Well 2GB or RAM isn't that much compared to what computers have now adays. But the bigger issue is the memory size for the 3D graphics card. I've heard of only 512 MB for one device, can't remember which mobile device it was, iPad ... . Compared to 2GB of typical graphics cards for computers, thats weak.
Regards,
Jan
Hi Steve,
thats great to hear! The best thing about the sim is, once you payed for it you can crash as many times as you want, it does not cost anything to repair the aircraft in an instant. And compared to money saved by not crashing and time saved by not having to repairing after crashes, the simulator is suddenly becoming very cheap 
It is best to start with a simulator, learn how to control the aircraft even when it comes straight at you. If you have the option do a teacher-student set up when you go to the field and learn from a person with experience. Your simulator time will make this much faster and more fun for the both of you
Nowadays there are aircraft with computer assistance. Those are great, too, because you can flick the "oh crap" switch and it will recover the aircraft for you.
Many happy landings,
Jan
Hello Steve,
to your third point:
The simulator does not operate the same way as your rc receiver on the field. The simulator reads the input data that it receives from your operating system (windows or mac). It then applies your control device calibration and, in your case increases the throttle a little bit. This control device calibration was reset in the process of the update, so you have to repeat it again.
Here is a detailled step through:
1. Some more advanced radio transmitters save the trim state for the aircraft. So before connecting your controller to the computer load an empty aircraft in your radio transmitter. Make sure that all trims are set to neutral in your transmitter before you do any calibration in the computer.
2. First calibrate your device in the device manager of your operating system
3. Then start the simulator and re-calibrate your input device
Due to the torque of the engine some aircraft tend to roll, this is an intended effect and has nothing to do with a falsy calibration. Aerofly aircraft are usually neutral at idle power and you'd have to either add counter aileron or use your trim of the input device in order to fly level with full power.
Regards,
Jan
Hallo Hermann,
Klasse, dass es funktioniert hat! :cool:
Grüße,
Jan
Hallo Hermann,
vermutlich wird der Support erst am nächsten Werktag antworten...
Die letzte Zeile der tm.log deutet auf ein OpenAL Problem hin. OpenAL32.dll ist die Komponente des RC 7, die meines Wissens nach den Sound übernimmt - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAL
Eventuell noch zusätzlich Soundkarten-Treiber aktualisieren oder dergleichen?
[Persönliche Meinung]
Es scheinen noch etliche Kinderkrankheiten in Windows 10 zu stecken. Für einige Geräte gibt es wohl noch keine funktionierenden Treiber. Und die Spy-Funktionen in Windows 10 sind auch noch so ne Sache die mich persönlich davon abhalten Windows 10 zu installieren. Momentan sehe ich für mich persönlich noch keinen Vorteil auf Windows 10 zu wechseln... Do not change a running system
Grüße,
Jan
Hallo Muetzli,
hast du mal deine Graphikkarten-Treiber aktualisiert? Am besten von der Web-Seite des Herstellers (Nvidia oder ATI) herunterladen und installieren.
Grüße,
Jan
Hi Uwe,
I just looked at it and it seems that the "Radius" text in the rc 7 aircraft editor should be replaced with "Diameter". For me its also displayed in inches and I cross-checked it with the values in the tmd file where the radius is defined in meters. My prop of radius 0.2794m was displayed as radius 22 in. But it actually should be a radius of 11 in. or a diameter of 22.
In the German translation it says "Durchmesser" which translates to diameter . So its just a translation error in the English user interface.
Regards,
Jan
My apoligies, I read too fast once again.
Yes physical rockets even with directional control are possible as demonstrated in K's Predator drone: http://www.aerofly-sim.de/download/downl…affs-predator-b
Adding smoke to the rigidbody of the rocket should not be any problem. However enabling it right at rocket launch would be quite tricky, you'd need to set up the same button for the rocket launch as for the smoke on. I am still waiting for an update that allows us to use any kind of input for a smoker, not just receiveroutputs. With that we could define our own triggers, have condensating air over the wing, have wing tip verticies, have touch down smoke and so on and so on. But without that we are stuck with a user input. Only if the user advances the throttle or pushes a button we can currently modify the smoke.
K's predator rockets use the aerofly FS lights. Those can use any input so he chose to use one that only enables after rocket launch - and then it looks like the rockets engine has at least some flame coming out its back.
As to adding a 3D model to an existing aircraft:
That is not possible. An aerofly aircraft can only have one 3d model. And because the model is compressed and or encrypted the data can not be brought back to the original raw 3d model and therfor cannot be modified to add additional 3d objects.
Regards,
Jan
Hi Mike,
correct! The display of the control inputs are not taken from the tmd. Instead the simulator directly hands them over to the graphics rendering. The simulator only looks for the used inputs in the receiver object, thats it.
Regards,
Jan
[Edit: Aparently I did not read thoroughly enugh - so this is kinda of topic]
How to enable smoke in aerofly RC 7 and 5
a) Make smoke visible
- Menustrip: Graphics, check "Show smoke"
b) Set the smoker to on
- Press Shift + M and verify "Smoke" is indeed "On". Its the 2nd bar from the bottom of the F-16 functions panel, for me its a keyboard button.
Cheers,
Jan
Hi Jason,
yes and its a lot about tactics. You can fly faster and probably get to the next thermal sooner, but you loose more altitude that way. If the thermals are strong you are up faster in the same location as someone who flew slower but entered the thermal higher. If you fly too fast however you lose all your altitude before reaching the thermal.
Also you are very very slow if you take every single thermal there is, at least for the big gliders. One thermal might only have 1m/s updraft, but if I can get 3m/s elsewhere, I better wait for the next thermal. So you fly through several thermals before you find a strong one. But what if you never find it? Its all about taking the risk and betting on a better thermal. At some point you will either have to take a weak thermal and very very slowly make your way back up to the top or you are landing somewhere that is not your home airfield. Either a field or another airfield which gives you the possibility to restart, most likely.
But thermals aren't the only type of updraft there is. On slopes the wind is forced over the mountain, so on the windward side there is usually a large area of lift, sometimes coupled with thermals if the sun shines onto the hill side.
And then there are the mountain waves. Those are gigantic vertical movements of air behind large mountain ranges. They reach up to altitudes where airliners typically cruise at and even beyond. World record in altitude is 15,460 meters (50,727 feet) and world record in distance flown in one day is a little more than 3000km (1618NM) both records done using mountain waves. Some of these waves only give you laminar +0.5m/s others go above what your vertical speed indicator can show (+5m/s ~ 1000ft/min). The greatest one, I've ever encountered was 4.3m/s (846 ft/min) at max and it took us all the way to 6000m (FL195) which is the limit you are allowed to fly in the alps. The nice thing about these updrafts is that you feel nothing. Its totally laminar airflow in the updraft but the wind up there is moving you very quickly with about 40-80km/h (22-43kt) (don't quote me on that haha).
Regards,
Jan
Hi Mike,
yes in an aircraft modification. In the tmd file find the servo that is moving the canopy and trace the input back to the receiver.
Its usually in this order:
Receiver -> ReceiverOutput "CanopyInput" -> *place inverter here* -> ServoClassic "ServoCanopy" -> graphics animation
You can invert the signal that goes into the ServoCanopy (if its called like that, I haven't checked). What you do is doublicate the ServoCanopy and name it "CanopyInputInverted". For convenience put the inverter just in front of the canopy servo in the tmd file.
The Parameters in CanopyInputInverted are then set as follows:
P0 = 0.0; P1 = -1.0; P2 = 0.0; P3 = 0.0; Speed = 10;
Now the ServoCanopy still used its old input therefor rename the content of the Input parameter from something like "CanopyInput.Output" to "CanopyInputInverted.Output".
Save the file and test it. The signal for the canopy should now be inverted.
Hi Mike, you could invert the signal, so that the canopy is closed when the signal tells it to open.
Hi Jason,
I flew RC for about 3 or 4 years or so but I moved on to full scale gliders where I can actually see the world from above myself. From the beginning on I used simulators to help me on my way to become an rc pilot and also full scale pilot. Starting with the FMS and then AFPD I eventually got aerofly 5 and later the FS and RC 7. Currently I only fly RC in simulators and no RC in the real world - just real life gliding. Recently a friend of mine let me fly his discus launch glider and flying it was going very smooth because of all my training. The real thing actually behaved exactly like the Stobel V2 I made for the aerofly 5 and RC 7 and it was a lot of fun to fly again.
But I don't like the risk of crashing that permanently exists in RC and having to repair my aircraft; I really am a pilot not a builder. And when I build I tend to want to make it perfect so that it is light weight and never breaks but I never finish it, because I never leave the planning phase 
Also it costs a lot of money, flying RC is not that much cheaper than flying big gliders if you tend to expand your fleet each year.
The thing I love the most about flying is the moment before you touch down. And that moment is pretty short in RC and also quite rare, doing touch and goes is a bit more riski with small rc planes. But seeing the ground approaching from the pilots perspective and then flying an almost perfect arc towards the ground, I just love that. Continious increasing elevator deflection until you are down. Using the simulator I perfected the flaring to almost kiss the ground every time. If you can hear the grass stroking on the tail wheel of the glider, then hear it spin up before it actually touches the ground together with the main gear with a little bump (because the grass surface is bumpy 
) - thats what I call a perfect landing. And I had dozens of those this year and I just love that feeling - I just nailed it! And you don't get there without extensive training I'm flying gliders for 8 years now - won two competitions in a row where you needed to spot-land the glider in a good looking fashion. You needed to touch down the tail wheel in a 5m long area next to the judges, whilst flying about 70km/h (19.4m/s). So you only have a 0.26s time window to precisely touch down - I hit that 3/3 times in the first competition and 1/3 times in the second . Second approach was way steeper than usual, only few pilots ever touched down in the 30m long area even - hehe. Even with full airbrakes it was impossible to force down the glider without touching main wheel first, so you actually needed to slow down even before entering the final approach - without beeing to slow for the judges to notice of course hahaha
Too bad I am not allowed to partition again, I have my pilots license for too long now, giving me an unfair advantage.
In the multiplayer you will most likely see me doing touch and goes just to train exactly that. About 500 hours on aerofly simulator in the last 3 years also helps, I guess - hehe
Even flying for only 15 minutes a day really adds up over time.
Cheers,
Jan
Hi,
from my experience I guess that the aileron-in-stall behavior is not correct because the adverse yaw effect also isn't realistic yet, or better said it cannot be directly influenced by parameters in the tmd file. I've spoken to the developers about the stall and adverse yaw and they would like to improve it but because of the lack of customers who would even notice that they better spend their time in other, "cooler" features for the majority of the users. To be honest the response to rudder is also not the best in a stall yet. After the stall point everything is fine, before the stall everything is almost perfect but in the stall itself... "nahh..." (don't understand me wrong here! The stall is still way better than in FSX or X-Plane, its just not quite there where Condor already is in terms of stall and entering spins)
I actually tried aileron in stall in a couple of gliders in the real life. Its not as bad as everyone sais, at least for the aircraft I flew and tested it in. Some aircraft showed reduced aileron effectiveness and of course intense adverse-yaw. I never encountered a bad wing drop to the downwards deflected aileron, which leads me to the conclusion that the drop in lift coefficient and increase in drag is not that bad at stall speed. When you increase the angle of attack another 5 degrees or so on only one wing, than you get a nice wing drop and probably a spin if not countered right away. I've not tested full up elevator and full aileron yet though, only in a side-slip with opposite rudder, which was quite stable for most aircraft.
When I want to spin I only use the rudder to get in and out of it. Ailerons in or agains spin direction had not that much effect upon entering the spin from my experience, and leaving it - depends on the aircaft. Some aircraft like ailerons into the spin, some against it to get in and out faster. But if an aircraft is able to spin than it gets there even without aileron and if it does not enter a very flat spin you should be able to get out without ailerons and only with counter rudder - elevator neutral. If the aircraft is too front heavy you probably also won't get into a stall with ailerons against or into the stall. They do the wing drop just fine, enough to bring you way of course, but they just drop right out.
Of course you should know what you are doing when trying it, have enough altitude, check airspace for traffic, read the manual, have done spins with a flight instructor before and tested it in a simulator dozens of times, etc.
Cheers,
Jan
Read this: http://wiki.aerofly-sim.de/bin/view/Main/Repaint
You need the developer tools: http://wiki.aerofly-sim.de/bin/view/Main/DeveloperTools
Cheers,
Jan
Hello Jason,
Welcome to the IPACS forums! Thank you for sharing your experience with the upgrade from AFPD to aerofly RC 7.
Thats what the simulator is best at. Crash, retry, crash, retry until you are capable of controlling even the most advanced maneuvers. And rebuilding the aircraft is as simple as waiting 3 seconds or hitting the space bar.
Even after about 5 years flying in this simulator it never gets boring flying online in the multiplayer. If Jason is your online name then we already met online, haven't we?
How long are you flying real RC aircraft now?
Cheers,
Jan
Please not only airliners but also small aircrafts like Robin DR400 and some single engine Piper for example
Jean-Luc
Thank you
The Piper Cub Special made by Krzysztof Kaniewski is available for aerofly FS (Desktop Sim) here: http://www.aerofly-sim.de/download/downl…per-cub-special
My wish-list - more for the desktop-version I guess:
- Schempp Hirth Duo Discus T or Arcus M (glider - 20 double seater, very common gliders)
- Schempp Hirth Ventus 2cM or 2cxT (glider, 18m, also quite common)
- Rolladen Schneider LS8-b (glider, 15 and 18, current world class leading in womens w-championchip)
- Jonker JS-1c (glider, current world class leading)
- Grob G109 (motor glider)
- Bell 407 (helicopter)
- Da 42 Twin Star
Cheers,
Jan
Yes the torque of both propellers would cancel each other out if one engine would spin the opposite way.
The reason why aircraft manufacturers chose the same engine twice is for compatibility and cost.
- If one engine fails you can just take another one of the same kind and don't have to look for an engine with the same direction of spin.
- And cost: If you would have a mirrored engine every part would exist twice, every tool to create the parts would need to exist twice. And the aircraft engines are not mass produced so the price for one engine would be incredible just to account for all tools neccessary. That does count for combustion engines and jet-engines, not for electric engines usually. The engines of an airliner almost allways spin in the same direction. Next time you see an airliner from the from take a close look at the spiral marks on the spinner or look at the fan blades' orientation. Different manufactures even choose the exact same engine because the design cost of a new engine is not worth it. The Boeing 737 and Airbus A320 both have a CFM 56 as an engine choise. The CFM 56 is a 1974 design (of course with several modifications over time). The point is: the engines of current airliners are pretty old designs because designing new ones is expensive. Today we see the next generation of engines in development because of the increased noise and exhaust regulations.
Regards,
Jan
[...]
- The Baron 58 seems to have a tendency to roll to the right even if the joystick is at neutral. This isn't a problem with my iPad's accelerometer or how I have calibrated it, it still happens using the on screen joystick.
[...]
The roll tendency is intended. Both propellers spin in the same orientation. As they shovel through the air they produce a little bit of drag which is felt as a torque around the motor shaft. Due to Newtons actio = reactio theorem one can explain that the motor has to compensate that torque and therefor also rotates the airframe. Its the same principle that requires helicopters to have a tail rotor. On airplanes the tail rotor force is accomplished by introducing a slight aileron and/or rudder deflection.
