only) .... or as "bugged" per thir engine gauges if using the HJG DC-8 panels. For all of the later DC-8´s .... -50 through -73 .... power should be set onlt as "bugged" .... if using the HJG DC-8 panels. If not using the HJG DC-8 panels with the HJG DC-8 simulations then the power (and performance) indications per alternative panels may be "out of spec". PLEASE NOTE: It needs to be understaood that all HJG simulations are intended to be used with "HJG supplied panels" (and sounds). There´s a strong inter-relationship between FDE, panels, and sounds in regard to "all HJG simulations". Alternative panels have been known to result in various performance issues/discrepancies. "For all of the DC-8´s" FLAP 15 should be considered a standard T/O flap setting .... and about 2 or 3 degrees of ELEVATOR TRIM should also be applied prior to T/O also. Theres no green band on the DC-8 TRIM WHEEL .... in fact whilst a few aircraft did featured this it wasn´t stándard and was actually a rarety on most DC-8´s in the R/W. The default weight needs to be manually reset/adjusted to ensure no T/O is ever attempted at in excess of MGTOW .... and if such adjustments are planned correctly then no landing should ever be result with in excess of 20% total fuel remaining either or with the simulation being in excess of its MLW. It also needs to be understood too that DC-8´s were among "the most field (length) demanding" of all first generation 4-engine US jetliners .... DC-8´s "ARE NOT" short field capable aircraft .... unless operating almost empty. Each of the above basic factors are "critical" .... and if attended to correctly then no issues/problems should ever result .... short of "PILOT ERROR" !!!! All of what´s been discussed here-in is stated within tutorial featured within HJG´s following forum based DC-8 manual .... "DC-8 PANEL INSTALLATION & HANDLING NOTES" http://tonymadgehjg.proboards.com/thread/8019/hjg-panel-installation-handling-notes PLEASE NOTE: All imagery within the above HJG DC-8 manual is (once again) being adversely impacted by PHOTOBUCKET (images blurred and/or missing). Whilst easily recoverable there´s nothing I can do about remedying this at the moment. I´m overseas and away from my resources for quite a while yet (this all jhappened after my departure) .... so .... no image recvovery can possibly be effected by me before sometime during early next year/2020 .... sorry :( FINALLY .... the 2 B737-800 panel images (and their CP quadrants) posted below bear little/no resemblance whatsoever to the DC-8 panel and CP .... although the reason for these being posted, in attempt to demonstrate a particular detail, "is" understood/apreciated ;) MRC

And "just for good measure" .... HJG also offer 2 DC-8-63CF's too .... in both mide 70's and late 70's liveries .... and which are also supported by "customised" FDE, panels, and sound packs .... DC-8-63CF http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-8-63f/dc-8-63f_world_airways_1975_cf_n804wa.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-8-63f/dc-8-63f_world_airways_1978_cf_n801wa.jpg These simulations are FS2004 compatible .... and are FSX "portable" also. MRC

HJG currently offer each of the following definititve WA liveries for DC-10-10/-30/and -30CF .... with "customized" FDE, panels, and sound packs for each aircraft version .... DC-10-10 http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-10/dc-10-10_world_airways_1987_10_n1828ij.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-10/dc-10-10_world_airways_1988_10_n102ua.jpg DC-10-30 http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-30/dc-10-30_world_airways_1997_30_n117wa.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-30/dc-10-30_world_airways_%20%20%20%202000_30_n137wa.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-30/dc-10-30_world_airways_2008_30_n139wa.jpg DC-10-30CF http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-30/dc-10-30cf_world_airways_1977_30cf_n103wa.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-30/dc-10-30cf_world_airways_1985_30cf_n112wa.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-30/dc-10-30cf_world_airways_1988_30cf_n106wa.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/douglas/dc-10-30/dc-10-30cf_world_airways_1993_30cf_n107wa.jpg These simulations (including their panels and sound packs) are both FS2004 and very FSX compatible too .... last updated during December 2018. HJG is also planning to introduce some of the WA Dc-10 hybrids too .... at it's convenience. MRC

"SI" senor .... es delicioso :) ... mucho mejor que STARBUCKS :( RE the MD FDE revision .... this's periodic thing we do every so often, but, one of the omprovements I particularly want to apply is in regard to rotation and T/O performances in relation to conrol input. MRC

HJG don't offer the MD-11. Nor the MD-10 either .... yet (well it "does", but, in FED EX DC-10-10CF/F and DC-10-30CF/F form, but, without the MD-11/EFIS type panel) IMHO the best "free bee" MD-11's are those by IFDG .... which "are" available here at FS.COM .... and similar FS websites too. Just search "MD-11" .... or alternatively .... "IFDG MD-11". The model's not bad .... and there are some nice textures for it too .... As for the FDE .... I don't know. And panel-wise .... options are available from here'n'there, but, I'm reluctant/unable to recommend one in particular given certain the potential FDE/panel/gauge incompatibilities that can arise unless a simulation is "fully customised". MRC

HJG's AV MD's are all -83's (soon to be FDE upgraded) .... featuring all 3 AV liveries (by Camilo LUENGAS) .... with the exception of the Juan Valdez Coffee hybrid .... http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/mcdonnelldouglas/md83/md-83_avianca_colombia_1992_83_ei-ceo.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/mcdonnelldouglas/md83/md-83_avianca_colombia_2003_83_ei-ceo.jpg http://simviation.com/hjg/aircraft2/mcdonnelldouglas/md83/md-83_avianca_2010_83_hk-4591.jpg FS9 native (FDE, models, panels, sounds, and textures) FSX portable (FDE, models, and textures only) The primary difference between these MD models are their MGW .... and engine type an thrust ratings among some of them .... and the fact that a good number of MD 81 through -83 aircraft were modified with the MD-87/-88 type low-drag rear fuselage tail cone .... and some were also reconfigured with MD-87/-88/B717-200 type EFIS FD's too. MRC

For what ? Not quite following you there Darren :) MRC

Can't imagine why any delay should have been evident in regrd to the BAHAMAS B735 texture. It was one of the very first B737 textures uploaded by HJG back in December 2017 .... 2009 - C6-BFD - 737-5H6 Textures by Textures by Tony Madge Last Updated: Dec 2017 MRC

Thank you BAM1220/RAM1220 ;) We'll do our best .... and everyone can be assured of that :) "ALL FS PROJECTS" have their "unique little problems" .... and this one's no different. I'm confident we'll eventually be able to deliver something nice though .... when the time comes, but, I just don't want to see us rush anything. In fact I (personally) would rather impose additional delays .... and keep people waiting .... rather than risk releasing anything substandard. As I said .... we'll do the best we can .... as we always try to do ;) MRC

Thanks for going to the trouble/taking the time to express all of that Fernando .... muchismas gracias una vez mas ;) I'm sure our team will appreciate it :) Let me just say .... HJG "do" represent a different level in flight simulation .... to the extent it's always (since 2000) tended to focus more upon variation and the technical side of civil aviation than some groups might (we've always had a phenomenal amount of real world technical resource and experience available to us in order to facilitate this) .... in so far as what can be represented within the host program of course since MSFS doesn't offer total fidelity. This focus/tradition "does" tend to result in simulations that are "a little more complex" to use .... but also .... are a little more immersive too (certainly from a panel perspective) .... and which "do" require a wee bit of study (based on the support data we provide) in order for what we produce to be able to work properly, but, in doing so, we feel, this does also result in products that are "a little more realistic" in the way they function .... "for those whom want that sort of experience". We appreciate some of the 3D models we use are getting a wee bit long in the tooth/old now, but, aided by their supporting files these do still tend to perforrn just as well, if not better than, some of the other more recent alternatives. There's other things we'd like to be able to do (such as VC's .... maybe .... although these aren't really practical given both the period and technical variation which exists/is represented among HJG's panels) .... but .... are unable to so. So then .... at the end of the day (and for as long as we can justify keeping HJG running) .... all we do is try our best, to do our best, in accordance with what we can best achieve .... in the hope that what offer might bring as much pleasure to some as it does for us to be able to produce and offer it :) And that's about all/the best we can do really ;) MRC

