Jump to content

Andrew Godden

Mutley Crew
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country


Everything posted by Andrew Godden

  1. Bigger aircraft are coming to Inverness.

    Yeah, looking like the forlorn puppy in the window with his sad face, droopy ears, and sloppering, moist tongue hanging out.
  2. Bigger aircraft are coming to Inverness.

    So I guess this means you can get to the flight sim show at Lelystad more easily.
  3. Breitling DC3 World Tour

    I know someone who would love to do a review on that chronograph, but he would also want it given to him for free.
  4. Runway & cliff 'excursion' in Turkey

    So if I dive feet first, I guess that's called a "jump".
  5. A developing situation with a Malaysia Airlines 777-200ER, en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing, MH370, losing radar and radio contact with ATC. Contact was lost approximately two hours into the flight, over the South China Sea off the coast of Vietnam. There was a total of 239 people on board, 227 passengers and 12 crew. Unconfirmed reports from the Vietnamese Navy state the aircraft crashed into the South China Sea off the coast of South Vietnam. Other reports of the aircraft landing in southern China are untrue. The nationalities of the passengers is predominantly Chinese (153), but also includes Malaysians (38), Indonesians (7), Australians (6), Indians (5), and Americans (4) amongst others. The Captain has 33 years with the airline and has 18,365 flying hours whilst the First Officer has been with the airline for seven years and has 2,763 flying hours.
  6. Guess the Aircraft

    Matt, I'll beg to differ on both the designer and aircraft name. I think you will find the designer was Ottone Baggio and the aircraft is the Baggio Il Gallo. Gallo being Italian for rooster, and the aircraft does the regular airshow circuit in Italy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baggio_Il_Gallo
  7. Considering you had been back on the site multiple times in the 24 hrs since the solution was posted, including reading this thread, and raising yet another detailed problem in another thread (don’t you just hate Forum tracking), I guess work must get real busy for you on Sunday’s too. The posted solution is not a “suggestion”, as you put it, it is a permanent fix, otherwise I wouldn’t have wasted my time. I know this because I spent a good part of that time into the small hours testing it before posting the solution.
  8. I’m so glad I could solve your JF DHC-1 Chipmunk fuel problem for you. No, really, don’t mention it, the pleasure was all mine. I enjoy nothing more than to spend my time solving other people’s problems for them, sitting up into the early hours responding, rather than going to bed and worrying about it in the morning, just so an immediate fix was provided for you. But to not even receive a simple acknowledgement or thanks. Good luck with your next problem, but don’t expect the same level of assistance to be forthcoming. In future you might find more than just a simple fuel problem driving you nuts!!!
  9. Guess the Aircraft

    Obviously, my answer was nothing to crow about.
  10. The JF DHC-1B Chipmunk is meant to supply fuel from both tanks and does not have a fuel tank selector. The only fuel control is the fuel cock, to the left of the control column, which only switches the fuel supply off and on. Such problems as you describe, are normally a simple issue with the [fuel] section of the aircraft config file (the [fuel] section is towards the bottom of the file, just before the [EFFECTS] and [airplane_geometry] sections. In this case, in order to correct the problem, make the following edit: number_of_selectors=2 (on install, it is set to 1). IMPORTANT NOTE. Exit P3D before making this edit. Only because if you make the edit whilst P3D is running it takes a while for the sim to recognise the change. The JF DHC-1B-2 Chipmunk (bubble canopy expansion pack) has a fuel selector lever in place of the fuel cock to switch between the two tanks and switch the fuel supply off. Consequently, the above edit does not need to be made to the aircraft config file for this aircraft.
  11. Guess the Aircraft

    What a cock up.
  12. Did you redownload the updated P3D v4 version from your JF account!!!
  13. such a bad experience,.....

    Well, if the aircraft registration was OO-SBD, it could be the beginning of the fatal flight of Sabena Flight 503, which crashed in Monte Terminillo on 13 February 1955.
  14. Guess the Aircraft

    I clearly revealed too much of the fuselage. Curtiss-Wright C-76 Caravan it is. Over to you Alan.
  15. Guess the Aircraft

    To kick it off for 2018 and following John's suggestion of only providing portions of the aircraft from which to try and identify it.
  16. Extreme heat today

    And now for a weather update. In Torquay, Victoria, Australia it is hot. What am I saying!!! I should say the whole state of Victoria, and throw in South Australia, and Tasmania to boot. Anyway, at least locally, after an overnight low of 16C (at 2.00am), it was 21C by 7.00am, and had hit 38C at 11.00am. Not far before we hit the predicted max of 42C before a late afternoon cool change. More to follow.
  17. Extreme heat today

    The “blowflies” (campers and tourists) have swarmed to the beaches here in Torquay. I am securely locked inside my house (bunker), finger hovering over the air conditioner control button in anticipation.
  18. You Can't Fix Stupid

    Unfortunately the Law fails to state or provide a safe haven for the victims. Just as long as these perpetrators fly the flag of mental health issues as a defence, they are rarely held to account for their crimes. In the meantime, grieving families somehow have to pick up the pieces of their shattered lives. Then society is made to feel guilty because it didn't do enough to help the perpetrator in the first instance. Oh please, the humanity!!!
  19. You Can't Fix Stupid

    And he can get all that treatment whilst at Her Majesty's pleasure.
  20. Guess the Aircraft

    We are trying to resuscitate it.
  21. Carenado's Annual Sale On Now - Up to 80% OFF

    Brett, As in my earlier response to Paul, detail and intent is often lost in the brevity of posts. Simple questions provide no indication of the writers level of experience or understanding, often resulting in simple responses, or responses which could be taken as “spoon feeding” to someone with a higher level of knowledge than they made apparent. In your case, it wasn’t that I had taken taken offence to anything you had written, it was simply that it didn’t make logical sense to me. As my response to you highlights, all 1,750 words of it, brevity is often inadequate in providing a comprehensive explanation to things as complex of assessing a product and writing a review on it. For you, I now understand more the relevance you put on the bottom dollar, whereas I always come at it from a broader perspective. In considering value for money, it means different things to different people. It is often given a higher priority than other product features, with most just generally focusing on price. My real world professional background has ingrained in me that the value for money equation is far more than just a dollar figure. MH reviews are structured similarly to consider all aspects in the value for money equation, not just price. I can think of numerous times where I have questioned in myself whether a product deserves a Bronze, Silver, or Gold award simply based on one assessment category, but the product’s performance in other categories has offset poor performance elsewhere - such is the law of averages. At the final edit phase, Joe and I have a lengthy Skype call just prior to publishing a review, and again, there have been numerous times where we have rationalised between us, that a given category or overall score and award is justified. Flight simmers will often have no understanding or comprehension of a developer's target market, yet this is fundamentally critical to the level of detail modelled. A developer's target market can sometimes spread across the spectrum of flight simmer experience from the basic, through intermediate, to the advanced flight simmer. A2A is a good example of this with their top $799.00 commercial package. A2A state, "For real world flight training, use our commercial license which is intended to be used with flight simulators authorized by the FAA while using our software.". As for the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Forums, to me they are out of touch with market reality (and reality generally) because they are trying to apply their personal expectations to the product rather than the correct way, that of understanding what the developer intended to model for the target market identified and chosen by the developer - it's like buying a Ford but expecting it to perform like a Porsche.
  22. Guess the Aircraft

    Grumman A-6 Intruder variant. The speed brakes and position of the refueling probe are the dead give away. The tail hook merely confirmed it being a carrier borne variant of an aircraft.
  23. Carenado's Annual Sale On Now - Up to 80% OFF

