70
edits
Cessna 182S: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
John Denker (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
John Denker (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
* wings are not textured | * wings are not textured | ||
* aircraft has no shadow | * aircraft has no shadow | ||
* no aircraft light | * The model has no landing light. This detracts only slightly from the realism of the landing, because at touchdown attitude, the pitch attitude is so high that the landing light is pointing way up in the air; therefore almost anything that could possibly be lit up by the landing light is blocked from view by the cowling. A privately-owned aircraft is not even required to have a landing light, even when being operated at night. Landing with burned-out landing lights is no big deal ... assuming the runway-edge lights are working. The so-called landing light is mostly just a taxi light. The only part of the landing where the landing light is really useful is for reading the big painted number on the runway, to confirm that you aren't landing on the wrong runway. | ||
3d Cockpit: | 3d Cockpit: | ||
| Line 52: | Line 53: | ||
* Modelling a failure via the "heading indicator" option on the "instrument failures" popup has no discernible effect on the HSI. I dumped the property list and observed that the "serviceable" flag on the heading indicator was false, in accordance with the desired failure ... but somehow the backend routines are not respecting this setting. FWIW replacing the HSI in the panel with a plain old DG allows proper modelling of the failure. | * Modelling a failure via the "heading indicator" option on the "instrument failures" popup has no discernible effect on the HSI. I dumped the property list and observed that the "serviceable" flag on the heading indicator was false, in accordance with the desired failure ... but somehow the backend routines are not respecting this setting. FWIW replacing the HSI in the panel with a plain old DG allows proper modelling of the failure. | ||
* While sitting on the runway, whenever the brakes are applied the aircraft makes faint scratching noises, and bobbles a little bit in pitch ... even if the engine is off! With the engine off, I can't imagine why applying the brakes would cause bobbling. This applies equally to the parking brakes, plain old service brakes, and either (or both) toe brakes. This is observed in the C172r and C182 models and perhaps others (but not the PA24-250). | * While sitting on the runway, whenever the brakes are applied the aircraft makes faint scratching noises, and bobbles a little bit in pitch ... even if the engine is off! With the engine off, I can't imagine why applying the brakes would cause bobbling. This applies equally to the parking brakes, plain old service brakes, and either (or both) toe brakes. This is observed in the C172r and C182 models and perhaps others (but not the PA24-250). | ||