Sign in to follow this  
Sesquashtoo

Installing FU3 again....

Recommended Posts

I remember having such a blast with this great sim. The add-ons were amazing in animation, etc...I'm going to install it right after I post this message and see if my Pent 4 3.4GHz can run the thing. I left off with it only because my 1.4 GHz Celeron could not ever really handle it.Wish me luck...and I'll probably have questions as to where to find things again. Cheers,Mitch

Share this post


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

Bummer.....the sim limits you to only 1024x768.Well, that was the high end of the day....but not for me..Just deleted it. Will stick to FS9 and XPlane 8.0 :)I enjoyed it in its day...Mitch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the beauty of sticking to monitors of reasonable size. I have a 17" model, and 1024x768 resolution looks fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wellfor me, after more than two years away from FU products, the last month has been really rewarding.I have completely quit using MSFS products. Erased forever from my disks and brain memory!As far as simming goes I have all that I can ask for in CondorSoaring, FlightGear (more and more promissing ... look forward for v0.9.11 !!! watch the description of new features here http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki...es_since_0.9.10 ), PS1 (the best thing if you really want to simulate an heavy... until AS3 finally comes out :-) ) and FU + FU2/3 installed tonight!!!When I started FU3 tonight I was amazed, again as allways, with how closer to reality it feels flying one of it's aircraft, and I haven't even downloaded the many add-on planes available here at AVSIM!!! My problem now will be to sort things out regarding controllers. I have a Saitek x52, and I have replaced my USB Propedals by a Gameport version (because of FU95 !!!), and I'll have to find out a way to program/assign functions to both controllers to work with FU3. I believe even toe brakes can be set (?)...Well, I feel good now, after many years studying the internals of MSFS stuff to come out (allways) with results that are faint compared to an FU3 model simply standing on the gate :-)Ah! And thanks, many thanks, to this community who mantains FU3 alive nd kicking !!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was using FSX since it was available.Spent most of the time tweaking airfiles for personal use and in some cases for commercial products. Helicopters were some of the preferred models :-)I decided to abandon FSX and MSFS for good when I felt I was spending too many time on details no one ever looks for in that game. Flight modelling, closely folloed by systems / engines are the most important aspects of a flight simulator for me.I use ELITE, PS1, ConorSoaring (I am also flying gliders for real again :-) ) and x-plane... and now fu3 again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you say that you were tweaking air files for some commercial products, I assume that you are familiar with the flight modelling in FSX (to a certain extent) ? Presumably you feel that this is still inferior to that in FU3 and X-Plane ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never really understood very weel how things are done in fs2 and fs3, which I believe do quite differ from fu/fu95.I have studied MSFS's airfiles to some extent. As we far as we know there is a lot of interesting stuff in it, but there are also lot's of problems with the way new versions have treated that data. Starting fs2002 there were cuts in some important records. In fs9 most of the tweaking capabilities for helos were gone and only the introduction (with fs9) of the new helo model brought some hope for "new winds". But, as usual with most software produtcs, new problems were introduced...FSX brought nothing new appart from some tweaking of the core Bell206 FM (previously accessible through the airfile and moved totally to the core code after fs2002) and new parameters got their way into the CFG files as well. Acceleration has stepped forward in correcting some problems with the r-22-based helicopter FM too...There is yet another refinement in FSX - the way MOIs are "processed" in the core FM engine, allowing for realistically lower values to be assigned in the airfile or cfg without the models presenting strange bahaviour.All in all apparently things are changing, and indeed they are, but certainly not enough to bring some basic/mandatory IMHO stuff to the sim. I can't accept that there are instruments functioning totally wrong (even among the sacred six - taking the T&Slip instruments as a good example...) I can't accept the the recip engine model is based on wrong interdependencies between the various components, making prop aircraft operations unrealistic - the mixture bug being a well know example, where above 4000' assuming ISA, leaning does initially increase FF !!! etc...On the FM-side things are not better. I was desperately trying to tweak aerobatic aircraft, like the Extra300S to respond realistically to control inputs. It is simply impossible to tweak either the MOIs or the internal stab derivates in order to get even close to the rolloff speeds possible on their real counterparts. Yesterday I installed the Su-31 in fu3 - Whow!!! Not perfect, but certainly a LOT better in as far as roll rates and roll control response and inertia go!On the airliners side, the turbine model is powerful, but it lacks many important features, present for example even in the old AS2!!!Weather is another area where the main focus has been on graphics-sugar rather than in developing an acceptable weather model. FSX brought yet new problems derived from the use of simconnect. Nearby weather stations interfere on weather depiction so badly that the "now you see/now you don't" bug where you instantly transition from CAVOK to overcast got even worse than in fs9! Yes they added wake turbulence, and some sort of aloft turbulence due to terrain, but it's something we have had sin fu2, with much more quality and realism...Talking of fu3, I am now remembering what I didn't like about it, FM-wise... There are a few important aspects, but on prop aircraft torque & slipstream effects are verey poorly modelled. I recalled having tweaked severeal models witha parameter that could be used to increase the propwash effects on a given surface, but I played around with it without ever being able to reproduce realistic prop effects like those we have in real life when taking off on a piper or cessna... There is also a lausy implementation of prop physics in fu3 on CS prop models. You can easily identify the problem by it's effects on the way the aircraft responds to adjustments on PropRPM and MP / Torque. At cruise, adjusting the PropRPM for cruise performance, which would result on an increase in speed because of the "bigger bite" of the blades on the airmass, you get slower!!! I've seen this on "professional" products used for IFR proficiency too, like ASA's On-Top, and fu3 is a game, but "caramba!!!" this should not happen...Well, anyhow, the feel of "being there" was allways brought to me by the FU series like in no other sim.... That's A FACT! Well, uhhh I forgot CondorSoaring, and even SilentWings, both very good too for people who like gliders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JC,Your comments on FU3 prop engines are interesting to me as I'm about 99.5% done with the S6T. I played around with wash effects but ended-up backing them off and now the plane really torques if you're not careful, but handleable none the less. As to accuracy, I don't know (the guys at Stemme haven't installed FU3 yet...) but it feels quite good. I know what you mean about other aircraft though - the Arrow has little 'feel' to the torque, although we don't get the 'seat of the pants' effect like in a real aircraft.As to pitch settings affecting speed/power, there ARE combinations that result in instability however, a small tweak here or there gets rid of it. The auto pitch prop in the S6 (it really IS auto-pitch in real life) responds fairly well with less overshoot than you would probably get for real, yet it 'hunts' at low RPM. I was uncertain about this but after reading the engine manual and getting advice from Stemme, this is normal and operation between 1000RPM and 2000RPM should be avoided!If you'd like to discuss it, I'm always interested in modifying flight models for more realism ;)As to MSFS shortcomings, I won't go there. At all :-lolRegards,Jon Point

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Jon!When will the S6t be available? I look forward for it :-)From what I recall of my airfile editing in fu3, looong ago, since fu3 does not assume a fuselage to be a lift generation body, and because it's FM does not use derivates such as CY_beta (sideforce due to sideslip) or even cn_da, but rather basis it's aerodynamical calculations on wing-type surfaces, I had to use an invisible wing alond the center of the fuselage on one of the models in order to get it flying knife-edge acceptably :-) It worked...One thing I was not able to find out was if fu3 does model all of the prop effects, or at least slipstream, torque and gyroscopic effects - I can well live without p-factor and it's minimal impact...I recall that I could successfuly induce repectable torque effects (torque-induced roll), I also recall that given that it rotates clockwise the p-51 was exhibiting inverse torque effects... but I am not sure if it modelled slipstream.I believe that somehow I arrived to the conclusion that the parameter that associates propwash with a given surface (with a numeric parameter for intensity associated, and whose name I can't recall...) only responds for surface effect due to propwash. If one increases that scalar, the associated surface will be more effective. If it is a moving surface (aileron, rudder, elevator...) then more propwash will result in the surface producing a bigger effect - good to drive taildragers along the taxiway in RL... ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JC,Thanks for the detailed response. I was interested to know if FSX had actually revolutionised various aspects of Microsoft's Flight Simulator, or whether it was simply a case of "more eye candy". I'll let others decide what my conclusions are ;-)You might be aware of the rather "unique" way that I fly planes in FU3. Take the Beechjet as an example (since it's the plane that I fly 95% of the time). My take-off, cruise, and landing speeds are virtually identical, and this is because I fly around in the FU3 world with flaps set to 20 degrees, and a high angle of attack. My initial reason for this was to make the rather limited high resolution scenery areas seem that little bit bigger, since it takes longer for me to fly from one side to the other. However, I also realised that this method of flying would enable me to control the plane almost entirely by using the throttle. There is a certain power level (around 65%) that makes the plane fly roughly level. If I increase the power, the plane climbs. If I decrease the power, it descends. No messing around with trim wheels. Perfect.Now, FU3 simulates this kind of flying perfectly. However, MSFS most certainly does not. I ended up bunny hopping all over the place, or basically belly flopping onto the ground. My question is this....How well do the air files in MSFS handle low speed flight characteristics ? Since "lookup tables" are only as good as the numbers that are input to the system, based on your apparently detailed knowledge of this area of MSFS, can you tell me if this kind of flying is modelled AT ALL ? The reason that I ask is that planes aren't generally flown like this in the real world, since getting from A to B is usually achieved in the shortest possible time (within reason). Therefore, maybe the developer decided that this area of flight dynamics was "not required" ?Like I said, FU3 simulates this area of the flight envelope (presumably close to a stall) very well, and I assume that this has to do with the way that it handles flight modelling. Since the original Flight Unlimited used real physics equations to calculate the aerodynamic forces on the plane wings, I have assumed that FU3 does something similar.Can you enlighten me here ? I'm very interested :-)Chris Low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>You might be aware of the rather "unique" way that I fly>planes in FU3. Take the Beechjet as an example (since it's the>plane that I fly 95% of the time). My take-off, cruise, and>landing speeds are virtually identical, and this is because I>fly around in the FU3 world with flaps set to 20 degrees, andNever thought of it that way, but I'll try it tonight :-) The Beechjet was also one of my preferred fu3 airplanes. I also loved the 744, but I struggled to find a way to add spoilerons to the model - of course I found no way, nor something that might disable the outer ailerons from operating at higher speeds and FLs... But after all, fu3 was not designed with the heavy in mind...One thing unique to FU3 and PS1 **only** as far as I know: proper barber pole in the ASI tape, correctly displaying the "permissible" range as you bank, and showing it "very narrow" at higher FLs !!! What the heck!!! No one ever implemented this on even the widly acclaimed airliner add-ons for MSFS!!!