Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

rcbarend

2667kt Groundspeed limit ??

Recommended Posts

Hi SimmersWHY is there STILL this 2667kt Groundspeed limit imposed in FSX!??I recall, when editing .air & .cfg files in FS2002 this absolute speed limit.I skipped FS2004 & when straight to FSX, & to see the SAME limitation TWO versions later is rather a shame. Especially as they've openned up the altitude limit! So whilst you can now simulate the 'altitide' of an X-15 for example, you still can't simulate it's speed properly!Come on MS pull yer finger out please!That being said, IS it a brick wall, or have people discovered how to get around it in FSX?Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

HiThanks for the reply.Absolutely not. I performed extensive research into this in FS2002 & even had a custom gauge especially made for me by "Rob Barendregt" (The excellent authoer of the Pushback & TaxiSpeed gauges), that could hold an aircraft at a given Groundspeed whilst flying, irespective of the altitude, wind direction, speed or temperature.The fastest Indicated Mach i achieved was M 5.18 !! - However this was with a 100kt+ head wind & the OAT forced to lower than -70c !!! The ground speed staying at 2667kts(And Yes i had some really bent out of shape .air files & cfg files to make the aircraft 'slippery' enough to do this at 78K feet!)What happens is that an aircraft accelerates towards the absolute groundspeed of 2667kts (forget airspeed or wind, as it is irrelevant).When 2667 KTS groundspeed is reached the plane just suddenly stops accelerating. It appears to be a hard coded limit within the sim.Seems odd too, as it's not quite 1 mile per sec, but in fact approx One mile per 1.15 secs.However, as i said above, it is a shame that this was around in FS2002 (6-7 years ago) & two sims later in FSX the SAME limit is still imposed ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there :-)Although personally I don't feel this is a "shame" (after all, FS isn't a Space Simulator), your observation about the 2667 Knots groundspeed limit in FSX IS correct.I can only imagine it has something to do with internal arithmatic i.r.w. used units, since I can't think of any other reason why.Even with my "VTOL" way of commanding aircraft with gauge-calculated altitude, speed, bank/pitch, etc ... it's not possible.I can make an aircraft fly stable at e.g. 3 million feet alt, with any pitch attitude and Vertical speed, but NOT make it fly faster than 2667 Knots groundspeed :-)Cheers, Rob Barendregt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rob,Good to hear from you!! - I meant to ask about the gauge you created a few years ago, despite if being XML, it doesn't seem to be compatible with FSX?Whilst of course this is not a 'space' sim. 3 million ft IS Space.The X-15 for example is a rocket propelled Aircraft that can briefly reach 300k+ feet, & do so at speeds well in excess of Mach 6!It IS a shame that all the parameters of it's flight envelope can't be simulated properly in FSX, due to limitations that have been around since at least FS2002 & possibly earlier. Is it that MS don't seem to, or want to, or capable of removing the limitation, if indeed it's been looked at all? - It might be that it has simply been 'overlooked' by them?Hi Scoob.Many thanks for the suggestion, but i have been using Orbiter since early 2001, (when it was quite basic), I've even met & had a beer with Martin Schweiger. If i wanted to simulate a detailed mission to Neptune over 8 - 10 years, incorporating multiple slingshots & fly-bys.. I Use Orbiter.Cheers AllAl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Al,>Hi Rob,>Good to hear from you!! - I meant to ask about the gauge you>created a few years ago, despite if being XML, it doesn't seem>to be compatible with FSX?>I can't remember (such a long time ago).If you EMail me the gauge (still same Email address) I'll have a look.>Is it that MS don't seem to, or want to, or capable of>removing the limitation, if indeed it's been looked at all? >- It might be that it has simply been 'overlooked' by them?>Yes, I guess so.. Probably because hardly anyone is even aware of that limitation, let alone asked for a removal of it :-)Cheers, Rob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites