Jump to content

Zeuss_1238

Members
  • Content Count

    60
  • Donations

    $0.00 
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zeuss_1238


  1. Also, as it turns out Colimata does have manual fuel management but you have to switch it on which is why my fiddling with the switches was doing nothing! I feel the fuel flow rate is slightly too high though...maybe the dials just update quicker in comparison to the Concorde-X though


  2. On 1/17/2023 at 12:22 PM, Ray Proudfoot said:

    The competition is the FSL version. If the only reason you’re keeping XP is for a far from perfect Concorde cut your loses and wait for the FSL version. The Colimata version has been around for a few years and some things should be working by now.

    Andrew is the main programmer for the FSL Concorde if you weren’t aware. 😉

    Wow! Can't wait for the new Concorde! I'll be the first in line when it comes out. Well, maybe after you 😉


  3. 6 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    Linus, have you queried this behaviour on the Colimata forum? Are there any plans to refine the FE panel so manual control of fuel movement is possible?

    Ultimately it’s your choice which Concorde you feel is the best. I have no doubt which I consider it to be. Nothing stopping you from buying P3D and the forthcoming FSL version.

    Luckily I already have P3D so it will be a quick switch over when something gets released 🙂

    The Colimata team (maybe its one person I am not sure actually) is focused on other details about the aircraft right now I think. With the release of XP12 I am sure the focus is FPS performance and ironing out bugs. The V3 version released has significant improvements. For example Max Climb works now! I am not to sure if this was added earlier than V3 but I remember when learning the aircraft a few years ago we had to manage around climb to cruise using vert speed mode which was a bit sad. Honestly the only reason I keep on X-Plane is for Concorde and maybe the 767 (A340 too maybe) but on XP12 Colimata Concorde is my only add-on at the moment. I love it still but of course I still wait patiently for some competition and an add-on where I can finally apply this knowledge about these systems. I was disappointed to learn this information on this post and then load up Concorde to find many systems are not included and you yourself cannot even shift fuel around the aircraft--just turn on pumps and inlets and such.

    This post from the Colimata forum details what I just said about it being added later. Granted, it's from a few years ago but it still hasn't been added...at least not to the extent we discussed.

    https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/254267-question-about-the-fuel-system/

     

    3 hours ago, MachTwo said:

    @Zeuss_1238,

    I can't speak much for Concorde-X - even though I wrote it, it was so long ago and differs somewhat to our new version currently in development for P3D and MSFS.

    Firstly, fuel was moved laterally pretty much on every flight. The engines all burnt off fuel at slightly different rates - and any lateral discrepancy between the elevons would incur a performance penalty. As the fuel burnt off in the super cruise the CG would move rearward, and so fuel was periodically moved forward out of the rear tank into the wing tanks to maintain a CG of 59%. This operation alone was normally enough to keep things in balance laterally, as the EO would move the fuel out of T11 and into the wing tanks preferentially. 

    If additional lateral transfer was required, the correct procedure was to move the fuel out of the collector tanks, via the jettison valve into the trim manifold (two manifolds, one each side) and through Tank 11 into the opposite wing. The tank interconnection valves used a gravity feed system, so it was much slower. It was only used as a backup.

    The CG was brought forward partially, shortly before the deceleration point to cool the wings, normally in conjunction with the procedure that was followed when coming out of aft trim.

    Very useful information thank you! I am glad there are still plenty of people who understand the systems of Concorde. While there is information online topics like this one are rather scarce; at least from what I looked at. Will the Concorde that is releasing for P3D and MSFS have an in depth fuel management system like that of Concorde-X? I am assuming the answer is yes but I am curious how it differs.

    Thanks for the replies guys I am learning a lot!


  4. 16 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    Instantly? Hmmm. Not ideal but the amount of programming to have all 13 tanks operational makes it understandable. Give it a try. As long as the CG bug remains between the forward and aft limits it should be okay.

    I don’t really know why fuel could be cross fed. Probably to cater for non-standard situations. They thought of everything back then. 😁

    One other point. On the LHR-JFK run the aircraft never reached FL600 with a healthy number of pax. The troposphere just isn’t cold enough that far north. If the Colimata is regularly reaching that altitude then the modelling is off.

