Posts by orangedog433

If navigraph can provide AIRAC Cycle support for Aerofly, it will be an unprecedented progress.

Quote from Max.M

True, the ground effect seems to be a bit inadequate.

One example is the Concorde which should (1) achieve smooth landing by just flaring 1 degree (!) and leave the rest for ground effect,

Based on my research into aircraft codes, IPACS has indeed implemented ground effects for the Concorde. During flight, I also found that an approach at an angle of 11 degrees can support a smooth landing for the Concorde. Perhaps your experience might be influenced by insufficient ground effect forces.

Compared to other products, Aerofly's aircraft handling can be overly sensitive. A friend told me this might result from insufficient aerodynamic feedback, causing minor details to be overlooked.

IPACS prioritizes releasing aircraft quickly while ensuring aerodynamic characteristics align with the basic parameters outlined in the FCOM (Flight Crew Operations Manual). However, they are not a team specialized in aircraft development. They can't create products as extremely realistic as PMDG and FINEX.

Writing aerodynamics is still an extremely tedious task. For my work on editing the B777, most of my efforts involve fine-tuning the aerodynamic codes, which consist of multiple lines of code. Even so, I'm just someone who has researched aerodynamic models and not a professional in this field. It's challenging to make every aspect satisfactory.

XPLANE and MSFS utilize Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to simulate the entire aerodynamic model within the game. Yet, I think achieving this in Aerofly would be quite difficult.

If you want to place your device on a desk and get a relatively good operational experience, purchasing a Bluetooth-enabled controller with Xbox functionality would be a good choice. AFG can adapt to them, and the key layout is the same as the default key layout for desktop controllers. The only downside is that on mobile devices, you can't customize these keys yourself, and in my testing, it seems that the pause replay key doesn't work. The control slider hides itself, and the replay function is lost, until the next time you don't connect the controller and start the game.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Keep in mind that there are also different systems and software versions installed in real world aircraft. Just because you see it in one video does not mean it doesn't exist in a different aircraft.

Jet-Pack (IPACS) This sentence pointed out something to me. Perhaps it's not about different system versions between aircraft but rather about the nature of input parameters. Here, I should apologize for my earlier assumptions. The aircraft systems are operating normally, but the set parameters are not.😂

After consulting the PMDG forum, I discovered that this minor error had already been fixed in the PMDG737 for MSFS2020. Maybe I should shift my focus to their upcoming PMDG777 for Microsoft Flight Simulator instead of the outdated P3Dv5.

According to clues provided on the PMDG forum, the appearance of the 'NO V SPD' prompt after landing is achieved through a timer. Their developers emphasized that modifying data should come from documents provided by the manufacturer rather than videos. However, I still couldn't find this clue in publicly available materials.

Because I was overly convinced that this error was happening at all times, I overlooked some other potential possibilities.

You previously mentioned, 'Could also be a different logic depending if you perform a full flight or if you started the flight on (short/long) final approach.' I reflected on this statement, and in the just-completed full flight, the correct result appeared. 'NO V SPD' did not appear prematurely. Although this wasn't my first time conducting a full route flight, it was something I had overlooked in previous tests—being too certain about the incorrect fact to notice the correct scenario.

After a series of comparisons, I found the true cause of this issue:

1. When using the game's preset long final approach, VREF in the CDU was already inputted. However, 'NO V SPD' appeared immediately after touchdown.

2. When I manually input the APP REF page, I manually entered VREF, and everything simulated correctly after landing.

So, the only difference is: the data input by the game is a smaller number, while the data I input is a larger number. Therefore, the conclusion is clear: the smaller number is not the actual input, or it merely displays a number on the PFD without providing the Fly-By-Wire with the actual V-speed. Thus, discrepancies occur after landing with the smaller number, while manually inputting the number presents no issues.

Perhaps the next step is to figure out how to transform the smaller number into the larger number without modifying any aircraft system logic. That's it. Once again, I apologize for my earlier assumptions!

When release new aircrafts, some older aircraft may have some uniformity errors. For example, some functions have been implemented on the B737 but not on other Boeing aircraft. The features on the 737 appear on other aircraft. Sometimes the same mistakes as those made by PMDG Boeing aircraft will occur.

But I think this is understandable, because maintaining uniformity in code writing between models can facilitate timely correction of problems. Some features still need to be completed.

What is gratifying is that these aircraft are continuously updated by IPACS in a short period of time. And all have the necessary cockpit functions. It is hoped that IPACS can continue to solve these problems through the accumulation of time.

Aerofly FS 4——————PMDG777 in Prepar3D v5——————Real B777 in PilotsEYE

I used published a continuously updated post in 2022. Although I was not an experienced player at that time. The IPACS's update implements a large part of the functions that have been mentioned.

Quote from FrankLFRS

Thank you, I will donate.

Is there a way to not save all the files to lighten the storage and of course decrease resolution?

I hope you hand will get well soon.

