Posts by Jet-Pack (IPACS)

  • Old RealFlight RC Flight Controller Compatible?

    If it is listed as a USB device in your "Devices and Printers" it should be usable with the Aerofly RC 7.

    So far anything I plugged into my USB ports as a joystick also worked in Aerofly RC 7. You could also try to search the forums (top right magnifier glass) and see if anything related to the Realflight controllers can be found.

    When it doubt maybe try to find a person or local hobby shop that has the Aerofly running and test it there before purchasing it. If you buy Aerofly RC 7 via Steam I think you can return it easily within two hours of game time but I've never done something like that myself, users of the Aerofly FS 2 have reported that it is possible to do that via Steam. So read the paragraphs of your license before purchasing it, when you plan to immediately return Aerofly if your controller isn't working.

    I hope that was useful, maybe admin can add more once he returns from vacation. Maybe drhotwing1 (IPACS) also knows something about this.

  • Airbus 320 tutorial flight

    ^ as he said.

    The cruise speed I chose is not very high. Typically most airlines don't fly much faster either, because fuel has become more expensive and cabin crew cheaper. So flying longer is more economic in most cases.

    If you fly slow you need more angle of attack to lift the same weight. Therefor your pitch is higher the slower you fly. Having 0 deg of pitch throughout the entire flight is impossible if you keep the same speed. You could speed up at first and then slow down over time as the aircraft gets lighter...

  • Put it on SSD or HD?

    Hah good one :) Here comes a big surprise:

    HDD is fine for Aerofly. For Aerofly you need storage space and HDD is much cheeper in that regard. You actually don't save that much loading time in Aerofly and because it loads scenery asynchronous you actually don't need a fast SSD. It loads the scenery into RAM and when it is ready it pushes it onto the graphics card. If you have an HDD this might happen a second later but how cares, right? It's not like it's pausing the sim for that time, you can continue flying. And the time it takes to upload the textures to the graphics card are not affected by HDD or SSD if I have understood our system correctly. The initial boot up of the Aerofly might be a second or two longer but not actually that much.

    So as our admin said several times in the past: get a 1 or even 2 TB HDD for Aerofly and you'll be set for a while.

    In terms of Windows OS and most other programs:

    SSD is, without doubt, the major factor to speed up the entire system. From shorter booting times (my pc boots in 30s to internet and is almost 4 years old now). Any other simulator on the market that I have installed profits from SSD.

    So if you have to make the decision between HDD and SSD for your computer, go SSD.

    If you want to expand your PC with another harddrive just for Aerofly, or if you have space on just a tiny bit of space on SSD but more room on HDD, go HDD. Use a big one :) If you ever get to use the GeoConvert and decide you want the entire planet, HDD is a lot cheeper.

    If you already have the SSDs with 250GB free space (how do you do that???) then you can of course use SSD for the mean time and move the installation later if you run out of space.

  • Removing last waypoint (FAF) as an option?

    It might be as simple as commenting out one line of code but it may also cause other issues that we can't foresee from the outside. I'm going to ask anyway, to be honest I also tried to move the FAF in the past and was a bit disappointed. Especially for Innsbruck this is really annoying, I just wanted a quick loop around but the FAF was messing everything up.

    Since I know the FAF is important for the vertical flight plan as well, how would you like that to be handled? How should the vertical profile look like if you just remove the last waypoint? Should it be identical in terms of profile over distance?

  • Is there any documentation available to explain the upgrades to the AP for the LJ45 and 737?

    If I setup a flight plan in Aerofly FS 2 using the navigation dialog I basically create an approach to any airport I like. And I can fly that approach in any aircraft that uses the advance autopilot.

    If the autopilot receives an ILS signal or if an ILS is manually selected in the LJ45 I switch over to ILS approach mode, then if you press "APPR" it arms LOC and G/S. But if you don't have an ILS it basically flies the flight plan all the way to 50ft AGL where it disconnects because I don't allow it to to a fully automated landing. Technically I could do a fully automatic landing on any runway in Aerofly but since this isn't possible in the real world I never fully programmed that.

    So as mentioned, the LNAV and VNAV (APP NAV and FINAL in the A320) just follow the flight plan down towards the runway, so in a sense you can treat that as RNAV GPS approaches but our currently simulated GPS or IRS systems have a precision of 0.0 nano meters to the actual aircraft position, because its just the exact same position. So call it what you want basically, there is no real world approach selected in the flight route yet so I can't really say if it's RNAV or WAAS or LPV or so on.

