**** Official Microsoft Flight Simulator Thread ****
- Thread starter lurkio
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 13 May 2003
- Posts
- 34,515
- Location
- Warwickshire
You can disable crashing to avoid this.
I'm going to wait until there are some payware quality commercial jets out before really getting into it. I'm enjoying the GA, and the A320 (I fly the Zibo 737 in XP11 normally), but I like the full sim experience and this isn't that. Completely to be expected of course, but I'm not uninstalling XP11 just yet.
Airlines keep BOTH eyes on the fuel cost 99% of the time. Cost indexes are worked out when the flight plan is generated by a computer that knows all variables and simply punches out a number. Overwhelmingly, the cost of fuel is the biggest influence. A higher cost index costs virtually nothing mechanically. The cost index will affect climb, cruise and descent speeds but doesn’t much influence the cruise level. The FMC obviously knows the weight of the aircraft and will advise the optimum cruise level and this will change as fuel is burnt and the aircraft becomes lighter. In simple terms, it’s more economical to fly as close to optimum as possible, i.e. as high as possible. The factors that will influence this are wind (you wouldn’t climb 2,000ft into significantly higher headwinds), congestion along airways etc.
Having said all of that, the speeds that are actually flown often differ from those calculated by the cost index. Within terminal areas, flow of traffic will usually mean that ATC mandate your speed in the descent. Similarly, cruise speed will often be modified to manage traffic along a busy airway.
Regarding climb rates (someone else mentioned), 99% of the time an aircraft will simply climb at the highest rate it can achieve at climb thrust. No commercial airliners climb at such high rates to impact passenger comfort. At normal weights, you’d expect to reach a cruise level of 37,000ft in about 25 minutes with the highest climb rates at the lowest levels and slower rates of climb as the air becomes thinner at altitude. A 747 won’t be climbing at anything like 10,000fpm unless doing a very brief zoom climb.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
Good post, and spoken with far more confidence and assurance in the subject than I!
In addition, you hear stories of some more stingy airlines who fuel up to the absolute minimum they can get away with too, to ensure their aircraft is as light as possible. I guess at some point there will be international safety laws that ensure aircraft are fuelled sufficiently at all times, but I guess there will be some that push it as close to the wire as they can get away with.
In addition, you hear stories of some more stingy airlines who fuel up to the absolute minimum they can get away with too, to ensure their aircraft is as light as possible. I guess at some point there will be international safety laws that ensure aircraft are fuelled sufficiently at all times, but I guess there will be some that push it as close to the wire as they can get away with.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,900
- Location
- Oxon
Think a new CPU, mobo and RAM are about to be ordered...
Is it not CPU demand? From my own experience playing the game and watching the graphs, it's the CPU holding back my frame rate. My 7700k at 4.7GHz as well, so it's no slouch...
Soldato
- Joined
- 24 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 3,962
- Location
- Uranus
Getting a bit bored of this now. Gameplays a bit samy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Jul 2014
- Posts
- 3,900
- Location
- Oxon
It's a flight sim - what did you expect? Non-stop action and a gripping storyline?!?
You can do some impossible stuff in this with the right assistance settings turned on...
People have been playing every iteration of FS since the 80s and we now have the most ridiculous graphical simulation to build on.
danoliver1 “I’m bored of this after a day”.
Air to ground missiles, Bombs, Huge plane Crashes etc
It's a flight sim - what did you expect?
He obviously purchased as a game rather than a flight sim. But even as a game I would get a hell of a lot more fun out of it than a day before getting bored
All UK airlines have to be stingy, because fuel costs are astronomically high compared to other operating costs. The amount of fuel is carefully calculated and legally required.
The flight plan will tell you how much fuel you need which, in basic terms, will be this as a minimum:
- Fuel to taxi to the departure runway
- Fuel to fly to destination
- 30 minutes holding fuel
- Fuel to get to alternate
You’re not legally obliged to take any extra and there is a 3 or 5% contingency built into the figure which covers most eventualities such as not getting the cruise level you expect etc.
Most UK airlines will ask the commander to justify taking any fuel above this amount. Different airlines have subtlety different attitudes to taking extra fuel, but there is rarely anything beyond a gentle pressure to not take more than you need.
The usual reasons for taking extra would be forecast bad weather (enroute or at destination) or experience of delays (you’ll always hold on your way into a busy airport such as Heathrow).
In reality, if you took the minimum fuel as calculated by the flight plan every day, you’d be fine 99% of the time, so there’s no suggestion that taking minimum fuel marks you out as some sort of cowboy. The 1% (actually less) when this fuel isn’t enough will result in a diversion and associated costs, but this cost is lower than taking extra fuel on every flight and therefore adding unnecessary weight to the aircraft which, in turn, means the fuel burn is higher. Everything relates to the cost of fuel.
The rare exception is fuel tankering, where you take as much as you can fit/need, restricted by the maximum takeoff or landing weight of the aircraft or, in extreme cases, the maximum amount of fuel you can fit in the tanks. The cost of fuel tankering is calculated for every flight and reflects the price of fuel in each airport. If, for example, you’re going from Gatwick to Nice and back, the fuel prices at each airport will be looked at to work out whether it’s worth carrying extra. If you needed 5000kgs of fuel to get to Nice and 5000kgs to get back, it’d be worked out whether it’s actually cheaper to just load up 10000kgs in Gatwick and carry the extra to Nice so that you don’t need to buy your fuel there at higher cost. It’s a questionable practice because, whilst it saves money, it unnecessarily burns fuel so doesn’t fit too well with the industry’s green credentials...
It's a flight sim - what did you expect? Non-stop action and a gripping storyline?!?
I wouldnt mind a career mode (apologies if there is one), something sort of akin to the progression modes in F1 or EU/US Truck Simulator. Would be pretty cool if I had to start off training to fly, then signing up for a company and being allocated short range, limited cargo/passenger flights in small aircraft, progress up through the career onto larger and larger aircraft, maybe have job offers etc from other companies and progress from small minor routes eventually ending up as a full blown international airline pilot on major routes, where schedules and arriving on time etc effect my performance and chances of promotion and so on.
Its a superb sandbox though but I'd still quite fancy a full blown career mode.
I completely agree with you there - Would love to see some sort of Career Mode akin to ETS2.
However, Flight Simulator has always been one thing - A giant sandbox, with a massive Mod/DLC community. Microsoft have done their bit and made the sandbox, now it's time for 10+ years of extra planes, buildings, landscapes, modes, UI etc.
At the end of the day, Microsoft made the simulator, other companies can make a game out of it
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 10,120
- Location
- Burscough
All of that is a fair criticism imo. MS have clearly tried to appeal to all corners of the market with this product and the suggestions you made above would certainly add value to the game at the broader "gamer" market, for sure.