Dimmed Jet Thrust

Hi, everyone

I'm using Horst Paetzold's panel in the L-1011 Tristar (FS9), which works fine in Mike Stone's model, but not in any of the HJG's models: 'can't get enough thrust power for take off. How can this be fixed?

Thanks in advance

Check your data in the aircraft.cfg for the HJG model. I am running FSX, but the entries should be the same regardless. Here are the entries for my HJG downloaded L-1011 Tristar. Compare my figures to yours, maybe you will find the difference. Good luck - Rick

[TurbineEngineData]

bypass_ratio= 4.3

fuel_flow_gain=0.0010

inlet_area=29.928

rated_N2_rpm=10611

static_thrust=42000

afterburner_available=0

reverser_available=1

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

Hi

Yeah, one actually sees how preety exclusive these HJG's sims are, and we the users tend to 'experiment' a bit, perhaps behond of what would be proper which is to respect designers specifications which I do (most of the time, at least), but it's also about improving your flightsim experience and photoreal panels or "as real as it gets" sounds are important parts of it.

Many thanks for your reply

Cheers

"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

fja009 - Don't totally give up on your add-on panel as there are some good ones out there! Take a good hard look at fuel loading and payloads. Many times developers load these freeware downloads to the "hilt" with fuel and payload. You might be able to improve your take-off performance by lowering some of these loads. I looked at my HJG L1011, and apparently I had the same issues, because my aircraft.cfg shows that I lowered both!

Just a suggestion!

Rick :cool:

Hi Rick

Sorry i wasn't able to reply sooner. And many thanks for the tip, i'll look into it.

Cheers.

Hi, Rick

Thanks again, I'm following your earlier tip on turbine engine data, will look into payload too.

Cheers

Totally agree, if one goes rogue, one can't expect designers' support on items which they've not authored, I'd certainly do the same but I'll just keep using their creations, anyways, even if meeting with a few acceptable issues, as theirs is one of the coolest artworks I've ever seen.

Cheers

HJG has quality downloads, that is for sure. BUT, they can argue until they are blue in the face, they aren't infallible. They too, make mistakes along the way, just like other developers out there. We as consumers, end users get some perfect downloads, others have to be tweeked slightly to live up to our expectations. If you need any information as to what I changed let me know, and I can share with you.

L1011 is only one of my HJG downloads, I currently have 7 of them and I am totally pleased with all!

Good luck getting your L1011 flying the way it should! - Rick :cool:

Many times developers load these freeware downloads to the "hilt" with fuel and payload.

I am not sure how you deduce that. Much depends on the load settings of your default flight, if your main tanks are full on that, they will be on whatever aircraft you load. But at the end of the day, you should always load an appropriate amount of fuel for the flight you are about to make - it is all part of the planning procedure in the real world. It saves wasting fuel moving an unnecessarily heavy aircraft through the atmosphere and it allows a slower approach and landing. Many aircraft cannot land with too much fuel on board for that reason, which is why when an aircraft has to turn back in emergency they either fly around in circles to burn it up or just dump it into the atmosphere and on whatever it falls upon. A lovely thought . . .

There are many aircraft in the real world and in the game that cannot take off with both full fuel and full seats and one or the other has to be reduced. There are also a few airports with runways so short that jets have to take off with minimal fuel and land at a larger airport to top up.

Manipulating the aircraft.cfg is really a bodge rather than a solution as you must be permanently reducing the size of the tanks (or the number of seats) which then makes long flight perfomance impossible.

John

Hi John - I just use FSX to fly. I used to fly RW and can't do it anymore due to health issues and the cost alone of having to rent would not allow me to do it on retirement income! So, how do I satisfy my love for flight? I spend my time on FSX. I don't put real fuel in the freeware aircraft, I don't put real passengers in the freeware aircraft that I have. I am merely sitting in an imaginary pilot's seat wanting to fly, doesn't have to simulate world travel. I just want to takeoff and land and enjoy everything in between.

I have had freeware downloads that presented issues similiar to those the OP has described, the plane will not fly or uses more runway than should be expected. One tool that Microsoft affords us, is the Fuel and Payload button on the aircraft selection page. This is a quick glance section to see if Fuel and Payload is within the Weight & Balance envelope for that aircraft. Is it accurate enough to ascertain whether or not a plane will fly? It's accurate enough for me, in that this is only a flight simulator (some including Microsoft, might even call it a game) and if I am having problems with the download, it's only a tool which might help answering questions of why it refuses to fly!