    Call it cheating but this is the advantage of having direct access to the real position in the sim as well as the exact target point on the runway, the exact speed and ground track, etc. It's a bit easier for us than in the real world where you have bad GPS reception or some GPS offset.

    Btw. did you know that if you place a GPS receiver onto one precisely determined point on the runway or airfield that you can measure the current offset of the GPS and then send that offset vector to an approaching aircraft? That way you can get the precision down from 30m to maybe 1m. Enough to hit the center line with GPS only. (But that requires infrastructure on the ground)

  • Spaghetti Airways landing at Innsbruck Airbus A320 - Aerofly FS 2

    Agreed, the Youtube video is a nice landing but I've actually seen even better ones. Even experienced the "perfect landing" in fully loaded A320 coming back from the holidays. The pilot did a quick flare the V/S at touch down was virtually zero and you could just see the spoilers extending but there was not the slightest bump in the initial touch down. And he was on the ground very quickly, it was just the perfect flare, no space wasted but very very soft. Had not had a landing that came any close in the other 20 flights as a passenger after that. Even I applauded this landing ha, what a great memory.

    Btw, how do you like the fully automated landing of the A320? That can be quite soft as well, but maybe it flares for too long...

  • Removing last waypoint (FAF) as an option?

    Quote from Jetjockey10

    I suggested the same exact thing when trying to fly into LOWI without flying through the rocks, (more than a month ago). I suggested IPACS simply add the ability for the users to move that automatically generated and fixed FAF. My suggestion fell on deaf ears, but, I see thst Jet-Pack gives yours a thumbs up. Duh.

    Regards,

    Ray

    I gave it a thumbs up because I agreed, this is a valid point, this needs fixing/a redo.

    As I said in the past there isn't really a point in creating a smarter algorithm to avoid mountains (I agree manually moving or deleting the final approach fix should be allowed), if we redo the entire route planning anyway and use the real world approaches. Then there is no FAF inside of mountains anymore and life is good :) The way to go is adding the real world approaches and this will most likely happen during the ATC development as far as I know. So this will come automatically and we are working on ATC, so just be a little patient please, we know this is an issue and we we're working on it :)

  • Landing Gear retaction issue with latest SDK

    I think this has nothing to do with the aircraft converter but rather about the changes made to the tmd files.

    Those are mainly changes like the logic objects:

    Code
            <[string8][object][logic_or]
            <[string8][Name][AorB]>
            <[string8][Input0][A.Output]>
            <[string8][Input1][B.Output]>
        >

    to

    Code
            <[string8][object][logic_or]
            <[string8][Name][AorB]>
            <[string8][Inputs][ A.Output B.Output ]>
        >

    For example your landing gear probably has a logic_or for: GearInput.Output OR OnGrounSensor.Output

    You need to change this.

    On top of this the jointmulti object has been renamed to "multibody_joint" and its "Axis" has been renamed to "X0" and its "Position" to "R0". And there is no longer a need for another jointlinear to create a torque on the jointmulti axis.

    There are also other changes

    added logic_xor

    added logic_range

    added adjustable_mapping

    added inverse

    added square_root

    added input_button_rocker

    added detent_lever

    added pressure_setting

    added flight_path_vector

    added a320_flap_selector

    added governor2

    added turboshaft_fadec

    added flight_management_system

    changed logic_or, logic_and, sum and product to input lists (Input0 and Input1 have been merged to one line: "Inputs")

    changed auto_spoiler arm logic to support button input

    changed auto_brake input logic for rejected takeoff position and added warning output

    renamed jointmulti -> multibody_joint

    jointmulti.Axis -> multibody_joint.X0

    jointmulti.Position -> multibody_joint.R0

    added InputLock ? to multibody_joint

    added InputPosition to multibody_joint (remove control joints)

    I hope this solves your issue with the landing gear.

  • Is there any documentation available to explain the upgrades to the AP for the LJ45 and 737?

    Quote from Jetjockey10

    Jan,

    Can we assume that a tutorial will also be written for the Learjet 45 that includes many of the new autopilot update features? I realize the Lear is not "an airliner" but it still needs a good flight tutorial.

    As a suggestion, I would like to see an example RNAV approach in the Lear. I haven't read anything about WAAS enabled approaches. Is this something that may already be included, but not specifically mentioned ?

    Regards,


    Ray

    I plan on doing that yes.

    No idea what WAAS is yet, so I guess not? Maybe implemented by "accident" :)