that is great News! Thx for sharing
that is great News! Thx for sharing
Is not functional in terms of showing the FPV...
Would like to see this implemented, with or without FD / LS guidance engaged.
With A/T engaged we can't pull the throttles to idle on landing. The A/T system always tries to get back to the FCU speed.
Would like to see this more realistically implemented.
having a port from AEFS 2 to GE 3d and some drivers allowing me to be able to use my ELITE hardware throttle quadrant in AEFS2 would surely make me adopt this simulator again as my only civil simulator game!
Wow! Didn't know about it ....
For Steam's Backbone servers and IN, dealing with AEFS2 is piece of cake...
OTOH, we can't really compare, in any aspect, AEFS2 with it's detailed satellite scenery with the download of run-of-the-mill FSX:SE from the last Century... not to talk about the flight dynamics in AEFS2, IMO on pair with the best that can be done with X-plane, DCS, IL-2 BoX...
So, if your connection is a slow one, get a better one if you can
Well i got to say it hurts a bit hearing it flys quite well but we can't have it, but i understand that the atc and other things are more important right now. I think the reason not many are screaming for helos is that people who are into helos haven't bought the game in the first place since there are no real hints that they are coming any time soon.
This is without a question the best vr flightsim we got right now and i think helos would make this even greater, i mean if you want to fly a helo in vr right now the only option is to buy a 50€ dlc for dcs and everyone whos willing to do that would intantly buy your game instead if it had one.
Thanks for the answer jet-pack, at least it makes my decision easier to buy in dcs.
Btw any dcs pilots here? What should i get if i'm just in for flying and don't give a .... about weapons and mission?
The UH-1H or the Mi-8, the Ka-50 being purely a gun platform ( and, just as you I use DCS and IL2 just for the flight dynamics ).
IMO, don't spend your money in the Gazelle, at least until they fix the various problems with it's flight dynamics.
I wonder if IPCAS Team, which I am almost sure is filled with a BIG TODO list, and even knowing about the wiki, could find some time to write down a more deep /insight article about the approach followed in their Flight Dynamics engine, covering it's potentialities, upcoming plans for fine tuning of areas like Mach effects, engine fine tuning, complex systems implementation, and so on...
It should focus on the present state of the FDM, what can really be modelled with it right away, covering aspects like the interference between lift / drag / thrust generation objects / surfaces and how they are used to model a given aircraft, how for instance prop aircraft effects are modelled and can be fine tuned in terms of the common prop effects, etc....
This should be great not only to show potential users and developers how promising this platform really is, but also how it is expected to evolve to further refinements in this particular area.
It is not the climb performance, it is the level flight at altitude lackluster speed performance. Get there any way you can and see what level the flight performance numbers are for you. I like the 275k/0.70 climb myself.
Probably some drag parameters or turbofan needing fine tuning.
The good news is that apparently it's easy to do it in AEFS2 using a text editor, provided you have access to the correct data...
Very nice to know!
Thanks Murmur for your always pertinent questions and IPACS for the great work you're doing with this simulation platform!
The default A320 / 737 although they are set by default with some mid-high load, require a lot of throttle to get rolling, and to keep taxiing while, for those same GW values they should be able to taxi at ground idle.
Where in the tmd files should I look into in order to try to fine tune net thrust curves on ground and inflight ?
Will give that a try.
But can I simply install just Switzerland - no Western USA and even less the High Res textures for it ?
You're right Jeroen, but I would like to be able to have only the Swiss and additional European regions released in teh future, instead of filling my disk with USA regions which are pretty much useless for me...
I would like to be able to install AEFS2 being able to select exactly what areas I want to have installed.
By default it installs Western USA and it's high res textures, and if I tick Switerrland, of course that is installed as well, but i would like to install Switzerland only, and then maybe latter the Wertern USA, and NY when i get a bigger disk. Also I prefer to use the Swiss Alps scenery for my flights than the USA regions available right now.
Knowing this made my weekend! and my consideration again for AEFS2!
Thanks for the clear answer, it confirms my assumption that the InertiaLength is sufficient to describe the inertial property of the RigidBody.
BUT! There's something that doesn't seem right. You said:
I interpret that in the meaning that in the RigidBody class, the inertial lengths (let's call them Lx, Ly, Lz) give the RigidBody the same moments of inertia that would have a solid homogeneous box with the same mass and with the sides of length Lx, Ly, Lz.
But usually, the radii of gyrations are used in a different way, i.e. each of the three lengths, squared and multiplied for the body mass, give the moment of inertia _around_ that axis.
So, which of the two interpretations is correct?
An example to better understand: let's say I increase the value of Lx (the first element in the InertiaLength vector, corresponding to the roll axis if the tensor is not rotated).
According to how I interpret what you wrote, that should correspond to a homogeneous box with a longer X side, and hence it should yield a bigger moment of inertia around Y (pitch) and Z (yaw) axes, but the same moment of inertia around the X (roll) axis.
According to my interpretation instead (the conventional one), increasing Lx should correspond to just increasing Ixx (the moment of inertia around X (roll) axis), while Iyy and Izz (the moments of inertia around the Y (pitch) and Z (roll) axes) do not change.
What is the correct interpretation?
Think you meant ( Z) yaw axis Murmur.
Anyway, the tensor matrix should allow to infer the cross-moments, unless they're not being considered in the present aircraft modelled in AEFS2 ?
I guess the tensor should be there for the calculation of acceleration/ force due to cross-moments and angular momentum balance.