    Brett, My question was more one of clarification because I couldn't clearly see the intent of your statement. You focus your comment on price and in the same context talk about fairness and impartiality. What about all the other considerations and assessments which are done against a product? In the case of aircraft add-ons, an MH review makes assessments across seven discrete categories, all weighted equally. You also erroneously quote an average $50.00 (sic) price tag for an A2A product. This is misleading in itself as the $50.00 (sic) A2A product is a single platform licence, i.e. it is either for FSX or Prepar3D. All Alabeo / Carenado products are a multi platform licence for FSX, FSX:SE, and Prepar3D. A2A don't even offer such a comparable multi platform product with the closest similar product being the "Academic Bundle" product for FSX and Prepar3D, priced at $69.99. So, on that basis, and using your example of the A2A Comanche and the Carenado PA-42 Cheyenne III, the real price differential is $30.00 not $10.00. But let's be serious, regardless of developer, these two real world aircraft are like the proverbial "chalk and cheese". The real world counterparts of the Piper PA-24 Comanche are the Beechcraft A36, V35B, and F33A Bonanza, Cessna 210, and the Mooney M20. Note that I have specifically chosen these real world counterparts as they are specific models in the Alabeo and Carenado product range. Therefore, these will provide a more accurate and realistic product price comparison. The aforementioned Alabeo / Carenado products are priced across $26.95, $29.95, and $34.95. Now we start to see the reality of a better like for like comparison and, on price alone, at better than two to one in all instances, the A2A Comanche isn't smelling too good. So, now let's get back to the subject of reviews, the other point in your comment. From a reviewer's perspective, and at least since my time as Head of Reviews at MH, regardless of the add-on type, aircraft, scenery, etc., we have never, and will never do a direct comparison against other products in the review for a number of reasons: It is extremely rare to be able to compare like for like products. I've already put the issue of price to bed, so let's look at some other areas. Again, for example, what in the A2A Accu-Sim range do you compare the Carenado PA-42 Cheyenne III to? Other than it being an add-on aircraft, generically, they are completely diverse products. The Accu-Sim products have a higher level of systems complexity, whereas the PA-42 Cheyenne III is a more technically complex aircraft to model. In the rare instance where you may get similar products from different developers, what is the time gap between the development of the respective products? The later product would be expected to benefit from advances and developments in modelling, texturing, and systems coding over an older product, thereby garnering an advantage, but also possibly costing more in development time and, therefore, a higher retail price. Developers often have different business models, aims, or development criteria for their products. In the case of the A2A Accu-Sim range, at least in part, it is aimed at real world professional flight training schools. Hence the $799.00 price tag for the licence of the commercial versions. The cheaper versions of the same product are aimed at the more serious and procedural flight simmer. As further examples, the same can be said for the Majestic Dash-8 Q400 product range, and the PMDG product range. The level of realism and systems modelling in all of these products are aimed at the more serious and procedural flight simmer. Neither Alabeo or Carenado aim their products at this sector of the market. They do aim, and have set a certain default standard, for an extremely high quality in visual modelling, something they do consistently well. From a business model perspective, Alabeo started with a stated aim of "bringing a different type of flying experience to people who may otherwise never get the chance to experience it", with "lower priced" aircraft, Alabeo products "combine the joy, the challenge, and the fun of flying". Consequently, there are certain inaccuracies or deficiencies in their modelling, particularly in the cockpit. However, not one of these inaccuracies or deficiencies prevent the aircraft from being flown. Regardless, Alabeo and Carenado are constantly criticised for not producing to a level of realism they never claimed or intended to produce. MH reviews are structured to make quantitative and qualitative assessments against certain scoring categories (more easily done for aircraft and utility add-ons than scenery) to provide a measured degree of objectivity. For example, physical performance against the documented and real world aircraft's performance data, accuracy in the visual model against the real world counterpart, the quantity and quality of supplied documentation, etc.. This measured degree of objectivity is intended to provide a basis upon which readers can make certain indirect comparisons with other products. This is not always a precise methodology but it is considered the most consistent and equitable approach. I will also point out that over the history of MH Reviews, encompassing 386 reviews by 