• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.

    Post 16 Update

    Post 17 Warning

Real Engine 1.1

Daube

Daube

SOH-CM-2025
Hi all,

At Simviation we're currently discussing about a small set of gauges released recently, called Real Engine. This is the original topic:
http://205.252.250.26/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1277123255

The package can be downloaded here:
http://www.simviation.com/simviation/index.php?type=item&ID=69&page=16

The purpose of those gauges is to bring realistic engine/flpas/gears failures into FS9 and FSX.
The archive contains a set of XML gauges that have to be included into the panel.cfg of the plane in order to "activate" their features. Each gauge handles a different failure, for example there's one that handles the maximum allowed engine RPM.

Of course, for each plane, the gauges have to be edited in order to include the correct threshold values inside, but that's not too difficult. In the end, the whole project seems rather interesting and provides a simple way to make the flights on freeware aircrafts much more challenging and rewarding, so I wanted to inform you about this.

Any feedback ? Perhaps some of you have already tested it ? Technically, it would be possible to provide "customized" packages for each aircraft, a bit like the RCB gauges for hovering. What do you think ?
 
I think there's a place for that, no doubt, I know we have a lot of RW pilots and for them especially it might be something they'd be interested in. Also, probably a lot of the folks who enjoy the "accusim" aspect of flying might find them interesting.

Personally, I don't use the built in FSX options to allow system or aircraft failures so this isn't anything I would ever use. I enjoy the flying for the enjoyment aspect of FSX. I understand that there is always a chance of some type of failure while in flight, but I don't need it in my type of flying.
 
I never use the failure planification too. But I enjoy having to fly carefully.

For example, my favorite plane in IL-2 series was the Me-262, because you had to fly this thing really carefully, especially concerning the throttles: one brutal move and your engines would go on fire. That was rewarding, it made the plane more important.

After that, when you go to fly a jet in FS, and realise that you can do anything without having any consequences (well, stalls eventually....), you get a little bit bored by the experience. Fortunately, the environment (graphics, AI, etc...) compensates a lot, so the flight is still interesting. But with aircraft damage, that's even more interesting.

For that same reason I have transfered the engine failure feature included in the FSX Acceleration Mustang to most of my piston airplanes. It's a failure that slowly damages the engines when the maximum manifold pressure is exceeded. This made for example the takeoffs much more challenging in some cases !
 
This calls to mind one airplane I don't fly for that very reason (having to watch gauges). Bill Lyons Challenger II Ultralight. . .I used to fly on another site with a group that was designated the Glacier Bay Ultralight Club (FS9 and Holgers "supreme" Glacier Bay ver 2). We all flew the Challenger and that airplane was coded so that if you didn't watch the CHT, the engine would quit. I got tired of having to restart with a fresh airplane, lol. . .it took the fun out of flying for the sake of the scenery. I eventually got the head man to opt for a second type of ultralight and I flew that one instead. That's how much I don't like failures when I fly, lol.
 
FYI, it's also available on Flightsim.


Seems to be mostly for piston aircraft. Dang.
 
I love it. However one question. While testing it with the FSX Baron is it normal behaviour to loose all electric power because I wreck the gear due to over speed? I think not.

And I think the effect on the flight behaviour due to asymmetric failure of the flaps is exaggerated. It's almost on controllable.

However I love the concept!
 
I love it. However one question. While testing it with the FSX Baron is it normal behaviour to loose all electric power because I wreck the gear due to over speed? I think not.

And I think the effect on the flight behaviour due to asymmetric failure of the flaps is exaggerated. It's almost on controllable.
Click to expand...
On a Baron the gear is powered by an electric motor thru a wormdrive/gearbox. Loosing all electrics? Prolly not.
Now asymmetric flap failure will make the plane uncontrollable, one part being flaps are used in the slower/lower end of the flight envelope. I recently did a A/D complience on a Baron concerning flap drive cable failures. Must be important...
 
Anneke said:
I love it. However one question. While testing it with the FSX Baron is it normal behaviour to loose all electric power because I wreck the gear due to over speed? I think not.

And I think the effect on the flight behaviour due to asymmetric failure of the flaps is exaggerated. It's almost on controllable.

However I love the concept!
Click to expand...

Hi Anneke,
There are two answers to why these failures are so punishing.

First, the gauges are supposed to work on any plane. I just didn't find another way to fail flaps/gear on any aircraft across the board than to cut the electric circuit (and btw, the hydraulic one will be gone as well :mixedsmi:). (And I'm even not sure flaps/gear will fail on all acft out there...)
(And just think about the stress on the flaps/gear making things fly around, and rupture hydraulic pipes and generating a short... :icon_lol:)

Second, the whole goal ot RealEngine is to fly in such a way that the limitations are respected at all times, and no failure is experienced ever... So if you have a failure you've done something wrong. You can bring her home, but it's just fair if you'll have to fight for it.