Whenever I download a freeware aircraft, I will always do a last minute check of the Fuel and Payload to see if all is within balance. Sometimes, it appears that the aircraft is overloaded, it will most generally be caused by an overage on fuel. I will then do some math calculations using the 6.7 lbs per gallon to figure how much fuel needs to be shed and usually I can get that down to being about 1-2 lbs less than maximum allowed. Now, I will check the payload and if all is good there, I will try a new flight to see if I have improved the performance any. If the aircraft is still not performing the way it should, I will then go back to the aircraft.cfg file to see what I can do to reduce payload. Remember, not all flights, even in RW have all the seats filled, and I certainly do not need all seats filled on my aircraft! To be honest, I could care less, if no passengers showed up. I am just wanting to fly! BUT, I will allow a few imaginary passengers to enjoy the ride. I will reduce the developers passenger loading by 40% and their associated baggage and/or misc payload by 20%. Very easy to do with a few math calculations.

John, I have given you a big explanation of how I approach my flying. It is what works for me. It is a simulator, and like I said, I only use it for flying, local or say a medium cross country jaunt. If I were flying missions whereby passenger counts and proper weight and fuel loading were critical in making the flight successful, then that might be a different story. I once had one of the few "self professed know-it-alls" on this site's forum that mentioned to me that I should be conducting my flights in a way that is being considerate of my passengers! I had to laugh, because I have not had one complaint from my passengers. I have only myself to satisfy!

Oh, another thought and a doozy I came across here recently. Had a freeware download which was giving me problems in holding altitude etc. This thing just about whipped me ragged. In the weight and balance section, I found an entry in there, that had 15,000 lbs, listed as ballast? Did he say ballast, yes I did, and so did the developer. Subsequent developers of this download, had also found this entry and made it part of their update to fix items not proper in the initial release. So, like I said, I make my tweeks and changes based on problems that I encounter and what makes the download better! I am not criticizing the developers out there that afford us beautiful aircraft free of charge. I am merely stating that mistakes can be made and sometimes we as end users have to find the fix!

Have a nice day John! - Rick :cool:

Much depends on the load settings of your default flight, if your main tanks are full on that, they will be on whatever aircraft you load. But at the end of the day, you should always load an appropriate amount of fuel for the flight you are about to make - it is all part of the planning procedure in the real world ....

 

.... There are many aircraft in the real world and in the game that cannot take off with both full fuel and full seats and one or the other has to be reduced. There are also a few airports with runways so short that jets have to take off with minimal fuel and land at a larger airport to top up ....

 

.... Manipulating the aircraft.cfg is really a bodge rather than a solution

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

fja009 - Okay, I've had my say, I should have stayed out of this conversation from the "get go!" As Mark with HJG said, they would prefer that people use their complete downloads with their panels. I would take him up on his suggestion of reaching out to their forum for the help on lack of thrust on takeoff. Understand, it may not go anywhere until you go back to their panel, but it's worth a try. One thing I tried, was downloading the L1011 Base Pack to see what cfg I would receive. I found the aircraft.cfg that I have, and what I shared with you in a post earlier in this thread. It was for the L1011-50 TRISTAR! Now, I downloaded another L1011 Base Pack and got an aircraft.cfg that states it is for a L1011 TRISTAR SHIP ONE 1970? When looking at the [TurbineEngineData] for this cfg, it states the static_thrust=36500 //DERATED

Check your Base Pack aircraft.cfg to see what it says. When downloading the Base Pack that I have, you have to scroll almost all the way to the end, and you will see Base Pack L1011-50 download.

Give HJG a whirl and see what they say. If they can help great, if they can't or won't help with your having your add-on panel, and you should decide you want to stay with that, I would be more than glad to try and help. Send me a PM and let me know if you'd like help and I will get back to you as soon as I can. Good luck, I hope you get the answers you are needing! I have some thoughts, but I will reserve them as I think I ruffled enough feathers for the day! :rolleyes:

Rick :cool:

I found the aircraft.cfg that I have, and what I shared with you in a post earlier in this thread. It was for the L1011-50 TRISTAR! Now, I downloaded another L1011 Base Pack and got an aircraft.cfg that states it is for a L1011 TRISTAR SHIP ONE 1970? When looking at the [TurbineEngineData] for this cfg, it states the static_thrust=36500 //DERATED

 

The varying ST values applied by HJG throughout its L-1011 TRISTAR flight line are correct .... as are the varying MGW assignments for each aircraft type version too.