28 reviewers, the scoring, in the main has been consistent, not bad considering no T scoring has ever been applied. Any reviewed product stands alone to be assessed on its own merits against the scoring categories. To do any form of comparative analysis involving quantitative and qualitative assessments requires the compared products to be reviewed equally. This is restrictive on so many fronts, the least of which is time alone. Secondly, copies of reviewed products are often paid for out of the reviewer's own pocket. In situations where press copies are obtained, the developer understands that we do not use a comparative analysis format for the review. MH reviews start from the premise of being written for the average flight simmer. Who is the average flight simmer you might ask? Well, let me start by saying I don't consider anyone who has posted in this thread to date to be your average flight simmer, and it certainly would exclude the (extreme) individuals on the AVSIM Carenado (UNOFFICIAL) Forums. All of us once were your average flight simmer but we have all long transcended that level as is evidenced in the level of discussion and subjects of these posts. In some instances, the product itself will dictate the level of its audience, a review of a PMDG product would be a good case in point. I will finish with some slightly more personal views. The reviewers at MH do what they do for the general benefit of MH members and the broader flight sim community as a whole, as a service to help inform and / or provide a basis upon which to help fellow flight simmers make a decision on a product. I am proud to stand with each of the reviewers and totally respect them for their knowledge and the work they produce. We get very little personal gratification out of the process, and the writing of each review, editing, and preparation for the web site involves tens of hours of our personal time and effort when we could be doing something more enjoyable with our time. We also do it, putting our work out into the public domain, knowing and accepting we will be criticised by all and sundry who have a differing opinion and are not prepared to or cannot accept other's opinions. We take criticism from individuals, both members of MH and others from the broader flight sim community, who more than often have very little understanding of our review process and review structure and have probably never written a review or article in their life, but sure as shit flows downhill, they will bombastically tell you that you are wrong. They justify themselves with meaningless claims like, "...I have 5,000 hrs on VATSIM..." as if it is meant to give the individual more credibility. Others will bombastically claim to be real world pilots with an extensive flight log of hours on certain types, which, whilst it gives them real world credibility, they expect, to the point of demanding, the same veneration in the flight sim world. I'm sorry, and I make no apologies to such people, but respect is earnt and given when it's due. Then you will get the gutless individual, and I use the term gutless deliberately, who will use the MH contact form to question the credibility of a reviewer by stating the reviewer "...is obviously not a real world pilot..." on the basis that the reviewer did not identify all the missing real world functionality on the ProLine21 avionics suite. In this instance, the provided functionality was more than enough to monitor the required basic systems and fly the aircraft model as intended by the developer, and yet this man among men hid behind a false email address, such that a response could not be sent to him. Now, I have been labelled and called many things in my life, and people see me as being blunt, rude, and often lacking empathy. For many reasons I am all of them, partly because I'm an Australian, and as such we simply tell it like it is, no pretence, pretentiousness, and more often than not without malice, it's just simply called the truth, but misinterpreted or called rudeness by those who can't accept it. Lacking empathy, sure, because sometimes life just does that to you and the more you put yourself in the public domain, the more you bear the brunt of unwarranted criticism and put downs. But I will continue to put myself out there in that public domain for as long as I think I still have something to share and offer advice on or assistance with based on my experience. If people don't like the advice or disagree, or if I am wrong, that's fine, I am man enough to accept it, but I will also defend my position when they are wrong, and often, that's when the same level of acceptance is not reciprocated. I have strayed somewhat from a simple response, and nothing written is intended as a slight, personal or otherwise. It is merely offered for a deeper understanding and awareness of where the content and level of detail in the response comes from. All examples of individuals quoted in the above paragraph come from real incidents experienced in my time at MH.
  24. Guess the Aircraft

    Well that killed any thoughts of it being even remotely hard, John. Well done.
  25. Carenado's Annual Sale On Now - Up to 80% OFF

    Excellent points all round Brett, but the above point confuses me in what you are trying to say.