Dudley Henriques
-
Posts
27 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Dudley Henriques
-
-
Eddie, bad link disregard
-
2 hours ago, Eddie said:
Hi again,
@Dudley Henriques While I understand your frustration, these forums are not meant for addressing concerns or such. We have a contact page that takes you directly to support that is able to help you a lot more hands on; https://inibuilds.com/pages/contact. These forums are to share issues/suggestions/feedback for the community and we do our best to respond and help/address whatever the topic may be. I am not a developer, nor is the rest of the moderation/community team. Our job on most issues is to forward concerns or issues to the developers, that's how it works in most studios. Regardless, I apologize for any inconvenience you may have endured but again, please use our contact page for direct contact with the team. Thank you
Hi Eddie;
Perhaps our "communication issue" is at least partially my fault. Until today I had totally missed your direct contact link and believed your only source of communication was here through this forum. I never actually saw the Inibuilds main page until now.
I think part of our little "problem" is that I was not not seeking help from Inibuilds at all but rather seeking to be of help to you with the T33. I see now that might not have been a good idea from the start as I was offering said help without having been asked for it. For that I apologize.
Anyway FWIW, as a safety advisor to our airshow industry I naturally know many of our pilots. I had spoken with Greg on the phone about the T33 and what you were doing with it. I had some ideas I thought would be helpful in marketing the plane on our industry end and since I liked what Inibuilds had already done with the product and since I had a degree of hands on experience flying high performance airplanes naturally I thought I might be able to contribute a few ideas to make the T33 even better than it is.
I am extremely sorry our communication fell short of accomplishing anything but a back and forth on company policy.
Please accept my best wishes for Inibuilds and for the T33.
Dudley Henriques
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1d92cG-DozCtuYs2Bs4l_5cQqI8-gtQ7p?usp=drive_link -
Just to be clear "Eddie", the "system" as it's been set up here on the forum by Inibuilds simply doesn't work. very well....at least in my opinion anyway. Customers who purchase a product through an online developer expect a direct contact point with that developer. Communicating with a developer through some intermediary who has a rubber stamp that reads "Your input is important to us and has been forwarded to the team" simply doesn't feed the pussycat.
I can't speak for others but I will tell you emphatically that my personal experience with Inibuilds has been far less than satisfactory. In fact I have gone from wanting to help make the product a better product all the way down to uninstalling the T33 and writing off what I paid for it.
Sorry to be so negative, and I wish you luck going forward, but I'll be moving on to more productive activity concerning any involvement I have with the flight simulation industry.
Sincerely,
Dudley Henriques
-
1
-
-
I have tested the T33 now for several weeks prior to doing a review on the product and as well interfaced with the forum .Based on my experience I've reached a conclusion on the product. Please know that as an independent reviewer for flight simulator and because of my somewhat unique position in the community I refrain from negative public comment on a product I review so as not to hurt a developer.
With this in mind I will NOT be reviewing the T33. I do however receive a considerable amount of email asking me about specific products.
I will simply say here that my opinion of the T33 is that is is extremely well done up to a point but could have been MUCH better with just some additional work.
I'll be making no more suggestions for the T33.
Dudley Henriques
-
2
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, Eddie said:
Hello,
We read the feedback and any suggestions made and take it on-board, but may not always acknowledge that we've done so, but rest assured that you are heard. The team has their hands full with many projects but this does not mean we have "moved on" from the T-33. We see it in a stable position at the moment however that does not mean we've abandoned the product. I obviously cannot speak on any future updates until they are published.
As for the "editing policy", I'm not sure I understand what you mean exactly. We have limited users from editing to deter any follow-up troll editing and such. We can however revisit this policy and look into changing it in the future, but no promises as that is a decision that involves how we moderate the forums.
Thank you
No problem at all. It's just that this "intermediary stuff" just doesn't work for me. "I'll inform the team" I'm sure works well at your end but it's just not my thing.
Perhaps the problem is that I don't seem to fit very well in the "user" category. LOL. :-)))))))))))
Anyway, no harm done. I'll be passing on the T33 while at the same time wishing you and "the team" the very best.Dudley Henriques
-
Why there is an edit restriction for people posting on this forum is beyond me. The result for me anyway has been totally negative.
I bought the plane. I like the plane. But I'll be "moving on" from the T33 due to a seeming lack of interest from Inibuilds and disgust at the editing policy here.
