1% for CFS1?

[hubbabubba]

I'm one of those strange cuckoos still making airplane and scenery for CFS1. Anyone knows if the 1% aircraft movement for CFS2 has some followers in the CFS1 "die-hard" community. If you're one of them, I would like to know you and how you're doing it. I have tried once with the "spreadsheet" but, after two days of valiant efforts, I ended-up with an airplane dancing "la cucaracha" and flying like a ton of bricks attached on a canary's shoulders.

If you have done better, I would like to know.

Hubbabubba

[Henry]

the spreadsheet works if you add correct info
garbage in garbage out, an old computer saying!
its been a while since i did anything with cfs1
but a good cfs2 airfile should work with cfs1
actually a good fs9 airfile should work also
check and recheck your figures
H

[sparks]

CFS1 is not backward compatible with any sim versions that followed it, and there are some airfile sections that will crash it if present. Some sections (507 in particular) won't accept as many points (limit 3) as the later versions (limit 6) and this can also cause crashes. The engine power isn't the same. Engine power also increases dramatically with altitude in CFS1. There's also a bug in the way CFS1 interprets angle of incidence - an aircraft with a large AOI will accelerate in a turn.

The Flight Model Workbook does have the option of generating CFS1 compatible airfiles, and workbooks done for CFS3 can just as easily generate CFS1 (or CFS2) airfiles.

[Henry]

I must admit i allways learn a lot when you post
thanks
H:icon29:

[hubbabubba]

Don't want to be over-sensitive Henry, but the "garbage" you're talking about took me over 2 years of research on the web, public libraries and bookstores of all kind!:mad:

Sifting through all those specs, often contradicting one another, is not a small task considering that I have no background in aerodynamics or mechanics. In fact, I don't even drive!

Coupled with the fact that I know nothing about spreadsheet and you'll have a pretty good idea of the sh*t I was digging myself into!

I've downloaded the latest version of the spreadsheet, seems to be clearer. Will have a go at it once more time. Wish me luck...:)

Hubbabubba

[sparks]

Just to be sure I'm not blowing smoke about the spreadsheet, I've re-installed CFS1 to check it out.

I found one error in it (section 301 fuselage angle has the wrong sign). I'll have to update the workbook to correct it.

I also forgot how sensitive CFS1 was to landing gear parameters, and those didn't translate well from the CFS3 values.

After patching those things, the flight model worked as expected.

[hubbabubba]

Thank you sparks. Especially for taking the time to re-install CFS1 just to check it out!:cool:

Hubbabubba :D

[Henry]

Don't want to be over-sensitive Henry, but the "garbage" you're talking about took me over 2 years of research on the web, public libraries and bookstores of all kind!:mad:



Hubbabubba
im sorry i didnt mean it that way
but if incorect figures are put in incorect answers are the result
i in no way meant any dissrespect
sorry if it looked that way
i do not know who you are so therefore i dont know what you know
H

[hubbabubba]

Don't take it too hard Henry, I know what you meant to say. It's just the way it sounded.

For your pennant, I have a "newbie" question for you:

Data found about everywhere does not specify, speed wise, if it is IAS or TAS. What should I conclude?

Hubbabubba

[sparks]

If it's maximum airspeed, it's TAS.

If you're marketing fighters, do you advertise 437 mph at 25,000 ft or 290 mph at 25,000 ft?

[hubbabubba]

I thought that only politicians, lawyers and used car salesmen were prone to that kind of overstatement!

Well... I had a go at the last workbook edition (v 3.00.09) and, after a night of meticulous data entering, I was told to create a CFG scrape points data, even if I have no use for it as my CFG file is fine the way it is. So I shamelessly took the P-51 data of the original spreadsheet and copy-pasted it into my spreadsheet just to get an updates.txt file. I am now getting a «Run-time error "13": Type mismatch» with what looks like a truncated updates.txt. I tried to merge that updates.txt to my air file but the plane was a "no show" under CFS1. Thank God for backups!

I will try to redo the spreadsheet with "real" scrape points and gear points from my air file and see.:confused:

Hubbabubba

[sparks]

You'll eventually need the latest update of the workbook (updated yesterday), and if you keep getting the runtime errors, create and send me a copy of the support_data.txt file (click the button covering cell N3 on the Data sheet)

jerry@mudpond.us

[hubbabubba]

Hi sparks!

So, "sparks" an J.B. are the same and only one!:jawdrop: I suspected that much when you said that you would have a look in "your" workbook. I'm honored. BTW, thanks again for letting me use one of your gauge in my Taifun's panel.

Before reading your most recent post and making a second attempt along the lines stated in my previous post, I went on mudpond's site to check for any news and found your new workbook's version that I diligently downloaded and installed over the old one. So, in a sense, the mind was faster than the pen (or keyboard). I then went on copying and pasting my data from the old spreadsheet to the new and realized that I copied more than scrape and gear points from the P-51. That's probably the cause of my "Runtime" error.
I also entered the "real" points in the cfg section but not the datum point as I had no intention of modifying my CFG file.

But at this point, and at the risk of looking like an idiot, which I gradually accept as being my second nature, a few questions:

- They're is no longer a cell to enter "tip chord", why?;

- WEP RPM is no longer asked from your last version to the former one, why?;

- In "Workbook.doc", it is said that, after entering information concerning the propeller in the data sheet we should go to the prop sheet and click on the "Reset Weighting" button. Is it the "Reset Prop Efficiency Factors" button that has changed name? I have not clicked on any button, being too afraid of getting a "Runtime" message once again.

- Is there a way to merge a rather good air file into the workbook? I've seen that you can import points from a CFG file, so I wonder if we could do some "reversed engineering" with data entered manually with AirEd.

But enough digression. The making of the "updates.txt" went like a hot knife through soft butter, on the first time and so fast that I thought that something was wrong. But there it was: a brand new "updates.txt" file that was not there seconds ago.

I then merged it with my air file and went for a test run. The plane exploded after a few jumps. I was not surprised a bit though as I had not entered te datum point. I simply copy-pasted my section 1004-1005 from my backup copy into my new air file and returned to testing.

First surprise, after starting the motor, it died after a few seconds. I had not observed that phenomenon since my first "tweaks" of a stock Hurricane's file.

Second surprise, the prop is turning like a windmill in a very soft breeze, must be caused by my "reset" button phobia.

Third surprise, the gear would only retract for 15%. Turned out to be caused by the fact that the gear retraction power was not on "manual", could not find what cell to modify so I did it through AirEd manually.

Flying qualities seems very good. It is a more "nervous" flight model than my own but I like it. The power and RPM are still too low at sea level and at peak level though. The power and RPM curves seems to be OK. Does modifying manifold pressure will maintain those curves while "heightening" them. My manifold pressure data is pure guess. In fact I must admit - not being "mechanically" inclined - that I have only a faint idea of what "manifold pressure" actually means.

But first results are encouraging and, for that, I thank you sparks!:)

Sincerely

Hubbabubba aka Guy Gauvreau

[sparks]

- They're is no longer a cell to enter "tip chord", why?;


Because given surface area and root chord, I can calculate the tip chord.


- WEP RPM is no longer asked from your last version to the former one, why?;


It was an unnecessary complication.


- In "Workbook.doc", it is said that, after entering information concerning the propeller in the data sheet we should go to the prop sheet and click on the "Reset Weighting" button. Is it the "Reset Prop Efficiency Factors" button that has changed name?


The name on the button was changed so it now says what it does.


- Is there a way to merge a rather good air file into the workbook? I've seen that you can import points from a CFG file, so I wonder if we could do some "reversed engineering" with data entered manually with AirEd.


No, but you can import most of the data from an aircraft.cfg file. Try the 'Get Airplane Geometry' on the cfg sheet that covers cell R333.


I then merged it with my air file and went for a test run. The plane exploded after a few jumps. I was not surprised a bit though as I had not entered te datum point. I simply copy-pasted my section 1004-1005 from my backup copy into my new air file and returned to testing.


The reference_datum_position and empty_weight_CG_position are not required for CFS1. I believe they are hard coded to zero in CFS1.

The spreadsheet doesn't calculate the spring and damping coefficients for section 1004. These have to be calculated manually and entered as overrides for CFS1. (Fields sheet, cells G334-G335 and G337-G338) Or wait for the next update. ;)


First surprise, after starting the motor, it died after a few seconds. I had not observed that phenomenon since my first "tweaks" of a stock Hurricane's file.

Second surprise, the prop is turning like a windmill in a very soft breeze, must be caused by my "reset" button phobia.


Check the engine data, then try that "Reset Prop Efficiency Factors" button.


Third surprise, the gear would only retract for 15%. Turned out to be caused by the fact that the gear retraction power was not on "manual", could not find what cell to modify so I did it through AirEd manually.


The spreadsheet's default is 'hydraulic', so the problem is more likely the setup for the hydraulic system. The data entry cell for the gear power source (523) is on the Fields sheet at cell G131.


Flying qualities seems very good. It is a more "nervous" flight model than my own but I like it. The power and RPM are still too low at sea level and at peak level though. The power and RPM curves seems to be OK. Does modifying manifold pressure will maintain those curves while "heightening" them. My manifold pressure data is pure guess. In fact I must admit - not being "mechanically" inclined - that I have only a faint idea of what "manifold pressure" actually means.


The tail dimensions and surface areas are very important for the spreadsheet to calculate the coefficients that result in 'nervous' flight models. Larger distances and areas have a 'calming' effect.

You can check the engine power levels directly with the flight test panel.

As far as the spreadsheet is concerned, manifold pressure can be almost any value.

[Ivan]

Hello Sparks, or J.B.!
I am still using tools you wrote a long time ago such as your test panel.

Thanks.
- Ivan.

[sparks]

Thanks Ivan.

I just reinstalled (re-created is more like it) a test panel for CFS1 and it really could use an update. CFS1 just doesn't have as much data available through the panels interface as the later sims do.

The Flight Dynamics Workbook has been updated one more time to calculate the old air file spring and damping coefficients for the landing gear. These are translated from the contact point values entered the config (cfg) sheet.

And finally, AirWrench (Beta14) now works with CFS1 flight models, but only for piston engine aircraft.

[fliger747]

Mr Sparks:

Will the new and improved workbook also treat the landing gear contact points differently than before for CFS2 and FS9?

Sometimes getting the desired reaction out of the 'aircraft' at touchdown can be an interesting experience. Improper entries seem to be able to violate normal laws of physics (as they apply to real planes) with impunity.

Without your work in this area of flight dynamics, FS would be a lot less 'real as it gets'.

[sparks]

Mr Sparks:

Will the new and improved workbook also treat the landing gear contact points differently than before for CFS2 and FS9?



No, you're still pretty much on your own to figure those out. Contact points for the landing gear are hard to do because the visual model also has to be considered. Not only the length and location, but the static compression also has to match the animation of the visual model. I have a hard time with these myself, and even when I'm using the excellent wire-frame displays in Aircraft Container Manager I wind up doing a lot of cut and try.

[Henry]

and even when I'm using the excellent wire-frame displays in Aircraft Container Manager I wind up doing a lot of cut and try.
I have aircraft container manager but it seems the site has been hacked
and i cant register it
do you have any knowlege as to when it could reopen?
H

[sparks]

I don't know any of the people who produce ACM, but I sent an email message to their support address back in September when I first discovered the site was hacked. Never got a response back, and all I get at their URL is a blank page. :mad:

[hubbabubba]

Hi sparks!

Happy to see that my thread has renewed your interest in CFS1. Went on your site and took copies of the new edition of your workbook and of your beta AirWrench. Couldn't find your CFS1 panel though.

I've recently given a copy of mine to Ivan, who had given me a copy of his old one, and noted that "JWB.rstack.gau", despite having the same version number and the same general appearance, was a quite different gauge. Fortunately, I had renamed the old version and placed it side by side on a makeshift panel to verify why there was a 50 lines of code discrepancy between those two. Noted that there is some differences in precision. For example, pitch angle is now given with 3 digits after the decimal point, the old one having only one.

If you're ever interested, I could send you a copy of "my" CFS1 test panel. After all, it contains mainly "your" gauges. It is largely inspired by your CFS2 test panel with the necessary adaptation and some addition. It may help you by "shaking" those neurons of yours still in tune with CFS1.

But thanks again from a CFS1 "die hard"!:mixedsmi:

Hubbabubba