Pleased to read you may have discovered the importance of flight planning and are apparently making positive progress FJA09 .... because it's essential for all HJG simulations by virtue of the fact they're compiled to enable this. As confirmed per my "May 5th" reply to this thread .... 42000 LBS ST is "correct" for the RR RB211-22B powered L-1011-1 through -150 series, but, "not" for any of the later and heavier versions. The RR RB211-524B powered L-1011-200 was "iniially" certified for up to 48000 LBS ST .... and later re-certified for up to 50000 LBS ST for the even heavier L-1011-250. L-1011 SHIP ONE 1970 was the test aircraft which also test flew the RB211 turbofan .... and as such its RR RB211-22B engines were "initially" restricted/derated to 36500 LBS ST .... and which was gradually worked up toward the RB211-22B's final 42000 LBS ST certification during much later testing. HJG are, and always have been (since 2000), quite religeous in regard to how it represents its simulations in terms of aircraft weight, engine thrust, and flight dynamics too .... the latter of which are constantltly revised, and improved .... as is the case at the moment concerning some currently progressing projects. MRC

OK .... see me when/if you get there .... and I'll be happy to "TRY" to sort you out .... if we can :) Reading the manual is both a good start and is essential in regard to most of HJG's simulations .... since there's no way around that "if one really wants to get the very best our of the simulations that are provided". Re flightplanning .... the most basic flight planning one can do is to reduce the fuel loading, in all tanks, by 50% (leave the payload unadjusted though).... and work up from there. From that easy adjustment it then becomes a simple matter of setting elevator trim, flaps, and T/O power. A 50% fuel reduction with sero payload adjustment is still going to enable a reasonable range since (the early L-1011's were medium range high density aitrcraft .... as was the Dc-10-10 also) .... and most departures will require full power anyway and until after T/O and clean up. Another detail that should perhaps be born-in-mind too is that of comparisons too .... comparing the performance of one simulation with that of another (I was reluctant to raise this previously simply because I didn't want to be perceived to be publicly denegrating someone else's production .... too much of that goes on around us sometimes rather than people taking time to enjoy, and respect, what they have, and get, for "FREE"). It's my understanding, fro your previous posting on this thread, that you've also been using another non-HJG produced L-1011 simulation too (possibly a -500 since HJG's version of this aircraft isn't completed yet) .... BUT .... the programming of that other simulatiom, versus that of our own L-1011 simulations, will likely be "quite different" .... as will the performances of both productions too. HJG generlly use R/W AOM data, as well as other aerospace manufactuer, FAA, and airport technica//reference data too in order to determine, and set, loading and flight parameters for each of its simulations (aided by a respected college/university Physics professor with an aviation background also) .... and which generally results in "a pretty accurate" performance/s all-round .... "subject to limitations of the host FS program of course given that certain parameters simply aren't/can't be replicated within FS". Unlike what's was hinted earlier within this thread .... HJG have never argued, stated, or even implied that what it offers is infallible or perfect .... or even the best available either .... BUT .... it does comfortably maintain that it offers is "GOOD", well produced and tested, and works very well (as well as quite realistically too) .... "if used correctly". See you over at HJG ;) MRC