    It was reached nearer the tropics as with the Barbados run where the upper air is much colder. Jet engines love cold air. 😉

    Yes this is another unfortunate detail of the Colimata, reaching FL600 is very unlikely. So far with my flights I have reached FL600 easily and the aircraft wants to climb even further. In my opinion, they've had plenty of time to address this but I know it's complex. The tutorials I've used shed this off casually but it is still upsetting that some of the more important aspects of the aircraft are not modeled correctly.

    And yes, fuel transfer is instant. I have yet to really test out the xp12 version but in the xp11 version many suggest you skip trimming for descent as the sudden shift in CG makes the autopilot lose control of the aircraft for a bit. Really not ideal so I hope they've fixed some of these aspects in the xp12 version.

    While I love the Colimata version I simply cannot wait for an extremely high detailed model of the aircraft to be released again. I would love to take a look at some of the inner workings of the code because this kind of modelling and detail is unrivaled especially for an aircraft like this.


  5. 38 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

    Linus, the management of fuel on Concorde is quite complex and I’m only familiar with the procedures on the FS Labs 32-bit Concorde. I have no idea if the Colimata version allows transfer in the same way as the FSL one.

    As Bob says it’s all about keeping the CG within the forward and aft limits. Tanks 9 and 10 were the first to be emptied as fuel was transferred rearwards to 11 until that tank contained 10.5T after which the remainder was moved to tanks 5 and 8.

    No lateral transfer was normally required. Tanks 5,6,7 and 8 are all different capacities but each pair on the left and right contained around the same amount. It’s not possible to transfer directly from one side to the other. It has to go via tank 11. That makes it more complicated but that’s how it worked in the actual aircraft.

    Tanks 5 and 8 would feed 1,2,3 and 4 and when empty 6 and 7 were used. Earlier in the flight 5A and 7A were emptied into 5 and 7.

    Once the decel / descent started the CG would move forward from 59 and that’s where the 10.5T in 11 was pumped forward into 5 and 8 which in turn fed 1,2,3 and 4. A small amount was moved into tank 9 for landing.

    On final approach fuel only remained in 1,2,3 and 4 plus a small amount in 9.

    The YT video you linked to is an excellent guide. He goes into great detail but it is a complicated topic and requires much practice. I only started moving fuel myself after many years of leaving it to the VFE. But managing it is very rewarding.

    The FS Labs 64-bit Concorde is due in the next few months if you want to try what looks like being the best available.

     

    Thank for your response! It unfortunately does not translate at all into the Colimata as trimming of the fuel is done automatically and instantly by the VFE. There is an additional mod for the Colimata that allows for better fuel management but I have yet to try it. I am simply getting prepared for future Concorde releases and just wanting to learn more about the aircraft. Perhaps in the future I can put together my own fuel management system for the Colimata if the mod isn't adequate but for now I am just diving into the deep and complex systems of the plane 🙂

    A few last things, if the transfer between 5 and 8 is not usual under normal circumstances and is much slower than transferring it through tank 11, why does the interconnect valve even exist at all? Just for emergency situations?

    Also, in the video it seems that he has the pumps for 6 and 7 on during this balance but the tanks in 5 and 8 are not emptied yet after the balance? Do you just keep all pumps on? edit: OH, I see now! It all seemed to click just now after watching that section of the video again. He has tank 6 on because tank 5 was almost empty before the balance! Disregard the second question then


  6. Hi,

    Hopefully this is the right forum to post this (hopefully at least someone knows the fuel system of Concorde)

    Last week, I began my journey into learning the extremely complex systems of Concorde. Up until now I have just been learning the basics but yesterday I began studying the intricate fuel management system and the engineering behind it. To strengthen my understanding, I read up on a few documents like the FSLabs Concorde X manual and watched a few videos such as the youtube video from UPS1000 titled "ConcordeX - Master the Fuel Panel".  Some of you might already be familiar with the video (it has around 30k views) but I will link it below with the timestamp I am referring to for context.

    Now, in the FSLabs Concorde X manual (page 140) there is a helpful graphic "Tank Locations & Transfer Guide" where it simply states to transfer from 8 to 5 using the interconnect valve:

    spacer.png

    My confusion comes in when UPS1000 is balancing the fuel during cruise at around 39:52 in the video:

     I understand the concept of moving fuel from the right side of the plane to the left to balance the aircraft but in the video he transfers fuel from tank 8 to tank 5 by moving it in the order:

    8 to 3, 3 to 11, then 11 to 5

    My question is why doesn't he simply use the interconnect valve to transfer from 8 to 5 instead of doing this seemingly complicated sequence? In the documentation of Concorde X is even states that the interconnect valve is to be used to transfer fuel from 8 to 5 (page 147). Additionally, why does he transfer from 8 to 5 instead of tank 8 to 6 and 7 to tank 5? In my mind we should transfer from 8 to 6 and 7 to 5 due to size of the tanks.

    How can I approach this differently? Does anyone have some insight on the Concorde fuel tank management system? Thanks for any help 🙂

    edit: I should note I am not learning using FSLabs Concorde X, rather, the Colimata Concorde FXP for Xp11 and 12.Sadly,  it doesn't come near the complexity of Concorde X (still a beautiful product and I love it) so I decided to watch this youtube video to help anyway. I was also recommended by UPS1000 himself in the comments of his video to make a post here


  7. On 1/5/2022 at 9:32 PM, DeltaWho said:

    Re Jetways, the only times I've seen this occur is when a user is in an internal camera mode. X-Plane doesn't have adequate draw-order logic in this viewpoint, so you can end up with items rendering in-front of the aircraft at a close distance.

    Alas, I am in external view in these screenshots

     

    I am not sure if external view in x-camera is not actually external? How can the views be fixed?


  8. On 1/4/2022 at 11:04 AM, uwespeed said:

    I assume, you're on Windows? There, I can't help, as I'm on Linux, but the latest driver isn't always the best choice - in fact, that's independent from the OS. What I actually meant -  if you upgraded to the latest driver recently, and the issue occured since then, the driver might be the issue. It might ... because experience says that graphical issue like this can be caused by the driver. Apart from that, I don't have other ideas.

    hmmmm... I can try rolling back to an older driver but this is a fresh install so I have no idea if this will be a similar issue with a different driver


  9. I am having a really weird issue where I can quite literally see right through the jetway and some ground service vehicles. The issue only happens at certain angles but you can pretty much see only the plane itself. It happens on all aircraft I tested (zibo 737, default 737, default 747, FF 767) and all airports.

    Additionally, when it snows or rains there is a box where snow and rain effects don't render at all. I recently uninstalled reshade and am running now only xEnviro. I can't say for sure if the issue was caused by reshade as I only discovered the angles so its possible I never stumbled upon it before but perhaps I didn't uninstall it correctly. The issue persists even with xEnviro turned off

    Besides xEnviro I am running no other graphical mods.

    Anyone know what could be causing this issue?

    screenshots:

    https://imgur.com/a/FAEjAMM

    7Fjt0Y5.jpglqXTFzr.jpgx6E2a6L.jpguk3nUIC.jpgce8MnRB.jpggw3WrQR.jpg

  10. On 8/7/2018 at 9:02 AM, JackWall said:

    Zeuss .... Good news the CDT issue is resolved  ...what was your resolution as a matter of interest?

    I reinstalled my graphics completely and reset my nvidia settings to my ml liking. I had been experiencing issues with the drivers right when I installed them. After 14 hours of flying with a redo of the flight to sydney I am sure this fixed the issue. I also deleted my cfg file and reinstalled the qualityeings 787 just in case any software needed some refreshing!

    Hope this helped!


  11. I loaded into EGKK earlier and noticed I was getting somewhere around 8 FPS which is very strange for my system. After reducing my settings I noticed increase in FPS when increasing autogen settings. However, when loading into KSFO I noticed a dramatic increase in performance with my original autogen settings! I saw at least a 20 FPS boost. Which is strange because both of these airports are quite busy airports. I don't have scenery in EGKK but I have flightbeam KSFO HD. Could the default scenery be causing low fps? 

     

    Thanks for any help on resolving this question!

