Idea to overcome common FS bug
Moderator: FSAirlines Staff
Idea to overcome common FS bug
Hi,
Today the client penalised me for having my landing lights off under 1000ft whilst I was taxiing. When I told Justin about this, he explained that the penalisation was because of a common FS bug which had made a 'hole' at LIRF so my plane momentarily 'jumped' into the air. The client then detected that I was off the ground and punished me for it.
I think that this could be resolved by only having the client penalise for LLs off below 1000ft when the aircraft is, say, above 50ft AGL. That would mean no more 'bumpy' taxiways causing problems.
What do you think?
Thanks
Dave.
Today the client penalised me for having my landing lights off under 1000ft whilst I was taxiing. When I told Justin about this, he explained that the penalisation was because of a common FS bug which had made a 'hole' at LIRF so my plane momentarily 'jumped' into the air. The client then detected that I was off the ground and punished me for it.
I think that this could be resolved by only having the client penalise for LLs off below 1000ft when the aircraft is, say, above 50ft AGL. That would mean no more 'bumpy' taxiways causing problems.
What do you think?
Thanks
Dave.
Regards,
Dave
Dave
- joefremont
- FSAirlines Developer
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
- Location: KSFO
An excellent Idea, I think its been suggested before.
http://flynet.en-studios.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1124
http://flynet.en-studios.de/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1124
I've sworn an oath of solitude until the pestilence is purged from the lands.
-
- FSAirlines Developer
- Posts: 1564
- Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:40 am
- Location: Munich, Germany
- Contact:
k, I'll change that in the next release, together with another landing lights problem Quantum told me about:
The upper-limit where you have to turn off your landing lights is FL100 and they have to be on atleast until 1000ft AGL, but there are airports in the world where the runway already is at 9200ft ( e.g. Quito ). You wouldn't have chance not to get a penalty there and so I'll add a new rule where the landing lights can be on at least until 5000ft AGL.
The upper-limit where you have to turn off your landing lights is FL100 and they have to be on atleast until 1000ft AGL, but there are airports in the world where the runway already is at 9200ft ( e.g. Quito ). You wouldn't have chance not to get a penalty there and so I'll add a new rule where the landing lights can be on at least until 5000ft AGL.
Last edited by Konny on Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Konrad - FSAirlines Developer
- joefremont
- FSAirlines Developer
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
- Location: KSFO
-
- Captain
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:36 am
- Location: The middle of a bloody desert - surrounded by bright lights, long legged women and Paupers
- Contact:
I hate to play devils advocate here
But IRL landing lights are switched on AFTER an aircraft has been cleared for takeoff and lined up witht eh active runway
also there is another little problem that has more to do with realism than flynets program - here is the states the practice is when you are taxiing paralell to the active runway taxi lights are shut off so as not to distract landing aircraft - at McCarran
as with many airports with pararell active runways the distance centerline to centerline is less than a 1000 feet so it is common courtesy to switch them off - Konny heres a thought for you - can you build a trigger for the landing lights that works based on throttle position ( ie if pwer is advanced above say 30% AND the aircraft is in takeoff configuration - then have it look for change in altitude of say 150 feet AGL?) I realise it makes it alot more complicated to program but it would make it a fairer method - the reverse could also be done by a reduction in power coupled aith a postivie rate of descent of more than say 1000fpm below 10000agl (or 5000 agl) which ever you wish
Leif
But IRL landing lights are switched on AFTER an aircraft has been cleared for takeoff and lined up witht eh active runway
also there is another little problem that has more to do with realism than flynets program - here is the states the practice is when you are taxiing paralell to the active runway taxi lights are shut off so as not to distract landing aircraft - at McCarran
as with many airports with pararell active runways the distance centerline to centerline is less than a 1000 feet so it is common courtesy to switch them off - Konny heres a thought for you - can you build a trigger for the landing lights that works based on throttle position ( ie if pwer is advanced above say 30% AND the aircraft is in takeoff configuration - then have it look for change in altitude of say 150 feet AGL?) I realise it makes it alot more complicated to program but it would make it a fairer method - the reverse could also be done by a reduction in power coupled aith a postivie rate of descent of more than say 1000fpm below 10000agl (or 5000 agl) which ever you wish
Leif
Ho'olu komo la kaua
Leif Harding
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Venture Hawaii PLC
Leif Harding
Chief Cook and Bottle Washer
Venture Hawaii PLC
Hi Konny,
Just been searching the net to see if there are any hard and fast reg's regarding use of landing lights and from what I've found so far it is a 'company' thing. On the pprune forum one pilot commented that they were turned off passing FL100 with one company he flew with, but a previous company he was with kept them on all the way up to cruise altitude. Depending if anyone comes up with a specific worldwide reg, it may be easier to just increase the upper limit that you have to switch your lights off by - FL150? That would save calcs AGL vs AMSL at the high airports particularly if the terrain is rugged.
Rgds
John
Just been searching the net to see if there are any hard and fast reg's regarding use of landing lights and from what I've found so far it is a 'company' thing. On the pprune forum one pilot commented that they were turned off passing FL100 with one company he flew with, but a previous company he was with kept them on all the way up to cruise altitude. Depending if anyone comes up with a specific worldwide reg, it may be easier to just increase the upper limit that you have to switch your lights off by - FL150? That would save calcs AGL vs AMSL at the high airports particularly if the terrain is rugged.
Rgds
John
CEO - Classic British Flight Services
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
- CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
Or disable the upper altitude altogether and only require them to be on within 1000' AGL and give like a 10 or 20 second grace period on it to allow for peaks that come within 1000' AGL of the aircraft for a split second.
Instead of the ceiling for activation, what about requiring them to be turned off within 5 minutes of reaching cruise and altitude above 10,000 feet MSL or be penalized? That way, there is still a penalty, but it gives people time to turn them off whenever a VA decides is "acceptable. The only reason I put the 10,000 MSL in there on the new restriction is because on older and smaller airplanes that cruise below 10,000 feet, it's ofter reccomended that the landing lights be turned on when in or near congested airspace for visibility, thus it's possible for those lower altitude aircraft to turn on their lights in cruise.
Instead of the ceiling for activation, what about requiring them to be turned off within 5 minutes of reaching cruise and altitude above 10,000 feet MSL or be penalized? That way, there is still a penalty, but it gives people time to turn them off whenever a VA decides is "acceptable. The only reason I put the 10,000 MSL in there on the new restriction is because on older and smaller airplanes that cruise below 10,000 feet, it's ofter reccomended that the landing lights be turned on when in or near congested airspace for visibility, thus it's possible for those lower altitude aircraft to turn on their lights in cruise.
Hi Chris,
I don't like the either/or scenario with a time delay. For dual rated pilots that fly the heavies and the tiddlers that's two 'rules'. I would suggest either raising the upper limit or scrap it altogether. If it were to be raised, in hindsight I'd suggest FL200 rather that FL150. At FL150 some of the older turboprops could be in different situations above/below that level depending on direction of flight. If FL200 was chosen then they'd be below that most of the time. I wouldn't like to see it scrapped altogether as otherwise everyone just leaves the lights on all the time and there'd be no point with the 'rule' anyway.
Rgds
John
I don't like the either/or scenario with a time delay. For dual rated pilots that fly the heavies and the tiddlers that's two 'rules'. I would suggest either raising the upper limit or scrap it altogether. If it were to be raised, in hindsight I'd suggest FL200 rather that FL150. At FL150 some of the older turboprops could be in different situations above/below that level depending on direction of flight. If FL200 was chosen then they'd be below that most of the time. I wouldn't like to see it scrapped altogether as otherwise everyone just leaves the lights on all the time and there'd be no point with the 'rule' anyway.
Rgds
John
CEO - Classic British Flight Services
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
Classic aircraft on Classic routes
- CAPFlyer
- Chief Pilot
- Posts: 3045
- Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2005 2:49 am
- Location: Lancaster, Texas, USA
- Contact:
John, I never proposed 2 rules to exist at the same time. My rule was that above 10,000 in level flight for more than 2 minutes (or however long) the landing lights have to be turned off. The 10,000 could be changed, but I would say that it require an establishment of a grace period to occur to ensure first that it's not a momentary pause before getting cleared higher and that if it's either a longer level-off for further climb or the final altitude, the pilot has a few minutes to get himself set before having to have the lights off. The other option was just abolish the rule, which I don't support.Quantum wrote:Hi Chris,
I don't like the either/or scenario with a time delay. For dual rated pilots that fly the heavies and the tiddlers that's two 'rules'.
Below 10,000 feet, the rule would be the same as always - based off of AGL (whatever the base altitude may be) and nothing more.
- joefremont
- FSAirlines Developer
- Posts: 3696
- Joined: Tue May 16, 2006 5:46 am
- Location: KSFO
Just wondering, did this idea get implemented into v6.0?Konny wrote:k, I'll change that in the next release, together with another landing lights problem Quantum told me about:
The upper-limit where you have to turn off your landing lights is FL100 and they have to be on atleast until 1000ft AGL, but there are airports in the world where the runway already is at 9200ft ( e.g. Quito ). You wouldn't have chance not to get a penalty there and so I'll add a new rule where the landing lights can be on at least until 5000ft AGL.
I've sworn an oath of solitude until the pestilence is purged from the lands.