"FJA009" .... thanks for you response .... all of which is perfectly understandable. I'd be prepared to go out on a limb to try to assist you "at HJG" and by virtue of the fact it's our simulation you're using, so, it's in both our best interests that we try'n to do so. What I was meaning previously in regard to our ability to be able to assist possibly being "limited" is only in the event that your difficulties might have been a panel/gauge interaction problem with our own FDE .... and if this were proven to be the case then we wouldn't be able to resolve or offer much help only because we didn't compile the PAETZOLD L-1011 panel. Right now though I'm sure this isn't the case .... and the difficulties I understand you to experiencing are more than likely in regard to the absence of basic flight planning adjustments ..... BUT .... at HJG we'll be happy to train/educate you, as best we can (since that's a large part of what we .... and in particular I .... do behind the scenes), and I'm sure we'll be able to assist your greater enjoyment of these simulations as a result .... and which might likely also assist your enjoyment any number of other non-HJG simulations in the future too. Trust me when I say flight planning and and FS flight adjusting isn't at all difficult .... once one's taught and understands the basics. "If" you'd like to register on the HJG forum we'd be more than happy to try'n assist any queries you might have concerning our L-1011 (and other) simulations .... aided by our extensive forum based manual/s and service notes .... and hopefully in order for you to possibly better be able understand and enjoy the simulations we offer. The reason I insist upon doing this "at HJG" is simply because that's where all of our personal and technical/reference expertise is located .... since it's not practical for us to try'n support our simulations outside our own forum and apart from our offering very basic advice as we have here to date. MRC

No reason why HJG wouldn't assist .... should he desire to come forward .... in fact it's not in the either the groups, or end users, interest for HJG to not do so. All that's been stressed previously though is .... should he desire to retain the panel "he prefers" (and that's fine :) ) .... then .... HJG's ability to be able provide decent support may be "limited" given that particular panel version isn't actually intended for HJG L-1011 use and may be influenced (+ or -) by the groups official FDE .... as I hinted can be the case per my very first reply to this thread. I harbor opinions too :) .... but .... don't consider any feathers to have been ruffled. Just a variances in regard to advice only being stated here, but, I do consider HJG's input to be "better" as it compiled the FDE which supports the L-1011 panels it's been authorized to host, and further advance, and therefore understnds its simulations/what it offers "best" .... each of which I, personally, have played a major roles in the compilation of and through each successive developmental release/re-release ;) MRC

What I relate as follows is intended to try'n assist the original poster of this thread .... but .... John's "ABSOLUTELY RIGHT" .... and on all of the above quoted counts. My following response is intended to assist "FJA009" .... since he's the guy experiencing the issue/s :) All of HJG simulations (this doesn't necessarily apply to other simulations though) are compiled with both maximum fuel loading as well as maximum payload .... all of which is typically based on R/W aerospace producer, airport, and/or FAA reference data for each aircraft type. This procedure always results in an indicated "overload" within the FS W&B graphic .... and the end user is expected to manually adjust/reduce either payload or fuel load, or both, in order to set each simulation at, or near, its certified MGTOW. HJG's philosophy/preference in this regard is in order to promote more authentic flight planning .... and e accept what we do isn't I accordance with what some people might prefer. One doesn't need to (and shouldn't anyway) fly with maximum payload and/or fuel load .... or .... the corresponding overloading will ensure impaired T/O and climb performance/s. "IF" range is one's goal .... then .... the payload should be reduced .... and .... "IF" payload is ones priority .... then .... the fuel load needs to be reduced .... or a combination of both adjustments applied to suit the requirements of ones simulated flight. The last section within each of HJG's forum based and online manuals feature tutorials recommending fuel adjustments based on MGTOW. If these recommendations are applied .... and the recommended power settings and climb profiles are adopted also .... then .... no performance issues should ever result. These tutorials have been well tested over the years and are proven to work well. REMEMBER .... the basic rules of thumb are .... the heavier one is then the longer the RWY length required to get airborne .... and also .... the higher the airport elevation too then more T/O performance may be impaired also ("this much" of aviation operations is actually reasonably well replicated by MSFS") .... so .... the lighter any simulation is .... then .... the better it's overall performance is going to be .... at least that's the case with HJG simulations and for all of which good flight planning is essential. Actual fuel loadings should also always be calclated for each flight . The HJG tutorials within each manual state the indicated hourly F/F at a recommended cruising altitude .... for each simulation .... and at a certain airspeed/velocity and departure weight also. A very crude .... but also very effective .... methodology I apply in order to determine actual fuel requirements is as follows .... 1. Calculate the total fuel burn of "all engines combined" the hourly F/F rate indicated within each tutorial. 2. Multiply the "combined fuel burn" of all engines by the number hours/estimated duration of each flight .... in order to get the basic total fuel requirement. 3. Add a minimum of at least 30 minutes reserve fuel .... based on the combined hourly fuel burn estimate of all engines. 4. Add an extra 10% more fuel over the total fuel requirement (including the estimated reserve fuel requirement too) .... and which then becomes ones "TOTAL FUEL REQUIREMENT" for the planned flight. 5. Load the required fuel into each tank proportionately to avoid imbalance .... I like to keep most of it in the outboard tanks .... unless any particular simulation (like the HJG DC-10's) features a built-in fuel transfer system. Perform the above reommended steps correctly .... and one shouldn't ever experience any performance related issues whatsoever .... and nor should one then be either overweight for T/O or landing either .... since an overweight landing can pose separate peformance issues again. From there it's a simple matter of setting flaps , and trim (a lot of people forget to set trim and that won't help any T/O either), correctly .... and then applying power accordingly as recommended. "FJA009's" panel/performance issues may (at the end of the day) not be the result of the any discrepancy within the Horst PAETZOLD panel he's opted to use .... BUT RATHER .... it could simply be caused by an absence of good and basic flight planning .... "not criticizing him for that though in the least" :) The only other points I'll reiterate upon here though are .... A. The HJG L-1011's (any HJG simulations in fact) aren't intended to be run using any panel other than the HJG supplied versions .... doing so can invite issues outside of HJG's control and expertise. B. The correct HJG suplied panel needs to be applied to the correct HJG supplied aircraft base pack and FDE (the HJG supplied manuals state what must be used with what) .... or issues can result. C. What people do is entirely up to them of course .... BUT .... the supplied FDE should never be edited for any reason .... or .... it will likely impose performance related issues. My final comment is .... HJG can't realisticaly provide support on 2 different forums (if queries involve any HJG supplied file) beyond "basic advice" such as is being provided here. I therefore invite "FJA009" to post any queries regarding HJG simulations .... "on the HJG forum" (where all expertise for its simulations is located) if he wishes .... and we'll be only too pleased to try'n assist. The only thing I must stress beforehand though is .... "IF" a proposed query concerns any non-HJG compiled file, then, HJG likely won't be able to assist .... beyond proving very basic support only ;) That's the best I can contribute folks .... and which helps "some" I hope .... since there's no much more I can do here :) MRC

"Experimentation" is fine :) .... even HJG occasionally does that too in order to assess what does, and doesn't, work with what it offers and in order to able to better advise its patronage ;) The only thing people do need to be aware of though is .... if using a non-HJG supplied file/component (anything HJG hasn't compiled itself) with any of its simulations .... then the group can't offer technical support for such items even if used with it's own files. MRC

HJG simulations are designed to use HJG supplied panels only .... it's the desirable panel/gauge/FDE/and audio inter-relationship which actually dictates this. HJG's gauges .... particularly the like of its engine gauges (in panels they've either compiled themselves or been authorized to re-engineer) are "very accurate" .... due to the said FDE/gauge inter-relationship. Apply a non HJG panel (or a wrong panel version) to any HJG simulation and one may expect to encounter issues .... such as excess or insufficient power (and/or other issues) due to the gauges calibration in alternative panels not being as finely tuned or in-tune with HJG's own FDE's. The same applies also in regard to sound packs too .... HJG's sound packs are compiled "to function best" with their own simulations .... apply it's sound packs to other simulations, or other audio options to HJG's simulations, or the wrong sound pack to any HJG simulation, and these won't then work as well. Among many FS misconceptions is the one that implies any panel, or sound pack, can be used with any other simulation .... but .... this's "not so" .... or rather .... is "a falicy" at the very least. MRC