Project Fokker F100
DANNY
just how well that plane handles. Smoother than most payware birds I have
installed. http://fokker.avsim.net/index.html. One of the regular posters
here in this group posted about it several months back which is when I learn
of it. I thought I would repost the site since we have new folks joining in
all the time. The package also includes F70
Jan Bijsterbosch
"DANNY" <danny...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:OHNmf.4205$Xx3....@fe03.lga...
Hmm, I know that one from my fs2k2 days...;-))
Since you have it installed, does the newest version come with a virtual
cockpit, or is that in the works still. I can't seem to find out about that
on their website...
Greetings from overcast Amsterdam,
Jan
Not4wood
and it was very good. Once I moved over to FS9 its only ok with a building
in the middle of one of the runways. I know that if I lower the detail it
will disappear.
I've seen the latest version of this scenery but it is for Lago payware. I
did download a mesh file for the surrounding areas and it does help. But
not much.
Not4wood
"Jan Bijsterbosch" <bijste...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:439be886$0$818$3a62...@textreader.nntp.hccnet.nl...
Oskar Wagner
Certainly the developers have done a nice job in modeling the A/C with a lot
of nice liveries but:
it's just another modified stock A/C looking like a F70/100. The main issues
of all F70/100 A/C are missing: A fully working A/T system with
corresponding TMP (Thrust Mode Panel, located on the center pedestal)
including LVL CHG climb and descent on FMP (Flight Mode Panel) not to
mention a working FMC with associated PROF modes for climb and descent.
Yes, of course, I'm fully aware that it is freeware but to be honest I would
rather pay some 30-40 bucks to have the "true" F70/100 modeled........
;-)))))
--
Oskar Wagner
(retired Captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....
"Not4wood" <no_spam...@verizon.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:rtWmf.1222$tR6.362@trndny09...
Iain Smith
foolish not to! ;-) ) but I too enjoy flying that model. In some ways, for a
sim-only pilot like me, not having a full professional standard FMC, etc
can, in some ways make flying these a/craft more enjoyable as I don't have
to overload my tiny brain! When such things are provided, as with the PMDGs
and PSS Airbus 330/340, I feel compelled to use them otherwise I've paid for
something I'm not using! Not having them available to spend time loading
with data means I just get on with the flight! :0))
Iain
"Oskar Wagner" <ren...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:dnhd6h$8rt$1...@news.hispeed.ch...
L. Mulder
Do you know of a good payware F-100?
Loek
"Oskar Wagner" <ren...@swissonline.ch> schreef in bericht
news:dnhd6h$8rt$1...@news.hispeed.ch...
DANNY
of a drawback to me.
"Jan Bijsterbosch" <bijste...@tiscali.nl> wrote in message
news:439be886$0$818$3a62...@textreader.nntp.hccnet.nl...
DANNY
"Not4wood" <no_spam...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:rtWmf.1222$tR6.362@trndny09...
Oskar Wagner
still hope that the guys of Project Fokker will implement the missing
features one day ... ;-)
--
Oskar Wagner
(retired Captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....
"L. Mulder" <lbn.m...@hccnet.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:_1Xmf.60432$N54....@fe02.buzzardnews.com...
Gregory
brought the following to our attention:
Can I tell a quick `real life' story about Fokker? First let's say
the Project Fokker is fine work in model building, paint, etc., and
I have the -100 ready to fly in FS2002. It was VERY popular based
on total downloads.
Ok, the story goes.. and as you may know I've jetted around the U.S.
on 727's in the 80's. One time in St. Louis (ex-TWA hub and location
of former MacAir, F-15 plant, etc.)
later in the 90's.. I got on a connecting flight in KSTL and it was a
Fokker (probably a 100.) Then we taxied out to the runway.. ok fine.
The captain throttled up for takeoff!! Now.. a smile!! and I turn to
the guy seated next to me and said: (- get this one -)
" This ain't no 727 !!! "
Now that everyone is offended.. let's explain. It was VERY smooth and
overall the sound was EFFICIENT.. like a sewing machine kind of
efficient.. like a Japanese automobile instead of an American one.
