Posts by ussiowa

Refueling altitude is typically around 25000 feet (there are various altitudes, but that is a good generic one). The airplane tracks around a left turning oval, example length of straight track would be 34 nautical miles, separation of tracks (two sides of the oval) 14 NM. Speed would be around 310 knots for a KC135.

Of course the Air Force (F15) and Navy (F18) have different refueling systems. Air Force uses the boom as shown in brunobellic's picture. The to be refueled plane position itself, then the boom controller in the tanker maneuvers the boom into the refueling trap.

For Navy planes, there is either a drogue attached to the plane, or a drogue adapter attached to the boom of an Air Force Tanker. The drogue is tracking and the fighter pilots drives the plane refueling probe into the basket.

PS: Hit me if someone needs a modeling done of the drogue basket.

I think since this is purely artificial, that this is fine as is, it's close enough, and since one cannot deploy the probe on the F18 (AFAIK) then it doesn't matter that there is a proper basket, the boom will do. Just approach and fly close, and we'll call it "refueled".

I know, right. I think you got the last one available on this continent, maybe I should try amazon Antarctica.

It looks like it's going to be a while until we get them again, arghhh.

Oh well next generation headset may be available too then.

Thanks Jake, looks really awesome.

I can't wait to get it and fly it, just need one of these $%%$^$%^$% RTX3080 card.

My short (yes short , and I wrote the long one too, multiple times too) comment:

All it takes is realizing that people that complain are people that are screaming to use/buy it again.

People that really don't like a product move away quickly and in silence.

There will also always be complainers, no matter what, but as said above it's actually a good thing.

To the complainers, suggestioners, opinionators, if you really feel adamantly that you are right and that IPACS is wrong or should listen. Well what right do you have to tell them anything? You're not responsible for their success or failure, so no responsibility, no decision power, that simple. Invest in IPACS (if they let you, their prerogative too), then we'll see.

If you're still adamant, create your own sim company, you will be ultra successful, especially when "everybody wants that feature".

And please don't state or claim, everyone plays this away, or everyone wants this or that, it ridiculous. It discredits yourself on the spot for your obvious attempt to justify what you want as what "everyone" wants.

You could also contribute and help makes things better by creating content.

To all, there is a cultural component to all this. this is a multi cultural forum and people come from all backgrounds and countries (cultures). Communication in forums is already a bit difficult to interpret, but when cultural biases (communication, actions, reactions, interpretations, and language barriers) come into play, it makes everything more edgy, please consider being tolerant of what you don't know and don't imagine, and don't always assume your cultural perception is the right one (saying or reading), and that your understanding of a particular fact or statement is correct, on all sides.

And I'm not trying to defend IPACS (not my responsibility or even desire). They upsetted me too (unwarranted censorship), they could do better in my (professional) opinion, but hey they are who they are, and I have no place to say anything, like the rest of us clients or observers. They lay their bed, they sleep in it. Their money, their fate, their strategy, their decisions, their consequences.

But let's face it , in reality they've still done an outstanding job so far, and with a great product, otherwise "we" wouldn't be here discussing it, it's that simple.

Let's hope we'll get sling and lights sometimes, and maybe clouds and water, something, better use or empowerment of third parties goodwill , and .... Anything is great as the alternative (nothing, product dying) would certainly not be "better", for anyone. But still, like everything, it has a natural life.

Michael out.

as I tried to post it told me that there was a "censored word" (now changed obviously), oh the irony.

ANtoine,

In EU right now, with zero time to spare, (just a minute to read posts) . Regardless I have no ideas on solutions to your problems.

Great job and keep going! We'll talk later (Maybe in 2, 3 weeks we can visit, we'll see, although not sure I can get in CH))

Dear IPACS,

Would it be possible to have a system equivalent to the airplane livery for landscape?

Or some system of choosing different versions based on a parameter. That parameter could be whatever, based on time, i.e. today version of let's say Hong Kong, and 1990 version (different airport, different vehicles and building around, different land (lots of reclamation), you get the idea.

But it could also be used to have like San Diego normal, of San Diego Air Races

Or place in summer, place in winter, or any other creative variation of a particular scenery, just like airplane livery.

Or futuristic landscape (which becomes pure creativity from the maker) with maybe futuristic planes that could also be designed. That would be more like a "game" per say then real simulator, but at least it would be an extra option and broaden the target demographic.

Anyway, just putting it out there. I don't think we have enough access in the SDK to do something like that ourselves, so it is basically whether you like the idea and have the strategy/time/inclination for it, or not.

I'm thinking it could be simple as just a button or slider in menus/map and folder branching with specific sub names, but that's pure imagination, I don't really know how difficult it would be to implement.

If it's a Sketchup model, send it to me (save in Sketchup 8 ) and I will drop the nose.

Awesome. You may want to increase the AOA on the Concorde, it lands and takes off with pretty high AOA (14deg)

One step closer to Draco!

I can smell the Brocciu!

What's this F18 stuff? We need a Rafale or an A400M to go with this.

I think you should really look at the Hawaii scenery we made and to come. As far as I know we have tons of helipads all over.

Apollo had a few too, but I don't know how many. It was the beginning of helos back then, only the R22.

And check this post by Jan in the Lynx thread in follow up to this one.

If 125.4 is "tail heavy" (whatever that means in a no tail aircraft), move it slowly forward (move both, the hanging point, and the CG of the empty glider).

