Oracle427

Good question LHookins. I'm curious about IL2 as well because I didn't know that it was possible to send or read instrument data outside the app in either of these cases. Edit: I just googled it and found out that it is possible in IL2. In any case, I don't think it is possible in Flight. At least no one has posted if it has been done.

I recommend hunting for aerocaches while taking a passenger on a biplane tour. Many times they will help in spotting them with the clues and descriptions they provide about the area. However, they never appreciate the low altitude flying as you swoop down to pick an aerocache up. :sorry:

What airspeed are you talking about (IAS or TAS)? :Thinking: If you compute the TAS, you will find that the Flight P-51 is performing in the ballpark of most commonly published figures. For example, assuming standard conditions, 250 IAS = ~325 TAS at 15,000 feet and ~375 TAS at 25,000 feet.

kcmo, There is no free lunch! :) When you adjust the prop contol to a lower RPM and leave the engine at whatever power setting it is at, the end result is that the prop pitch will increase to get the engine turning at a lower RPM. This does not necessarily translate into more airspeed because the engine is not necessarily producing more power at the lower RPM. Less power = less speed. As mentioned earlier, every engine has an RPM range (however large or small it is) where it will produce maximum power. Being above or below that range will result in less power delivered to the air by the engine via the propeller. In most cases, when reducing RPM it is to avoid prop resonance, increase fuel efficiency and save on engine and propeller wear.

Overall I'm taking approximately a minute to go from clicking on the shortcut to the Flight home page. I have everything but the Zero and Mustang. My HD is a 7200RPM model and it seems that the HD is the "bottleneck" contributing to the startup time as the OP suggested. I ran some tests using Performance Monitor (a great tool that comes with Windows) and examined memory paging (page faults along with reads/writes per sec), processor time (by core as I have 4), hard disk reads/writes per sec and read/write queue lengths + bytes read/write, network reads/writes among a few other counters. I had plenty of free RAM (never dropped below 2GB free) and low page file usage. I could see that there were a lot of hard drive reads and moderate cpu activity during the load. There is a lot of data being read at a steady 50MB/sec for nearly the entire load, in addition the read queue depth was holding steadily at 21 which is a bit high. Network activity is showing a decent amount during the period that the user signs in to Live! I see about 4MB received and 1MB sent. There is a corresponding spike in HD reads and writes during the Live! login period. I can't project how having Alaska installed would affect the startup time as I have no idea what the app is actually doing at startup. :Thinking:

The cockpits are amazing regardless of whatever time or money they took to build! Fred, when you set out on the project, did you plan for it to end up in use as an FTD one day or did that opportunity come about later? Was it hard to part company with the simulator? It's because most people will follow the rule when in person. For some, internet forums magically break down this barrier. It happened among a group of people I know going back to '95. We played a game competitively that was only available at locations with Virtualworld Tesla cockpits. There were some egos in the group, but everyone contributed to improving the level of competition through polite and respectful discussion. Over time the group migrated to internet league play using MW4. As there was no need to be in each other's presence, some of the discussions degraded into personal attacks on the team forums and even over Teamspeak. It was a surprise because everyone had known each other for many years.

Whoops, meant to edit my post, not reply to it

Just on car you didn't know, the screen that you are using to select a runway is also the same screen you use to select jobs to fly.

Surely you jest? The F4F Wildcat handidly defeated the A6M once the Navy developed proper tactics against the Zero. The P-40 is a better performer than the F4F on several counts including top speed and rate of climb. It could at least outrun the A6M2 which is something the F4F had little chance of doing. The P-40 is one of my favorite warbirds, though I'm not really interested in buying it as an add-on for Flight. I'm pretty sure it will be a success because it is instantly recognized by so many people.

So I said I would do it and I have (once I got back from my business and vacation trips). I present to you... MS Flight Stearman Antigravobatics No it's not a not very exciting vid but if you watch the altimeter you'll get the point. :Sick: http://youtu.be/YA30Cd8F-oU

Make sure you fuel up the same paint scheme in the mission as Flight tracks the fuel in each paint scheme.

I can't speak for the Maule but on some aircraft the using an electric fuel pump is not an option. I believe this is the case with many low wings. Being a high wing, I'm guessing that the checklist calls for it to avoid fuel starvation when the engine us running at high power during a critical phase of flight. This may save your butt if the engine driven pump fails.

Yes it is a big pain to sit still for a long time. This is the first change I made to my TrackIR profile. One easy "fix" for those that find TrackIR to be too sensitive. 1) Try a less sensitive profile, some of the provided sample profiles are much less senstive than the default one. 2) Edit your profile to decrease the sensitivity. It is possible to create a profile that will only shift your virtual head position after you have shifted your real head position by a large amount. I currently have TrackIR configured to require more head movement in all axes but pitch and yaw. I have also limited the profile curve to amplify the head movement by a small amount relative to the default profile. It only takes a few minutes to play with the profile editor and drag the curves and watch the head movement to fine tune the behavior. I would recommend making your curves look something like an { rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise.

