Casual use versus learned compliant use of flight simulators
Keith,
This is now moving to a developer to developer discussion about design time issues. My e-mail address has changed since we last conversed, so PM me if you wish to discuss design time issues further via e-mail.
I intend to use this forum to illuminate post download learning opportunities and avoidance of post download input errors. In my two earlier replies I have explained in detail the non compliant consumer input that caused the open cockpit L.3 to crash in the reports provided, and the simple universal means to avoid that consumer input error.
<<As for MSFS, it does seem to require a value greater than zero for the low speed theory limit, otherwise it throws a wobbly.>>
As everyone knows, who is making compliant inputs that do not cause data from two different aeroplanes to co-exist on the memory stack at the same, that is not true. Most of the allegations in forums that MSFS is broken are untrue. The issue is learned compliance.
<<As the take off speed is 34 Kts (60 fps/65 Km/hr) I would think that 60 is the ideal for me as the definition in the FS9 SDK of this low speed limit is: 'The speed at which low-speed propeller theory gets blended into the high speed propeller theory, (feet/second).>>
You have not understood the purpose of 'maximum realism' downloadable content, or the mathematical logic behind delivery of the real take off roll (TOR) to consumers. Since what you are recommending is both illogical and counter productive I must explain why.
This is not a radio control model of an L.3. This is downloadable content that replicates the real airfield performance of the real L.3. It uses a provided STARTUP.FLT to position the L.3 on an obstructed 300 metre grass runway *at altitude*. The downloadable content allows the consumer to witness its real airfield performance, on short grass, in real time, from the driving seat. Importantly that consumer experience depends on their learned compliance using the TERRA - QUOTA control to impose the mixture that delivers peak power. The multiple compliances that the consumer must learn when using 'maximum realism' downloadable content go far beyond developing the discipline to start up the same engine that they shut down.
I have the operating manuals. The consumer does not. This is not a guessing game. I place the consumer exactly where they need to be to understand the real grass airfield performance of this real aeroplane. Then they make compliant inputs, that they learned from the supplied Student Training manual. Some learned inputs require Microsoft software operating compliance, and some require learned real engine operating compliance. Then the consumer invokes my code that delivers the real grass airfield performance, versus their learned compliant (or not) inputs, and the current air density on that alpine airfield. Then they witness the consequence of learned compliance, or non compliance.
Then they can go on to learn the complex doctrine that delivers the multiple concurrent compliances that allow the same flapless, brakeless, aeroplane to land safely over obstructions, nil wind, just below MTOW, on the same 300 metre strip, via a powered or much more demanding glide approach, right down to real Luftwaffe minima.
Each consumer does not have individual thrust values that 'work best for them', in total ignorance of the real airfield performance of the real aeroplane (nil wind at MTOW in ISA on short grass). Meddling with the flight dynamics is just one more casual consumer input error that causes consumer failure to learn real world skills of compliance.
If the intention is to deliver realistic take off distance to Vr, cited in the real manual, then the IAS at which the Microsoft default thrust curve blends to the realistic thrust curve for that specific aeroplane provided by the third party developer, cannot be Vr. IAS = Vr is exactly too late.
The idea that consumers can 'make up' numbers that 'work better for them' is ridiculous.
The underlying issue is your assumption, and the assumption of others in other threads, that all downloadable content contains only a radio control model in which the encoded values deliver no more realism than any real radio control model does. 'Maximum Realism' downloadable content is different and is more demanding of the consumer. The consumer must impose many learned compliances, not make up their own version of what the aeroplane could do, or what the operating doctrine was.
The only thing that meddling to impose;
low_speed_theory_limit = 60 delivers, is failure to be able to use the real runway safely, in accordance with a cherished consumer misconception that a '60hp' aeroplane should not cope. It was designed to cope. by A.V.I.A., and then by me. Importantly it will only cope if the consumer learns the real doctrines which are the real concurrent multiple skills of compliance that allowed a Luftwaffe generic aircrew trainee, to pass lead in training, and be selected for further pilot training.
This 'maximum realism' downloadable content opportunity is about far more than learning what an open cockpit L.3 looked like, and what colours it was painted, by watching a model move around randomly. This maximum learning opportunity is about the possibility of consumers learning real basic flying skills, instead of making only casual imaginary inputs, in a random sequence. I fully realise that most will never bother, but that does not mean that no one should make that complex learning opportunity available.