There are some effects which I really would like to be closer to reality, like the engine running rough effect, the power loss effect ect, but the flaps/gear and asymmetric flaps failure effect are volountarily unforgiving. Just don't fail your flaps/gear! ;)

If there's consensus/suggestions to change some effects though I'm all ears for suggestions for a future update...

Gunter
 
teson1 said:
If there's consensus/suggestions to change some effects though I'm all ears for suggestions for a future update...
Gunter
Click to expand...
Not an effect, but if it was possible to customize all of the most important variables with a single text file, it would be awesome.
 
Quite a piece of work, Gunter!

Imagine events like the RTW Race where such a gauge was required in all planes... :icon_twi: :icon_twi: :icon_twi:

Of course that would mean somebody would have to approve the settings for each plane, and those somebodies are already overworked during that event. But it sure would add a factor of realism that is now lacking, and the source of no end of debate and some rancor each year. If we had to fly the planes realistically, it would turn it into a completely different kind of event. I think it would be cool. Even if the only parameters monitored were engine abuse, that alone would be very interesting indeed.

Great work!
:ernae:
 
wiltzei said:
Not an effect, but if it was possible to customize all of the most important variables with a single text file, it would be awesome.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion.
Makes sense. I see how that may help users configure for new acft, and identify the important parameters to adjust.

This thing just has grown from a single gauge to 50+... :icon_lol:
I admit it can be confusing...

Gunter
 
In fact it all partly started due to my frustration to have flown the Evita event with unrealistic mixture settings.

PRB said:
the source of no end of debate and some rancor each year.
Click to expand...

But on hindsight flying a race with Realengine probably just would add other parameters to quarrel about... great opportunity to grab a beer, lean back and watch ...:icon_lol:
 
RealEngine v1.2

Update to RealEngine.

I'm not ready to upload to the sites yet, as I'd hate to release a new version every few weeks, so I'm putting it in the forum here.


Main changes vs v1.1 (realenginev11.zip):
  • Added module “RE1_Parameters_v12.xml”.
    The most important parameters can now be set in this single file, instead of in the individual module’s .xml files.
  • Added module for Carburetor icing.
  • Modules are paused when sim is in slew mode to avoid failures.
  • Reduced severity of Asymmetric flaps failure effect
    This module now has a parameter “Asymmetric Flaps Failure Severity” that allows to tune the effect.
    The effect now needs more aileron, and less rudder input to control aircraft. Check Bob Jane Catalogue on Catalogue AU.
This is a stand-alone version that replaces v1.1.

Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions.

Gunter
 
Excellent, will test too !
The concentration of the parameters into a unique file is definitely great :)
 
Anneke said:
Does anyone have the parameters for the default Cessna 172?
Click to expand...

Here's the numbers from my 172S POH:

Maximum power :180HP@2700rpm (no time limit)

Max RPM: 2700

Max CHT: 500F

Max oil temp: 245F

VFE: (flaps 10) 110

VFE (flaps 10 to full) 85

There are no takeoff or climb power limitations, aside from the 2700RPM limit.

In cruise, the mixture must be leaned for operations above 75% power, but with the mixture rich, full power may be used.

Keep in mind that the real world G1000 includes a "lean assist" feature missing from FSX, and the sim also has a fundamentally wonky method of simulating mixture settings.

Since the aircraft is fuel injected, carb ice is impossible.
 
Thanks azflyboy, much appreciated!!

What could the values be for:
-Maximum Continuous MP with Lean Mixture (in Hg) --> ??
-Maximum Continuous RPM with Lean Mixture (rpm) --> ????
-Maximum Continuous MP with Rich Mixture (in Hg) --> ??
-Maximum Continuous RPM with Rich Mixture (rpm) --> ????
-Climb MP (in Hg) --> ??
-Climb RPM (rpm) --> ????
-Take-Off MP (in Hg) --> ??
-Take-Off RPM (rpm) --> ????

Thanks in advance,
 
Just set large values where there is no limitation.

Here's what I would use:

-Maximum Continuous MP with Lean Mixture (in Hg) --> 99
-Maximum Continuous RPM with Lean Mixture (rpm) --> 2700
-Maximum Continuous MP with Rich Mixture (in Hg) --> 99
-Maximum Continuous RPM with Rich Mixture (rpm) --> 2700
-Climb MP (in Hg) --> 99
-Climb RPM (rpm) --> 2700
-Take-Off MP (in Hg) --> 99
-Take-Off RPM (rpm) --> 2700

Use the Power limitations module for the 75% power limit on Lean mixture:

Rated Engine Power (HP) --> 180
Max Continuous Power with Lean Mixture (%) --> 75
Max Continuous Power with Rich Mixture (%) --> 999
Maximum Climb Power (%) --> 999

Essentially the limitations mean you can't kill the engine of a 172... which seems to be the case for most normally aspirated piston engines.
However, flying with reduced power may extent TBO I guess.

With normally aspirated engines it's likely you'll be cruising at <75% a lot of the time anyway, even with full throttle, as soon as you're flying above 5/6000 ft due to the power loss with altitude.

Gunter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top