Jump to content

jcagle

Members
  • Content Count

    787
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

jcagle last won the day on February 15 2016

jcagle had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

180 Excellent

4 Followers

About jcagle

  • Rank
    Privat Pilot - SEP

Recent Profile Visitors

5797 profile views
  1. Everything dfw said was spot-on, just a little more background. The spoilers are electrically driven, while the rest of the control surfaces are hydraulically driven. This means the spoilers have unusual deflection schedules (and rates) since they can be programmed/computer driven. On the ground, only the inboard spoilers deflect to prevent the electric drive system from overheating. With flaps down, inboard and outboard deflect for a controls check prior to take-off, and they operate normally with weight off wheels.
  2. The IP addresses need to be entered before starting the sim. By default, go to your Start Menu, then Aerosoft F-14 Extend -> F-14 Shared Cockpit Configuration If the shortcut was not added for some reason: Go the selected installation directory: <user selected path>/Aerosoft/Aerosoft F-14 Extended/Gauges Open "AS F-14 Shared Cockpit Configuration.exe"
  3. I can answer at least the installer and TacPack portion of this thread. Externally installed add-ons is the direction that LM is pushing, though different development groups have adapted the methods to various degrees. Prepar3D v3 is just as capable of reading externally installed add-ons as v4, but it wasn't until the 64-bit version came out that it really caught developers attention (E.g. A2A, FSDG). We worked with VRS to get the external installation functional within v4 and v3, but it meant that an update to the TacPack was required for v3. The last I heard, the v3 update of the TacPack to allow external add-ons (and recognize the Kitty Hawk) was going to be released at or after their v4 version. If that hasn't happened, it certainly explains why the loadout manager and KItty Hawk aren't working. I can ping the folks at VRS and see when the update is planned. My guess is that it's a little ways out since P3Dv4.2 was released and they are probably working on it's compatibility patch for the TacPack as a whole. In the interim, I would suggest running the F-14 in P3Dv3 with TacPack turned off. I've also brought up the installer issue with Aerosoft to see if it can be squared away so that the v3 files are placed in the correct directories.
  4. It's time to Call the Ball for the F-14 Extended v3, and before release we wanted to set out appropriate expectations for the updated package: Important Notes - The update is free for all existing owners of the F-14 Extended - The file structure has been redesigned for the newest versions of Prepar3D, and is only available for P3D v3 and v4 - In single seat option, the package is fully compatible with TacPack (P3Dv4) out of the box, Kitty Hawk and all. Special thanks to VRS for working so quickly to make this happen Shared Cockpit - Shared cockpit is the major new feature of the F-14 Extended v3 (aside from P3Dv4 compatibility), and special thanks to Jon Bleeker at MilViz for making this a reality - Please read the attached instructions below or your first hop as a RIO will likely have connection issues - Shared cockpit is mostly compatible with TacPack. All major functions work, but both the Pilot and RIO have separate payloads. We are working with VRS to try and find a solution - The F-14 uses many custom variables, and we tried to 'accident' proof the cockpit as much as possible, but it is not prankster proof. E.g., It is not possible for the RIO to operate the flaps, throttles, etc. It is possible for the RIO to use the mouse to flip switches in the front seat. Setup Note - Shared Cockpit.pdf Improvements - All models of the F-14 recompiled in P3Dv4 native format - Aircraft exterior lighting has been improved to not only be more authentic in color and signal, but to also make use of light cast available in P3Dv4 (image below) - GPS track (patch of dirt) for the LANTIRN has been reworked such that all inputs are ground relative rather than aircraft relative. This should make inputs from the RIO stick more controlled and precise - Subtle improvements for the TCS system, particularly in the PLM radar mode - Almost all of the controls had to be split and sorted to handle the implementation of shared cockpit; improvements (to single player operation) were made when possible. This was mainly in consistency of control input and custom sounds. Image: New exterior lights with light cast Limitations We have tried to make improvements on the Kitty Hawk's FLOLS lights, however, the issue appears to be in the way P3D renders light effects. As the ship is further and further away from the F-14, the visual model of the FLOLS board is rendered as being physically in-front of the light effects (image below). This can be overcome to some extent by offsetting the position of the effects, however, at some distance the board always obstructs the light effect. We have supplied a selection of effects so you can choose the offset that fits your flying style: 0.2nm visibility - Light effects true to light bulbs 0.4nm visibility - Light effects offset 2ft from bulbs 0.7nm visibility - Light effects offset 5ft from bulbs 1.1nm visibility - Light effects offset 10ft from bulbs - The lights are located in the Main F-14 installation under Aerosoft F-14 Extended\Aerosoft\F-14A\Alt FLOLS Lights - To install, copy/paste the desired effects into the Aerosoft F-14 Extended\Aerosoft directory Image: As the F-14 is further and further from the carrier, the visual model of the FLOLS board will eventually be rendered in front of the light effects
  5. TacPack is not presently compatible with P3Dv3.X, only v2.5. In theory the F-14 Extended will be compatible with TacPack v3.X when that version is released...but we won't know until then. It is fully compatible with the P3Dv2.5 version of TacPack, even including P3D's pseudo-IR video feeds for the LANTIRN.
  6. Thanks all for the kind words! - For the throttle issues, please start a support thread. Would be great to know you sim version and that the instructions from Vol.3 page 3 are being followed. - Mathijs will hopefully have an answer to the 3rd party shops question, I'm purely on the development side
  7. While I can't speak for the other concerns, I can address the rate of climb. We did not use NASA data for anything related to thrust; that data was pulled directly from the flight manual (which was actually quite good). Unfortunately, I think this is a case where I can't confirm the problem. I tried to setup a similar flight, with centerline tank with a 50% total fuel load. This put the aircraft at a gross weight of 9,950lb. In the attached picture you'll see a bunch of numbers, and I'll do my best to point out the ones of interest. (Yellow Box) - I have 237Gal of Fuel. Half of 252 Gal of internal fuel plus half of a 150Gal external tank would be 201Gal, so I'm running a little heavy, (Magenta Box) - This tallies up for a gross weight of 9,943lbs (Red Box) - You'll see my climb speed is 128KIAS. Climb matrix is this: Sea Level (0 Drag) 134KIAS, 5,000ft (0 Drag) 129; Sea Level (50 Drag) 127KIAS, 5,000ft (0 Drag) 123. I'm at roughly 2,350ft with centerline tank, which gives me a drag index of 14. Interpolating the above, and the recommended climb speed is 129KIAS. So I'm pretty close to where I should be (and undeniably nerdy). (Blue Box) - I'm running at 1,713ft-lbs of torque on Engine 1 and a little more on Engine 2, but still less than the 1,878ft-lbs rated at military thrust. (Red Box) - My climb speed is ~2,120ft/min (Brown box) - I have a Newtonian (NET) thrust of 39lbs (Think F=m*a), which means I'm accelerating very, very slowly. All added up; I'm a little heavy with the weight and little low on the power delivery, but still pretty close to your rated 2,300fpm. So, I would that hopefully all you need is a restart and the problem should heal itself. However, it is worth noting for the non OV-10 pilots reading this, that as the weight goes up with a full fuel load, this number will drop noticeably.
  8. Thank you for the kind words. This is probably the most rewarding accomplishment that I could hope to achieve as a developer. I hope it continues to live up to your standards, and please don't hesitate to throw out some suggestions (particularly related to the flight mechanics) if they arise.
  9. I'm sorry I was wasn't clear, I meant you should read it now. I'm awful about reading manuals for any product I buy.
  10. Landing can be a bit challenging, especially is you drop below the recommended final approach speed of 100KIAS. You should definitely read the threads pinned at the top of this forum about some of the unusual flight characteristics of the Bronco. Low-Speed http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php/topic/50970-bronco-advance-flight-mechanics-low-speed-flying-characteristics/ Adverse and pro-verse yaw http://forum.aerosoft.com/index.php/topic/50981-bronco-advance-flight-mechanics-adverse-and-pro-verse-yaw/
  11. Greetings Alvaro and fdm79, I was the flight modeler for this project and might be able to give a little more insight into the topic of fuel flow. For a gas turbine engine in FSX, the active Fuel flow is determined by the flowing equation: Fuel Flow = Engine Thrust * Thrust Specific Fuel Consumption (TSFC) I put in a significant amount effort to give an accurate thrust profile throughout the entire flight envelope. This involved creating engine tables from scratch by combining published performance data (see here) with known engine specifications as inputs and boundary conditions for a computer aided engineering program (CAE) which performs cycle analysis on gas turbine engines. (See Attached for raw data output imported to Excel) If you have any software which can edit .air files, I would suggest that you dump the Airbus's flight model and compare tables 1502-1506 with default MSFS to see what