Has anyone who flies the Captain Sim 707 figured out a "fix" for the grossly incorrect fuel flows? In the screenshot I've included you will see what the main panel gauges say is fuel flow, for each engine...around 2550 lbs/engine. This is what I would expect for a b707-300B flying at FL310 and M 0.78? BUT the actual fuel coming out of the tanks (and, therefore, the REAL fuel flow) is around 3,600 lbs/engine. This is verified by my FSFT ACARS text you see in the Screenie...or maybe not, it's hard to read but take my word for it. Has anyone who flies this "aircraft" x( figured out how to correct this? From what I know, the 10,000 to 12,000 fuel flow should be expected for this aircraft at this FL and this speed...NOT the 14,000 to 15,000 I'm seeing coming out of my tanks?1. What would be the expected fuel flow for a 707-300B at FL310 and M 0.78? Perhaps I'm wrong.2. How can I correct the discrepencies between the main panel FF guages (which I think are correct) and the ACTUAL fuel loss from the tanks (which I think is wrong...on the high side)? PLEASE...don't ask me to ask this at the CaptainSim website...I may just explode spontaneously if you do! :( I'll leave it at that, for now. (say "Thank you", Brian).http://users.frii.com/viciii3/CS707FF01%5d.jpg Vic

HMmm...OK. Let me ask this, then...what about editing the Fuel flow scalar in the aircraft.cfg? Somehow, someway the aircraft is reporting two different fuel flows...one to the fuel flow gauges on the main and another to everything else (ACARS, fuel tank level gauges, etc.). I don't know enough about this to begin to figure out a route to a possible solution.

The FF gauges apply a 0.74 scalar to the FF actually being modelled in FS. So your actual FF is 35% higher than the FF gauges would have you believe. You can change the FF scalar in the config file, but then you're gonna see very low FF on the gauges.To fix it, I had to hack a number of the CS panel gauges to eliminate the misbehaving CS gauge, then add in an xml overlay with my own custom-programmed and properly behaving gauge needles over the CS bitmaps. I used the same technique to finally get properly reading EPR gauges, as well as correcting the screwed-up rapidly spinning mini-dials on the fuel quantity gauges.So I guess the answer is there's no easy way to do what you want to do. The perils of dealing with CaptainSlime.RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

Thanks for the reply, Bob. In this situation it's the fuel flow being modelled in FS that I "think" is wrong? What would you expect for per engine fuel flow at, say, FL330 and M078 at a moderate weight? I am more inclined to believe the flow gauges, at 2,500 to 2,750 lbs./hr/eng. (10,000 to 11,000 total) than I do that being reported to FS (and coming out of the tanks) at 3,400 to 3,600 per? What do you think? At this point I'd be happy with not losing fuel that fast from the tanks and ignoring the fuel flow gauges...if you agree with my supposition of what is "normal fuel flow", above, that is. I found the Fuel_Flow_Scalar set at 1.45 and set it to 1.00...but haven't had a chance to fly it. Obviously my fuel flow gauges will now be incorrect (again, if they WERE correct before this change) but, perhaps now, I'll only burn fuel at a more realistic rate? If I can ask you...what is your Fuel_Flow_Scalar set to? Can the CS gauges be "reprogramed", with FS Panel Studio (for example), to apply a 1.0 scalar to the flow modelled in FS? Probably not as you would have done something like that to fix this FF issue. What if I copied working fuel flow gauges, from another panel, and replaced the faulty CS ones...would they need "programing" that, hopefully, could be done in FS Panel Studio? See that...you're nice enough to answer an issue and what do you get...more darn questions! LOL! Oh...and a... THANKS! Vic

> Thanks for the reply, Bob. In this situation it's the fuel>flow being modelled in FS that I "think" is wrong? Agreed>What would>you expect for per engine fuel flow at, say, FL330 and M078 at>a moderate weight? About 2900 PPH for a 250,000 lb acft at M0.78 and 0 deg temp dev.> If I can ask you...what is your Fuel_Flow_Scalar set to? Try 1.15 as a starting point. Seems to be in the ball park for the VC-135. With other variants YMMV, literally.>Can>the CS gauges be "reprogramed", with FS Panel Studio (for>example), to apply a 1.0 scalar to the flow modelled in FS?No, you'd have to reverse-engineer the gauges, which are part of a giant multi-gauge. Not worth the time even if you know what you're doing.>Probably not as you would have done something like that to fix>this FF issue. What if I copied working fuel flow gauges, from>another panel, and replaced the faulty CS ones...You can, but only by placing an overlay over the main panel...basically a 1024 x 768 pure black background with the fuel gauges placed so they cover the originals. You can't put them in the original main panel window because they'll flash like a cheap arcade sign with the CS gauges working behind them. CS uses a few giant multi-gauges rather than individual gauges, so it's not as easy as just swapping out the CS version for something that actually works right. It's CS, after all, so massive a$$ pain is needed to make the simplest fixes.Break out the Preparation-H, roll up your sleeves, and go forth and conquer!RegardsBob ScottATP IMEL Gulfstream II-III-IV-VSantiago de Chile

LOL! "About 2900 PPH for a 250,000 lb acft at M0.78 and 0 deg temp dev." HMmm, so about halfway between what is reported to FS and what is shown on the FF gauges. "(0.74 + 1.45)/2 = 1.095" . What a bunch of cr..."stuff"! I begin to see the pure futility you alluded to...for someone much less skilled in panel work, such as me! I do believe I will set my FF Scalar to your recommended number (or around there for the other models) and simply ignore the FF gauges. I will then search for fuel flow figures from the web, and incorporate them into the FF scalar for a more accurate fuel burn from the tanks, for the various models. I will ignore the FF gauges and push large, rusty nails into my CS voodoo doll...all the while chanting ancient druidic curses on them. And to think we thought they might be dead. Unfortunately, the message that would have sent to SOME developers, is not going to happen. I wish I had compared the CS 727 with the DF 727 BEFORE I ever bought the CS 707. That would have warned me...right off...about the CS products. No, then I would not now have an accurate Boeing 707 in my hangar if I had done so. Wait a minute...how is that different from what I have now??!!?? LOLOLOLOL!! Thanks for all the help Bob...and happy flying! Vic

Historic Jetliners Groupwww.simviation.com/hjg/B707 - many version - all free.

I've tried the HJG versions (707 & DC8) and I was disappointed in the panels, for the most part. I found them impossible to read with very blurry textures? Don't know how they fly as the panel was a "non-starter" for me.