Udated Falcon 50

[Guest CWD]

>"a good looking but non clickable VC" >>"Anyone know if there is something I can do to get rid of the>error message relating to FSSound.dll?">>>Guys this can't be an update with the same issues/errors you>would get with the FS2k2 download here on Avsim. Any update>for FSk24 would have resolved these basic 2k2 incompatibility>issues. The topic starter must be playing some kind of joke on>us... :-roll Merely misled, I think, same as the people who started similar threads on other forums.

[Guest TELCO1]

>Guys this can't be an update with the same issues/errors you>would get with the FS2k2 download here on Avsim. Any update>for FSk24 would have resolved these basic 2k2 incompatibility>issues. The topic starter must be playing some kind of joke on>us... :-roll I tend to agree. This is an FS2002 aircraft in my opinion. I just completed a test flight because I added my RXPGNS 530 and Sandel gauges. It flies well, but I noticed a couple of things right off the bat;1) Weight and balance shows way off when your fueling, although the plane flies fine.2) Autopilot operations is definitely vintage 2002.3) I couldn't get this aircraft to go faster than M.66 at FL310.4) VC cockpit lighting was too dark for me.Overall, the look and feel is pretty good, but it needs some tweeking.Lawrie

[Earl_Buice 0]

Hey guys,I downloaded the manual. It is only 4 pages. It is in French. I translated it using Bable Fish. You have to use a little imagination still but you can get the gist of it. It does say it is upgraded for FS9 and provides a list of updates. (see second paragraph below)I hope this helps,EarlOnce the finished installation you must publish manually your file fs9.cfg. This file is located in the file "C:Documents and Settings[nom_utilisateur]Application DataMicrosoftFS9 " or [ nom_utilisator ] your name of user represents. CAUTION: This file has the "Hidden" attribute and you will have to thus be able to reach it to activate the option "To post the files and files hidden" since the options of the files of the Windows explorer for example. Add the following section to your file: [ OLDMODULES ] FSSound.dll=1 CONTAINED OF the UPDATE This update for Microsoft Flight Simulator 9 proposes a certain number of modifications and improvements compared to the patch

[Guest Cindy_Zoonan]

The 3-d model developed for fs2002 doesn't display so well when used in fs2004. The authors changed the 3-d model so it runs nicely in fs2004. That's an important and valuable update.Many thanks to our friends for this beautiful contribution, thanks so much! It's really really nice and appreciated.

[tanker 15]

Actually this is a very nice freeware business jet - all it needs is bit of a tweak to the power and/or the drag components so that it performs closer to the real aircraft specs. I'll play with it, but I hope someone out there with more skill at tuning the FDE gives it a go.Dale

[Rudi 0]

1) Weight and balance shows way off when your fueling, although the plane flies fine.> nope sorry you are wrong the weight and balance is correct2) Autopilot operations is definitely vintage 2002.> The Falcon 50 is an old design, hence...3) I couldn't get this aircraft to go faster than M.66 at FL310.> you left the gear down. try again this time raise the gear. you'll get it right eventually.4) VC cockpit lighting was too dark for me.> your monitor is not callibrated correctly. turn the contrast control up and color-callibrate, if your monitor supports it.The update is superb. Thanks again to our friends!

[Guest CWD]

>3) I couldn't get this aircraft to go faster than M.66 at>FL310.>> you left the gear down. try again this time raise the gear.> you'll get it right eventually.That was most uncalled for.

[tanker 15]

Rudi,Regarding3) I couldn't get this aircraft to go faster than M.66 at FL310.> you left the gear down. try again this time raise the gear. you'll get it right eventually.Actually, I couldn't get it above .62 mach at 27,000 ft with 100% throttles and a 50% fuel load. Yes, the gear and flaps were up and the speedbrakes were not deployed. There's definitely something wrong with the thrust and/or drag. It seems like this should be a fairly simple tweak, although my first attempts have not been successful (changed thrust from 1.0 to 1.2 in .cfg, but no apparent change)Dale

[Guest slatsonly]

