Sign in to follow this  
E

Fun with an AMI (not!)

Recommended Posts

(XML question) I'm stuck again. I can't get an autopeter mach hold bug to work to save my life. I have the autopeter airspeed hold bug working fine, and I can get the results I'm looking for in a string, but I just can't get the mach bug (does that mean I'm slow? *grin?*) in a value, ...help?

Share this post


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

OK give me a little leeway here... Been out having cocktails and a little, well, juiced. If you are trying to make a bug to display on an ASI ( as related to MACH ) this is how I made it work.. Though, there may be a few that disagree that this is not the "proper" way to do it. It seems to work at 99.99% compatibility.Its all ratio/proportioncurrent airspeed / current mach = current IAS speed bug / current MACH bug ( as related to IAS on a ASI )If in SPEED mode leave the ASI bug calculations alone.If in MACH mode tell the ASI that you're in such a mode and then run the above calulation to display the output of the above as "current IAS speed bug" with "current MACH bug" being inputted as the Autopilot MACH input value. Hope it helps AND/OR if you think it may and still have problems I could dig up some code if deemed necessary. Regards,Roman(KGRB)http://home.new.rr.com/spokes2112/images/Image2.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, my real problem is I still can't get my head around RPN.This works....(A:AUTOPILOT AIRSPEED HOLD VAR, knots) (A:AIRSPEED INDICATED, knots) - This doesn't...(A:AUTOPILOT MACH HOLD VAR,machs) (A:AIRSPEED MACH, machs) -

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"mach" not "machs"? Even "number" might do.Arne Bartels

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>"mach" not "machs"? Even "number" might do.>Arne BartelsNo go with either of those variations. ("machs" (plural) works for the actual gauge. But this bug is really bugging me! *grin?*)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm still stuck. Does anyone have a working ap mach bug? Does it work at all in FS9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,May be you are looking for something else, but this is what I use for the Speed - and Mach Bugs:(L:IasMachselect,bool) ! (A:Autopilot airspeed hold var, knots)(L:IasMachselect,bool)(A:AUTOPILOT MACH HOLD VAR,mach)Hope it helps you a little bit,Jan"Beatus Ille Procul Negotiis"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the direction I've been trying to go...This works fine...(A:AUTOPILOT AIRSPEED HOLD VAR, knots) (A:AIRSPEED INDICATED, knots) - But this doesn't work at all...(A:AUTOPILOT MACH HOLD VAR, mach)(A:AIRSPEED MACH, mach) - These are both overlaying vertical tape mach/airspeed indicators.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,That seems to be a slow/fast indicator? I use:(L:ms,enum) 1 == if{ (A:AUTOPILOT MACH HOLD VAR,mach) (A:Airspeed mach, mach) - 500 * } els{ (A:Autopilot airspeed hold var, knots) (A:Airspeed select indicated or true, knots) - } So may be for you it works too:(A:AUTOPILOT MACH HOLD VAR,mach)(A:AIRSPEED MACH, mach) - 500 *(or 1000 *, or another appropiate factor)Jan"Beatus Ille Procul Negotiis"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, actually the airspeed and mach holds run from zero to acft max, on their respective tapes.I am completely at a loss. In a string, the equation gives proper readings, but in a value, I get zero movement of the bug.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am just a beginner with gauges. I can't help but notice that in the other examples the maximum value for the mach number is Maximum="1". Myabe your Maximum=".17" is a little too small for the bug to move?Just my thought. manny3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha! I got her moving now! Thanks to all of you! All of you either got me moving in the right direction, or help my to notice other flaws (*grin*). The fix was in the scale... I had a scale of 4.0 (and had tried it at 200.0 previously), it needed a scale of 1900.00!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this