I just don't have the time to devote to non-productive activity.
Sorry. Looks like we both lost on this one.
DH -
13 hours ago, CF104 said:
Hello,
Just wondering if anybody from INI Builds is monitoring this thread? I added some relevant information regarding the T-33 fuel system but it appears this thread is in radio silence.
Cheers,
John
I'm not certain but I believe they are "moving on" .
-
5 minutes ago, CF104 said:
Sabre drain venting is more of an airframe issue and not the engine. As a fuel user, the engine doesn't have influence over the fuel vent system. Regardless, fuel venting will require taking a lot of things apart to fix.
Cheers,
John
Let's just omit the word "engine" and simply call it a Maintenance issue.
DH -
6 minutes ago, CF104 said:
Just adding some technical information as the fuel feed system is NOT working as it does in real life.
With no mechanical failures, you can have the tip tanks , LE tanks, Wing tanks and fuse tank pumps all on without venting fuel overboard. There are 3 fuel supply float valves in the fuse tank for each wing group. These float valves are placed at different levels in the fuse tank to provide feed priority to the fuse tank as follows; #1 tip tanks, #2 LE tanks, #3 wing tanks. This means that with all pumps on (gang loaded), the tips feed until empty, then the LE tanks will feed until empty followed by the wing tanks until empty. This all happens automatically due to the float valves and there will not be any venting overboard even with all the pumps on. Gang loading the pumps is not a usual procedure but will NOT result in venting. With the 3 float valves working properly there is no way to overfill the fuselage tank and cause venting. The only way to get fuel venting through the sabre drain is if one or more of the 3 float valves in the fuselage tank has failed, a LE tank or wing tank check valve and boost pump is failed or through unusual attitudes.
The information on the way it is currently modelled had to come from somewhere but my experience and training on the CT-133 say otherwise..
Cheers,
John
This jives completely with my information coming from current operators of a T33.
My source tells me that ANY venting through the Sabre Drain is considered a major engine issue possibly requiring serious maintenance.
Dudley Henriques -
8 hours ago, ericnelson7 said:
When starting a flight ready for takeoff, as of v1.03 the flaps are still pre-set to the wrong position. They should be at 32 degrees, not 30 percent (on the classic cockpit indicator, flap position is shown as percent of full 45 degree travel) so two more notches are required for standard performance.
"Water-injection" switch (does this do anything?) is pre-set to on, though I'd rather it be off. Tip tank feed switch is pre-set off, though it should be on.
I can't be sure but I think there might be a built in mixup with the way the T33 has been coded by INIBUILDS. It looks to me as though some things match up with the Canadian version and some with the Lockheed version. Flap gauge in % is one example. My memory is a bit vague but the takeoff flap position on the T33 I once flew was 31.5 DEGREES. I don't remember a % on that gauge at all.
Dudley Henriques-
1
-
-
I don't seem to be able to edit a posting several seconds after posting so adding here.
The addition of the 750 app window as well leaves the door open for sim pilots who wish to use the classic panel, RMI, and Gyro Compass so all gain no losses.
Dudley Henriques -
At this point I'm simply waiting to see if the 750 Garmin can be implemented as an app window for the T33 as it is for many other aircraft both civilian and military.
Integration into the panel is unnecessary to give the T-Bird GPS capability. The app serves the purpose well.
I hope you will do this as it opens the door for the sim pilot to navigate while using the classic panel as well as make frequency selection both NAV and COM a bit easier while in flight flying a fast jet.
Dudley Henriques -
On 9/23/2024 at 1:23 PM, Eddie said:
Hello,
Currently it's not steerable on the ground using rudder/steering inputs when stationary, but it isn't fully free-castering either as it's real-life counterpart, in that it will respond to rudder inputs when you're taxiing.
FWIW; There are certain behaviors concerning a specific aircraft where some "licence" can be used in flight model development that "walk the line" for the end user allowing a tradeoff between reality and a better experience for the sim pilot.
Nose wheel steering is one of those specific behaviors.
Naturally it's the developer's option whether to make these flight model "fudges".