>(around 65%) that makes the plane fly roughly level. If I>increase the power, the plane climbs. If I decrease the power,>it descends. No messing around with trim wheels. Perfect.Makes sense, and it's an area where MSFS models can certainly be designed to do the same job. MSFS basis the lift and associated effects on two tables of the airfile: 404 = CL vs body AoA (body makes the difference ...)473 = CM vs body AoA.Other effects such as drag, both induced and parasite, are calculated based on formulas. Tables are also used for Mach effects, and the "new records" introduced in fs2k2 can be used to model the effects of High AoA. X-Plane goes a step further because the airfoil maker also represents drag as a funtion of the lift surface AoA, and airfoils can have different sections, each with it's own design!Starting in fs2k2, MSFS decided that all of these tables and formulas should apply to the airplane as a whole, and not only to the wings. Parameters such as wing incidence and twist are now dummy (fs9 and fsx allways assumes it to be zero!!! Models from previous versions have to be adapted...)To give you an example, induced drag (which as an associated scalar modifier that you can use in the AIRCRAFT.CFG file of a given model) is calculated according to:Cdi = ((AoA - FuselageAoAatMinimumDrag) * LiftSlope)^2 / (pi * e * AR)FuselageAoAatMinimumDrag is from an airfile record in 1011, LiftSlope is from air file lift curve, AR is aspect ratio, e is oswald efficiency factor, pi=3.141593... [Jerry Beckwith]A similar formula is used for drag.Stability derivates and the "new" records introduced with fs2k2 allow for variations on the normal situation. Effects for near and post-stall conditions are possible to model more or less accurately. Tables 404 and 473 (not only..) can be edited, points added if one has RL data to base the modis on and can find a way to adapt it to tha fact that fs9+ assumes that the whole body of the aircraft including the lift-generating surafaces is to be considered when AoA is used (not only wing AoA)...So, we can tweak the airfiles more or less to make airplanes bahave pretty much like you describe in fu3. As a matter of fact roll-over on sliping or skiding turns, which is gourgeously modeleld in FU/FU95 is very poorly modelled in fu3 (???). A good example (videos taken from a real Extra300) is this:http://www.bruceair.com/videos/videos.htmObserve the folowing videos, to see something that we can model in fs2k2+, but apparently not too well in fu3 (don't know if also on fu2...)http://cid-110aa5b593d58477.skydrive.live....edStallTurn.wmvhttp://cid-110aa5b593d58477.skydrive.live....lipStall_01.wmvetc...On the other hand, things like tail and horizontal stab areas and positions relative to the aircraft reference point are completely useless in MSFS even if included as parameters in the CFG files! Fu3 uses this important data for the FM as far as I recall. Instead, in MSFS you use the stability derivates to reproduce their effects...>How well do the air files in MSFS handle low speed flight>characteristics ? Since "lookup tables" are only as good asI somehow answered already - provided one knows how to edit and feed the tables and stability parameters, MSFS airfiles can indeed do a nice job across the envelope... Post-stall characteristics require unrealistic CoG and other parameters to get close to real - that's partly how some well known authors in the MSFS add-on world do their job - and they certainly do it well... :-)I tweaked the Extra 300 s FM in FSX to be able to perform torque rolls. Tried it in fu3 with the Su-31, but the engine looses RPMs and almost dies :-( http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl-IKWgo21kFor one of the best resources on MSFS internals I leave here a great link:http://perso.orange.fr/hsors/index.htmlHope I have somehow answered your questions :-|

