-
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.
Pulling what hair I got left on starting the B-52 Driver
- Thread starter papab
- Start date
IanHenry
Charter Member
Criky, I was just about to buy this! I think I will save my money. Personally I hate sims where you have to go through an entire start up routine, that’s ok when you have the time & willingness to do it, but most times I like to “get in and go”.
One really frustrating example of this is the DCS A10C Warthog, a wonderful simulator, but so many of the missions require you to go through a lengthy start up (try watching the start up training video and remember all the buttons that need clicking, and in what order). Maybe it’s my poor memory (never been a problem before), but I have got to the stage where I have virtually given up with it.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>
Regards,
Ian.
One really frustrating example of this is the DCS A10C Warthog, a wonderful simulator, but so many of the missions require you to go through a lengthy start up (try watching the start up training video and remember all the buttons that need clicking, and in what order). Maybe it’s my poor memory (never been a problem before), but I have got to the stage where I have virtually given up with it.
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o> </o>Regards,
Ian.
Quixoticish
Charter Member
Has this been updated recently or something? CTRL+E works fine for me, or at least it did on the day that it was released.
StormILM
Charter Member
Reading about these issues is interesting. I haven't had a single issue with what has been described here. Engine startup hasn't been an issue not once. I wonder if this has anything to do with the default flight (FSX startup) aircraft selected? I made some changes to my startup aircraft/flight and it wreaked havoc on some other aircraft models causing odd engine startup issues and the fuel tank burn was noticeably out of sequence. When I resent to the default Cessna and restarted the sim, the issues mentioned were no longer a problem. It's worth a try to see if it might clear up the issue some here are having.
As to the systems, this week I have been flying the model on a global circumnavigation flight with no issues at all. Normally I climb burning the tip tanks and outboard wing tanks with a reduced load(50% or less fuel). Once at cruise alt, I switch to the fuselage tanks and burn them down in sequence of fore/aft, wing, center and then the left and right main wing & aux tanks. I normally perform the takeoff, climb to cruise alt and once setting the autopilot in nav and alt hold, I move over to the right seat to manage the fuel burn/transfers.
I found it best to fly the climb out and descents by hand rather than climb or descend on speed using the autopilot.
Setting up for ILS and hand flying the needles is easy. The beast handles like a truck though which is normal.
The flight dynamics aren't botched. In FSX this is pretty close. I've known enough Buff drivers over the years who have described in deep detail how "heavy" the plane feels in the yoke. The attempted "translation" to a PC stick controller isn't what I would call the most optimum means of recreating something even close to the feel of a heavy's yoke". I know my X52 doesn't feeling like any of the real planes I have flown!
One thing I can say is that I adjusted the elevator to be a bit more effective but not too much more. I made very minor adjustments to the drag factors. The model may seem overpowered but truth is the TF-33 engines gave the H model a huge boost in power and speed over the J-57 variants. Aerodynamically the Buff is very clean(when in clean config) and doesn't decelerate all that fast when power off. The drag factors for gear and flaps are fairly consistent for each setting.
As far as the wing flex animation, it is right. The G & H model 52's had wet wing tanks which greatly reduced flex/arc from the earlier models which had 18 feet of wing flex(vertical tip movement) under high loading of fuel and payloads. The consequence of the wet wing tanks on the G & H was that it added a 60% increase in overall stresses to them which had to be dealt with in later Tech Order Inspections/ MSIP Structural Updates.
Overall, I am very happy with this model. Wish it had even more systems programming for the cockpit!
BTW, here's a good video of a 52H making a low fast pass. He doesn't even have the throttles maybe a 3rd open judging from the sound passing by and he's still hauling A!. When he passes and starts his climbing turn, you hear 2 distinctly separate throttle increases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4xxVyZvwM
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
As to the systems, this week I have been flying the model on a global circumnavigation flight with no issues at all. Normally I climb burning the tip tanks and outboard wing tanks with a reduced load(50% or less fuel). Once at cruise alt, I switch to the fuselage tanks and burn them down in sequence of fore/aft, wing, center and then the left and right main wing & aux tanks. I normally perform the takeoff, climb to cruise alt and once setting the autopilot in nav and alt hold, I move over to the right seat to manage the fuel burn/transfers.
I found it best to fly the climb out and descents by hand rather than climb or descend on speed using the autopilot.