I can tell you that back in FSX when we developed our study level P51D Mustang, at A2A, we faced a similar issue with ground handling. The P51D in real life is designed so that when the stick is held aft of neutral the tailwheel is restricted to a 12 degree arc from center. With the stick forward of neutral the tailwheel was unlocked into full swivel. There was a "bug" however in the woodpile in all this where in real life the tailwheel could not be placed in the locked position again once free due to forward stick unless the rudder was neutralized and the stick placed back in a position aft of neutral.
We wanted this as close to actual behavior as possible for the sim pilot but we also wanted the end user to enjoy the sim experience. The end result for us was a bit of masterful programming by our development team where we took a bit of licence and got a bit "fancy" with the programming.
Our P51D remains today as one of the finest study level aircraft ever produced for MSFS.
Just a suggestion but you can produce a more realistic experience for your T33 pilots by allowing a bit of "licence" with the T33's nose wheel behavior.
Dudley Henriques-
1
-
-
46 minutes ago, Eddie said:
Hi!
As always, your insight and suggestions are always appreciated. I can't comment on further decisions we'll be making regarding the aircraft but I will raise the suggestion with the team regardless. As always, no promises 😉
Thank you!
I should say that when and if I post a suggestion such as this one I'm not seeking a commitment..........or even an answer really. If I see something in a developer's product I believe has possibility above and beyond its released level I will simply advise the developer.
Just consider something like this from me as a simple data point.
I seek no recognition. If the idea is a good one I hope you use it. If it ends up in the wastebasket I hold no grudges.
My best to all,DH
-
1
-
-
Rather than be pedantic I'll be fairly quick here;
After "flying" the T33 for over a week now I would offer this to you.
As the product exists today it represents enough of the actual aircraft that a paid upgrade including what is needed to raise the product to study level I see as possible without a vast expenditure in development resources.
In other words, I think the T33 has the potential to become THE "go to" Warbird in MSFS IF you folks at Inibuilds opt to proceed and upgrade to the study level.
I would suggest the added work to accomplish this if you decided to proceed forward with the added development could be recouped by the release of a paid service pack that completes the airplane to the study level.
I submit this suggestion to you after doing extensive flight testing in the airplane and as well fully aware that the normal protocol after release is to maintain the product with timely updating and proceed on into new product.
This airplane you have created is really good enough to warrant this advance if you are so inclined. The work you have done so far is extremely good.
Anyway...............my opinion FWIW.
Dudley Henriques
-
3
-
-
5 hours ago, richboy2307 said:
Thanks for your suggestion. Firstly, apologies for the delay in response as the community team (me and Eddie) have been busy putting out fires in other parts of the community over the past day or so 😅
No not at all! We welcome all feedback and suggestions and try out best to action whatever is practicable to do. So please do not hesitate to share anymore that you may have. I'd be more than happy to pass it on to the team for further consideration 🙂
Gotcha. Yeah I have used the PMS GTN 750 myself extensively with some of the BlackSquare (Analog King Air) & Carenado (M20) birds and it is certainly a handy unit to have.
We have also had some requests for integration of the TDS GTN 650/750 in the modern cockpit so I think overall support for 3rd Party Avionics is something for the team to consider for a future update.
In any case, I'll pass on your suggestion and hopefully it is feasible to implement it!
Thanks!Thank you. I was worried I was being intrusive since no one invited me to submit suggestions on making an already fine product a bit better.
Since you asked.................. LOL. :-))))))))))))))
One thing I would add about the 750 is that its 98% screen area increase should make the unit much easier to use while "flying" a fast jet. One of my prime reasons for recommending the 750 over the 650.
Thank you again for your reply and interest.
Dudley Henriques
Microsoft MVP for Flight Simulator 2006-2007-
1
-
-
I sincerely hope that since my post above hasn't been answered that I haven't overstepped my welcome with INIBUILDS.
It wasn't my intention to imply that there were flaws with the excellent work you have done with your T-Bird.
My "suggestion" concerning the addition of internal coding that makes an external navigator available was simply based on experience we gained at A2A when we coded our excellent warbirds for use in MSFS.
I was the realism, immersion, and system fidelity consultant to A2A on our warbirds at the time we were in FSX. During our Alpha stage in development I realized immediately that when developing a legacy warbird for use in MSFS there was a need to consider that unless we included SOME form of modern avionics in our true to life dated instrumentation the end user would be faced with a serious restriction when flying our dated warbirds in the flight simulator.