 

The reason why ST for L-1011 SHIP ONe 1970 is "de-rated" to 36,500 LBS is because that was "the certified limit" for the RR RB211-22B engine during the initial flight testing program for this aircraft. This information is actually stated quite clearly within HJG's forum based online manual for these simulations :)

 

By the time the TRISTAR, and the RB211-22B turbofan engine, were both FAA certified .... and these aircraft were entering airline service as the L-1011-1 .... the RR RB211-22B engine was re-certified for up to 42,000 LBS thrust .... and this rating remained unaltered for the L-1011-1 through -150 aircraft versions despite further and progressive MGW increases/re-certification.

 

The later and heavier L-1011-200 was powered by the RR RB211-524B .... certified for up to 48,000 LBS thrust initially .... and was later re-certified for up to 50,000 LBS thrust for the even heavier L-1011-250.

 

Again .... both the ST values and weight assignments for each TRISTAR version are correctly stated as per official airport, FAA, and LOCKHEED reference data in HJG's library/possession. These differences in both MGW and ST values "do" impose performance variations between these simulations .... and by implication subtle handling differences too .... and I wouldn't recommend altering any of the stated assignments.

 

If they can help great, if they can't or won't help with your having your add-on panel

 

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 have some thoughts ....

 

.... I ruffled enough feathers for the day!

 

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

Hi Marc

I'm the one who postted the T/O power issues.

Thanks for your posting which, along with previous John Hinson's, made me realize the way I use the flight sim calls for some adjustments: you were accurate when you said that these issues may not, in the end, be related to the item itself, but rather due to the absence of good basic flight planning. Indeed, my flight planning sticks to the very basic and won't normally contemplate setting both the fuel amount and payload figures according to the chosen aircraft tech specs and the flight plan's estimated time en route as, in the end of the day (literally!), one seats down and takes to the virtual skies, not caring much for such details, but merely for the fun of it.

As I stated in another posting, HJG's artwork is one of the best there is online. So, when the user goes astray and chooses items differing from those originally intended for those particular sims, the user must also assume, right from the start, assistance on possible issues may be compromised precisely due to different authoring, which is why I didn't seek HJG's advice on the matter, in the first place. Understand the reason I use Paetzold's panels is because they're photoreal - as I may similarly use HJG's soundpacks, for ex, in other sims - it's as simple as that. I'm most reluctant, though, in messing with cfg's specs, it's not in the user's place to do so.

Duly noted your suggested methodology on fuel calculations. This, along with payload adjustments to balance both in order to allow for better performance, should solve the problem.

Went to Forum (HJG's) and read a post of yours regarding B737 100/200 sims. I've figured that much. Just hope you guys may address those issues. Very curious and interested in the outcome of it.

Greetings to you all.

"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

Hello Marc,

There's an online fuel planner that calculates fuel (and passenger) loads for a given flight by aircraft type and the distance between departure and destination points.

http://fuelplanner.com/index.php

Under the "Planner" button it gives "fuel on board" including reserves.

The "Loadsheet" button gives values for both fuel and payload, and apparently looks like an airline planning sheet.

The values can be entered into the "Fuel and payload" section in FS2004.

This added flight-planning step takes about a minute. It provides some degree of detail while saving the user from the chore of trying to figure it all out. Perhaps leads to more accurate performance, also adds nerdish possibility of comparing projected and actual fuel use at end of flight.

All the best,

Bill

Hi Marc

Ok, duly noted. 'Will refer to HJG for assistance on such matters - which I appreciate in advance - in regard to HJG's sims. I'll have to do some reading of L-1011 manuals, first. I'll get back to you guys.

Greetings

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

Hi Rick

Ok, first and foremost, I hope you're doing fine and then I have to disagree when you say you should've stayed out of the talking: it´s precisely because of each and every one of you guys' assistance that I've been able to take crutial readjustment in the way I was enjoying simflying which, evidentely, had to do with the weight issue (fuel & payload) - by the way, the S/T 42,000 figure you referred to is correct ('checked online and - as much as one can trust online info, these days - 'took the input there as factual).

Things began to take a turn to the best. Proper flight planning is indeed key if one’s really into taking flightsim fun more seriously and in a safer mode too I mean, it’s not as if I’d be speeding up some jumbo-jet out of Meigs Fd, but I can do it in St. Maarten-Julliana Fd., for ex. - so, Brave-New-World this is (not Huxley's though...).

Anyways, Thanks for your valuable advice, in particular, also for the further assistance offer. I´m affraid I can't be here as often as i'd like, will try to, though probably not quite in a regular basis.

Cheers.

fja009 - Hi, thanks for letting me know you are making progress with the L1011! I've got the L1011, DC10 and the MD11, all very close to being related in one way or the other! HJG are quality products and as I stated earlier, I have 7 of them, all keepers. Sometimes, when downloading freeware aircraft, you occasionally come across those that just want to "play hard to get!" You just got to stick with it, you will get it sorted out, and then you can start enjoying it!

Anyway, good luck and enjoy! Rick :cool:

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.

by the way, the S/T 42,000 figure you referred to is correct

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

Hi Mark

Hope you’re doing fine, as it’s been a while since I last came here for advice, which has actually made the difference, thanks so much for the assistance.

Combining Sims with one another is an important part of the fun and getting the best out of it by putting those to the best possible use may be construed as also a way to pay respect to so much quality work out there, apart from giving respective authors the proper credit for their skill – which in fact I do, in the aircraft.cfg section, while briefly describing the aircraft (type/panel/sound/texture/repaint). It’s only fair to do so – incidentally, yours and Plamondon’s names are often mentioned in sound authoring, as well as Probst/Carty’s B727 panel (probably the best one available yet – don’t want to sound unfair, or anything, that’s just how it feels) – currently in use with both HJG’s -100 and -200 aircraft types.

I’ve read a substantial part of the L-1011 manual and, although specifically referring to the panels HJG provides, it’s an instructive reading – issues that have been raised here, such as the early L-1011 RR RB211-22B restricted engine power certification process, or the notice on performance issues bound to occur precisely due to the use of materials different from those of HJG’s, are addressed to. It takes only a bit of spare time to do some reading – this, quite frequently, an issue.

On flightplanning the L-1011 fuel/payload, in particular: FS flight planner already provides an estimated fuel burn based on an estimated time en route; it was then a simple matter of adjusting Sim’s pre-programmed max fuel tanks capacity to that of the FS planner sheet. Payload setting, however, used to take bit of a creative accounting, so to temper the figures – not to the point of being pointless, though, the use of a widebody jetliner to perform kind of light weighted flying, sort to speak. But doing the math on fuel consumption is definitely more challenging, little/non fuel wasting, thus cost effective (as virtual as it may be). One’s done with such tricks as setting fuel resources to limitless wasting mode, or even payload tempering, for that matter. And your suggestion of reducing Sim’s total fuel load by a factor of two so to use as half as much, no payload fiddling, is a good one.

Along with HJG’s Lockheed models, I use David Grindele’s – a guy who’s known as Captain Dave, the FS Lightman – whose fine L-1011-500 addon (base model being actually Mike Stone’s), depicts awesome Pan Am trademark logo and I wouldn’t think of comparing one another, as both Sims have merits of their own. Besides, in this particular case, there was an aesthetic drive commanding the download of what was then an.exe file (not too thrilled about it but, then, passion ruled over reason).

This is also why I’ve been drawn to HJG materials, not just because it is, first and foremost, one of the best organized and thought-out hosting sites there is, in terms of the quality design work it displays – one sees the heart you guys put into it, right from the start – as yet for another reason, pertaining to the Site’s very own purpose: it hosts one of the most consistent international airline branding collections, particularly spanning the 1960’s-1970’s. One has to pay tribute to the guys who, decades ago, have brilliantly crafted such world widely known trademark logos as Pan Am’s, TWA’s (especially, the early 1970’s interlinked globes one), Northwest – when also Orient – Airlines, British Airways’ (Landor's, in particular), British Caledonian’s, Condor Flugdient’s, Korean Airline’s (specifically, the one on the jet taken down by soviet fighters, nearby Sakhalin Is, in 1983), KLM’s, Lufthansa’s, Qantas’ (V-Jet era), Suid Afrikaanse Lugdiens’ (big orange tail with blue springbok’s as depicted in their B747-SP – not actually featured in HJG’s repaints, as it was a 1990’s ‘hatching’, sort to speak, but just as impacting, nevertheless), SABENA’s (S-Tail), or VARIG’s (from mid to late 1970’s). And so many others, whether inside or outside US, just to mention a few of the most iconic ones – fascinating set, in its marketing artistry.

Hardly surprising, you guys are pretty much the United Nations of flight sim repainting. Which is great for the flightsim community. I understand you in particular are an historian, as well. Of Aviation History, I guess? And, as you have pointed out also in earlier posting, “[…] aided by a respected college/ university Physics professor with an aviation background […]”? You guys are like a completely different level of proficiency here.

My Compliments/ Regards to the whole team

See you (either here or at HJG forums)

fja009 - Fernando A

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