That's all.. not really offensive.. was it?
-Gregory
Oskar Wagner
bit too picky when it comes to realism ;-) But OTOH it is not much of a
difference whether you fly a stock B737, 747 or 777 or whatever because
there's no difference in operating:
you set any (not well defined) thrust
you fly any (not well defined) V/S and
you land at any (not well defined) approach speed.
Whether or not the cockpit looks a bit different does not really matter.
There are some thrust levers, a HDG knob, a V/S wheel and some other knobs
but nothing specific that would REALLY make the difference to a specific
A/C.....
OK ok, my personal five cents ;-))))))
--
Oskar Wagner
(retired Captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....
"Iain Smith" <iainsmi...@btinternet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:dnhe8q$3qo$1...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
Oskar Wagner
something VERY special fort this A/C and a LOVELY sound at all.....
Btw, obviously you were not sitting in one ofthe rearmost seats as during my
career more than once it happened that prior to take-off an emergency call
from the cabin came in as one of the passengers (the well experienced and
technically prone ones...) was scared due to the fact that no flaps were set
for take-off! Fokker's well designed wing allowed take-off without any flaps
being set (although there were alternative settings with flaps 5 and 15 for
shorter RWS's and marginal RWY conditions). Standard take-off procedure was
0° flaps (no slats available anyway). Quite impressive for an airliner,
isn't it? ;-)))))
--
Oskar Wagner
(retired Captain)
Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....
"Gregory" <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:hafop1dcdmke78jia...@4ax.com...
Gregory
<ren...@swissonline.ch> brought the following to our attention:
>No, of course not, Gregory! ;-) Then whine of those RR Tay engines is
>something VERY special fort this A/C and a LOVELY sound at all.....
>Btw, obviously you were not sitting in one ofthe rearmost seats as during my
>career more than once it happened that prior to take-off an emergency call
>from the cabin came in as one of the passengers (the well experienced and
>technically prone ones...) was scared due to the fact that no flaps were set
>for take-off! Fokker's well designed wing allowed take-off without any flaps
>being set (although there were alternative settings with flaps 5 and 15 for
>shorter RWS's and marginal RWY conditions). Standard take-off procedure was
>0° flaps (no slats available anyway). Quite impressive for an airliner,
>isn't it? ;-)))))
>--
>Oskar
Yes sir.. the engine whine and overall integrity of the frame. It
wasn't like the "rum- rum" (rumble) and rattle of the Boeing jet..
that big and marvelous contraption that it is! { grin }
I wish the young guys could have the opportunity to fly around on
the Boeing, but with its' increasing obsolescence and the industry
curbs, chances are diminishing. :-[
-Gregory
>
>Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....
>
>"Gregory" <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:13:35 -0500, "DANNY" <danny...@gmail.com>
>> brought the following to our attention:
>>
>>>Fueled up and flew KATL to KGSO tonight in the Fokker F100. I had forgotten
>>>just how well that plane handles. Smoother than most payware birds I have
>>>installed. http://fokker.avsim.net/index.html. One of the regular posters
>>>here in this group posted about it several months back which is when I learn
>>>of it. I thought I would repost the site since we have new folks joining in
>>>all the time. The package also includes F70
>>
>>
>> Can I tell a quick `real life' story about Fokker? First let's say
>> the Project Fokker is fine work in model building, paint, etc., and
>> I have the -100 ready to fly in FS2002. It was VERY popular based
>> on total downloads.
>>
>>
>> Ok, the story goes.. and as you may know I've jetted around the U.S.
>> on 727's in the 80's. One time later in the '90s at St. Louis (ex-TWA hub
>> and location of former MacAir, F-15 plant, etc., I got on a connecting flight
DANNY
flaps are used for takeoff. It penalized me recently for 0 flaps on a
recent sightseeing trip with two paying passengers over the Appalachian
Mountains in a Dreamfleet Cessna 182 from KGSP, so it was not a short field
takeoff.
