06-06-2018, 04:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 06-06-2018, 11:04 PM by Izomag.
Edit Reason: Postscript
)
First I'd like to say, that "FS Passengers" is a great addon and is worth it's price. It's one of my favourites addons for FSX and I've been using it for years in almost every flight.
I fly virtual turboprop airplanes in the mountainous areas of High North where bad weather is a common thing. Because I am doing quite short flights, I am in the virtual cockpit all the time and in the case of unexpected turbulence I turn on the seat belt sign relatively quickly. But sometimes turbulences happen so suddenly and are so violent that it's not enough to save my virtual passengers from throwing them out of their seats.
It's perfectly okay that virtual passengers are annoyed or even scared after turbulence. I like it
However, silly texts (and penalty points!) about criminal act committed by a pilot who allegedly performed some kind of dangerous maneuvers that threw passengers around a plane, are definitely not okay if the real cause was turbulences.
The weather is getting worse from year to year all over the world. And many of us are flying using real weather data.
I believe it's a high time for "FS Passengers" to know the difference between turbulence and aerobatics.
It probably is not too difficult to implement. "FS Passengers" could just check the position of the yoke and/or flight control surfaces when the g-force occurs - if the yoke is in the neutral position (or within reasonable limits), it should be quite obvious that pilot is not performing any aerobatic maneuvers and there is no reason to punish him.
Please, release a patch that will correct that feature.
Thanks in advance
Paul
P.S.
Is a -0.18G really enough to start flying around the cabin???
I'm quite sure that it never threw me up into the air after sneezing (2,9G), or coughing (3,5G).
And my last PRIEP says that passengers "Were irritated by the excess G-forces. (+1.36 -0.18). Didn't like that some passengers started flying around the cabin caused by your negative G flying.".
It definitely look like a bug to me.
OK, we hit turbulence, but no way someone could fly around the cabin! Not at -0.18G. Am I wrong?
I fly virtual turboprop airplanes in the mountainous areas of High North where bad weather is a common thing. Because I am doing quite short flights, I am in the virtual cockpit all the time and in the case of unexpected turbulence I turn on the seat belt sign relatively quickly. But sometimes turbulences happen so suddenly and are so violent that it's not enough to save my virtual passengers from throwing them out of their seats.
It's perfectly okay that virtual passengers are annoyed or even scared after turbulence. I like it
However, silly texts (and penalty points!) about criminal act committed by a pilot who allegedly performed some kind of dangerous maneuvers that threw passengers around a plane, are definitely not okay if the real cause was turbulences.
The weather is getting worse from year to year all over the world. And many of us are flying using real weather data.
I believe it's a high time for "FS Passengers" to know the difference between turbulence and aerobatics.
It probably is not too difficult to implement. "FS Passengers" could just check the position of the yoke and/or flight control surfaces when the g-force occurs - if the yoke is in the neutral position (or within reasonable limits), it should be quite obvious that pilot is not performing any aerobatic maneuvers and there is no reason to punish him.
Please, release a patch that will correct that feature.
Thanks in advance
Paul
P.S.
Is a -0.18G really enough to start flying around the cabin???
I'm quite sure that it never threw me up into the air after sneezing (2,9G), or coughing (3,5G).
And my last PRIEP says that passengers "Were irritated by the excess G-forces. (+1.36 -0.18). Didn't like that some passengers started flying around the cabin caused by your negative G flying.".
It definitely look like a bug to me.
OK, we hit turbulence, but no way someone could fly around the cabin! Not at -0.18G. Am I wrong?