>Rudi,>>Regarding>3) I couldn't get this aircraft to go faster than M.66 at>FL310.>> you left the gear down. try again this time raise the gear.>you'll get it right eventually.>>Actually, I couldn't get it above .62 mach at 27,000 ft with>100% throttles and a 50% fuel load. Yes, the gear and flaps>were up and the speedbrakes were not deployed. There's>definitely something wrong with the thrust and/or drag. It>seems like this should be a fairly simple tweak, although my>first attempts have not been successful (changed thrust from>1.0 to 1.2 in .cfg, but no apparent change)>>DaleDale,I found that I couldn't get much speed either so I looked at my non-updated Falcon 50 aircraft.cfg file to see if I could find any discrepancies with this new updated aircraft.cfg file.Sure enough, under tubine engine the "TurbineEngineData"section there was one main difference.The inlet area setting on the update was listed as 4.4000 on the newer version but 1.4000 on the older version. So--I backed up my original aircraft.cfg file and changed the 4.4000 to 1.4000 and now the Falcon 50 flies like it should. Accelerates right on out like it should to 250 knots down below 10000 and will slowly accelerate up to .75 mach --.80 mach at cruise altitudes (FL 290-FL390 or so).Here's the aircraft.cfg that came with it: [TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain =0.0025inlet_area =4.4000rated_N2_rpm =29920static_thrust =3500afterburner_available =0reverser_available =1Here's the one that came with the older version and the one that works more accurately:[TurbineEngineData]fuel_flow_gain =0.0025inlet_area =1.4000rated_N2_rpm =29920static_thrust =3500afterburner_available =0reverser_available =1It seems to have fixed it for me--hope it will for you.Aircraft.cfg file found on my computer in C:Program FilesMicrosoft GamesFlight SimulatorAircraftFalcon50I like the update overall--just with I could close the main bus tie in the overhead panel and I wish I could turn on the #2 Battery. Still can't do that in FS2004. These worked in FS2002. Actually--I'm just glad this wonderful freeware aircraft is still alive at all.It's a favorite of mine.Slatsonly

[tanker 15]

OK, here's a way to get the Falcon 50 performance a little closer to reality:Go to the aircraft.cfg fileunder {TurbineEngineData},change static_thrust=3500tostatic_thrust=4500Save the file.This makes the aircraft climb faster than it should at lower altitudes (although not by much) but will allow it to cruise at .72 mach at 27000 ft at 98% rpm, somewhat less than the real a/c, but a reasonable compromise.I looked at the .air file, and it appears to use FS2000 charts and tables. The way to get it right is to change the drag vs mach tables, but I don't know how to do that without messing up the rest of the FDE.Dale

[Guest Cindy_Zoonan]

You have to fly higher to go faster. Try flying at FL 410 and see what you get.And, of course, raise the gear.

[tanker 15]

Slatsonly,Thanks for the tip, your solution looks better than the one I just posted, so will give it a try.Dale

[robert young 2,897]

Hello good people.I did the original airfile for the Falcon 50. As far as I know the engine performance and thrust/speeds should work reasonably well in FS2004 with the original FS2002 settings. I don't know why the inlet area has been changed, but that's not a great move as this value in FS is crucial for setting the comparitive thrust between low and high altitudes, and it rarely follows real-world settings.The Inlet area almost never reflects real world values with much success in FS and I recall setting it around 1.4 or 1.5. If it is now set higher than this you'll have trouble cruising at high altitude unless you want to go very slowly!I would NOT recommend changing any other engine setting except inlet area back to the original value. It took a lot of tweaking to get the standard 250-260 knots climb right up to cruise altitude and then a reasonably healthy cruise speed. Changing the thrust settings elsewhere is not going to solve anything.What FS2004 does tend to do compared with FS2002 is alter the pitch reaction time with elevator and the amount of elevator authority. Everything else should be more or less the same as it was.I haven't seen the new version myself, but in answer to the above post about weight and balance, FS2004 shows a notional C of G point in the fuel/payload menu. Such a thing was not available in Fs2002 and so may look a bit wonky in FS2004. However this rarely, if ever, affects the behaviour of the aircraft and is merely referenced by the (again) notional longitude position of the wing along the fuselage. So both posters were right, and wrong, all at the same time!Hope this helps.Kind Regards,Rob Young

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!MR. Young:I have your Decathlon/Explorer for FLY II, fantastic! And thanx not only for your work on the Falcon but the RAS_172.zip, Flyhawk update, and *everything* else. My specs keep me away fron most payware nowadays, but the older stuff usually does better.Best Regards, Donny:-wave :-beerchug

[Dillon 2,208]

Hey Rob maybe you can contact the guys that did this update so they can fix a few things. 1. First off the Virtual pilots shouldn't be tied to the panel lights especially since they chose all dome lighting instead of textures for the cabin... In the day time you really don't need the dome light on. If you turn the panel lights off the pilots disappear. 2. They need to bring back the original cabin lighting. They took away all night lighting in the VC in place of generic dome lighting. At night the gauges have no back lighting like they had in the original version. The dome lights are badly placed and bleed through to the outside of the aircraft.3. Wing surfaces no longer move from within the Virtual Cabin.4. The passenger door no longer has the cover that hid it when retracted for flight... I don't know why they would touch the original night lighting, it was perfect. There are a few nice eye candy features but overall the original version was far better (especially at night). The new version has the ability to use taxi lights independent of the landing lights but that's about it as far as night improvments go. My vote is if your going to improve or update a package for FS9, enhance what's already there not take things away. The Falcon was already successfully brought over to FS2k4, it deserved much more than this. I'll say it again, the original version in FS9 is far better all around than this one... Seeing these guys speak only Spanish I highly doubt I'll be able to contact them and request some original features be brought back... :-roll