-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1056703518162002454
This Vid is about the best i ever saw on managing these engines and most of the systems on a Corsair and in many respects the Hellcat
and one i watched many times over during the development .
This is one of the best discussions on managing manifold pressures and turbo chargers i have read , through the course of it the complexities of simulating the actual required steps are evident , while i make no claim of omniscience in the coding of parts it is what i do all day and dealing with the turbo was one of those, curiously there is but one variable RECIP_ENGINE1_WASTEGATE_POS , and its limited to two positions , open and closed , this combined with a turbocharger failure Boolean value are what’s supported , along with nitro injection and ADI .. in Accell .. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>
So what we are left with is the requirement to read variables that are put out by the engine and throttle position to fake the effect , the aircraft.cfg allowed an entry for turbocharger that i used to simulate the effect of boost on manifold pressure with the use of the throttle and limited it to that .<o></o>
For the purpose of discussion at this stage , and to discern the degree of tolerance for engine management as well as the severity of penalty that we apply to transgressions it needs to be understood that it is going to be simulated, the effect on any given system will need to be coded and be based on system failures and not an improvement in any performance parameter as those are all going to be faked , in effect it’s a system of penalties that i build into the model as a reward for not reading the manual.<o></o>
<o></o>
That is an issue i have not heard from both sides on , my devious mind has already started mulling over a wonderful new gauge... i think i will call it DOA.dll... with it i can monitor if the pilot has followed the rules of engine management to the letter and if that gauge detects a transgression of any sort that would cause failure, the gauge would have access to develop failures in any of a dozen systems , electrical , hydraulic or engines and allow for fires , smoke and even conditionally displayed engine oil splattered all over the windscreen impeding your view on the way down or watching the engine burst into flames if you forget to open the cowl flaps while at idle for more than five minutes.<o></o>
<o></o>
The question “ how far is too far “ remains unanswered , coding the end of a flight can be done , but should it be done remains in question , there are three votes for the DOA.dll <o></o>
<o></o>
This Vid is about the best i ever saw on managing these engines and most of the systems on a Corsair and in many respects the Hellcat
and one i watched many times over during the development .
This is one of the best discussions on managing manifold pressures and turbo chargers i have read , through the course of it the complexities of simulating the actual required steps are evident , while i make no claim of omniscience in the coding of parts it is what i do all day and dealing with the turbo was one of those, curiously there is but one variable RECIP_ENGINE1_WASTEGATE_POS , and its limited to two positions , open and closed , this combined with a turbocharger failure Boolean value are what’s supported , along with nitro injection and ADI .. in Accell .. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>So what we are left with is the requirement to read variables that are put out by the engine and throttle position to fake the effect , the aircraft.cfg allowed an entry for turbocharger that i used to simulate the effect of boost on manifold pressure with the use of the throttle and limited it to that .<o
></o>For the purpose of discussion at this stage , and to discern the degree of tolerance for engine management as well as the severity of penalty that we apply to transgressions it needs to be understood that it is going to be simulated, the effect on any given system will need to be coded and be based on system failures and not an improvement in any performance parameter as those are all going to be faked , in effect it’s a system of penalties that i build into the model as a reward for not reading the manual.<o
></o><o
></o>That is an issue i have not heard from both sides on , my devious mind has already started mulling over a wonderful new gauge... i think i will call it DOA.dll... with it i can monitor if the pilot has followed the rules of engine management to the letter and if that gauge detects a transgression of any sort that would cause failure, the gauge would have access to develop failures in any of a dozen systems , electrical , hydraulic or engines and allow for fires , smoke and even conditionally displayed engine oil splattered all over the windscreen impeding your view on the way down or watching the engine burst into flames if you forget to open the cowl flaps while at idle for more than five minutes.<o
></o><o
></o>The question “ how far is too far “ remains unanswered , coding the end of a flight can be done , but should it be done remains in question , there are three votes for the DOA.dll <o
></o><o
></o>
C
chinookmark
Guest
Chuck Jodry
I assume there will be some people that just wan't to jump in and fly, so if you do implement such a gauge, there should probably be an option not to use it.
I, however, am looking to be punished. DOA away, please! I think we should be allowed a little tolerance for imprecise joysticks, hard to read gauges, and lack of true depth perception ... you know -- the constraints of playing a video game. But other than that, I don't know that there is a "too far". I've got a whole extra knob on my X52 that would probably work great for cowl flaps.
I also like the idea of an aircraft accumulating time, and getting worse with age, like what is implemented with Accusim and I believe the upcoming Dodosim Bell 206. So maybe you could add a .cfg or .log file that keeps track of how much we've beated up on our Kitty.
I assume there will be some people that just wan't to jump in and fly, so if you do implement such a gauge, there should probably be an option not to use it.
I, however, am looking to be punished. DOA away, please! I think we should be allowed a little tolerance for imprecise joysticks, hard to read gauges, and lack of true depth perception ... you know -- the constraints of playing a video game. But other than that, I don't know that there is a "too far". I've got a whole extra knob on my X52 that would probably work great for cowl flaps.
I also like the idea of an aircraft accumulating time, and getting worse with age, like what is implemented with Accusim and I believe the upcoming Dodosim Bell 206. So maybe you could add a .cfg or .log file that keeps track of how much we've beated up on our Kitty.
I echo the sentiment that this should be optional. For one because sometimes I just like to jump in and not worry about doing things to an aircraft that prolly shouldn't be talked about in a public forum:redf:. Secondly, and this is more from a business perspective: probably the majority of sales don't come from the hardcore simmer, but from people who only occasionally dabble with FS. A "hardcore" sim with no "dumbing down"-option might scare these customers off.
In FS (and FSX) there certainly is supercharging.... Though in the way it is setup, it works mostly like turbocharging.... At the moment I am working with the engine setup for another R2800 powered aircraft. Neither the Hellcat or the Corsair have any turbocharging (excluding one experimental model each), both had two stage supercharging, with the aux blower having three positions, neutral, low and high gearing.
That said, it is for some strange reason necessary in the cfg file to also have a "turbocharged line", however this does not affect the way that we attempt to implement the effect. Both turbos and superchargers will have a critical altitude after which max available boost will not be able to maintain rated power. For the turbo's this is higher, as too much engine power is used out of a supercharger to make this practical above a certain altitude. However turbo's came with a host of their own operational nighmares IRL, which belied much of the apparent advantage, especially for naval operations.
The primary lack in FS is an ability to shift blowers and get the exact zig zag output that a supercharged engine shows as HP vrs alttiude. What we end up doing is approximating this as a best fit curve, which generally will meet the known performance specs at a number of altitudes quite closely. Many FS planes have done this very well! Another area where FS lets us down a little is the high blower uses a lot of HP from the engine, in the R2800 about 400 HP at max throttle! This is why the real engine only delivers 1600 HP at altitude instead of the rated 2000. Still it is possible to achive quite accurate speeds, usually the max speed at critical altitude being the benchmark.
In setting up the engine for FS; critical altitude; max MP; amount of boost and gain; and WEP settings are the parameters concerned. In a real engine, properly rigged, it might not be possible under ISA conditions to overboost with wet power, however have a colder day, higher pressure? All bets are off. FS will not deliver a max dry MP higher than the max dry value, so it would be realistic to have a value perhaps several inches higher entered here, counting on pilot engine management. The Critical altitude might or might not be set at the published altitude, (about 22,500' for the F6F) as a better curve approximation might be made by setting this just a little lower.
Certainly the mentioned gauge programming has many possibilities. I do agree with several that it should be an easily selectable option. Most do need to get to learn to handle the beast initially without too much distraction.
In real life much of engine management is aided by "what it sounds and feels like", FS is a little harder.
What the plane will show with such a setup is a fairly constant available max MP at full throttle up to the critical altitude and then a sharp falloff afterwards.
I think there some confusion is here as some fixed or manually adjustable wastegate TURBOCHARGER systems could provide a SL boost that could blow the heads off the thing. I flew (lots'a hours) a turbo fixed wastegate twin that was like that, always adjusting the power!
And of course it was possible to go into the wet power range without the water on.... if it was not delivering or was empty, which had some consequences....
Looking forward to (some day) some very creative souls doing great gauge programming!
Great plane! T.
That said, it is for some strange reason necessary in the cfg file to also have a "turbocharged line", however this does not affect the way that we attempt to implement the effect. Both turbos and superchargers will have a critical altitude after which max available boost will not be able to maintain rated power. For the turbo's this is higher, as too much engine power is used out of a supercharger to make this practical above a certain altitude. However turbo's came with a host of their own operational nighmares IRL, which belied much of the apparent advantage, especially for naval operations.
