FSL Concorde - Core usage confusion

[MachTwo 386]

Ray - we were hitting our decel targets within 3nm during testing, consistently. Perhaps you could record a video of your descent procedure, so we might see if there are any discrepancies. 

I've explained that the CIVA-AC INS units were quite different and take into account the next leg properties when calculating the next leg switching point. This logic is clearly illustrated on the ITVV DVD as they turn towards 67W. 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

27 minutes ago, MachTwo said:

Ray - we were hitting our decel targets within 3nm during testing, consistently.

Hi Andrew. What routes were those on? EGLL-KJFK only or many others as I would expect in testing? I just don’t have the time or inclination to fly the pond these days. I fly in real time so 3h 20m plus at least 30m prep and taxi time makes it four hours. And all that just to test the decel / descent phase is not something I would entertain.

Having reached FL570 or thereabouts the route flown is immaterial. I fly EGCC-LPPT and also EGLL-GCLP on a regular basis and the virtual crew always want to slow me down around 30-40nm too early compared to the tables supplied. Incidentally, Fraser said he would check if those were correct but nothing has been posted on the forum. I’m assuming they’re correct.

I wouldn’t know how to create a video but I will supply you with a plan for my shortest route later today together with my calculated decel point and the one FSL determines.

33 minutes ago, MachTwo said:

I've explained that the CIVA-AC INS units were quite different and take into account the next leg properties when calculating the next leg switching point. This logic is clearly illustrated on the ITVV DVD as they turn towards 67W. 

Having not flown that route I can’t comment. But I’ve had a PM from someone who does know trig and he agrees with me that the Mach 2 turns are initiated too soon. He will be posting this on the forum after he’s completed more test flights. Have you changed that code from the Concorde-X version?

I keep being told not to compare anything to the old Concorde-X but this turn problem was never an issue then.

Finally, CPS-X calculated the amount of ballast fuel required in tank 9 for landing. I cannot see anything in the generated docs for that. I have to add additional fuel manually to ensure CG is 53 for better landings. Otherwise the CG is quite close to the rear stop which doesn’t seem right.

[MachTwo 386]

Hi Ray, 

Yes there have been a lot of changes to the INS since Concorde-X. The previous system could not fly the London-Bahrain supersonic sector through the Mediterranean Sea properly. We sourced the correct turning points and tuned the turning algorithms based on those.

You can use Bandicam (free version) to record videos from P3D. That's what I use. If you do manage to record a video, start a thread on our support forum and we can discuss further.

The ballast fuel for tank 9 on landing should be presented as part of the landing calculation results through the HP200LX.  

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

1 hour ago, MachTwo said:

Yes there have been a lot of changes to the INS since Concorde-X. The previous system could not fly the London-Bahrain supersonic sector through the Mediterranean Sea properly. We sourced the correct turning points and tuned the turning algorithms based on those.

But whilst the code changes might suit that unique route it appears flawed for more conventional ones. Those turns on the Bahrain route were excessive. I’m talking about a 32° turn being initiated 42nm from the active waypoint when controlling the turn manually at 15nm resulted in both my current and next waypoints being credited by Aivlasoft EFB.

1 hour ago, MachTwo said:

You can use Bandicam (free version) to record videos from P3D. That's what I use. If you do manage to record a video, start a thread on our support forum and we can discuss further.

Checking the T&C here it only allows for 10 mins for the freeware one. I’ll see how things go.

1 hour ago, MachTwo said:

The ballast fuel for tank 9 on landing should be presented as part of the landing calculation results through the HP200LX

I’ll check that, thanks. But given fuel had to be transferred from 11 it’s probable that by the time I set the landing speeds tank 11 is empty. I have to use fuel from 2 and 3 which I’m guessing isn’t correct.

[MachTwo 386]

2 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I’ll check that, thanks. But given fuel had to be transferred from 11 it’s probable that by the time I set the landing speeds tank 11 is empty.

Landing performance was calculated, and bugged, before decel. It's part of the deceleration and descent checklist. 

