[jhb_airlines] Re: PCF aircraft

  • From: "Bones" <bones@xxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:11:31 +0100

No follow me van so far so we may be lucky.

There is a default ATOC Dash 8 100 and 300 so I was thinking of just the 300
for the AI model.


-----Original Message-----
From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gerry Winskill
Sent: 18 September 2006 19:33
To: jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [jhb_airlines] Re: PCF aircraft

I'm all for the sensible list. I could live without a busjet but it
would be nice to have access to a turboprop and the one I fly is the
Q400. That is far from meaning I'm making a case for its inclusion. If
the list contained any other variant then I'd be satisfied that any Dash
8 family user would appear in one of that familly, rather than in a
defaulted C172. I must put a request re absence of follow me vans, onto
the forum.

Gerry Winskill

Bones wrote:

>Using the old ATOC templates I have now knocked up JHB aircraft for the
>C172, BE58, F70 and F100. These are all now "converted" to PCF titles
>and air/cfg files.
>I'm still not sure about the PCFAircraftList.ini file. A typical
>example is
>[PCF A320 JHB]
>Description=JHB Airlines
>Description2=Model by ARNZ AIS-AI\n\nTextures by John Woodside
>Height=8.6 Pitch=0
>I think the TypeEx= line is a rough guide for the aircraft type but I
>only have ideas about the first two numbers. The first is engine type
>with 3 for jet and 2 for prop. Second number is the number of engines.
>So the A320 is 321200, the A340 is 341200 and the ATR72 is 221200. I've
>no idea on the next two and why the F100 is 321300.
>Height and pitch are probably MP equivalents to static height and pitch
>in the aircraft.cfg file. I don't think these are fine tuned by PCF and
>that will explain the slight floating or sinking effect when viewing
>other aircraft.
>Timo has converted all my earlier Airbus files to PCF format and I have
>converted all the rest I can find. That gives me a fleet of the
>ATR72 500
>B737 200
>B747 400
>B777 300
>It would be nice to expand this list but it is a lot of work and best
>restricted to a handful of aircraft that everyone regularly flies. Paul
>rightly said that we should have at least one aircraft in each group
>but twin jets are rather oversaturated already. Splitting the above
>into groups
>Single piston: C172
>Twin Piston: BE58
>Multi piston: none
>Single jet: none
>Twin jet: Far too many
>Multi jet: B747
>Now if we look at the proper (flyable) JHB repaints we have a different
>list. Missing from the above list are: Falcon 50
>Beech 1900
>Dash 8
>Most of these already have ATOC designs which could be converted -
>although the Falcon 50 would have to become a Falcon 2000.
>Before we embark on a spree of repaints the real question is whether
>they are all necessary or not. Some would be good to have - the Dash 8
>being a perfect example - but what about the A300? The next question is
>whether there are other aircraft not listed above that pilots regularly
>fly? I don't mean one pilot here as it would be pointless to design an
>aircraft that never gets selected in the flight plan box by pilots.
>I guess the real question is what aircraft would you have liked to
>select in the flight plan list and not found. Forget the Tiger Moth but
>I'd like to know if a sensible list can be drawn up.

Other related posts: