Guys,

 

I no longer use MSFSX, but have FLIGHT and have reported at least one bug with FLIGHT's piston engine model, namely the fact that, on variable-pitch prop equipped aircraft in FLIGHT, varying Prop RPM has no influence on Manifold Pressure (MP).

 

For a test I get the airplane at level flight, say 4000', cruise settings, MP not firewalled, and then cycle the Prop lever. I don't recall if this bug was inherited from FSX, so, can someone please report here if varying Prop RPM affects MP in FSX default aircraft? It should be:

 

- Reducing Prop RPM increases MP

- Increasing Prop RPM reduces MP

 

PLEASE ONLY DEFAULT MSFSX AIRCRAFT (C182 or the Mooney and Maule will do...), because add-on airplanes sometimes correct those bugs through their own pluggins.

 

Thx in advance for your reports!

To be honest, where Flight is concerned, the lack of something in there is not a bug, it is just the way it is, or as MS might say, 'it's not a bug, it's a feature'. After all, on an intentionally lightweight flying game in which dumbed-down cockpitless WW2 fighter planes flying through hoops in the sky is becoming the norm for where payware is concerned, and more critically, people are actually buying that stuff, then one can hardly expect the nuances of engine combustion and propeller aerodynamic loads to be high on the priority list for the developers of Flight. Bit of a shame really, because it had potential, and in fact still could have if they get their arse in gear with it.

 

Incidentally, there is no default Cessna 182 in FSX, the default 182 was in FS 2004. Anyway, here you go for your request, this is the default FSX Maule Orion at 4,000 feet on about 60-70 percent throttle, prop lever moved to both extremes (I've copied and enlarged the MP gauge on these pics to make it a bit easier to see the reading):

 

 

 

As you can see, there is the requistite effect, not a major change (about one division on the calibration scale, from 1.9 to 2), but it is undoubtedly there.

 

It's probably worth pointing out here that, your test criteria is a bit unfair too, since the same aircraft in Flight is not actually a default one, it is payware; you have to buy the Maule to use it in Flight. This highlights part of the problem really, since if it was wide open to other devs and more tweaking from users, Carenado would have probably had a payware Cessna 172 in there already with all the stuff the thing really has working as it should thanks to user tweaks, and UK2000 would probably have already banged out Heathrow for it.

 

Al

Just my .02 but I cant imagine giving up FSx for Flight

Hello

I would be more worried about Flight!'s ability to climb to high altitude when in a spin than I would about a few degrees on the MP gauge.

 

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/374049-the-world-of-flight-as-seen-from-orbit/

Just my .02 but I cant imagine giving up FSx for Flight

 

I think the Avsim interview with the main Flight dude at MS made it fairly clear that's not the intention with Flight, it is a nice flying game rather than a hardcore rivet-counter affair. Flight is very good at what it does and to be fair it has some great features, but if you are expecting it to be substitute for what FSX can do with the likes of Accusim engine stuff from A2A and all those other funky FS developers, then you'd have grasped the wrong end of the stick.

 

Al

Thank you all for your posts :-) Actually we have met there at the FLIGHT forum ;-)

 

I am disappointed with some aspects of FLIGHT too, but luckily I have ELITE v8.02 with the ESPO Genview Area whenever I feel the need for some by-the-book IFR flying :-)

 

I've been closely following DCS World an their p-51, but it's an incursion in flight combat, and that is something I really do not like. Also, I would be restricted to that particular plane because I have no intention to learn the details of the other available fighters in DCS... I don't know, really....

I can confirm that the default Beech Baron MP does vary with propellor lever/engine rpm.

I can confirm that the default Beech Baron MP does vary with propellor lever/engine rpm.

Thx for the aditional report mgh!!!

I did see MP rises in FSX, though they were usually quite minor. I always worried more about the bouncing around that most aircraft would do if I incrementally reduced or increased RPM :P.

 

It's probably worth pointing out here that, your test criteria is a bit unfair too, since the same aircraft in Flight is not actually a default one, it is payware; you have to buy the Maule to use it in Flight.

 

Probably worth pointing out that by that standard, all 'default' planes in FSX are payware as well. You have to buy FSX to be able to use them (in FSX)..... Comparing a free piece of software + a plane you paid for with a paid piece of software that includes planes does not make the first plane payware and the other one free.

Well, yes, that is a fair point, however, if you divide the approximately 20,000 airports in FSX, the 25 aircraft you got with it in the Deluxe version (19 in the Standard version and up to 28 aircraft if you add Acceleration) plus all the entire Earth's surface, plus ATC, plus AI traffic across that price, then one of those aircraft is a lot less than would be the cost of an add-on aircraft or a small island area for Flight. For example, you can now buy FSX Gold online direct from MS for 29.95 Dollars, so if you divide that up against those 28 default aircraft, even disregarding the 20,000 airports and the AI and the ATC and the entire world being modeled, you still only come out at 1.096 Dollars per aircraft; and all of those have a VC, which is sadly not recently the case with Flight.

 

So yes, those default FSX aircraft are technically payware, but they are payware that cost literally one Dollar each. I don't know what my running total cost is for Flight to date, but I've bought the Vans, the Maule and the Hawaii extra bit, so I'm guessing I'm getting pretty near to that 29 Dollar mark already.

 

Al