If you ask people to assume that the devs already know, you're not going to get much feedback. It would be best to create a summary of the reported issues on your first post as suggested. It will help everyone to know what has been reported as they are added to this thread. It will be nice to be able to refer to that in one place.

I just watched your video and that was impressive! What I saw was similar, but when I tried to do it in an RV tonight I couldn't. Now I'm wondering if it was a Stearman that I was in... It took so long to get up to 14K for that dissapointment. I wanted my Anti Grav! I have a business trip in a few hours, so I'll see if I can try it again in the Stearman when I return.

I did it in an RV, but I don't own Fraps. I'll see if I can record it the moment it happens as I only get 30 seconds. Yeah I'm cheap... :)

*rambling alert*This is just speculation on my part, but my guess is that the engine has abstracted the process to performance "tables" to derive lift/drag ratios at various AOA for a given airfoil at various load factors along with dozens of other performance parameters for the rest of the aircraftIt probably starts out that way, and then the smoke and mirrors begins to use this basic "model" to try to model the behaviors of a specific aircraft under "normal" flight parameters. I've never seen published performance data for stalls, spins.I've never played with .air files, but a glance at the structure makes me think this is the way it works, and it works well.I guess it all boils down to the fact that the "normal" range of performance is structured and predictable, whereas stalls and spins are dynamic situations where a constant modeling of the airflow interaction with the airframe and the weight distribution of the aircraft is essential for any approximation of reality.Then again, most of the combat sims out there seem to have a "spin mode" where the aircraft goes into a preprogrammed clockwork spin behavior whenever you stall. I think those work pretty well, though I wouldn't have a clue as to how well they are modeled in any of those old warbirds.

I've never flown in the really sophisticated simulators that are used by airlines or academics. The best I've used is ESP during my training, and of course just about every flight sim available for the home market.All the flight sims suffer when one goes outside the envelope of normal flight. The envelope in the case of some sims does not include slow flight and soft field takeoffs which is a real shame.I have GAINED 1000 feet of altitude in Flight while in a spin after falling for some time. I then fell again, and then climbed and fell. I have also seen this behavior in FSX, X-Plane and many other "realistic simulators". They just aren't designed for this purpose.I do not have a background in aerodynamics or fluid dynamics, but I can imagine that the mathematics for simulating a turbulent flow around the aircraft is quite a bit more complex than one for a laminar flow.

This reminds me of that Kurt Vonnegut quote.“Those who believe in telekinetics, raise my hand.”

I can feel it but it isn't uncomfortable at 1000. you can plan it for 500 :)

Damage modeling does not equate to visuals. That is one aspect of an implementation, but I think what most are looking for is the simulation of the many problems that can arise from operating the aircraft beyond its limits.An engine failure from running too lean is am example of damage modeling.

Assign it to the pedals and unassign it from the joystick. That's what I did and it works well. Of course, no toe brakes work in Flight, so don't change your braking assignments.

For descents I use the 3-6 rule.Distance from airport to begin descent is 3x the height in 1000's that you need to lose.Rate is 6x your groundspeed to the airport. You can verify the GS using a VOR at/near the destination if one is available or best guess, you'll get a feel for it soon enough.So if I'm approaching at 140kts GS at 8500' MSL to a field at 3000' MSL,you would begin a descent at (8.5 - 3) x 3 = 16.5NM away at a rate of 140 x 6 = 840 FPM.

Don't know the real aircraft, never seen the POH, but I wouldn't rule it out. As you climb with a non-turbo/supercharged engine it will have less oxygen to work with so you will be slowly losing manifold pressure. If that engine is designed to operate at those pressures, then do what the checklist says. IIRC the Flight checklist does say to use 25 In Hg or full throttle. I would interpret that to mean that you should not exceed 25 In Hg in cruise. It took me a while to hear the effect on the engine in the "upper range" of the mixture settings, but like I said, it is somewhat subtle at lower altitudes. If you do a run up at 7K MSL and very slowly adjust the mixture, you should hear the engine noise "strengthen" as you lean out to somewhere around halfway in the Maule. There is still a lot of travel left before the engine will die, but between that midpoint and starving the engine it will produce less and less power. If you listen very closely, you should pick up that it becomes a little more quiet. Try doing the run up procedure at airports at different elevations and observe the engine sounds. BTW, the mixture doesn't feel quite right to me either, but I do notice a pronounced effect on the climb rate at a fixed airspeed when leaning at as low as 5K. This is even when I only pull it back to about 60%. The engine sound barely changes, but the increase in the climb rate doesn't lie.

I see it too and it surprises me everytime. I feel like Flight could be trying to simulate sunlight reflecting off a wing into the canopy or a strobe off a cloud, but then it occurs even when the conditions don't seem appropriate.I like the effect, but the parameters for it to occur need some fine tuning.