CTD upon touchdown

[r_stopnicki 92]

1 hour ago, Bentree_ said:

 

So...fuel load is not affecting the aircraft anymore, and i think by your changes to the ground model, we lost the fact that fuel load will affect the aircraft now?

Hi Ben:

There actually is (at least in my sim) a slight change in attitude, very subtle, when you change the fuel load from 50% to 100%.

Roberto

[Adamski_NZ 948]

8 minutes ago, r_stopnicki said:

There actually is (at least in my sim) a slight change in attitude, very subtle, when you change the fuel load from 50% to 100%.

Not on my system - with Test 04 in place. Even going from empty to 100%, there's no change at all in VC or external view.

Adam.

[cbpowell 14]

I've spent some time investigating the fuel weight issue and I've discovered something interesting. When I first load the plane, changing values in our Fuel And Load Manager screen does have the correct effect on A:TOTAL WEIGHT. This variable, A:TOTAL WEIGHT, is a read-only variable that the sim uses as a summation of all weights (cargo, airframe, fuel, etc.).  And reflecting this, the struts sag and extend as I change fuel loading. Good so far.

However, at some point of fiddling with it (many clicks), the sim simply stops updating A:TOTAL WEIGHT correctly. So the plane has the fuel, the engines are running, but the weight is not adding in...and the visual sag stops working.

I gotta tell you, I think this is a sim bug and not us. We're setting the tank weights correctly, but the sim is glitching. Reloading the aircraft seems to get everything squared away.

As to the effect on ground model : the one piece I removed was our custom deceleration logic, which means we've fallen back to the sim's ground friction / rolling resistance instead of our own. "Breakfree" was modified a wee bit, but turns off when leaving the idle-taxi range anyhow. What I mean is, aerial performance is unaffected by these alterations.

Regards,
Chris

[Captthud 0]

did 2 flights today with 100% fuel, 75% PAX and cargo, and the TEST 4 DLL's

1. flight from KFAR back to KFAR via MSP VOR couldn't get the autopilot to work.....I guess the turn wheel needs to be centered DOH!!!.....go figure, so I hand flew it and landed AT KMIC a smaller airport just a short distance from KMSP sin ran like a champ

2. flight from KFAR to KFAR via the MSP VOR this time.....after reading the manual a little.....I had the autopilot working and the flight went off without a hitch

All ORBX airports from the freeware collection, none of the payware airports are ready for V4 yet so I have none of mine installed.....I can;t wait to fly this puppy from LOWI to ESSA.....

This may or may not be retaliated

I did some fuel calculations on this one and found some real discrepancies I was cruising at 17000 and set up the power according to the manual for 1100 torque meter horsepower, 2070 RPM, and 150 BMEP which should give a fuel flow of around 543 PPH, the gauges read about 625 PPH, and after doing the math it was really 827 PPH, also. when I was setting up for my approach as I lowered the flaps from 20 to 30 the fuel flow gauges had an increase of around 25 or 30 PPH without changing the power setting.....gremlins maybe.....

Both flights went very smoothly, this aircraft is a real joy to fly

Rick

 

[Meeko 17]

Two complete flights each in test 03 (a and b) and also two in test 04.  No CTD on taxiing or touchdown. 

W10, P3D V4, fuel 50%, 10 pax and 200lbs freight.  The AFE did all the hard work.

A great aircraft.

 

Bruce Ross

[Bentree_ 9]

7 hours ago, cbpowell said:

However, at some point of fiddling with it (many clicks), the sim simply stops updating A:TOTAL WEIGHT correctly. So the plane has the fuel, the engines are running, but the weight is not adding in...and the visual sag stops working.

I gotta tell you, I think this is a sim bug and not us. We're setting the tank weights correctly, but the sim is glitching. Reloading the aircraft seems to get everything squared away

Regards,
Chris

It can be that the issue is caused by changing values to the fuel load to much. Until now, i only flew with 50% of fuel and during my last test i changed fuel here and there and switched aircraft and situations.