Setting up for ILS and hand flying the needles is easy. The beast handles like a truck though which is normal.
The flight dynamics aren't botched. In FSX this is pretty close. I've known enough Buff drivers over the years who have described in deep detail how "heavy" the plane feels in the yoke. The attempted "translation" to a PC stick controller isn't what I would call the most optimum means of recreating something even close to the feel of a heavy's yoke". I know my X52 doesn't feeling like any of the real planes I have flown!
One thing I can say is that I adjusted the elevator to be a bit more effective but not too much more. I made very minor adjustments to the drag factors. The model may seem overpowered but truth is the TF-33 engines gave the H model a huge boost in power and speed over the J-57 variants. Aerodynamically the Buff is very clean(when in clean config) and doesn't decelerate all that fast when power off. The drag factors for gear and flaps are fairly consistent for each setting.
As far as the wing flex animation, it is right. The G & H model 52's had wet wing tanks which greatly reduced flex/arc from the earlier models which had 18 feet of wing flex(vertical tip movement) under high loading of fuel and payloads. The consequence of the wet wing tanks on the G & H was that it added a 60% increase in overall stresses to them which had to be dealt with in later Tech Order Inspections/ MSIP Structural Updates.
Overall, I am very happy with this model. Wish it had even more systems programming for the cockpit!
BTW, here's a good video of a 52H making a low fast pass. He doesn't even have the throttles maybe a 3rd open judging from the sound passing by and he's still hauling A!. When he passes and starts his climbing turn, you hear 2 distinctly separate throttle increases.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt4xxVyZvwM
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
I also have had no problems with it and I'm loving it. Best exterior I've seen and the pit is also well done. I love it, especially for the price.
I guess everyone's setup is different. Right now, I can't use UTX or ORBX as my terrian turns to pea soup after about 5 mins. Can't figure that one out!
Bob
I guess everyone's setup is different. Right now, I can't use UTX or ORBX as my terrian turns to pea soup after about 5 mins. Can't figure that one out!
Bob
Same here, no problem at all.
I have mellowed with age with my expectations not as demanding as they were. With CS the bar is very low which is another story. They have gotten alot better btw which is why I even dared this purchase.
I neither really have the time or desire to cold and dark especially a complex multi engine behemoth like this. I also agree with the above poster that I use to love the insane complexity and attention to detail of the Blackshark and A10 but no longer. I simply cannot sit down and fight both the sim, the computer and hotas configs just to get blown out of the sky.
But back ot.
My biggest gripe with the Buff is that I can take off and be at my cruise alt of 30 thousand look back and still see the airport I took off from. I can pull the power back and over take F-16s! All which hopefully are being solved with simple edits. Btw if you have a few power edits to slow this speed demon down post them. Other than that and in my case a very wonky autopilot I have enjoyed the B-52. Best B-52 for FSX there is....... And probably ever will be.
I neither really have the time or desire to cold and dark especially a complex multi engine behemoth like this. I also agree with the above poster that I use to love the insane complexity and attention to detail of the Blackshark and A10 but no longer. I simply cannot sit down and fight both the sim, the computer and hotas configs just to get blown out of the sky.
But back ot.
My biggest gripe with the Buff is that I can take off and be at my cruise alt of 30 thousand look back and still see the airport I took off from. I can pull the power back and over take F-16s! All which hopefully are being solved with simple edits. Btw if you have a few power edits to slow this speed demon down post them. Other than that and in my case a very wonky autopilot I have enjoyed the B-52. Best B-52 for FSX there is....... And probably ever will be.
1. That's strange as even CS themselve write in their forum that they weren't able to reproduce the correct performance with the B-52...the old problem..either too fast down low and correct at high altitude or vice versa.
I noticed a lot of complaints that the CS B-52 has to be rotated like a normal plane and the few videos from the CS B-52 I've seen seem to confirm that.
2. You sure? The elevator has only 10% chord and isn't even capable to counteract a full speedbrake extension because it's so tiny.
3. I'm again referring to the CS videos where the tip gear stays on the ground until lift off which is totally wrong as the wings start flying a lot earlier.
StormILM
Charter Member
I am sure there are a lot of complaints regarding the model. Sure it isn't perfect but what FS model and FDE are? Having been in beta testing on a number of FS models, I have discovered it is virtually impossible to recreate the flight model verbatim as it is in the real plane. The work that goes into an FDE is incredible. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the very difficult work that goes into them but in reality, they are a limited facsimile of the real flight dynamics. I'm no stranger to real flight dynamics having flown real planes for 20+ years now but I have a reasonable expectation of what I will experience in an FS flight model and systems.