The primary lack in FS is an ability to shift blowers and get the exact zig zag output that a supercharged engine shows as HP vrs alttiude. What we end up doing is approximating this as a best fit curve, which generally will meet the known performance specs at a number of altitudes quite closely. Many FS planes have done this very well! Another area where FS lets us down a little is the high blower uses a lot of HP from the engine, in the R2800 about 400 HP at max throttle! This is why the real engine only delivers 1600 HP at altitude instead of the rated 2000. Still it is possible to achive quite accurate speeds, usually the max speed at critical altitude being the benchmark.
In setting up the engine for FS; critical altitude; max MP; amount of boost and gain; and WEP settings are the parameters concerned. In a real engine, properly rigged, it might not be possible under ISA conditions to overboost with wet power, however have a colder day, higher pressure? All bets are off. FS will not deliver a max dry MP higher than the max dry value, so it would be realistic to have a value perhaps several inches higher entered here, counting on pilot engine management. The Critical altitude might or might not be set at the published altitude, (about 22,500' for the F6F) as a better curve approximation might be made by setting this just a little lower.
Certainly the mentioned gauge programming has many possibilities. I do agree with several that it should be an easily selectable option. Most do need to get to learn to handle the beast initially without too much distraction.
In real life much of engine management is aided by "what it sounds and feels like", FS is a little harder.
What the plane will show with such a setup is a fairly constant available max MP at full throttle up to the critical altitude and then a sharp falloff afterwards.
I think there some confusion is here as some fixed or manually adjustable wastegate TURBOCHARGER systems could provide a SL boost that could blow the heads off the thing. I flew (lots'a hours) a turbo fixed wastegate twin that was like that, always adjusting the power!
And of course it was possible to go into the wet power range without the water on.... if it was not delivering or was empty, which had some consequences....
Looking forward to (some day) some very creative souls doing great gauge programming!
Great plane! T.
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
From what I can gather you are more than correct. Within the limitations of FS, this is the best possibility. Gauge coding requires an insurmountable amount of time, often leading to "feature-itis." Once one opens that door, the whole gameplay changes.
As I briefly mentioned, the 377 has a very complex turbosupercharger system. The plane was near release many many months before Accusim was invisioned. Once the system had been cracked into, it took some 9 odd months and an SP1 to be ironed out. We are just now transitioning the system to the P-47 which is presenting it's own unique problems. It however is not fair to compare such a system to that of the F6F especially considering the absolute headache of development that it caused.
I think the implementation of such a system that you talked about has possibilities even without the gauge itself.
I am however more curious as to why your manifold pressure that you tested was declining with altitude...?
At any rate, it is clear to me that you have a much superior knowledge of the 2800 than I posses. So, on that note, I'm going to head to the store in this nice little snow storm we have over here and see about getting a lunch made
Cheers!
As I briefly mentioned, the 377 has a very complex turbosupercharger system. The plane was near release many many months before Accusim was invisioned. Once the system had been cracked into, it took some 9 odd months and an SP1 to be ironed out. We are just now transitioning the system to the P-47 which is presenting it's own unique problems. It however is not fair to compare such a system to that of the F6F especially considering the absolute headache of development that it caused.
I think the implementation of such a system that you talked about has possibilities even without the gauge itself.
I am however more curious as to why your manifold pressure that you tested was declining with altitude...?
At any rate, it is clear to me that you have a much superior knowledge of the 2800 than I posses. So, on that note, I'm going to head to the store in this nice little snow storm we have over here and see about getting a lunch made
Cheers!
Good luck with the snowstorm! My folks had 10 inches in the Seattle area! Snow is expected here in Alaska...
What clued me in was that I was getting 330 knots at SL full throttle, (about 30 knots faster than a Corsair) which did not increase with altitude much at all. That brought out the herve Sors AFSD utility which I use for my design work, and it indicated something like 3500 HP!!! and 80". This was of course full throttle and full throttle MP would fall off as atmospheric pressure decreased, initially about 1" per 1000'. The net result is that by the time high altitude was reached, approximate correct power was available for that altitude. Somewhere near 22000' the max of 53-54" was available, about where it should be.
Of course it then occured that this was not setup to be a SL full throttle engine. The merits of that have already been discussed.
Drive safely and keep up the good work!
Tom
What clued me in was that I was getting 330 knots at SL full throttle, (about 30 knots faster than a Corsair) which did not increase with altitude much at all. That brought out the herve Sors AFSD utility which I use for my design work, and it indicated something like 3500 HP!!! and 80". This was of course full throttle and full throttle MP would fall off as atmospheric pressure decreased, initially about 1" per 1000'. The net result is that by the time high altitude was reached, approximate correct power was available for that altitude. Somewhere near 22000' the max of 53-54" was available, about where it should be.