Interesting.... when i have the time later on today, i will load one situation, set the fuel to 100% and fly a round.

Keep you informed.

Ben

[kityatyi 78]

There is still one thing I don't understand. It looks like the ground physics or the code behind it has to do with the crashes. But how is that possible that only a few of us experience it and not every single DC-6 pilot?

[Adamski_NZ 948]

37 minutes ago, kityatyi said:

There is still one thing I don't understand. It looks like the ground physics or the code behind it has to do with the crashes. But how is that possible that only a few of us experience it and not every single DC-6 pilot?

My guess is that it could be to do with:

1) Fuel/weight loading - which affects friction.

2) The mesh of the airport or even the mesh resolution settings.

Adam.

[kityatyi 78]

4 minutes ago, Adamski_NZ said:

My guess is that it could be to do with:

1) Fuel/weight loading - which affects friction.

2) The mesh of the airport or even the mesh resolution settings.

Adam.

Makes sense. I experienced crashes on a select few airports only and wherever I experienced crashes once I crashed almost every tine and I could reproduce crashes.

[Bentree_ 9]

Let us not guess to much.... i had my CTD's with the DC6 in EHAM Schiphol Airport, thats just below sealevel.

[Adamski_NZ 948]

18 minutes ago, Bentree_ said:

Let us not guess to much.... i had my CTD's with the DC6 in EHAM Schiphol Airport, thats just below sealevel.

It's not the actual ASL level that's the problem - it's possible elevation discrepancies within the airport ADX file(s). Sometimes adjacent tiles have a *slightly* different elevation: not enough to notice, but possibly enough to trip up some code that relies on finding/using the surface of a particular tile. How the sim smooths out these anomalies depends on the resolution mesh setting.

Adam.

[Bentree_ 9]

o.k., i see

Kind regards,

Ben

[Captthud 0]

1 hour ago, Adamski_NZ said:

It's not the actual ASL level that's the problem - it's possible elevation discrepancies within the airport ADX file(s). Sometimes adjacent tiles have a *slightly* different elevation: not enough to notice, but possibly enough to trip up some code that relies on finding/using the surface of a particular tile. How the sim smooths out these anomalies depends on the resolution mesh setting.

Adam.

ORBX KTVL has a problem of this nature where some aircraft will crash when you get to close to the runway edge. It did not create a CTD your plane would just crash.....the green bar

This may or not apply but it's possible

There's a number of posts in their forum about it.....search for KTVL.....

Rick

[gypsyczar 20]

Test  4 results:

TGPY-TFFR

6000 lbs fuel, TOW 80,000

Rough runways on both ends  Used AFE for the entire flight.  No CTD's

Is rough runway the result of DLL changes?

P3DV4, Full ORBX Global, Chaseplane, ENVTEX GSX AS4, PTA

[metzgergva 28]

16 hours ago, Captthud said:

I did some fuel calculations on this one and found some real discrepancies I was cruising at 17000 and set up the power according to the manual for 1100 torque meter horsepower, 2070 RPM, and 150 BMEP which should give a fuel flow of around 543 PPH, the gauges read about 625 PPH, and after doing the math it was really 827 PPH, also. when I was setting up for my approach as I lowered the flaps from 20 to 30 the fuel flow gauges had an increase of around 25 or 30 PPH without changing the power setting.....gremlins maybe.....

Both flights went very smoothly, this aircraft is a real joy to fly

Rick

 

Hello Rick, 

I just flew her up to 17000 ft and get the following.

Your engine settings are correct 1100 TQ, 2070 RPM, 150 BMP and 543 PPH. I have used those setting with supercharger on and auto-rich. This is a screenshot from the engine section including the internal date read from the sim via AFSD.

I'm seeing due to resolution of the axis in P3Dv3

1101 TQ, 2062 RPM, 151 BMP and 558 PPH. The later is with 3% of target.

 Sorry, but all is perfectly okay!