Rampstart Checklist (revised for 4.34)
-
Many thanks for this.
What about a version with tests (in correct sequence) and one without. Not sure its a good idea to be swapping back and forth from one checklist to the other. -
I like it,thankyou
Damn old age. -
Salute Thanks Sir
-
Well, there’s 2 reasons I personally didn’t go that route:
- it would kinda screw with the effect of not having to go through multiple pages (or end up with a physically very long checklist or extremely small font-size )
- most tests are eye-candy
If those 2 points don’t bother you, I can attach the Word-file ofcourse.
-
Well, there’s 2 reasons I personally didn’t go that route:
- it would kinda screw with the effect of not having to go through multiple pages (or end up with a physically very long checklist or extremely small font-size )
- most tests are eye-candy
Valid reasons indeed. Thanks for the reply and the good work.
-
Thank you, this is perfect as a reminder for when you feel you’ve missed a switch somewhere.
-
Ok so now we have to found a way to trigger faults if ppl are not running all test. Sigh.
-
It doesn’t need to be related to said test, just disable nose wheel steering. Works like a charm.
-
Thanks again Fluke!
-
In relation to Startup, is there a way to get rid of the armrest so I can see the Air Cond panel? It’s an important step to set that to “Norm” and with normal 2D and 3D I can’t seem to get to it…
-
In relation to Startup, is there a way to get rid of the armrest so I can see the Air Cond panel? It’s an important step to set that to “Norm” and with normal 2D and 3D I can’t seem to get to it…
Press on mouse wheel and drag.
-
…
- most tests are eye-candy
Ok so now we have to found a way to trigger faults if ppl are not running all test. Sigh.
Wait… what?! Even if you have random faults on, and one of the systems is faulty during RAMP, the appropriate test(s) will not identify the fault?! You know what’s worse than assuming something? Assuming something for nearly a decade across multiple versions.
:doh: -
Random fault is not made for users, it’s a dev tool that doesn’t simulate consistent faults. I wouldn’t expect this feature to work in accordance of pre-emptive tests.
-
Good job,Fluke!
-
Random fault is not made for users, it’s a dev tool that doesn’t simulate consistent faults. I wouldn’t expect this feature to work in accordance of pre-emptive tests.
That’s an assumption with which I disagree - Something that was often repeated by some hoping maybe that it becomes Truth?
I flew tactically with random faults ON for quite a long while and I was always happy to deal with random malfunctions
Maybe there are a minority of fault not suitable to user but devs, but I never saw them and I also never had to abort a flight because of itSo as another dev, but flying tactically, I disagree with that statement
That said, the song titled “request faults for non completed checks at ramp” is a very old song we sang 10 years ago and never reached the top 10 implementation charts.
I’ll be happy when it happens, but I’m past the point where I Believe it will happen one day -
As a matter of fact, we had faults on demand as a dev tool invoked via the in-game chat window. Random failures are an end-product feature for the users to decide. My personal opinion is that only a small minority uses it -myself among them, nevertheless it is a feature that will stay, as a wise French man said, “the sim is what you make of it”.
-
the fault by the chat list was really usefull for beta testing and dev work.
They can be scripted with a timer as seen in the Failure random missionbut to be really user friendly IMHO, it should be portable over to MP so that an instructor can induce fault to a student pilot rather than to himself
that would be a neat training featureinducing a fault to yourself, knowing what the fault is, in a user (non test or dev perspective) is kinda useless
-
An excellent way to abuse student pilots indeed, I am all for it :mrgreen:
-
@Red:
That’s an assumption with which I disagree - Something that was often repeated by some hoping maybe that it becomes Truth?
I flew tactically with random faults ON for quite a long while and I was always happy to deal with random malfunctions
Maybe there are a minority of fault not suitable to user but devs, but I never saw them and I also never had to abort a flight because of itSo as another dev, but flying tactically, I disagree with that statement
That said, the song titled “request faults for non completed checks at ramp” is a very old song we sang 10 years ago and never reached the top 10 implementation charts.
I’ll be happy when it happens, but I’m past the point where I Believe it will happen one dayThe last part of my post is an assumption indeed, based on a statement made in Dee-Jay (echoed in the first part of my post), repeatedly read in these forums. By consistent faults, I mean random faults related to each others. This statement is almost always accompanied by something along “turn it off, it’s more of a debug tool”.
-
my opinion is turn it ON and have fun