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi jcomm! Nice to see you here too :-) I'm split between FS9 and FU3 and I see no reason to quit using either one. However, FU3 remains to be the sim that I'll never uninstall. I just got my Saitek yoke and throttle set-up by the way. I hope I can configure it for FU3 as well as I did with my previous stick and rudder pedals. Regarding rudder pedals, FU3 works fine with these. The only thing that seems to lack is differential braking. That is, toe brakes work but they don't seem to differentiate between left and right. Since FU3 has a proper ground model it's always a charm to taxi, do a take-off roll and land with interesting wind directions. If you land uncrabbed in FU3 you'll soon learn what that implies. Do it bad and the plane topples. In FS you'll be on castor wheels and slide in every direction. This makes it hard to keep a straight line while taxiing and makes it impossible to learn what landing with a sideslip entails. One thing that FU3 lacks is the need to lean the mixture of piston aircraft as you ascend. The Cessna will climb to any altitude on full rich. That's one major blow to realism. However, for flying low and slow and enjoying the feel of flying a smaller aircraft FU3 is superb. Then there's gliding. FU3 has realistic weather and wind that interacts with the terrain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hans!Just replied to your thread at the other forum ;-)I couldn't agree more with your remarks regarding ground physics in FU2 and FU3. I have never seen it better in any other simulator I have tried, and I believe I have tried each and every one :-). Well there is one remarkable exception - AS2 - but I have long been unable to use that sim, and look forward for AS3, when I migrated to WinXP...When I re-installed fu3 a few days ago I finally recalled the reasons why I liked it so much and also the negative points, one of them being exactly the lean problem...The original FU had no leaning nor prop settings. FU2 brought leaning and prop settings, but these were buggy, and fu3 didn't do anything about it...fu3 and 2 also have lousy implementations of some of the instruments, including the turn coordinator - simply forget about using it to help you coordinate a turn!Prop effects are too faint, and sometimes do not even make sense (like in the p-51 - problem also inherited from fu2...) given direction of the prop rotation.But I love fu's atmosphere. I think that together with some peculiarities of the FM and ground handling, weather physics are another aspect of fu3 still ahead of any other pc-based simulator program, with one remarkable exception - CondorSoaring!I love gliding, and Condor is a must - thermal, ridge, wave, inversion layer..etc effects. I believe Silentwings is also a nice option, but too heavy on my system, and the demo only works for a few days and for a single glider...My other simulators at the moment are ELITE (remarkable in engine, flight dynamics and nav instruments, sufficient in terms of scenery with the Genview databases, with nice weather effects if you do not manually add turbulence..., and very very very poor in terms of ground physics... ... and another very promissing simulator - Flight Gear! It is free, runs in Windows or Linux, the current version 0.9.10 is already very nice, but the upcoming 0.9.11 (already available under CVS if you have the guts to compile it yourself...). When the final Windows or Linux installer becomes available I'll certainly be one of the first to download it :-) There are various FMs that can be used with FG, and many universitary and R&D projects have used it!Look at the upcoming features list here - gliding get's better as well as helicopter physics (already way better than MSFS!!!)http://wiki.flightgear.org/flightgear_wiki...es_since_0.9.10

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