Posts by jcomm

    Jan,


    thx for your suggestions. I did already play with some of those parameters, but further tests are required...


    Regarding the prop rpm gauge response, I was referring to the instantaneous response to the RPM lever adjustments in terms of the indicated prop RPM. It's perfectly in sync, on both ww2 aircraft. I believe their should be some lag, after all just like in the other prop aircraft like the Baron 58, even the Extra and the Pitts.


    I believe this must be related to the "[PitchControl][Governor.Output]" configuration, but there is no specific info on these parameters in the Wiki at presente date.

    Well,


    as my other flightsim in IL 2 Battle of Stalingrad / Moscow / Kuban, and I am there not because I like playing war games but rather because I like well modelled aircraft, specially powerful prop aircraft like those fighters from ww2, and since the Corsair is a well known and infamous exemplar of the tricky prop effects for those in control of such a powerful engine, I would really like to see those features better reproduced in AEFS2's model of the F4-U


    .) Torque effects are mild, the slipstream too. Even in landing configuration, crossing the fence and about to flare, or even already while flaring, I can firewall the throttle and recover, without having to worry about getting g flipped upside down by the mighty power of the torque from such an engine, at such an AoA... This doesn't feel right to me at all... What could we do, by configuration file editing, about it ?


    .) Prop governor responds instantaneously to prop rpm adjustments. There is no lag at all, both in the F4-U and in the P-38. I would like to see some "inertia" in the response to power changes in as far as prop pitch adjustment and associated RPM gauge variation go...


    Any insight on where and how to chose what to edit ? A tutorial based on this "case study" would be great :-)

    For me it is all a question of resource allocation.


    While I understand your concern, I also feel that the Team at IPACS being so small, and their involvement with this project certainly occupying so much time, leaves no room for improvement yet in another, more Marketing-oriented area.


    I would like to see a huge community starting to adhere to AEFS2, because it deserves but also and egoistically from my PoV, because a growing community would more easily make 3pds look into it more seriously.


    There is so much work to do to bring AEFS2 to a level of detail that starts to really attract the most demanding users, that I really prefer to have the site as it is right now, knowing their ( the developers ) time and work is being fully dedicated to AEFS2 development.


    Very true...


    Now just waiting for the Q-400 and an heli to fly around, between Swiss and LOWI :-)

    A True MUST HAVE scenery...


    Bought it today - I can't feel happier for having done so... Supporting AEFS2 and enjoying the best experience ever flying in a simulated World around Innsbruck - Simply SUPERB!

    Yep,


    that's pretty much the philosophy of Steam. If you opt for the game being updated automatically , in the game's properties, or even in some games if you opt for "betas", than the updates will reach you automatically and usually fast since their servers network is very well distributed around the World - actually one big advantage of using Steam as a game platform...

    it's, IMO, indeed the open and very nicely structured model used in their configuration files, used by the simulation engine to do perform various tasks...


    The other big point is the good sense in the IPACS Team - they're trying not to be forced by the nowadays typical temptation to rush everything and get profit fast... They take their time to cautiously evolve, one good step at a time... It's up for the users to understand / accept that pace, knowing that things will come, with time, but without a precise schedule, that would be dangerous / impossible to set for such a small Team.


    Things that come to my mind regarding the future of AEFS2 as opposed, for instance, to the future of X-Plane or MSFS-derived platforms, are the possibility of building from scratch various modelling approaches to systems simulation, that could be used alternatively, depending on the use one want's to make of the sim.


    Some of those systems could be core ones, like the Weather engine. That one in particular, given my area of work IRL, and the fact that I am a long time glider fan, is a system that would certainly profit from a detailed, revolutionary approach, and I'm not talking about the graphics, which so far are evidently not a problem for IPACS :-), but the way the atmosphere could be modelled, introducing for the very first time in the short history of flight simulation games such important effects like that of Moist, Geopotential Height modelling / non-ISA pressure and temperature "lapse rates", etc...


    My feel when I start AEFS2 is mixed. There's the WOW feel, but since I was "created" as a simmer running ATP, FS2, 3 and then 4... and still using ELITE for IFR, or Aerowinx for the most advanced b744 simulation available for a PC, graphics aren't actually my main concern.... There are still few things to occupy my attention as a virtual pilot, very few systems being simulated, no AI or Traffic, etc... But! there surely is the Potential Energy to get it running - it's probably just a question of learning to be patient and Wait....


    Looking fwd for June 15th


    Yes Jan, I agree with all your points, starting with AEFS2's FDM being a lot different and potentially more powerful than MSFS's...


    Indeed, given the more or less similar approaches, it should be easier to port aircraft between XP and AEFS2. Airfoil Maker in XP allows for some additional customization for the Cl, Cd, Cm ... curves, which are automatically adjusted based on the coefficients in AEFS2, assuming a linear relation along a good part of it's range of AoAs... If this further detail translates or not into closer to real outcome, I really don't know, and I still prefer the "feel of flight" in AEFS2 to what X-Plane provides, specially when leaving the normal flight envelope.


    Also, having fresh code, and an insightful team behind it, AEFS2 certainly has the potential to grow even better than X-Plane in the FDM area in the short run...


    I am really willing to taste the upcoming Q-400, and the turboprop model it uses :-)

    But actually your original question makes a LOT of sense.


    For one, most of the aircraft add-ons that were released for AEFS1, I believe produced by Just Flight, were inherited from MSFS models. Even the Airbus is ported ( the cockpit 3d model at least ) from the Aerosoft Airbus ( AFAIK ), so, there must be a relatively easy way to port 3d models from MSFS into AEFS2.


    Flight dynamics wise, and after looking with more attention at the aircraft definition files, I believe it wouldn't actually be that difficult to create a "translator" of MSFS FDM into AEFS2 FDM, although in some aspects MSFS's FDM has more detail than AEFS2's ( at it's present state of affairs ) like for instance in the modelling of Mach effects, but not only, while there are aspects of the flight dynamics modelling, derived from the rigid body approach and decomposition of an aircraft into a collection of lift / drag / thrust generating units, that extend the possibilities available for modelling of flight dynamics in AEFS2, bringing it closer to what was used for instance in Flight Unlimited, and is nowadays used by X-plane, DCS World and IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad, i.e.


    So, again, your question was indeed a rather pertinent one, if we forget about the legal restrictions of actually converting an aircraft model between two commercial, patented brands...

    I am trying to fine tune propwash / slipstream effects on prop aircraft, and I decided to edit these parameters in the tail surfaces and fuselage, but I would like to better understand what the rotation really means - plane and direction.


    For instance, by increasing Propwash-Rotation in the vertical fin from 0.05 default to 0.25 I get a noticeable yaw when power is applied, so this rotation was "around" the "z" ( yaw ) axis, which was what I was expecting for a CW rotating prop in the C172.


    Then I also applied that to the left horizontal fin / stabilizer, and it appeared to "twist" clockwise around the "x" ( roll ) axis, but it wasn't very evident in my tests inflight...


    I see that I can separately tune this parameters between the port and starboard sides, but I would really like to know more about the effects of these parameters, and their sign conventions too - I left them positive in all my tests.


    The available parameters, in "aerowing" sections are:


    - PropwashPercentage
    - PropwashRotation
    - PropwashOmega


    I see the Omega is there to harden / soften the propwash effect over an aerowing, while the other two scale the "twisting" effects it can have.


    Thx for any hints

    Wow!


    Decision made - buying a 1TB disk just for AEFS2, and upgrading into an i7 7000 series.... Graphics board upgrade maybe by Christmas...


    And of course, I will become an ORBX client... Until now my only product from them was FTX Global...

    Thx for the Report Jeff!


    Looking fwd into it!


    Well, suposedly we already should have a turboprop in AEFS2 - the C90 with it's PT-6....


    I hope the turboprop enhancements will also be ported to this model. For instance I would liek to see FF not varying with prop RPM adjustments at constant throttle / condition / altitude...