Jump to content

Barfly

Members
  • Content Count

    84
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Neutral

Flight Sim Profile

  • Commercial Member
    No
  • Online Flight Organization Membership
    none
  • Virtual Airlines
    No

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. To add; I just checked this against the P3D A2A SpitII - which exhibits a strong nose down pitch with flap extension (I know, very different mark), but similar lack of drag effect with gear change. The DCS Spit 9 also has a strong nose-down pitch with flap extension. The IL2 BOX Spit 9 has a brief, short nose pitch down with flap extension, then it pitches up. http://www.warbirdalley.com/articles/spitfire-flight-report.htm If you read the above RL flight test report, apparently a Mk9 or 16 should pitch down with flap extension - so I dont know which is correct, lol.
  2. It's exhibiting the correct pitch change with flap movement - strong pitch up when flaps moved to down; the RAF handbook above specifies 'Strongly nose DOWN' trim... which is exactly what's required to counteract the pitch up moment and center of pressure change associated with moving the flaps down. I tested this several times at ~120 mph IAS steady state level flight, trimmed up, with the same result. The undercarriage however does not seem to have any appreciable drag or pitch moment associated with moving it up or down.... at various points in the 120-160 mph range. The aircraft seems to have very reasonable takeoff and landing characteristics, but I haven't compared that to any RL reports. It does handle very well on the ground, for an X-Plane aircraft!
  3. Yeah this thing is really good; tried a few other warbirds in X and wasn't too impressed - this has a 3d model and textures as good as anything, flies very nice and has decent systems depth.
  4. Agree completely Phantoms thanks for posting that. The FSW team is really showing their true colors here... passionate sim and aviation fans just like us, giving away some of their effort for nothing. It's sad, that for whatever reasons, they couldn't follow through on their vision of improving more core aspects of the sim. In my case I do appreciate the effort; I don't think anyone will attempt this in the future. Ditto on the JustFlight Arrow, it's exceptional. And if you like warbirds, IMO the BlueskyFS P-40 for FSW is definitely worth owning, and on sale. It's a very polished effort, top to bottom, and is a great example of some of the improvements made to the core sim - the PBR makes the hi res textures look very real, and FDE tweaks make it a believable aircraft - moreso than any other WW2 aircraft in an FSX derivative. The ground handling, feel of flight, and landing character are as good as it gets, and I think the team is still working on improvements. The cold and dark/auto checklist is one of my favorite features - as well as the cool prop animation. BlueskyFS may do a version for another sim, but a few of the elements here may not make the translation.
  5. At some point when ambient temperature is high enough, you can't reach full torque for takeoff power - you become engine temp limited, and you set that. If you can't meet calculated, required takeoff torque for runway conditions, CAWI becomes an option. You have to engage it at a low torque power setting, as you will get an immediate jump in torque and drop in temp, and then you push it up to takeoff power. It's a pretty consistent change when you engage it, I don't remember exact parameters. It would be cool if a current Metro guy could send you a vid of the gauges when this happens. Someone correct my memory, on typical usage I think I got 20% additional torque and 200 C decrease in temp - but that's variable with ambient conditions.
  6. No problem rtexpress, if you use the forward cg parameter I mentioned in the above post, you can probably return the original .cfg trim setting and get a good effect.
  7. Good points rtexpress, I agree completely with your assessment of trim character and pitch control. An obvious and relatively easy trim and pitch stability fix is to go into the .cfg file and shift the longitudinal cg number forward - that will do two things: reduce the pitch trim rate per unit of input, making pitch trim much easier to manage, and also give you a normal pitch change when the aircraft if accelerating or decelerating away from it's trimmed airspeed. Aircraft pitch behavior will become much more 'normal', including stalls. You will lose the tendency of the nose to go in the opposite direction you expect as you slow down.... Keep in mind that if you change cg parameters, it will upset other areas of the FM - which appear to be very finely tuned by the developer, so what I am suggesting is more or less a test of a specific parameter that is off, and this is one way to adjust it - go to the .cfg and find this entry block: [weight_and_balance] max_gross_weight =9350.0 empty_weight =6590.00 // P-40F(feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical distance from specified datum reference_datum_position = 0.000, 0.000, 0.000 // (feet) distance from FlightSim Reference position: (1/4 chord, centerline, waterline) empty_weight_CG_position = 0.700, -0.000, -0.000 // P-40F(feet) longitudinal, lateral, vertical distance from specified datum The original empty weight CG longitudinal number was -0.000 - I changed it to 0.700 (did a little flight test trial and error to get this rough number), saved the file, loaded up the P40 and did a flight test. This essentially moves the CG forward, further away from the calculated center of lift, and improves pitch character to something you will recognize. It's much more realistic IMO, but it's for guys who've flown this P40 to say if it's more or less in the ballpark. I really think the dev did a fantastic job all around, including the FM overall, this is more or less a test and a suggestion to fix an obvious pitch stability and trim issue. (edit: the only other change I made was to reduce brake sensitivity to 1.00 from the developer's 1.34 - due to increased nose over tendency with the more forward cg - 1.00 was just a rough guess but it works well in the sim)
  8. State of the art cockpit textures, as good as it gets, perfect geometry, and the PBR is icing on the cake! Great work by Gibbage and the team. Lot's of detail in a very professional product. Maybe I'll add some shots of details if I have time.
  9. After some more flying, you have a good point on stability - pitch tends to be neutral at cruise with a little negative stability as the aircraft slows - so the nose pitches slightly up before a stall, and it doesn't drop with a stall break - like the cg is aft.
  10. It's definitely hands on; very sensitive and reacts IMO realistically with fingertip flying once it's trimmed up. I have a T16000 joystick which is extremely precise, and it works well with that. The only thing missing for me control-wise is a simulated trim wheel set with both rotary dials, like the real thing. I haven't done any aero with it yet, but it feels like DCS warbird quality level of responsiveness. Visually it's really impressive - my only negative is lack of functioning ADF dials. Clock-to-map-to-ground works, but I'd rather navigate by NDB, lol.
  11. The Blue Sky FS P40 is also released, and it's really excellent! Exceptional all around - spectacular textures, ground and flight handling, and sounds. Cold and Dark gets you right in there..... it's discounted I think for the next week, 27.99 USD.
  12. So far I've enjoyed the sim for about 14hrs, with most of the missions completed, and guiding my budding sim-pilot girlfriend through some the the training. I like the slick interface, the aircraft detail, and flight environment. More so than the other FSX derived sims, which have become a tweak fest for me, and not about flying. I hope they continue to develop the core sim and missions, whether FSW created or 3rd party, it's a fun and challenging way to spend limited flight sim time.
  13. https://docs.google.com/a/railsimdev.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeligzL88mbyU8oslvyNsexeuRuqNe2fBNNMY34G72rF6ITqA/viewform
  14. (can't edit) I agree with everything Bert posted, just trying to clarify that missing features are notable but not 'bugs' per se.
  15. The STEC is obviously not feature complete - I wouldn't necessarily call that a set of bugs. With so many developments still a work in progress and not included in the sim, it could be that more time will be spent on this or a third party solution will be added by them in the future, like the accusim coding. Rudder trim working backwards, that is a bug :) It would be nice to have, in addition to the 'bug' list google doc that has been posted elsewhere, to have an orderly features list, and maybe feedback on features aside from general buggery.
×
×
  • Create New...