    Specs:

    Ryzen 1950X

    32 GB ram

    250 GB SSD

    x2 1080 ti (I only use one in p3d, is it better to use SLI?)

    edit: I also noticed that the low fps essentially stops when I takeoff. I think it comes down to UT live or the scenery and I lean towards the scenery due to all the evidence, but I have no idea 😕


  12. 12 hours ago, Jim Young said:

    I think this is normal isn't it?  I can sit in the PMDG 777 on R/W 7L and see major differences in fps.  If I look straight ahead it is the worse, like in the 20's or 30's.  If I change to looking to the left, they go up by 20-30 fps.  If I go to wingview, they increase to 70-80 (from 40 fps).  I suspect you are talking about the QW787 and that VC is particularly hard on my fps but not where the game is unplayable.  They get better when I leave scenery that has a lot of eye-candy.  Still they are usually over 30 fps which is more than sufficient.  If the fps ever got down to the single digits, then I would be concerned. 

    ok, yes i am speaking mainly about the quality wings 787 where no matter what the fps drops. I think it has something to due with dynamic lighting but there is no way i am turning it off so ill just suck it up 🙂

     

    Thanks for the help!


  13. On 7/31/2018 at 11:19 AM, Jim Young said:

    The AVSIM CTD Guide provides some suggestions.  Only you can fix your problem so AVSIM has a guide on how to investigate the cause of your crash.  There is no ONE solution for an ntdll.dll error.  It could be a bad driver, incompatible addon to P3D, too high settings (less likely but possible), a bad overclock with voltages too high or too low, or it could be a bad AI aircraft with textures not compatible.  A 14 hour flight is not very long especially if you are using the excellent QW 787 as you can jump to any waypoint along the route.  I would jump to a waypoint before where your crash occurred and see if it happens again.  If not, it was mostly like a fluke.

    See page 35, AVSIM CTD Guide for many more causes and possible solutions.  Page 10 of the guide shows you how to fix any crash if it involves P3D or FSX.

    I would try going to the Optimal Defaults for your BIOS and try the flight again.  If no crash, then it was a bad voltage... Maybe.  This crash could have been one of those abnormal crashes that occur occasionally with any computer.  The KEY is to attempt the flight again and see if it occurs again at the point of the last crash.

    I have resolved my issue but now i am having the issue where whenever i look outside the cockpit my game drops to like 20 fps only when I look outside. I look up to the overhead and everything is fine just until i move to look outside only inside the virtual cockpit. This happens with all aircraft except the aerosoft and this issue only came up when I updated driver and cleared my cache to fix the ctd

     

    specs:

    Ryzen 1950x

    32 GB Vengence

    250 GB ssd samsung evo

    x2 1080 ti (i only use one in p3d)

     

     


  14. I'm quite angry at the moment!

    This morning I experienced a CTD while I was away from the computer which happened 2 hours before arrival into Sydney from a 14 HOUR FLIGHT FROM SFO! (running p3d)

    this word not allowed me off because this seems to be out of my control! I have all the hardware I need and p3d running on a separate SSD drive due to the amount fo crashing on the original drive. This just seems completely out of my control though, unless someone can help me. 

    Info:

    I was flying UAL 863, 787-900 (quality wings) to sydney from SFO. I couldn't find an error log or crash log but I found this information in the event viewer 

     

    Faulting application name: Prepar3D.exe, version: 4.3.29.25520, time stamp: 0x5b2c3263
    Faulting module name: ntdll.dll, version: 10.0.17134.165, time stamp: 0xf4df6dc2
    Exception code: 0xc0000374
    Fault offset: 0x00000000000f4d1b
    Faulting process id: 0x24ac
    Faulting application start time: 0x01d428730919ce7a
    Faulting application path: Z:\Prepar3D v4\Prepar3D.exe
    Faulting module path: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll
    Report Id: 691a618a-d07d-440f-8713-68c9b6b3ee60
    Faulting package full name: 
    Faulting package-relative application ID: 

    Can someone please help me out? I love flying but all this unstable software hurts my brain and is beginning to word not allowed me off. It's no ones fault it just makes me angry

     

    Thanks for any help


  15. On 8/16/2017 at 6:27 PM, gboz said:

    If you are not going to run it with simultaneous multi-threading (SMT) on you can use those calculators to get an 8 core with HT ON value and use that.

    So 8 core HT on = 16 core SMT off.

    gb.