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

2 hours ago, MachTwo said:

Landing performance was calculated, and bugged, before decel. It's part of the deceleration and descent checklist. 

Got it, thanks. I still feel uncomfortable with the CG bug being around 53.3 when the rear bug is close to 54. So I pumped a little more fuel from 2/3 into 9 to get it to 52.9.

I've just completed EGLL-LPPT and your decel point was within 15nm of my calculated one. With no subsonic levelling off I reached BUSEN at FL100 / 250kts. Perfect.

I'll try the same with the Manchester flight this week. That's been the more troublesome one.

I've installed Bandicam. I'll learn how to use it next.

MORE INFO. I reached Mach 1 41nm from the target rather than 55nm. That helped to get down and slow down by BUSEN.

Edited March 4 by Ray Proudfoot
Additional info

[jcomm 5,984]

25 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

I've just completed EGLL-LPPT and your decel point was within 15nm of my calculated one. With no subsonic levelling off I reached BUSEN at FL100 / 250kts. Perfect.

 Ah! So I was not day dreaming when I told my office mate I had see a Concorde on finals for the 03 🙂

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

22 minutes ago, jcomm said:

 Ah! So I was not day dreaming when I told my office mate I had see a Concorde on finals for the 03 🙂

😁 indeed not but it’s 02 these days.

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

3 hours ago, MachTwo said:

Landing performance was calculated, and bugged, before decel. It's part of the deceleration and descent checklist. 

I noticed tank 9 fuel was set but landing speeds weren’t. I had to set them via the HP200X.

[jcomm 5,984]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

😁 indeed not but it’s 02 these days.

I know 😁 but it's a Time Travell because last time a Concorde landed here I was there and it was still 03 😁

Edited March 4 by jcomm

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

15 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I know 😁 but it's a Time Travell because last time a Concorde landed here I was there and it was still 03 😁

Sadly a long time ago. 😟

[CO2Neutral 278]

On 2/27/2024 at 1:05 PM, SierraDelta said:

Sorry, but I dont agree, here's P3D with very uneven workload distribution:

Sounds like you have your affinity masks setup incorrectly and you're using two different views in your compare and your aircraft is not flying.  With P3D scenery/AG paging/batching those other cores will see activity as you fly thru the world ... your screen shot is from sitting at a gate with nothing other than aircraft and most other scenery being culled.

thread allocation ... searching ... found it ... setting Affinity:

I agree there is no benefit to having more than 8 real cores assigned to P3D, from my observations more than 8 cores will actually reduce performance as it increases main thread overhead (XP, P3D, MSFS all operate from a main thread manager). 

As far as MSFS threading, just repeating what the development team sold as improved for MSFS 2024 ... so there obviously seems to be something to improve in MSFS for threading.

EDIT: not my data but example

Edited March 4 by CO2Neutral

[Coldbear 1]

Hi Ray

I can confirm that the tweak also worked on my machine.

I do too find it strange that Concordes INS does waypoint switching so far in advance. Just landed in Barbados and pretty much every waypoint switched 30-40 miles ahead of the next segment. The VFO just finished doing the paperwork and it would switch shortly thereafter.

Rgds,

Martin Dahlerup

[Ray Proudfoot 9,038]

@Coldbear, Martin, did you notice if the turn to the next waypoint always started 42 miles from the current one irrespective of the heading change required?

If my suspicions are right a 10° turn and a 25° one would both be initiated 42 miles away. That’s illogical.

When I can initiate a 25° turn 10-15 miles from my active waypoint, still pass over it and be on course for the next one that is what I expect the INS to do. Not make the turn so early you miss the current one by over 8 miles!

[Coldbear 1]

@Ray Proudfoot I have noticed that. Not that i have the exact distance from the waypoint before it switches to the next, but what you have is consistant with what I experienced today on the Barbados run.

It's very illogical that degrees of turn is not considered when doing supersonic turns.

I'm also still waiting for supersonic over land, and freeing the VFE off his duties

rgds,

Martin Dahlerup