Of course it then occured that this was not setup to be a SL full throttle engine. The merits of that have already been discussed.
Drive safely and keep up the good work!
Tom
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
Alaska?! I lived there for 5 years working at Eielson AFB near North Pole and Fairbanks! Wherabouts are you?
I am now just a few hours south of Seattle in Gresham. Been expecting this little storm. I even saw it last night when I flew the F6F out of Friday Harbor down to Hillsboro. Certainly not good conditions to be flying in! I had to dodge into the clouds to make my landing.
As for the engine comments, I see your position now. That makes sense to me. This is precisely why I don't do flight models and stick to videos.
I am now just a few hours south of Seattle in Gresham. Been expecting this little storm. I even saw it last night when I flew the F6F out of Friday Harbor down to Hillsboro. Certainly not good conditions to be flying in! I had to dodge into the clouds to make my landing.
As for the engine comments, I see your position now. That makes sense to me. This is precisely why I don't do flight models and stick to videos.
OK, my first dumb question. And yes Panther I did read the manual, three times! Why do the gun access panels open when I fire the guns....guns are set to parking brake? Looks a little funny with panel doors flopping open and close when I squeeze the trigger........?
CodyValkyrie
Charter Member 2016
The panel doors are set to parking brake as you said.
I have another dumb question, and like Mud, I read the book too... Why do I (sometimes) get a "boop boop boop" warning tone when I put the gear and flaps down? Sometimes it goes away after I slow down to about 120 KTS, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it never comes on. At first I thought it was associated with weight, since I seemed to not get it when I first set my fuel loads to 50%. But then I got it with low fuel settings. Then I thought it must be associated with going too fast with the "stuff" hanging out. And maybe it stays on if FS thinks I "bent" then flaps, on account of leaving them down too long in the stiff breeze.
Chuck_Jodry-VJPL
Charter Member
The possibility that you have armed your guns with your parking brakes on would explain that , when you go to release the parking brake the guns will fire and the covers will close , but they won't open with a squeeze of the trigger normally .
I rigged the guns to read when the pilot had set them and squeezed the joystick trigger , that’s going to work fine for the majority of joystick users,
but if FSUIPC or a yolk and pedal setup has reassigned that trigger there could be issues i didn't foresee, what you running Mud?
We needed to get them to open somehow , as the parking brakes were chosen i would suggest bore sighting the 50's . CJ
Regarding the stall warning sound i admit i almost never hear it as its rare i come in dirty , but it’s something we will look into fully
explaining in the updated documents , thanks for bringing it to our attention. C.J<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
fficeffice" /><o></o>I have the same condition occasionaly. I was thinking it had something to do with the gear not being totally down and locked. I use the PFC jet console which has the landing gear switch and lights. Whenever this happens the lights are still red. (not down and locked) It is not the stall warning alarm but more a warning the plane is not in a landing configuration. I don't know if this is modelled, but I am going to check and see if hydraulic pressure is low and allowing the gear to lock. However, I have landed with the horn sounding and the red landing lights on with no problem.
Interesting problem,
Edit: I did another flight and prior to takeoff checked the Hyd pressure. The manual lists normal hydraulic pressure at 1500psi. At idle engine it was only at 350 and full power 750. This may not be modelled. Also while you can move the hand pump selector valve to gear etc., the hand pump appears to not operate. At least I couldn't get it to operate.
Tom
The possibility that you have armed your guns with your parking brakes on would explain that , when you go to release the parking brake the guns will fire and the covers will close , but they won't open with a squeeze of the trigger normally .
I rigged the guns to read when the pilot had set them and squeezed the joystick trigger , that’s going to work fine for the majority of joystick users,
but if FSUIPC or a yolk and pedal setup has reassigned that trigger there could be issues i didn't foresee, what you running Mud?
We needed to get them to open somehow , as the parking brakes were chosen i would suggest bore sighting the 50's . CJ
Regarding the stall warning sound i admit i almost never hear it as its rare i come in dirty , but it’s something we will look into fully
explaining in the updated documents , thanks for bringing it to our attention. C.J<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com
I'm using CH fighterstick, throttle, pedals and a Satiek switch panel. Also Accel with SP2, FSUIPC etc. I'll check the parking brake thing but I have the slaved to a diffrent controler (throttle) my fire button is the trigger of my fighterstick. I'll play with it somemore.