Today, I did consult a local former B-52G Command Pilot who has a lot of hours on the type. The dynamics as they are on this model are in the ball park albeit not perfect. Regarding the small elevator chord, it has considerably more authority than many might think and heavy +/- pitch inputs in the medium to high speed envelope can easily overstress the plane . The elevator effectiveness adjustments I made were very minor and one would notice the effect mainly at lower speeds.
Regarding the rotation attitude, at EWO fuel weights you will have to rotate conventionally to get the plane off the ground. At lower weights and full flaps, it will fly-off almost unassisted rotation. Here is a 15 plane MITO depature from Minot AFB and you can clearly see the conventional rotation take place of an EWO weighted B-52H
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ7niLYSVFo
As far as the wing flex, the upward flex is fairly correct and the at rest wing sag is as well. I do see that the outrigger wheels are in scale about 6 inches off the ground which wouldn't be the case unless the tip tanks were low or empty. A full tip tank will have those outer strut wheels on the ground. This appears to be a contact point issue or animation issue. I wonder if the outer contact points can be adjusted to fix this. I will give it a try and post the results here.
Here is a quick adjust to the flight tuning section to help with the elevator effectiveness and drag factors a little.
[flight_tuning]
cruise_lift_scalar = 1.0
parasite_drag_scalar = 1.2//or 1.5
induced_drag_scalar = 1.5
elevator_effectiveness = 1.5
aileron_effectiveness = 0.3
rudder_effectiveness = 2.0
pitch_stability = 1.0
roll_stability = 1.0
yaw_stability = 1.0
elevator_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
aileron_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
rudder_trim_effectiveness = 1.0
Update- I have gone over the contact points and the outrigger gear can be leveled on the ground easily. What I am not sure about is if the wing flex animation is dynamic for simulated lift only or both lift and weight changes. Somehow I suspect the dynamics have a parameter limitation due to FSX constraints but that is only my guess at this point. I will continue to test and investigate all of it soon when time permits.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
wilycoyote4
Charter Member
http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1292338611 thread for the flight model started by CS
http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1292118704 thread on starting engines----
CS made a post---
Re: Starting Engines on B-52 Driver
Reply #19 - 17.12.2010 at 22:28:50 -
To sumup: a few people have issues with engines, while most people don't. To consider this issue we need detailed tickets from these who have the issues. Thanks.
---------------------------------------
My 2 pence---watch out for saved flights, Just a guess, the BUFF as exterior is one release and perhaps using the new release causes a conflict ??? Deleting an old flight may help ?
Anyway, something similar happened to me in the past twice.
http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1292118704 thread on starting engines----
CS made a post---
Re: Starting Engines on B-52 Driver
Reply #19 - 17.12.2010 at 22:28:50 -
To sumup: a few people have issues with engines, while most people don't. To consider this issue we need detailed tickets from these who have the issues. Thanks.
---------------------------------------
My 2 pence---watch out for saved flights, Just a guess, the BUFF as exterior is one release and perhaps using the new release causes a conflict ??? Deleting an old flight may help ?
Anyway, something similar happened to me in the past twice.
wilycoyote4
Charter Member
another consideration
http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1292118704/30#30
Re: Starting Engines on B-52 Driver
Reply #30 - Yesterday at 09:16:51 I was also unable to start and keep engines running and my control colum was locked. Also, the side windows wouldn't close.
I did a complete uninstall (including the registry), then downloaded the exterior, then downloaded the B52 Driver update, installed both, now all is fine. Looks like there was originally a problem with my online verification which as a security feature, kept everything locked.
Hope this helps
----------------------
found this post this morning, perhaps it is a help
http://www.captainsim.org/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1292118704/30#30
Re: Starting Engines on B-52 Driver
Reply #30 - Yesterday at 09:16:51 I was also unable to start and keep engines running and my control colum was locked. Also, the side windows wouldn't close.
I did a complete uninstall (including the registry), then downloaded the exterior, then downloaded the B52 Driver update, installed both, now all is fine. Looks like there was originally a problem with my online verification which as a security feature, kept everything locked.
Hope this helps
----------------------
found this post this morning, perhaps it is a help