RTWR 2014 Early Release of the White List
- Thread starter MM
- Start date
MM
Charter Member
Questions may arise about the Section F8 F-86E/F Sabre. Here is part of the yet unreleased FAQ.
Q. The Sabre Flights are new this year. They are limited to a single aircraft, the Section F8 F-86 Sabre. What is going on here? I have a favorite F-86 and it is not the Section F8 version!
A. …We limit usage to the Section F8 Sabre because it is a very high quality much-acclaimed simulation for FS9 that ports very well to FSX. It is freeware so that all pilots have access to it. Racing the aircraft … requires the pilot to make some decisions about trading range for speed. It should prove an entertaining and interesting ride.
The Sabre Flights of 2014 will serve as a harbinger of further transonic jet usage in the future. Much work needs to be done to realize that hope. ...
Q. Where do I get the Section F8 F-86 Sabre?
A. You can find a download link at http://www.sectionf8.com/ . For the RTWR, we have pre-assembled packages for both FS9 and FSX. These are intended for private, not public, distribution. See your teammates for a link.
Q. The Sabre Flights are new this year. They are limited to a single aircraft, the Section F8 F-86 Sabre. What is going on here? I have a favorite F-86 and it is not the Section F8 version!
A. …We limit usage to the Section F8 Sabre because it is a very high quality much-acclaimed simulation for FS9 that ports very well to FSX. It is freeware so that all pilots have access to it. Racing the aircraft … requires the pilot to make some decisions about trading range for speed. It should prove an entertaining and interesting ride.
The Sabre Flights of 2014 will serve as a harbinger of further transonic jet usage in the future. Much work needs to be done to realize that hope. ...
Q. Where do I get the Section F8 F-86 Sabre?
A. You can find a download link at http://www.sectionf8.com/ . For the RTWR, we have pre-assembled packages for both FS9 and FSX. These are intended for private, not public, distribution. See your teammates for a link.
DarkCharizma
Charter Member
I assume that KIAS is intended? Otherwise pretty much all aircraft listed would require special permission.
Hey All,
I wanted to followup on the Sky Simulations DC-9 in a more general way. We are pretty well versed in the performance of the usual suspects (WWII) era aircraft and so - perhaps speaking for myself - there is a lot of comfort around how the committee views and handles those aircraft. Delving into commercial jets is less familiar as acknowledged by the committee. In fact some of it is a bit odd in that Just Flight represents several modelers - Feelthere and PSS to name 2. So am I correct in understanding that modelers may be both added to and/or subtracted from the white list? Other modelers are out there for example Milviz, Coolsky, Quality Wings, Sky Simulation and I am sure others. Is the procedure simply to submit reference speed sections from other models that perhaps should be considered?
-Ed-
I wanted to followup on the Sky Simulations DC-9 in a more general way. We are pretty well versed in the performance of the usual suspects (WWII) era aircraft and so - perhaps speaking for myself - there is a lot of comfort around how the committee views and handles those aircraft. Delving into commercial jets is less familiar as acknowledged by the committee. In fact some of it is a bit odd in that Just Flight represents several modelers - Feelthere and PSS to name 2. So am I correct in understanding that modelers may be both added to and/or subtracted from the white list? Other modelers are out there for example Milviz, Coolsky, Quality Wings, Sky Simulation and I am sure others. Is the procedure simply to submit reference speed sections from other models that perhaps should be considered?
-Ed-
srgalahad
Charter Member 2022
In most years the Committee has included specific types or categories of aircraft for use in some part of the Race. To achieve this we examine the alternatives as well as decide on what may best be described as a "theme" and then build a list of useable aircraft which pilots may use to achieve the goals while attempting to stay true to accurate flight modeling and parity.
We have published a list that provides a balanced set of representative models. It is not intended to be "all-inclusive." Clearly there are a number of interesting and excellent models that are not on the White List. But many are. Realistically, a pilot who can fly a basic Cessna can fly a basic Piper equally well. The same applies to any other category of aircraft - with a bit of practice and study with experienced teammates most of the equal models can be flown with comfort. The latter is important as often experience can solve apparent problems or issues.
