747 | Taxing

So, with SU5 knocking out 32NX (even the latest dev build results in CTD for me), I was forced to look for other airliners and downloaded salty 747. It is awesome compared to native 747 on almost all counts and was very pleasant to fly.

I believe, like earlier version of the NX, it also uses base MSFS model of the 747. This is where, I noted taxing the 747 is very hard when it comes to taking a turn, further more challenging if it is a 90deg turn and I don’t remember it being so tough with FSX though. As I turn with speed under 10 KTS, sim shows dust being thrown up and even at 8 KTS the a/c starts skidding on sharp turns. Yesterday, I had to use differential thrust to make a 90 deg turn as equal thrust on all 4 engines led to skidding even at low speed.

I assume this behavior is MSFS 747 only, can someone confirm? Never saw this with POSKY and other 3 P freeware in earlier versions of the sim. Turns were handled nicely as long as one was under 10 KTS, sometimes slightly higher (11/12 KTS) even with heavy load conditions.

1 Like

It’s the identical problem with the 787.

For very tight turns don’t taxi faster than 5kts (same IRL)

Don’t use more than ~75-80% of rudder deflection.


Thanks, in that case it is likely the sim. Had QW787 and never faced this in FSX.

1 Like

It’s definitely a MSFS problem!

1 Like

And has been reported on since last year at release, rumored to be reported during beta, still problem exists today. I have theory:
Asobo has budget, they exceeded budget because this project is wayyyy out of their league, heck MS did not want to do it in house, so farmed it out. They had to release to get enough money to cover expenses, and lots and lots of things did not get fixed. To keep money train moving, keep updating world stuff to hook more players in, X-Box, et-al. Another Update later this month, but none or at lease few of the long term bugs since before beta are fixed. AP, ATC (alghough puncuation has been corrected) and flight characteristics of most of the planes is all wrong. My suggestions have been ignored, fix base stuff, then when update, you will know what is breaking systems, nope, keep releasing fluff, and nothing much else gets fixed. I fly C-17 in FSX, steers fine up to 40KIAS or even faster, nose wheel looks funny when turned, but plane response as it should, wings dip if speed too high. They may be waiting for others to release study level aircraft, which would be nice, but, sim keeps changing and breaking so much, no vendor wants to step up, because it costs money to update a plane, of unknown economic viability, until firm orders have completed. All AP creators, should take pole before starting development, how many folks are going to purchase, and then would know if it’s a viable project. QW rumored to release 787 hoping for 737 and 747, DC Designes releasing F-14 on 19th, supposed to be close to study level, unlike DCS’s f-14 which is study level. Blah, blah, blah. Dont bash me, I get the economic side much better than most. But feel if planes & Systems fixed, more people would join up in line to buy. And credit where due, billions of lines of code, one team working on this, another team working on that, very hard to collaborate with massive code shooting off in 10,000 directions. That it works as well as it does is a credit to Asobo. I have proposed solutions, and no one takes them to heart. Feel major impedement is the distribution model, again, get flack on changing it, lots of people around world have slow internet, it takes me 20+ hours to download game. Several hours to DL patches, send me to a dedicated download site, or make DVD’s available. I will pay for the DVD’s just having a hard copy makes me feel better.

1 Like

Your theory is wrong.

Prove it! Show us the numbers.

It’s your theory, hence it’s up to you to provide facts.

Hmmm, assuming 200 people wonking on this coding, at least 65,000 annual salary, that is 13,000,000 annually. This does not take into consideration all the hardware resources (office space, desks, computers, pencils, paper, communication resources, servers, network hardware, PEOPLE to keep it all working, unrelated to actual coding) needed to tool up the coders. Assuming, 1,000,000 users at the middle level purchase price, that would be $59,000,000. BUT, it’s been a year since release, so take away now 26,000,000 million, plus the unknown hardware/facilities/management/royalities costs, and my guess is breaking even. Those coders are still working, being paid, but the saturation level might have been reached, the odd 10,000 new players possible over next years, is still going to not meet the money levels necessary to support game. Big well known developers have fought shy of releasing study level aircraft, why, game is not stable enough and, it still in flux so much, all that time/money to get unit development could be losing proposition because unknown sales of item. Figure only GA, ex pilots and some CA pilots are going to stay with it long term. Your young or middle age non aviatioin related person may not stay long. I stay because been doing sim since FS-98, hooked. Would love to know average age of customer base. That there is a very telling item. Yes, young people MIGHT try game, but if not interested in flying, will leave. The money train is a limited amount. New stuff to catch interest releases all the time. My gues is if not at limit of money, real close. One fact in todays world, Money Talks, and BS walks. Words to live by.

Lots of assumptions but zero facts… (btw. that’s way OT in the meantime), I’m out.

Yep, lots of assumptions. No hard data. Im out too.

try having your CG the more forward possible. having more weight on the nose wheels helps a lot

So filling up center tanks helps? I will give that some playing around time tonight.

personnally I use the right slider that only adjust the CG.

I check at TO& landing where it would be and adjust it to get the most forward possible and staying within the envelope

A theory without evidence is like a bad dream. Personal and important to the individual. But boring and irrelevant to everyone else.

Confirmed. The further forward the CG the easier it is to turn.

But it’s still way off. I need to slow down to 2kts to achieve the minimum turning radius

With the CG at the aft limit, the 747 doesn’t turn at all and will full rudder deflection the nose even slightly starts turning the opposite way of the rudder input at low speed.

At least you can use full rudder deflection, which still isn’t possible on the 787.

1 Like