Maybe download all files and delete the images level above 13 will save most of disk space. Higher level .ttc provide clearer images.

This is just a advice executed on my device

Jet-Pack (IPACS) I tried modifying the engine's data to adjust overall thrust and performance. But I can't figure out how to get my developer monitor to show thrust and other data. Can you provide some guidance?

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

The approach marker is a navigation receiver that displays the outer, middle and inner marker on the PFD. The R0 position, the location relative the the aircraft center, is not all that relevant. The signal is received for several seconds as you fly over the omnidirectional marker beacon on final approach and the position offset would only affect the timing by a split second. Even 30m is not that far if you travel at 140kt or 72m/s.

The location of the approach marker receiver has no affect on the PAPI lights.

Jet-Pack (IPACS) So good that I spent half a day trying to define the position of the receiver to the aircraft's nose in any way. But it seems that none of the methods I know of have succeeded. I still think that if the signal receiver is positioned in the right place, the glideslope displayed by the PAPI will become similar to the glideslope displayed by the instrument, instead of the PAPI always showing you above the glideslope when using an ILS approach. . The position of the receiver should now be in the center of the aircraft. I want to try moving them to where the real antennas are. At least I think it's necessary to try.

Jet-Pack (IPACS) I wonder if it's possible to define the position of Approach Marker Receiver. So that plane can have a correct view with airports' PAPI when using ILS approach.

I have tried some tpyes of codes but nothing happened and even led to stop and crash.

// approach marker
           <[marker_receiver][ApproachMarkerReceiver][]
               <[string8][Body][Fuselage]>
               <[tmvector3d][R0][ 30.0 0.0 2.6 ]>
           >

Does there any solutions or it just can't be define with any grammar?

Jet-Pack (IPACS) I wonder if it's possible to release official Airliners' repaint kits for Airbus and Boeing aircrafts. In China there are many virtual airlines organized by personal groups or official airlines. They use flight simulators to display and teach users to learn airliners systematically or create a community for professional players. I want to invite some of them to try Aerofly. Because it's very portable on mobile devices and low performance required on PC. Generally, they will always make and release official repaints for their training airliners before they begin some activities in their community. So it is basic to have a official repaint kits firstly. Also I think players would always like to drive their favorite planes with their favorite airliners. Customized and high-quality repaints must will bring more popularity for Aerofly.

I think that IPACS can open a game store or creative workshop for user's contents. Maybe they can be released on workshop with official inspection and audit. I am trying to transform Shanghai scencery images to Android and have done some test in my Chinese community. About 30 Chinese players attended my test and didn't reprot any crash or incorrect performance. Just noticed that some oppo and vivo devices can't identify the files if installed both AF2023 and AFG. I still think that add more user's contents with a unified method will be a not bad idea for the game's popularity.

Of course, carrying out some new policies will take time and effort, and also need time to prove wheather it's good or not.

Jet-Pack (IPACS) The method you mentioned above work well! Most of my applications are effective. But my modifications on CDU VREF don`t work. It can take effect if I modify system.tmd directly, but can`t on parameters. These are my codes. Please help me check them.

I think it might lose some codes to describe it exactly?

            <[cl_and_mass_to_speed][VReference20][]
               <[string8][InputTotalMass][FuelPrediction.OutputLandingMass]>
               <[string8][InputCL][1.235]>
               <[float64][WingArea][436.8]>
           >
           <[cl_and_mass_to_speed][VReference25][]
               <[string8][InputTotalMass][FuelPrediction.OutputLandingMass]>
               <[string8][InputCL][1.42]>
               <[float64][WingArea][436.8]>
           >
           <[cl_and_mass_to_speed][VReference30][]
               <[string8][InputTotalMass][FuelPrediction.OutputLandingMass]>
               <[string8][InputCL][1.55]>
               <[float64][WingArea][436.8]>
           >

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Due to the timing it's currently quite difficult in incorporate external changes.

To keep your custom changes safe from any Steam updates consider collecting all your changes in your user documents folder in a new folder b777_300er. Inside this folder create a new subfolder called something like "physics_mod". In this folder you can store your manual changes in form of parameters.tmd file or systems.tmd files. Then just add an options.tmc file with the type "default". This makes it so that after your normal B777 is loaded Aerofly FS also loads your custom modifications and applies them on top of the base parameters and the b777_300er parameters. Perhaps you will need to copy the parameters.tmd file from inside the b777_300er Steam folder but hopefully you just need to add your changes that should be loaded on top of that default file.

Please let me know if this works, I have not modified the aircraft like that. But in theory it should work.

Regarding the V-speeds, I think right now it's just a time delay of 30 seconds on ground, then it resets the system. Could also be a different logic depending if you perform a full flight or if you started the flight on (short/long) final approach.

I will try it tomorrow. The update also make some unknown crash on my laptop, but my desktop works normally. I have to delete and redownload Aerofly so that I wouldn't stuck in loading page for half an hour.