I am talking about. While one has a significant amount of control over engine thrust, TSFC is a static variable in FSX. This is a somewhat reasonable assumption for a low bypass ratio turbofan or a turbojet, however, for a high bypass ratio turbo fan the TSFC is quite dynamic and primarily a function of: Altitude, Mach, and percentage of Maximum thrust. The difference between ground static and a cruise flight of M0.78 at FL350 is a factor of approximately 1.5. This makes it quite difficult to nail down a single value for use in the simulation. In this case, range was given priority over appropriate fuel flow for a single flight condition, and this was used as the standard from which the simulation TSFC was derived. Hopefully that answers your questions! Kindest Regards, John CAE Output.zip
  12. Looking at discrete trends is a good place to start with the subject of stopping an aircraft. A-10A charts happen to be within arms reach, it's a light aircraft relative to medium/large airliners, and it has huge drag surfaces; so I'll use it as an example. At 50,000lbs; a clean A-10 requires ~2,150ft to stop on a dry runway with flaps and speed brakes fully extended. At an identical Landing Index; with flaps and speed brakes fully retracted, the distance is only increased to ~2,800ft (~30% increase). A couple of reasons for this, and a good place to start is drag force. In the world Aeronautics, we're used to looking at coefficients since they are a great point of comparison between aerodynamic bodies (similar to BMEP in internal combustion engines). But, we're presently concerned with Newton's Second Law, so force is the order of the day. When air is the only fluid involved, Drag force is defined as: Fd = 0.5*Air_Density*Cross_sectional_Area*Cd*Velocity^2 You can quickly see that the only two dynamic variables during a single landing run are Cd and Velocity. At approach/landing speeds, Cd is primarily a function of Reynolds Number; which is used to quantitatively establish the ratio between pressure and viscous forces on an object traveling through a fluid. It is defined as: Rn = Air_Density*Characteristic_Length*Velocity/Absolute_Air_Viscosity Trends based on Reynolds number tend vary by order of magnitude (10^1, 10^2, .... , 10^N) and between 20kts & 150kts, there's not going to be much change. So, Drag Force is heavily dependent on velocity. This makes drag devices relatively effective at high speed, but exponentially worse as speed decreases. This is where ground interaction comes into play..and where the physics gets really complex. But, the good news is that we all have a qualitative understanding of weather conditions on vehicle performance....hopefully not too many cars were smashed in the process. In brief; empirical data and the associated physics (causality) tend to support the notion that drag devices provide a relatively large contribution initially, but stopping power is primarily dependent on surface/wheel interaction.
  13. Thanks Adam, I will take a hard look at theses and see what can be done.
  14. Dswo 1) This is a two fold question. The outer wing panels begin to stall at 20.4 degrees AoA and every surface is stalled by 25.5 degrees AoA. However, the aerodynamics are such that the lift coefficient continually increases until 35 Degrees AoA (the absolute Maximum). So, the F-16 stalls very subtly in FSX. What purposes are you wanting to know stall, take-off and landing, or maneuvers? Take-off Speed Range: First off, these numbers are a little low compared to what's happening in FSX, especially on CAT-III models. Take-Off speeds coincide with slow speed performance and in order to achieve appropriate pitching capability in the air, the pitching ability on the groung (starting at a low AoA) was impeded. As far as I have been able to determine at this point, it's one of those FSX quirks, but I am actively seeking a solution (none found yet). 26,000lbs (Clean full fuel) : ~150 KIAS 39,000lbs (Loaded full fuel) : ~185-190 KIAS Landing Speed Range: 20,000lbs (Clean near Empty fuel) - Final Approach: ~140 KIAS Touchdown: ~130 KIAS 28,000lbs (Loaded Near Empty fuel) - Final Approach: ~165 KIAS Touchdown: ~155 KIAS If you are out on a short flight and try to land with full fuel stores, these numbers will go up quite a bit. Maneuvering: If you are trying to fly at the highest stable AoA (roughly 35 degrees), you should moving at ~80 KIAS. 2) I don't have an answer for you right away unfortunately. Engine performance was designed aroung constant altitude acceleration, so I have not been so motived to get high as quickly as possbile that I've broken out calculations. However, when I do want to get up quickly, I try to get up to ~550KCAS (Around Mach 0.95) and keep a roughly constant Calibrated Airspeed (which increases Mach number as you climb). This is by no means the official (military) or the optimal solution, for that I would send a PM to TAFKAM; he's been the hugely important practical resource I've tapped when lacking hard data.
×
×
  • Create New...