While we understand that a few participants will have a favorite that did not make the list, we also understand that we cannot anticipate or completely please everyone's tastes. As things stand, pilots have many alternatives from which to choose. We shall hold the list as published.
No. That may be of help, but the standard is more comprehensive in practice. First of all, there has to be a need for another model to fill out a category, not just one pilot's desire to use a favorite. In addition to being readily available the model needs to be comparable to others AND be within limits of research-able accuracy, not just at maximum speed, but across the performance spectrum. If a model is seen to add to the pool of eligible aircraft (by reason of popularity, modeled features, cross-platform suitability or other reasons) then it may be considered. As far as the 'reference speeds' cited in the .cfg file, those only show a small part of the models performance and behavior but they are a good clue to identify the unacceptable.
For any of the primary race aircraft (and others in the future) the model is then tested by one or more members of the Committee or assistants to verify the parameters and there may be additional research (beyond a Wiki page), particularly in the case of a 'new' aircraft. Discrepancies are double-checked and the results evaluated. Since this testing and research can take anywhere from a couple to many hours which is why we are not willing to entertain last-minute additions. After all, no one will be able to use it so there is no competitive advantage and if we anticipate many years of the RTWR, there is always "next year". In cases such as occasional or rarely-used types we have been less intensive but still wary of the 'extremes'. In the class of the twin-jet transports, we have some prior use to help define the category with a fairly diverse 'fleet' of models.
Speaking to the last, there are several months between the end of one race and the beginning of practice season. That is the time to bring forward ideas for new types or categories to be included, recommend new models to be tested and for teams to give their members plenty of time to obtain and practice with any new aircraft. It also allows people with the skills to craft improved FDE's and have them evaluated, approved and made available.
--Just one further note: there has been more than one case where pilots have submitted late entries and pleaded for inclusion and after the testing they were approved, and never used in that year's race - or any other. 'nuff said...
Rob
For Mike and Ed
The Executive Committee
Hey All,
OK Rob that is fine - just so it is absolutely clear that no additional models of any of these aircraft will be allowed this year - only the ones on this list are acceptable and that is final. That is fine by me the committee makes the rules - I'm just seeking clarification.
-Ed-
An Add: I assume any aircraft sold by Just Flight no matter who the modeler is is legal? I see you list Wilco separate from Just Flight yet Just Flight sells Wilco modeled aircraft. Thus PSS modeled aircraft are legal as they are sold by Just Flight but PSS is not listed as an approved modeler? Or not legal? An example would be this 757:
http://www.justflight.com/product/757-professional-download
Another example: http://www.justflight.com/product/a320-professional
I do recognize that the modeled aircraft do need to be realistic as per the notes on mmo and vne.
A further add. Just to clarify where I am coming from... As I understand it Just Flight is a retailer of simulated aircraft. Just Flight does not in and of itself create a GMAX model or aircraft.cfg. What Just Flight does do is partner with modelers that do create the simulated aircraft and then retail those simulations to the flight sim community. In the above examples it says Just Flight partnered with PSS Phoenix Simulation Software (now part of http://www.blackboxsimulation.com/ ) to develop and retail a plane. In this case PSS is the modeler not Just Flight. Just Flight retails lots of aircraft from developers they have not partnered with. It just struck me as very odd and inconsistent to list a bunch of modelers/developers and then a retail company as a developer - that would mean Flight1 is a modeler as is FSPilotShop. With respect to Flight1 you said specifically which modeler and plane. Just looking for the same clarification with respect to Just Flight. Nothing more
OK Rob that is fine - just so it is absolutely clear that no additional models of any of these aircraft will be allowed this year - only the ones on this list are acceptable and that is final. That is fine by me the committee makes the rules - I'm just seeking clarification.
-Ed-
An Add: I assume any aircraft sold by Just Flight no matter who the modeler is is legal? I see you list Wilco separate from Just Flight yet Just Flight sells Wilco modeled aircraft. Thus PSS modeled aircraft are legal as they are sold by Just Flight but PSS is not listed as an approved modeler? Or not legal? An example would be this 757:
http://www.justflight.com/product/757-professional-download
Another example: http://www.justflight.com/product/a320-professional
I do recognize that the modeled aircraft do need to be realistic as per the notes on mmo and vne.
A further add. Just to clarify where I am coming from... As I understand it Just Flight is a retailer of simulated aircraft. Just Flight does not in and of itself create a GMAX model or aircraft.cfg. What Just Flight does do is partner with modelers that do create the simulated aircraft and then retail those simulations to the flight sim community. In the above examples it says Just Flight partnered with PSS Phoenix Simulation Software (now part of http://www.blackboxsimulation.com/ ) to develop and retail a plane. In this case PSS is the modeler not Just Flight. Just Flight retails lots of aircraft from developers they have not partnered with. It just struck me as very odd and inconsistent to list a bunch of modelers/developers and then a retail company as a developer - that would mean Flight1 is a modeler as is FSPilotShop. With respect to Flight1 you said specifically which modeler and plane. Just looking for the same clarification with respect to Just Flight. Nothing more
Last edited:
hmmm ....
... the 'Duenna' - even the current one - has an 'open issue' in this 'department' (!) I pointed to this fact YEARS ago and nothing was done to 'fix' it (yet).
The fact: if an aircraft.cfg contains a line with a comment on that same line, Duenna ignores that!
Means: an "aircraft.cfg" entry like e.g. =>
"max_mach = 0.79 // Maxium design mach of the aircraft. This generally only applies to turbine airplanes"
(The commentary is in blue)
This leads to a Duenna logfile entry similar to the following:
"Aircraft-Reference: Vne=434KIAS, Vcruise=265KTAS, Mmo=M0.000, Empty weight=11481.0 lbs"
As many may perhaps remember, ALL MY aircraft.cfg's contain a LOT of remarks / comments to help the "aircraft owner" to understand things better ....
... the 'Duenna' - even the current one - has an 'open issue' in this 'department' (!) I pointed to this fact YEARS ago and nothing was done to 'fix' it (yet).
The fact: if an aircraft.cfg contains a line with a comment on that same line, Duenna ignores that!
Means: an "aircraft.cfg" entry like e.g. =>
"max_mach = 0.79 // Maxium design mach of the aircraft. This generally only applies to turbine airplanes"
(The commentary is in blue)
This leads to a Duenna logfile entry similar to the following:
"Aircraft-Reference: Vne=434KIAS, Vcruise=265KTAS, Mmo=M0.000, Empty weight=11481.0 lbs"
As many may perhaps remember, ALL MY aircraft.cfg's contain a LOT of remarks / comments to help the "aircraft owner" to understand things better ....
Last edited:
Interesting, Tom. Didn't know that about the duenna. Apparently the programmer decided to ignore any line that contained a double/slash, no matter where they occurred in the line. "Hmmm" indeed... 
But... this shouldn't matter much, really, since the only thing affected is the duenna report. If one exceeds the max Mach or max KIAS, that event will be reported in the "time spent in overspeed" part, not to mention the "self-correcting" bit where FS will destroy your plane (*poof*) if you exceed either of the max speed figgers for longer than the allowed time.
But... this shouldn't matter much, really, since the only thing affected is the duenna report. If one exceeds the max Mach or max KIAS, that event will be reported in the "time spent in overspeed" part, not to mention the "self-correcting" bit where FS will destroy your plane (*poof*) if you exceed either of the max speed figgers for longer than the allowed time.
Thanks for posting that Paul
somehow my connection to the Raus Haus died last night. Amazingly the 737 AFM merely says follow placarded limitations with regards to airspeed. The good old days as it were. Couldn't find my QRH which has the info as well.
Cheers. Tom
somehow my connection to the Raus Haus died last night. Amazingly the 737 AFM merely says follow placarded limitations with regards to airspeed. The good old days as it were. Couldn't find my QRH which has the info as well.
Cheers. Tom