[jhb_airlines] Re: PCF aircraft

  • From: "Mike Brook" <mike.brook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <jhb_airlines@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:19:51 +0100

Bones -

My preference list would be for PA28, F100, Dash 8, A300, A310, B737 &
B744, all of which I fly regularly.  The AI/MP versions don't have to be
identical to the actual a/c being flown, they only need to provide a
generic ident.

MikeB

> -----Original Message-----
> From: jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:jhb_airlines-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Bones
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 7:26 PM
> To: JHB Email List
> Subject: [jhb_airlines] PCF aircraft
>
>
> 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]
> Type=A320
> TypeEx=321200
> 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 following:
>
> A318
> A319
> A320
> A321
> ATR72 500
> B737 200
> B747 400
> B777 300
> BEECH 58
> C172
> FOKKER 70
> FOKKER 100
>
> 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
> gives:
>
> 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
> Citation
> Beech 1900
> B757
> A300
> A340
> 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.
>
> bones
> bones@xxxxxxx
> http://fsaviation.net
>
>
>
>



Other related posts: