FSAirlines

When using the PSS A319 I find that client fails to correctly detect when the landing lights are on or off.

When on the ground, the indicator displayed in the client toggles correctly between 0 and 1 as I toggle the lights; however at wheels up it always goes to 0 and I get dinged 5% no matter the actual landing light switch position.

It's annoying having an arbitrary switch position rule that doesn't match any actual rule (unlike say the 250kts speed restriction) but it's made much worse when it doesn't even work correctly.

BTW, my previous flights with the PSS Dash 8 worked fine wrt the landing lights; I haven't tried any of my other PSS aircraft yet (A320/A321/A330/A340/Concorde). All these aircraft (except the Concorde) worked reasonably with the rules FSPassengers used.
(I'm betting that FlyNET would suck with the Concorde due to the seat pricing/demand, cargo, the 250kts rule, etc.)

Hm, I don't remember having problems with the PSS A319, but I'll check that.

Yes I have problems to, but now I know to solve the problem.

The problem is that landings light consider into the landing gear, if you gear up over 1500AGL and then off the lights, work well, and in descent, gear lock at 15000AGL and lights on, an not penalize.

benjaminrc78 wrote:Yes I have problems to, but now I know to solve the problem.

The problem is that landings light consider into the landing gear, if you gear up over 1500AGL and then off the lights, work well, and in descent, gear lock at 15000AGL and lights on, an not penalize.

1st: Gear has lots of drag, gear goes up on positve climb and I'm not going to wait for 1500'AGL.
2nd: The client dings me as my wheels leave the ground, not as I retract them so I doubt it will help.

Thanks for the info tho.

Peskie wrote:2nd: The client dings me as my wheels leave the ground, not as I retract them so I doubt it will help.

Okay, I'm an idiot and was wrong about point #2... I tried it and the client does in fact detect the landing lights going off as the gear start retracting not as the wheels leave the ground. Exactly as benjaminrc said. (The timing of the message the FlyNET client scrolls across the screen musta confused me.)

Peskie wrote:1st: Gear has lots of drag, gear goes up on positve climb and I'm not going to wait for 1500'AGL.

Point #1 is still valid. Leaving the gear down until >1000AGL hurts your climb out performance and is a safety issue.
The FlyNET client should still be fixed. When I fly the plane the way it's suppose to be flow and follow the correct procedures for the plane I should not get penalized.

Peskie wrote:

Peskie wrote:2nd: The client dings me as my wheels leave the ground, not as I retract them so I doubt it will help.

Okay, I'm an idiot and was wrong about point #2... I tried it and the client does in fact detect the landing lights going off as the gear start retracting not as the wheels leave the ground. Exactly as benjaminrc said. (The timing of the message the FlyNET client scrolls across the screen musta confused me.)

Peskie wrote:1st: Gear has lots of drag, gear goes up on positve climb and I'm not going to wait for 1500'AGL.

Point #1 is still valid. Leaving the gear down until >1000AGL hurts your climb out performance and is a safety issue.
The FlyNET client should still be fixed. When I fly the plane the way it's suppose to be flow and follow the correct procedures for the plane I should not get penalized.

Have you had a look in the .cfg file? Or the panel file? You might be able to make an edit, since, if the lights are going off on gear up, I think the issue rests more with the aircraft model and less with FLynet.

Sorry to bump this, but I have just purchased the A319/320/321 from PSS, and wondered whether anyone had solved the problem...

Thanks
Andrew

What needs to be done is the landing lights fixed by PSS. They don't turn off on gear retraction with the A32x series of aircraft, only the taxi lights. It's not a FlyNET fault, it's a PSS one. I used to use the aircraft, but dumped them as being resource hogs on even my high-speed machine, so I'm not current in them, but I remember it being a gauge that controls the lights and not anything in the model (the actual landing light switch is turned off as part of this gauge function). This is incorrect for the real aircraft, but PSS chose not to fix it even after being told that fact.

its also an issue with the PSS 330 and 340 as well,

i just live with the penalty becuase getting the gear up is more important

But then again, if the rule was changed so that the only stipulation was that lights had to be on for take-off and landing regardless of at what point they were switched on/off then every problem would be rectified.

Rgds

John

The problem is John, how do you define takeoff and landing? They are both amorphous phases of flight that have no clear boundary from aircraft to aircraft and even from airline to airline, thus it would be next to impossible for the program to be able to do it right. In the end, you create more problems than you solve.

Again, the issue with the PSS aircraft is that the coding used is *WRONG*, not that the program is detecting something wrong or that the rule is unfair to Airbus aircraft or something. The real aircraft does not turn its landing lights off when the gear comes up. Only the nose gear taxi/landing light turns off. On the PMDG 737, they have it coded properly. If you look at their overhead it labels the positions for the taxi light as "On" and "Auto". In "Auto" the light automatically turns off when the landing gear lever is selected to "Up". This is correct for the Airbuses as well.

As a result, the best course of action is to petition PSS to fix their planes and not petition the FlyNET designers to come up with some overly complex and inconsistent way of assessing penalties. Alternately, you can just not use PSS aircraft, which personally, I think is the best way to go as their products have been surpassed by other efforts and PSS has shown no real interest in the past in really fixing their aircraft.

Hi Chris,

Err............well I get a beep on take-off so I guess the client has recognised I've taken off so I reckon that's that one sorted. Landing........hmm let me think. I get a beep from the client and it also records my vertical speed so I guess the client recognises I've landed. If a pilot has forgotten to put his lights on for take-off it's immaterial after that. Likewise on approach, if he's not followed his checklist the first he'll know about it is at 0 QFE as opposed to 1000 QFE. Sometimes the simplest solutions are often the best. Adopting this will solve PSS problems or any other acft with landing lights linked to gear, it will solve the high elevation airfield problems, it will solve the anomoly between what is/is not required in reality, it will solve the problem of acft that make it desireable to retract lights for airspeed/performance limitations. Quite often the simplest ways are the best but there seems to be great reluctance to try and alter things to accomodate solving multiple problems by the simplest of means. Making a rule that lights must be on for take-off and landing only seems an easy solution. It then becomes a simple 'rule' to try and adhere to. You will still get pilots who will forget to switch lights on/off and they will be penalised. I don't see why pilots should be penalised by operating aircraft to the procedures of said aircraft or of a real life airline that they wish to emulate.

The re-working of the landing light penalty is on the to-do list and has been for some time but nothing has happened. You will note however that the issue is brought up quite regularly. I know what your opinion is and you know what mine is. Maybe we should let Konny comment rather than try and make your views appear to be the final say.

Rgds

John

The problem John is that it does not promote good airmanship. You're talking about the system only detecting if the landing lights are on while the wheels are on the ground. What is there then to prevent someone from creating a gauge that automatically turns the lights on a 1 foot AGL. What is to say that a pilot doesn't simply do the same on landing, only dump the gear or turn on the lights at 1 foot AGL. That way, FlyNET detects the landing lights on, but he didn't really have them on.

At the same time, FlyNET has a delay on departure and arrival from when it happens and when it recognizes the change. What's to prevent people from taking advantage of that delay?

Finally, you're asking for the minority of users and aircraft to be accommodated at the expense of the majority. I've only seen 10 or so people complain about this issue since I joined FlyNET and most of them complained because they didn't understand the rule. The only planes that have a problem are the PSS planes, and again, it's because the PSS planes are built wrong, not because of a legitimate feature being accurately reproduced by PSS.

Chris,

I hear what you are saying completely, and understand your point of view. However, wouldn't it be a pleasant surprise for a small, manoeuvrable, freeware developer to trump the larger payware boys and say "It's not our fault, but hey we'll provide a simple fix for the sake of our members"? I've watched the conflict between FSInn and PMDG/Level-D with interest, and neither side is prepared to budge. What a win if one side would be the "bigger man" and simply help out!

What is there then to prevent someone from creating a gauge that automatically turns the lights on a 1 foot AGL.

For that matter, what is there then to prevent someone from creating a gauge that automatically turns the lights on at 10,000 foot AGL.

Notwithstanding the above, I accept your point and must admit that all said and done FLyNet has provided a great new dimension to my online flying.

Cheers
Andrew

Chris,

The majority can continue what they are doing as of now without any 'expense' or change to their procedures. Implementing a change as suggested means the 'minority' can be accomodated without them either having to bust aircraft limitations or suffer a 'compulsory' penalty on every flight. Terrain issues would also be fixed. People may be smug and say,"Hey I don't have a problem with the rule as it is" , and changing the rule wouldn't affect them, but it would help others who wish to operate to the desired realism for whichever aircraft they are operating.

Rgds

John