Rampstart Checklist (revised for 4.34)
-
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
-
Yep. For the rare cases I used it (and also according to what coders said), I didn’t had any real consistencies among subsequent failures I had with this.
Problems on electrical bus inducing the loss of other electrical systems … that would be okay.
But having an hydraulic pump problems, then hardpoint issues, then a HUD failure … then … engine problems … doesn’t sounds a “realistic” cause/consequences daisy chain. Except if you are assuming the worse and most unlucky day of the century pushing far always the limit of Murphy laws.
At least … this is my experience with the “random failure” option.
-
I suppose it would take quite an effort to craft a system around related faults, and tweaking the “random” part of it to closer resemble reality. Would make more sense for campaigns, as aircraft see heavy use in an actual war scenario. This could be a fun project one day, for the right people. A few years ago, I never would have thought we’d get an IFF system.
-
Just what these tired old eyes needed, thanks Fluke
-
I recently had an HAF ex-SQ Viper Commander fly the “game” for some hours (and btw is able to interact with the game frequently now that he has time), he commend afterwards that some of the functions and realism of the “game” are better than those on the real simulators, while other functions and details do not even exist on the real simulators…
However, what the real simulators have and are good to, are the processes to simulate realistically all; emergencies, tracking down pilot actions, while an “external” trainer from his station can inject (or clean) all kind of failures, to monitor the trainee actions towards perfection. If this “game” had only a similar approach to this aspect, well…
-
This is awesome. Thank you! Saved my ass so much time creating a realistic and functional checklist. Much appreciated.