The problem we faced was that although our dated panel was authentic in all respects it left the end user with very little option for navigating within the sim using the sim's available tools. This equated to the end user having a beautiful period warbird that could really only be flown locally.
Our solution at the time was very similar to yours. We offered the end user a choice between a military configured P51D and a civilian version using updated avionics and navigation equipment.
I see the T33 has a totally modern panel which is fine. What I also see in the great work you did on the classic cockpit is that a great deal of your end users will want to fly the T33 using that classic cockpit but by doing so they could really use an external navigation applet so they could plan a flight using GPS and still have the classic pit available to enjoy.
As I said, I sincerely hope I haven't stepped on any toes by pushing this option to you. I'll leave this at that and post no more suggestions.
My very best to you and the best of luck with your T33.Dudley Henriques
-
I noticed this evening that the T33 doesn't support an external navigator so my simple planned VFR flight from KILG to KSBY was a no go.
We ran into a similar problem at A2A Simulations when we were doing our P51D. Naturally we wanted to keep things WW2 in the cockpit of the 51 but after thinking it over seriously (and since I was the realism advisor on the 51) we realized that giving the end user a GPS capability would absolutely equate to our customers USING the plane more often, and we all agreed THAT was a good idea.
What I'm getting at here is simply this. And let's say I'm talking about the many end users who LOVE the classic dated panel but would really like to have access to a working GPS to use for flight planning and cross country.
Fortunately the available FREE GTN750 by PMS50 does that nicely without you having to integrate the unit into the panel of the T33. Having this available opens a whole new world of possible cross country flight for the INIBUILD T-Bird pilots. I also have the Shrike F86 and it has the GTN750 unit available as a small open window AS AN OPTION.
I believe all that is needed to do this for everybody is to code for an external navigator in an upcoming update.
I make this suggestion fully aware that the "magic" of the T33 lies in its classic panel and not everybody wants to fly using all that glass on the modern panel.
Using the external GPS window really completes the many options available for the end user when "flying" the T33.
I hope you will consider the inclusion of the code for an external navigator in a future update.
I will tell you that I for one will use that Garmin 750 and deeply appreciate having it available as a new option.
The main point I would make about this is that the GTN750 by PMS50 would be an OPTION. It doesn't detract from the great classic panel you have provided for the T33.
Many thanks for your consideration,
Dudley Henriques
-
If I might add my voice to this;
I noticed this evening that the T33 doesn't support an external navigator so my simple planned VFR flight from KILG to KSBY was a no go.
We ran into a similar problem at A2A Simulations when we were doing our P51D. Naturally we wanted to keep things WW2 in the cockpit of the 51 but after thinking it over seriously (and since I was the realism advisor on the 51) we realized that giving the end user a GPS capability would absolutely equate to our customers USING the plane more often, and we all agreed THAT was a good idea.
What I'm getting at here is simply this. And let's say I'm talking about the many end users who LOVE the classic dated panel but would really like to have access to a working GPS to use for flight planning and cross country.
Fortunately the available FREE GTN750 by PMS50 does that nicely without you having to integrate the unit into the panel of the T33. Having this available opens a whole new world of possible cross country flight for the INIBUILD T-Bird pilots. I also have the Shrike F86 and it has the GTN750 unit available as a small open window AS AN OPTION.
I believe all that is needed to do this for everybody is to code for an external navigator in an upcoming update.
I make this suggestion fully aware that the "magic" of the T33 lies in its classic panel and not everybody wants to fly using all that glass on the modern panel.
Using the external GPS window really completes the many options available for the end user when "flying" the T33.
I hope you will consider the inclusion of the code for an external navigator in a future update.
I will tell you that I for one will use that Garmin 750 and deeply appreciate having it available as a new option.
Many thanks for your consideration,
Dudley Henriques
-
22 hours ago, Tim-HH said:
@Dudley Henriques Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Do you think this is correctly simulated in the iniBuilds T-33? Because what you describe is exactly what I miss in the sim. There is zero lag in the iniBuilds T-33 when you set power from idle to full power. As @richboy2307 says "...[the engine] will spool up from idle within a few seconds". I just tested it again: With the engine at 20% RPM I can accelerate to 50% RPM within a second. Which is contrary to all reports including yours.
Greetings
TimProbably the reason I'm not experiencing your issue is that I handle my throttles (Prop and jet both) in the sim exactly the way I handled them in real life.