I'm still assuming that the hanging point of the control system is at the CG of the empty aircraft. When laid on the ground, the aircrafts always rest on their rear, which may mean that it is forward from the empty aircraft CG (not sure on this one). If and when you have access to a real one, check where the CG is in relation to the hanging point of the control system. It's easy just lift it up by the hanging point and check if it balances or fall forward or backward. then find that equilibrium point. If there is a distance, use that for the model (and let me know what it is).

If the glider behaves worse, or still has a tendency to pitch up, I will change the Cm (pitching moment) of the airfoil. I used the real data, but for Cmbase I had to improvise (see post 44 above).

I wouldn't mess with elevators yet, The more parameters and variables you introduce, the harder it will be to tune.

Also the more we stray from real aircraft, the more trouble we're getting into since the physics engine is real and exact.

Try increasing the pilot weight to see what happens.

Hangliders do not strike me as having a fast rolling rate IRL, but I don't really know. If you know it's different, then so it is.

I don't know anything about servoclassic (when I'll get a minute I'll look at it, ("degree in math" from Steve got my curiosity and interest picked up ). However I can tell you one thing, the movement of a pilot on the control bar is heavily "dampened" by nature, and has 0 elasticity, so that should probably be taken into account, and if the slide has any elastic property and no or small dampening, then it could be the cause.

The motion should be only affected by the control (joystick), gravity should not affect that motion at all (to simulate the fact that the pilot will adjust the strength in his arms to compensate for gravity change and so on).

If somehow the current modelisation moves a moveable "object" along a slide, banking will create an adverse motion just by effect of gravity on that object and slide, that is not what we want, and it may be the source of periodic "instability" (which is what I think you mean by "jiggle", don't hesitate to use the French term if it's easier for you to describe)

Quote from Jetjockey10

I’m surprised IPACS even allowed the dummy rockets to be displayed on the wings. All those 6 year old FS 2 pilots might be offended. You can “hide” the rockets with a click on the Configuration Panel.

FYI It's not just a "political" point of view. In Germany there are special rules and regulations for weaponry and video game, different than pretty much the rest of the world AFAIK.

It's a sensitive issue and it is to their credit.

OK so MAC (Main Aerodynamic Chord) is at 215.86 cm from center line and is 142.20 cm.

That means that the Aerodynamic Center (AC) for that wing is at 131.58 cm from the nose of the wing (25%).

Antoine that should be the starting point for the CG of the empty glider. I would expect that the CG point for all together in flight be around 125.4 cm from the nose and in the horizontal plane (20% of MAC or a 5% static margin).

These should be good numbers to start and should provide a flyable system. We can fine tune later.

The vertical position of the CG is whatever it is vertically from that point (125.4 from the nose, center line)

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Yes of course it is

Neat! Sorry for questioning, I guess I'm too used to old sims and low computing power, where everything had to be "simplified" to fit the computing power and time.

So great, that makes things easier for us in a sense, all we have to do is model the reality correctly.

Jan, any input on this CG location. I'm thinking the CG of the glider is at 25% MAC and then the addition of the pilot moves it forward enough to create the static margin in essence. Or could it be that the glider itself has the static margin (CG forward from AC) in that it would fly "empty" correctly, and then the pilot is loaded at that particular CG (except lower of course) and then its motion laterally and longitudinally from the neutral point is what steers the glider?

Quote from brunnerant

Okay guys, some updates, since I had time to test the new airfoils that ussiowa gave me.

First, I had to tweak the CG so that the flying is stable (like in your story, I have experimented, and I didn't rely on theory ). After some tweaking, I was able to observe some stable flying behavior. However, I couldn't experiment much, since I somehow wasn't able to steer the glider.

Antoine

Remember that the positions of the CG with the pilot and without are fundamental to the behavior. I'm thinking that the CG without should be at 25% MAC (I will tell you what that is in a few minutes, I have to calculate), and that the CG of the pilot itself should be located like a normal human being.

Provided that the suspension of the control bar is at the right point, then it should work somewhat.

I don't know yet about "joints" but I'd think that a rotating joint at the point of control bar suspension would be more accurate (to the reality) than a linear one. But linear may work too.

Well the question could be as to whether the CG of the group of rigidbodies is dynamically calculated or not?

If it is, then at least we know the physics dynamics of the masses could be correct, yet somehow the "plane" is not reacting properly. We can continue investigating that way.

If the CG is calculated once only (at load up or something similar, which could be very possible with a regular aircraft since it is not expected to change during flight (except Concorde and other limited exceptions)), then we'd have to find another way to simulate that part. We can introduce "virtual" control surfaces that would move from the dynamic standpoint (ailerons, rudder and elevator), but that would not exit graphically. That way the "plane" would react properly, and the graphics would be proper as well (only pilot moving).

Well it's not "unforeseen difficulties", more like it's a whole lot of work, and we all have a life outside of FS2 that includes full time work or other more prioritized obligations for some members of the team. So it takes time and longer than first anticipated sometimes. We're stuck on time and volunteering availability.

It's 95%+ complete and in terms of "difficulties", no we didn't bite more than we could chew, actually quite the opposite, we could bite much more if we'd be given the food to be chewed to continue with that metaphor.

As a matter of fact, we did chew much more than we bit as the original idea/project didn't include many animations and features that ultimately ended up in the final product (including tech optimization required because of complexity and size of scenery)

It deserves and requires a certain standard of excellence, thus we want to do what is needed, and that takes times, more time as affected by conditions as Zosochile explained.

More importantly, we also wanted to pace ourselves so as not to get more praises and mark of confidence than we could reasonably handle.

Bottom line, it's coming for sure, hopefully by 2021, but no firm date at this stage. Stay tuned!