Jet-Pack (IPACS)

it seems that something went wrong with 77w after newest update.

When I want to use A/P to land. Its nose will pitch up and down repeatedly by control from A/P, also can`t flare correctly. Maybe the A/P logic works incorrectly! It just kept normal last version.

Also, I noticed that NO VSPD will be shown on PFDs when the plane just touch down. As far as I know, NO VSPD wouldn`t display until 777 lands on the runway and reduces the true air speed brlow 45 knots. Just like what it performed before update. I can`t find references on FCOM at the moment. But the real planes represented in videos on YTb can prove me. PMDG also make the same miskates on their 777s. But I think it shouldn`t appear here!

[

Also I want to ask if it`s possible to apply my modifications after tested and proved by IPACS so that I wouldn`t modify .tmds after every updates? I spend many times for a more real 77w performance and flying experience. I can send all my modification through E-mai. If IPACS do not accept such requests. Just pretend I didn't say it.

Jet-Pack (IPACS) I wonder that what's the meanings of these codes. I am still modifing 77w so that it can perform much more realistically. I adjusted the force acting on the landing gears. It looks good , but I still don't know if my action is logical. So please explain some roles of these codes which seems don't be mentioned in wiki.

Thanks a lot!

<[float64][LimitSpring]      [11000000.0]>
<[float64][LimitDamping]     [  200000.0]>
<[float64][ForceCompressed]  [ 600000.0]>
<[float64][DampingCompressed][  300000.0]>
<[float64][ForceExtended]    [    2500.0]>
<[float64][DampingExtended]  [    1500.0]>

Quote from Armitage

I checked the way Aerofly does runways:

I had a flight which takes off on runway 23 and lands from the opposite direction. In both cases you are using runway 23, because this is the heading you need to have to start and land.

If I understand it correctly, you want to land heading south, so for landing you will need runway 16 as well.

Do you mean: I want to land in the opposite direction and must use another runway. The same runway only supports operation in one direction.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

You have a syntax error, the block <[tm_time_utc][time][] is never closed. Or is that because you removed some things for the forum?

yeap，I just captured a part of it. The complete code has exceeded the word limit of the forum. if you want to see the complete content ，you can just download and check the .txt file.

Quote from Jet-Pack (IPACS)

Hm, have you also set the destination location and direction accordingly?

I'm pretty sure I set them, here is my code.

If there are errors, please point them out.

Thanks a lot!

            <[tmmission_definition][element][]
                <[string8][title][F18 Air Racing]>
                <[string8][description][Take off from KCLS and participate in the exciting flight time trial with the F/A18.]>
                <[string8u]  [flight_setting]     [takeoff]>
                <[string8u]  [aircraft_name]      [f18]>
                <[stringt8c] [aircraft_icao]      [F18]>
                <[stringt8c] [origin_icao]        [KCLS]>
                <[tmvector2d][origin_lon_lat]     [-122.9831256 46.6835842]>
                <[float64]   [origin_dir]         [178.0]>
                <[stringt8c] [destination_icao]   [KCLS]>
                <[tmvector2d][destination_lon_lat][-122.9824302 46.6710875]>
                <[float64]   [destination_dir]    [341.0]>
                <[tmmission_conditions][conditions][]
                    <[tm_time_utc][time][]
                        <[int32][time_year][2023]>
                        <[int32][time_month][12]>
                        <[int32][time_day][3]>
                        <[float64][time_hours][18.1]>


                    <[tmmission_checkpoint][element][14]
                        <[string8u][type][destination_runway]>
                        <[string8u][name][34]>
                        <[vector2_float64][lon_lat][-122.9824 46.6702]>
                        <[float64][altitude][182.0]>
                        <[float64][direction][358.0]>
                        <[float64][slope][0]>
                        <[float64][length][1520.0]>
                        <[float64][frequency][0]>
                    >
                    <[tmmission_checkpoint][element][15]
                        <[string8u][type][destination]>
                        <[string8u][name][KCLS]>
                        <[vector2_float64][lon_lat][-122.9831256 46.6835842]>
                        <[float64][altitude][174.0]>
                        <[float64][direction][358.0]>
                        <[float64][slope][0]>
                        <[float64][length][0]>
                        <[float64][frequency][0]>
                    >
                >

admin I ran into some problems: I defined the runway for landing at 34.

The mission interface also showed the direction of landing.

But when I apply it, the landing runway of the navigation interface becomes 16.

Is this caused by a missing code or the navigation data does not allow the use of this runway?

Take off from KCLS and participate in the exciting flight time trial!

Fly the F18 through the mountains!

Stay no more than 500ft above the ground!

The timing starts from the START point and ends at the FINISH point. Share your flight time here! Tell others you are the flying master!

Copy the code in the txt into custom_missions.tmc in the mission folder.

If you don't want to modify the file, you can download my attachment directly.

Then you will find the F18 Air Race I created in the Flight Challenge!

Hope you enjoy it!