     

    Thanks!

    I'll try this


  16. On 8/17/2017 at 4:04 AM, swiesma said:

    Yep, P3D uses all cores. But the main thread runs on Core 0 and runs at 99% all the time - this is the thread which limits the performance. -> So yes, single core speed is a must have for P3D.

    Other stuff like loading textures etc. are loaded off to other CPU cores. You will see them being utilized, but nost of the time not at 100%.

     

    @Zeuss_1238 You can simple take the windows calculator, set it to binary (set View -> programmer or scientific), type in whatever cores you want to use, for example "1111111111111110" (all cores except core 0 are utilized) and then switch to decimal and you will get the AF mask :-) In this case 65534

    So my affinity mask would be 65534?

    I want to try out a few numbers. 12 cores, 10 cores, maybe all 16! Would the "number" be 1111111111110000 for 12 cores?

    Although the single core is lower speed it is still fantastic!

    I will use it for other things that are cpu intensive ;)

    Soon games will be utilizing all cores and need to so yeah


  17. On 8/16/2017 at 8:38 PM, himmelhorse said:

    Hey guys n girls,

    I have just finished a discussion regarding multi cores and threads (Different CPUs for different Sims) and have been categorically advised (at least, this is MY understanding) that NO sim platforms can use multi cores or threads. More threads or cores mean nothing and CPU single core speed is the" be all and end all" for current sims.

    I am now, more confused than ever.

    The gist of my understanding is that single core CPU speed is not going to advance much further and is the MAIN reason for the recent development into extra cores .... more cores/threads means more data can be processed and this to my mind over-rides  CPU speeds . However, again, this is MY understanding, the sim platforms can not utilise these multi cores at this time. I have, however, read somewhere that XPlane11 can and does, utilise them better and I am pretty sure that this info came from the man himself .. Austin Meyers.  I further believe this is being looked at even further by XPlane in light of the (planned????) move to the Vulcan API (whatever that means)

    SO, Just what is the TRUTH here, or are we all being connedby the chip makers. Do more threads, read also more expensive, mean better performance for flight sims in general and modern sims in particular, or not? Has anyone got a definitive quote, or can provide a link to a definitive statement from P3D, FSW, Xplane or any others that can actually put this to rest.

    My main reason for the original topic was to enhance my decision making abilities for an eventual upgrade. That discussion did "just that" and now this topic comes up. Hence my extreme befuddlement.

    I do NOT want to start WW3 (I think Donald is well on the way to that LOL) but look forward to further discussion.

    Regards to you all

    Tony Chlcott 

    actually the threadripper is 1000 about $200 cheaper than intels 10 core

    For me this seems like less single core speed but still a win

    The i9 does also have a few heating problems I have been hearing about so I wasn't so sure 


  18. I have just received the new AMD Threadripper and getting the motherboard tonight and looking to put it in over the weekend, and am trying to see which games will utilize all cores

    Now I know p3d will use all cores but you need to set it up with Affinity Mask maybe? Not sure

    If so can someone tell what I should set the Affinity mask value to

    All the calculators I have found only go up to 8 cores so....

    Any help is greatly appreciated :)

     


  19. Just now, downscc said:

    There is probably no need, the ILS LOC is probably lined up with the fix and not the extended centerline... as I said earlier the extended centerline has very little value most time.  And in this case it looks like 1 deg of error, come on, there's gotta be more pressing issues to resolve.

    Sorry :(

    I was just wondering cause I usually take the thing off autopilot when established on the glide slope

    Should I just select a different approach type?

     


  20. 6 minutes ago, downscc said:

    Are you trying to say the waypoint KLEWS is not on the extended centerline as expected?  That is what we are trying to explain to you... the waypoint is defined by a lat/lon coordinated and puts it on the runway centerline based on no magnetic deviation.  Now add a different deviation to the airport scenery than exists in the global scenery and you get exactly this.  Just a slight mag dev difference.

    I often spend a couple of hours on an airport bgl file correcting things such as navaid locations, type lighting, etc., and the airport mag dev on every airport I've done this to has had to be corrected except Flightbeam.

    So how might one correct this

    Editing the bgl file?

    I cant seem to open it

×
×
  • Create New...