ALL my power adjustments are made smoothly. I anticipate power increase AND decrease and apply throttle accordingly as needed.
Although true that you can in jets move throttles faster than when flying props I simply prefer the way I interface with my throttles which is to always adjust power with the objective being to avoid rapid changes in temperatures and pressures..
All I can say really is that "flying" the T33 (sim) using my method of handling power I'm not experiencing any issues at all.
Dudley Henriques-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, Tim-HH said:
Hello,
everywhere you can read that the T-33 engine takes 15 seconds from idle to full power. This is quite typical for early jet engines. However, in your T-33 the engine takes only a few seconds from idle to full power.
It would be great if this could be adjusted. After all, it is one of the main reasons why the T-33 exists. Many P-80 pilots struggled with the engine's slow response during a go-around. After several accidents Lockheed decided to build a trainer and the T-33 was born.
A more realistic engine response would certainly improve the T-33 experience in the sim 🙂
Greetings
TimIf I may.............
I'm presently "flying" the sim T33 and have flown the real one, (Long ago 🙂
I'm not noticing any spool up issues in the sim.
One thing about approaches in this airplane; Many pilots flying the early jets (including me) learned early on how to handle the built in engine spool up situation.
After the break coming off initial, I would apply speed brakes as I used g to bleed off the airspeed down to my gear and flap limits. I'd leave the speed brakes out through my entire approach. What this did is raise the drag index. This added drag allowed me to carry power well over 50% to compensate for the added drag and into the rpm range where power could be increased avoiding any spool up issues if added power was needed during the approach.
Hope this helps a bit.
Dudley Henriques
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, richboy2307 said:
Hi DH,
Thanks for your question. The answer to this is Yes. The fuel won't vent simply when the FUSE tank is full. There is an additional condition that ALL the tanks are also turned ON at the same time for fuel venting to occur.
Allow me to clarify below, and also illustrate via a video that I made for a similar support query submitted on our discord:
Thanks!
Excellent video. I believe this makes everything much clearer for everybody.
May I suggest you put this up on your website so all can view it?
Many thanks for your time.
DH -
28 minutes ago, ericnelson7 said:
This might be a good time to mention the current (1.01) engine start procedure doesn't follow reality. The USAF manual requires all fuel switches off for start, and only the "starting fuel" switch provides feed. In the current sim version, the engine won't start without the fuselage tank switch on, and the starting fuel switch seems to have no function. It would be enjoyable to start the jet as specified. The "starting fuel" switch guard should open farther and expose the switch for better control, especially for VR users.
Also note fuel switch lights in reality cannot be tested unless the switch is on, and as usual with press-test lights, a light currently on should go off with press.
I figured since the starting fuel switch has no function there had to be some "licence" taken with the way the fuel system was coded. What I am asking with my question to the devs is whether or not when they coded the system they accounted for a full fuselage tank when asking for the tip transfer switch to be ON after engine start. (Which is normal for the T33)
Reason for the question is to deal with any confusion when reading in the manual that any fuel transfer has to be watched so as not to have overflow in the fuselage tank.
In other words the reader might ask after reading the supplied manual and the way it has been written........"will I cause overflow if I open the tip tank transfer pump after engine start if the fuselage tank is already full"?
Just a potential point of confusion that might require some clarification.
The reality for this situation (actual T33) I believe is that the fuel burn rate (even at idle) for the J33 engine is more than high enough to handle the transfer rate of the fuel pumps even with ALL the pumps operation. So there should never actually be a situation where fuel is being emptied out through the Sabre drain.
In fact I think that if there actually IS fuel being drained out through the Sabre drain that might very well be of enough concern to cause an engine inspection.
I wasn't sure of this so in fact ran it by several friends who are operating T33's currently.
No big thing here really. Just a bit of possible confusion after reading the manual for the sim T-Bird.
DH -
Understanding that the 230 centerline tips should always be selected on after engine start due to the pressurization issue..............
Assuming a full fuselage tank when starting, did you code to reflect the fuel burn rate even at idle to overcome the fuel transfer rate from the tips so that no overflow will occur out from the Sabre drain?
Many thanksDH
My suggestion
in Suggestions
Posted
Sorry about the link.
I believe this one will work
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19DtAE441OEGVYtlkyskRk39mDb1rxkUq/view?usp=sharing