Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Извини, дружище, советский авиапром мне никак ваще:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

А как... А как же Тушечка??? :(

Да ладно, ТУшечка у Фелиса получиться на славу - сомнений нет. Одно другому не мешает.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Да ладно, ТУшечка у Фелиса получиться на славу - сомнений нет. Одно другому не мешает.

не мешает, когда дома мешок денег.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ну, надеемся, что в один они месяц не выйдут  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Вообще не понимаю, даже если в один месяц выйдут. Вы же всё равно не сможете разорваться между двумя крафтами. потому как и тот и тот требуют вникания и вдумчивого отношения, а это - время. Пока один освоите, месяц-другой и пройдёт.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic уже даавно освоен, этой модели больше всего жду.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ну вам и Ту-154 не грозит, насколько я понимаю :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FMCишка у них, похоже, пока не готова...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Да? Жаль:-) Скоро комп прокачаю, потребуются навороченные модели:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Пока ещё не наметили.  И в ближайшие десятки лет намечать не собираются :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Машу вать.... Это ж столько там полигонов зарыто???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Пока ещё не наметили.  И в ближайшие десятки лет намечать не собираются :D

откуда инфа? или так ляпнули?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


FAILURES

 


Fail.jpg


We recently received an email inquiring as to the extent of the failure model on our 737 classic. About the same time, we noticed two separate flight sim forums where members inquired about failure simulation for those products also. In this blog, we discuss IXEG's position on failure simulation, where we are and what we intend to do.




In the real world, almost all failures are unanticipated. Failures are generally brought upon by either faulty workmanship, faulty parts or just some bit of bad luck like flying into a flock of birds. In reality, you might have some excessive wear on a part or a mechanic who got a little sloppy or distracted and in such cases, the crew has no real way of knowing that something might be able to fail. From the perspective of a flight crew, a failure is completely random and unexpected.


In a desktop computer simulation however, the computer only does what it is told, meaning that things are not random at all by default. Randomness has to be purposely programmed into the simulation. Furthermore, for sim enthusiasts, there is really only a narrow range of failures that are relevant or desired. Sim enthusiasts are mostly interested in honing their skills in the more common failure scenarios or challenging their knowledge of the major systems on the aircraft.


The challenge for our team then is to design a failure system that is usable, desirable and configurable for the end user. This means we must pick and choose what we want to fail, how we want to fail it, how the user might want to interact with failure management and also how to configure failures. In short, this means we need to design a dedicated failure management module and GUI interface.


Now x-plane does have a default interface for managing failures; however, because we customize x-plane's model so deeply, only a few of the default failures x-plane provides will work with our 737 where many others will not. The end user has no way of knowing what can or can not be failed on our 737 based on looking at x-plane's failure screens alone. This further necessitates the need for a custom GUI and failures module.


Our strategy is to focus on the systems programming where failure on a component level is integrated into nearly all our virtual components but failures will not be activated when the 737 is initially released. The reason for this is that the underlying core of a failure module has yet to be designed. In our time frame, when given the choice of coding up a working aircraft vs coding a failures module, we obviously must finish the aircraft first before we can choose ways to fail it. Because most users will not utilize a failures module, we find it illogical to withhold release of the product while we develop a failure module; however, by designing component failures into the core code now, we have a quick path to integrating failure management.


After we release the 737, the team can set about designing a failures module that feature a myriad of options like MTBF or explicit failure at user defined points. IXEG is fully committed to systems simulation and failures figures heavily into that commitment. IXEG simply want to make sure it gets done right.


So what might we fail when the time comes? While we cannot say exactly beforehand what we might choose to fail, here is some insight into how we do things and you can extrapolate from there the possibilities. We simulate systems on a component level with components as objects in code. We have switches and knobs of course, electromagnetic relays, hydraulic valves, electrical busses, light bulbs, pumps, generators and inverters, each with their own ability to be failed. We can fail a single annunciator bulb, a single pump, a single electrical bus, a single relay, a single fuel pump, initiate a fuel leak or a hydraulic leak, etc. Failing a generator bus relay alone for example will bring down its entire generator bus and the requisite behavior that ensues. Simply setting a leak rate to a hydraulic tank will cascade into a series of failures as the fluid drops below critical levels, etc. The ability to fail things in our sim exists now. The software to manage those failures does not. We will set about designing a failures module some time after the 737 has stabilized in customers hands and proven itself reliable to users in its normal configuration.


 


  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

И вс -таки "классика" - это 200 ка.  

Edited by an12345
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Уверены? 100-ка и 200- ка это Original, у тут классик значит 300, 400 или 500

post-61701-0-46570200-1392128191.jpg

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Уверены? 100-ка и 200- ка это Original, у тут классик значит 300, 400 или 500

attachicon.gifsdsdsd.jpg

Совершенно верно , имхо это придумали для 737 после появления стекл. кабины (NG).  А классика , она и в африке классика - "будильники". 

Edited by uam
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edited by Glize
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Судя по-всему скоро разродятся. Это радует, а то покупать сейчас нечего )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

А характеристики железа для этого "монстра" кто-нибудь знает? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pentium I9 (16 ядерный), видеокарточка Электроника МК-1080 Ti с 8 Мб на борту, дизельгенератор Катерпиллер + бабушки стабилизатор напряжения. Глупые вопросы.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...