Like Iain, I sometime just want to jump in a fly. Yesterday in the PMDG 737
I was cleared for takeoff. After "80 knots" but before V1, I see another
jet supposedly holding short before crossing the active RW. However it was
over the line and my left wing tip caught it. Something like 60 dead
including all flight crew and 18 injured. Now, I have to wait for the
&^%$^* thing to reload again, reprogram the FMC, re-start FSPassengers, and
so on, and so on. About fifteen minutes later (maybe slight exaggeration) I
am cleared to taxi and take off again. So sometimes, Not having to program
the FMC, is okay too. I have had AI crash in to the back of me on approach,
but never had one with its nose hanging over onto the runway. But I do
like to fly the PMDG 737 since it is different, as you point out. So I would
probably opt to buy a F100 with good Bells & Whistles that would add
realism.
"Oskar Wagner" <ren...@swissonline.ch> wrote in message
news:dnhgcu$bd9$1...@news.hispeed.ch...
Gregory
<ren...@swissonline.ch> brought the following to our attention:
>No, at least I have never come across to one (unfortunately, I must add).
>I still hope that the guys of Project Fokker will implement the missing
>features one day ... ;-)
>--
Oskar.. maybe it's possible to associate with PF or others as expert
advisor in the development of Fokker systems and flight deck. Might
even be some $$ involved if Fokker is so popular. :)
btw.. it can take a long time, using a process called `design
verification' to get the AIR file just right. That's if a detailed set
of flight manuals are available.
You may also become increasingly popular with those who watch
over all these activities.. for signs of intelligent life that is.
Yep, signs of intelligence.
-Gregory
>
>Remember, in the great scheme of things, we're all small potatoes....
>
>"L. Mulder" <lbn.m...@hccnet.nl> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>
>> Oskar,
>>
>> Do you know of a good payware F-100?
>>
>> Loek
>>
>> "Oskar Wagner" <ren...@swissonline.ch> schreef in bericht
>>
Jan Bijsterbosch
"DANNY" <danny...@gmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:z7Xmf.4506$ES....@fe05.lga...
> No VC on any of them. But I use the VC feature very little so it is not
> much of a drawback to me.
Well, I almost expected as much, allthough one screenshot of a fisheye view
of the cockpit looked promising...
I as well don't use the vc that much too, but lazy me, hate using the s-key
or joystick equivalent to come pass an empty view outside...;-))
Gregory
>Fueled up and flew KATL to KGSO tonight in the Fokker F100. I had forgotten
It seems Project Fokker got mixed reviews in this thread.. maybe even
clobbered a bit. No question that Project Fokker is a VERY popular
download.. and IIRC, there are LOTS of excellent repaints.
Not everyone wants to spend a day studying the manual on how to start
the engines. However, some users are after a `real life' simulation to
re-live that past airline assignment. :-)
With replies on each and opposite ends of spectrum, the conclusion
might be to have Project Fokker freeware (as it now is) and a Project
Fokker Pro series which is payware. There's likely a market for it..
and maybe even some $ incentive. You know.. it ain't no 72_.
-Gregory
DANNY
has been in a area of aviation I will never see nor will I have the
experience necessary to compare (Real life to Sim) as he does. If we had a
Driving Simulator . . . now I can compare that to real driving . . . I am
sure I would find many disappointments to that Simulation when compared to
really 'driving'. But, I have found a plane that meets MY criterion for
making the Flying Simulator a little more 'funner' and it is workin' for me.
I would like to see a payware version, reasonably priced. I would go for it.
"Gregory" <flights...@bkwds.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hi2rp1drajmv39rtp...@4ax.com...
Iain Smith
"DANNY" <danny...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6Ygnf.6709$ES....@fe05.lga...
>I completely respect Oskar's gentle but negative comments about the F100.
>He has been in a area of aviation I will never see nor will I have the
>experience necessary to compare (Real life to Sim) as he does. If we had a
>Driving Simulator . . . now I can compare that to real driving . . . I am
>sure I would find many disappointments to that Simulation when compared to
>really 'driving'. But, I have found a plane that meets MY criterion for
>making the Flying Simulator a little more 'funner' and it is workin' for
>me.
> I would like to see a payware version, reasonably priced. I would go for
> it.
Danny, I agree totally! :0))
Iain