Bugs and suggestion

[vrapp]

Hello,

Here's info about two bugs (I believe) and suggestion.

1. I forgot to close the door. After takeoff, there was appropriate reaction from the passengers. Then I closed the door. But it looks like
FSP did not take it - it continued to playback the sound of blowing wind in the open door, and soon mentioned low air pressure...

2. when I taxied to the gate, several feet before stopping I touched a building with the wing. Naturally, the plane crashed. FSP correctly
said that I crashed into a building at the speed like 3 feet per second; but then also said that I landed with vertical speed 200 feet per
second or something, and killed x passengers - which was totally untrue (and wouldn't be even possible w/o crashing at that time).

3. suggestion: with auto-belt sign, the crew turns it on when the turbulence increases. With manual belt sign, I don't know what the
turbulence is, so I can react only when the passengers are already scared. It would help if FSP informed about the level of turbulence in
the mini-display, so I could turn on the sign in advance. (does fsuipc makes only the change of wind gradual, or it also applies to
turbulence?)

regards

[Covoxer]

Hello Vadim!
And welcome to the forum!
I would like to commwnt you suggestions if you don't mind. I'm not the developer thoug, so all I say is purely my opinion and nothing
more.

1. If you have not closed the door until takeoff it is supposed to be damaged during/after takeoff so that you would not be able to close it
any more. It is quite realistic for many real planes so I do not think it is worth to be changed. Don't you agree?

2. It is correct. You landed at 200 fpm and later you crashed. Due to that crash you killed some people and injured some others. What's
wrong with it? If you think that you should have less victims than you wrong. When plane colides with another plane or building during
taxiing, in reality it often ends up with fire and as a result it may cause some causalties. I find amount of victums rather adequate for most
kinds of collisions. Though once I had 70% survivours when my 737 was hit by 747 from behind at final approach. It reality there would be
probably not less than 90% dead. So I vould say that FsP is probably potimistic it this matter.

3. There is no turbulence indicator on the real aircraft. You can feel it by wind kicking you from side to side. You wouln't miss it. And if
you think that you are late when pax are scared, you are wrong. They are scared anyway. You have to fly a while to get them frustrated that
you forgotten to set belts sign on.

So, I don't see anything wrong in things you describe. Quite realistic - the way it should be!
Tell me if I get you wrong?

[DBE]

vrapp wrote:
2. when I taxied to the gate, several feet before stopping I touched a building with the wing.

The plane doesn't even have to touch something for Pax to suffer injury (or worst) while taxiing.

Airliners have incredibly strong brakes which can be suddenly activated and at any time (imagine a catering truck suddenly appearing infront of you).

And as a lot of Pax believe they
absolutely-have-to-get-up-and-start-collecting-their-hand-luggage-before-the-aircraft-comes-to-a-complete-stop-so-that-they-will-be-the-first-to-deboard-while-the-rest-of-those-poor-scary-cats-stay-in-their-seats,
it's also realistic to me.

[ricochetv1]

One thing I've noticed that needs to be fixed is the fact that, with auto-seatbelt signs on, the crew will turn them off WELL before you've
reached cruising altitude, and well after you've begun the descent.
So, we reach about 8k ft., they turn the sign off, and immediately start serving drinks and hot food. So what happens in a plane like the
Stratojet Excaliber, when it's gotten past FL200 and starts to accelerate to supersonic.... drinks and food go flying, I imagine...
Yeah, that works REAL well.
I think if Dan ads an optional Cruising Altitude in the flight setup and sets it up to use that as a basis for turning off the belt sign.
Also, it would be nice to have a key that tells the crew that we'll be starting descent shortly, thus causing seatbelt sign to go on, and a
friendly announcement to the passengers to that effect.

[Dutch64]

Why don't you set the seatbelt manual then?

[ricochetv1]

Other than being lazy?
I'm usually doing other things while flying (homework, cleaning, etc.) and like for it to come on automatically when we run into turbulence.
Maybe Dan could work in an override?

[DBE]

ricochetv1 wrote:
Maybe Dan could work in an override?

You mean such as "turn off seatbelt signs and start serving after reaching FL X or after x minutes"?

[ricochetv1]

Yeah, something like that.

[vrapp]

2. It is correct. You landed at 200 fpm and later you crashed. Due to that crash you killed some people and injured some others.
What's wrong with it? If you think that you should have less victims than you wrong. When plane colides with another plane or building
during taxiing, in reality it often ends up with fire and as a result it may cause some causalties. I find amount of victums rather adequate
for most kinds of collisions. Though once I had 70% survivours when my 737 was hit by 747 from behind at final approach. It reality there
would be probably not less than 90% dead. So I vould say that FsP is probably potimistic it this matter.

No, that's not the case. I landed very smoothly, and until the moment of the crash the satisfaction was 100%. After the crash FSP said that
I landed at very high vertical speed, and that killed the passengers. This was not the case. You would be possibly correct if they were
killed because of the crash near the parking that really took place; but not because of the rough landing that did not exist.

3. There is no turbulence indicator on the real aircraft.

But there's no satisfaction indicator on the real aircraft either. If it exists in FSP, and it depends on the turbulence, then wouldn't it be
logical to indicate the turbulence.

Same as it depends on the being dru... - um, joyful - the panel says that the drinks are being served, and then it says that pax are joyful. It
would be the same - first say there's turbulence, then that the pax are scared by it.



Post Edited ( 01-13-06 23:38 )

[Covoxer]

You would be possibly correct if they were
killed because of the crash near the parking that really took place; but not because of the rough landing that did not exist.

Ah yes, I see now. Well, I guess this little inaccuracy is not the reason to complain. It's just supposed that if you can perform a great
landing then safe taxiing should not be a roblem for you!
It could be changed though.

But there's no satisfaction indicator on the real aircraft either.

Well, not xactly, but you may obtain this info from flight attendant at anytime. They are trained to be able to figure this out under any
possible circumstances.

If it exists in FSP, and it depends on the turbulence, then wouldn't it be
logical to indicate the turbulence.

But id does! When pax are scared by turbulence, then it says: "passengers are terrified by turbulence". Haven't you noticed this?

first say there's turbulence, then that the pax are scared by it.

I see what you mean, but this is not possible. Pax are goung scared in the first seconds of the turbulence effect (it's realistic). And FsP
can not predicate turbulence as you understand.