Many real pilots struggle to replicate in desk top simulators, what they achieve more easily in real life, because they have deficient skills of Microsoft software compliance, and so I address that within the documentation of 'maximum realism' downloadable content too.
Flight simulation simply isn't about casually making up random numbers and inputs, in random sequences. Flight simulation is the demonstration of all real world compliances in a virtual environment, down to real world minima.
Moving on from the ideas put forward by 'Dev One'; many readers here will remember that when the Z.506B Airone hydroplane 'maximum realism' downloadable content was released a few months ago consumers in assorted forums immediately announced that the contact or scrape points must be broken and started telling one another that they obviously knew better than the developers how to model both hydroplane stranding, and consumer = pilot error in FS9, by casually and randomly meddling with the aircraft.cfg.
****************************
Take Off Phase and power: //Z.506B
**NEVER EXCEED 2300 GIRI**
FLAP = UP
CARB HEAT = COLD
TRIM = 14 degrees UP <<<<<<<<<
SCREW PITCH = FULL FINE (100%)
LINE = UP
P2 = RETURN TO SEAT (])
THROTTLE = FULL
R = PREVENT YAW
YOKE = FULL AFT UNTIL UNSTICK <<<<<<<<<<
AFTER UNSTICK = NO HUMAN BACKPRESSURE
TRIM = DO NOT VARY FROM +14
ABOVE ALL OBSTACLES
ALWAYS WITIN TWO MINUTES
BEGIN (MAX) CRUISE CLIMB PHASE
*********************************
The Z.506B crew training manual explained;
<<<<During take off PF in an Airone is desperately trying to lift the front of the floats out of the water to reduce the spray thrown through the aircrew arc, but lacks the elevator authority to achieve that at low IAS. Consequently in an Airone *the yoke is held full aft until unstick*. Vr is not calculated. The Airone unsticks when it is ready to fly. Failure to TRIM compliantly may cause a crash, or very prolonged acceleration to unstick.>>>>
The continued 'shaking', beyond low IAS, was reported as developer error, but was the carefully coded 'maximum realism' flight dynamics demonstrating what happens during the pilot error of allowing the nose of the floats to slam into every wave, throwing a wall of water through the wing airscrews throughout the take off.
MSFS is not broken. Consumers do not need to fix it. The issue is learned compliance. Real multiple concurrent compliance equals a real operating doctrine. In the case above a fairly generic twin engine twin float hydroplane operating doctrine that was simply ignored, by consumers who made too little effort to understand the doctrine of compliance. Teaching consumers to remove all indications that they are failing to comply, is the problem, not the solution. Maximum realism flight dynamics exist to quantify the consequence of consumer = pilot error and deliver the quantified outcome. The issue is whether the developer bothers to invoke warning of consumer non compliance, and then also bothers to explain to the consumer, and if relevant illustrate, to the consumer, how to recognise their own errors, so that they can learn to recognise casual non compliance and substitute learned compliance.
That is what 'maximum realism' = 'maximum learning opportunity' downloadable content achieves. In the case of a 'lead in' trainer like the L.3 many of the real world learned compliances are 3D parallax compliances. The consumer must learn what compliance looks like, in order to demonstrate learned compliance to themselves. The consumer must not randomly destroy the ability to take off from the runway they need to use to learn those doctrines and skills via the Student Training Manual.
Everybody needs to think about the carefully integrated nature of downloadable content capable of teaching real world doctrines of compliance and why that content cannot be casually randomised by consumers who only think they understand those compliances and doctrines better than the developers who have been studying the aeroplane, its real multiple compliances, and real operating doctrines, for many months. It is the developer's job to explain real world compliance, and if necessary illustrate real world compliance. The consumer's role is to learn to demonstrate all the real cited compliances, (the real operating doctrine), in a virtual desk top environment, down to the real world minima. In combat aircraft operating doctrine will vary over time, with enemy capability. That will be explained too, and compliance with those real changed doctrines must be learned and demonstrated.
Casually making random inputs instead, in a random sequence instead, before and after engine start, is possible, but explaining that it is possible in forums, is not actually useful.
FSAviator.
running to get it.....
