Posts by Jet-Pack (IPACS)

    Another possibility is that since you changed to position of the wheels, one of the previously defined collision boxes (fuselage or landing gear) now intersects with or is below the tarmac so a collision condition is reported and needs adjustment.

    There are no collision boxes in Aerofly FS. All collisions are computed based on the actual 3D mesh of the airplane + manually TMD defined wheels.

    The flips or glitches come from an ill-defined joint. Check the joint multis and reduce their Kd and Kp values. You can make then rigid for now to get away from the issue temporarily, with input lock 1.0:

                    <[tmvector3d][X0][0.0 0.0 1.0]>
                    <[tmvector3d][R0][0.0 0.0 0.0]>

    When working on updating the tmd file of the Carbon Cub according to the instructions for porting aircraft from FS2 to FS4 (…updating-to-aerofly-fs-4/), I found some steps that seems to be slightly confusing in the instructions.

    • fuel_tank, fuel_line, fuel_valve, etc. are renamed to fuel_deprecated_… and should be avoided - I got an error that fuel_deprecated_tank has no property "MaximumQuantity", should this be expressed differently in FS4?
    • hingedbodygraphics InputAngle renamed to Input - Should this be InputID as I got errors using Input?

    - MaximumQuantity is now MassFull

    - InputAngle changes to Input, AngleID changes to InputID.

    If you don't need to change the angle in the graphics, we prefer using InputID which grabs the value from the physics output directly. This reduces the necessary code. For some hingedbodygraphics, such as a rotary selector or flaps lever a graphics_linear_interpolation is often needed to get the angle just right. Then Input is needed, not InputID

    Contact spheres are used to position the model above the ground for the very first simulation step. After that the contact points have no impact on the physics what so ever. You need to adjust the wheels inside the tmd file to make the aircraft sit on the ground properly. Extract your 3D position for the center of each wheel and the radius and enter them in the tmd file, then it should sit on the wheels just fne.

    Ehm, did you actually see a push back truck, or were you just rolling backwards because of the incline at the parking position.

    Due to low terrain mesh resolution the apron is quite steep and you can easily start rolling with parking brake off and engines off.

    If you start your engines as you roll back it might give you just enough thrust to make the airplane stop on its own.

    Yes, it seems like the ground spoiler deployment harshly forces the 777 and 787 down. The landings are much softer with the ground spoilers disarmed.

    A side note, this may be a separate bug, but when I'm on short final and I disarm spoilers, adjusting the throttle will automatically re-arm spoilers.

    Thank you and I look forward to any update.

    That is intentional for those who fly with cockpit interaction off.

    The wing flex causes the dihedral angle changes. It depends on the lift produced and the span-wise distribution of the lift and the span-wise mass distribution of the wing. When the wings are full with fuel, like for a typical 777 flight, then the wings also do not flex up as much in flight compared to during landing when that fuel is removed. So keep that in mind, when comparing images, you don't know how much payload they carry for a photo flight or how much fuel is in the tanks when you snap a picture of a plane passing by.

    At the moment the fuel in the wing tanks is not a lot in Aerofly to keep the aircraft below maximum landing mass. That is one reason why the wings can flex a bit more. Once we add fuel and payload to Aerofly the wing stiffness is probably going to need some adjustment. Afterwards this issue is probably going to resolve itself.

    I'm gonna try to replay the passage of Mach 1 and see if the bang can be heard.

    From inside the cabin or flying next to the airplane you would not hear a sonic bang at all, even if that sound was already implemented.

    In fact the passage of Mach 1 does not create the sonic boom, it's the passing of an airplane already flying faster than the speed of sound that causes the bang in your eardrums.

    AT SEA LEVEL 667 knots indicated airspeed is the same as 667kt true airspeed which is the speed of sound at sea level, flying Mach 1.0.

    At higher altitude the lower the temperature also decreases the speed of sound. Between 37,000ft to 60,000ft the speed of sound is about 573 knots, that is knots true airspeed, not what the airspeed indicator shows!

    The higher you fly the greater the difference between indicated airspeed and true airspeed becomes because of the much lower air density. Even at very high speed very few air molecules are entering the pitot tube and therefore the airspeed indicator shows a much lower indicated airspeed than what the aircraft is truly flying.

    For the same reasons the space shuttle had a re-entry speed of just 250kts indicated airspeed, whilst flying at Mach 23.

    Please look at the Mach indicator in the Concorde to see the Mach number.

    Ok, in your previous reply you said you could go up to 500 knots. Then you are already at Mach 1.7 or so.

    At FL600 the indicated airspeed is significantly lower than the true airspeed...