• No Dice's Avatar
    Yesterday, 17:35
    Hello Dave, Although it is a bit premature, When all is completed and cleaned up, I would like to post your tutorial in the CFS1 tutorial section of the Free Flight Site. Let me know Sir, Dave
    3 replies | 63 view(s)
  • No Dice's Avatar
    February 25th, 2015, 11:29
    You can find it here, Bundled in the CFGedit download, top of page,, http://www.thefreeflightsite.com/Design.htm Dave
    21 replies | 616 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 23rd, 2015, 13:09
    Hello Hubbabubba, You're right. Your instructions were really to cure a "Jittery Cockpit". I expanded them to add in the Virtual Cockpit pieces and Canopy Frame, etc. Also added since then are adjusted animations though they are definitely not in my notes. One funny thing is that the Jittery Cockpit doesn't appear in FS98 while the "Corrected" version wobbles all over the place. Hello Aleatorylamp, You can disassemble the models I sent you and see what kind of code I started with. The changes to your model were not terribly extensive, so they would not be hard to find.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • hubbabubba's Avatar
    February 23rd, 2015, 00:20
    I would have had to know the question before answering it. That's why I said that I would read the thread, the e-mails, and the PM to understand what you meant by "Virtual Cockpit". Was it the "no jittering" in virtual mode or the gauges in virtual mode, or something else, anyway... Aleatorylamp; SCASM is an assembly language and need a GUI to work with, like Airport, EOD, etc... And the latest version available HERE is 2.96. To build (or rebuild) a/c, you will need Trevor de Stigter MDLDisAs that you can find HERE and a good TXT editor, this is the GUI I was talking about, but oriented toward aircraft (hence the MDL) than scenery. You have to realize that pretty much all of my tools, and my e-mails, were lost when my W90SE machine went cold. And my own memory is barely better than...
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • No Dice's Avatar
    February 22nd, 2015, 15:44
    Happy Birthday Sir, Sorry that it is late in the evening before the wishes, Hope you had a great one,:birthday: Dave
    9 replies | 144 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 22nd, 2015, 11:45
    Hello Hubbabubba, I was thinking that a quick lesson in how to set up a V Cockpit using SCASM like what you sent to me back in 2006 would do Aleatorylamp quite a lot of good. - Ivan.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • hubbabubba's Avatar
    February 21st, 2015, 01:10
    Sorry guys! Ivan just send me an e-mail about the "Giant" that I could not have possibly missed. Well, guess what; I've missed it!:banghead: The problem is that I'm using an RSS feed to keep in touch with latests threads, and "Conspicuous by Their Absence" is not fresh, to say the least. Aleatorylamp, I will read your PM and respond to it, but, in the meantime, you should read my "series" of HTML tutorials at NoDice site; to be found HERE. This will give you a good basis for further conversation. Thanks for the heads-up, Ivan. Otherwise, the obvious would have passed just under my nose!:engel016:
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 20th, 2015, 18:49
    Ivan replied to a thread Warhawk in CFS1 General Discussion
    Hello Aleatorylamp, I know the feeling of working with very imprecise drawings. That is how my first models started and even more recently, some of the models were created from much less than perfect drawings. The issue here is that I KNOW the correct dimension here and this discrepancy is the largest one that I know about thus far. The Carb Scoop that I most recently worked on was a result of this. I could not get the shape right with trying to keep a smooth curve and keeping within the dimensions and now I know WHY I had that issue. Not knowing is a good excuse, but here I DO know. It also appears that ALL of the P-40s had the same Thrust Line so correcting it once here corrects it for all the descendants as well. It may take a while to get there though.... - Ivan.
    67 replies | 3023 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 18th, 2015, 13:10
    Ivan replied to a thread Warhawk in CFS1 General Discussion
    In looking over the Drawings and the mismatch, what I see now is that the actual change to make a correction to the Thrust Line from 3.75 inch above the FRL to 3.078 inch above the FRL is actually only 0.04 feet. It is a little less because of the rounding errors necessary to represent items listed in Thousandths of an Inch to the AF99 resolution which is only 0.01 Foot or 0.12 Inch. The next step is to actually make the correction and fix everything else this will break. It doesn't look like much of a change in the screenshot, does it? I am almost tempted not to do it except my eyeball has been telling me since I built this version that the nose was a touch too high. The quest for "Perfect" dimensions never ends! - Ivan.
    67 replies | 3023 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 17th, 2015, 13:21
    Hello Aleatorylamp, I don't have a solution for the cockpit interior view. I know how to modify them, but I have basically been following a recipe I got from Hubbabubba a few years ago. It is a heavily modified recipe, but that is where it started. For SCASM stuff, he is certainly a better source for advice. As for the issue of maneuverability, there are a few ways to handle it. You obviously can't make the control column require more force to move because it is only a little plastic thing wired to your computer. Sometimes reducing the control response will give the proper illusion. Sometimes modulating the control effect works. (The control effect is very good and nearly linear to start. It hits a peak or its effect increases more slowly with increasing deflection.)
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 16th, 2015, 22:38
    Hello Aleatorylamp, Please go back to Post 1028. There is a bit of very useful information there. One of my pilot's comments was about the consistent nose down trim. Your post suggests it Should be a slight nose UP trim if the altimeter becomes steady with reduced power: Steps to establish Cruise setting 1. Climb to operational altitude. 2. Reduce power until aircraft is no longer climbing.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 16th, 2015, 19:07
    Hello Aleatorylamp, One of my test pilots did a pre-flight and then took the Giant aeroplane up for a few short flights. He came back muttering something like "Handles like a HUGE truck...." but then again, he generally doesn't fly anything bigger than a heavy twin. I think I need to send that fellow back to do some flying on the Eindecker so that he can understand how the older aeroplanes performed. I forwarded you his report and recommendations. Even he agrees that he needs a bit more time to evaluate the Giant. Use MPH or Knots or anything else you like. I will just convert to either MPH or Feet per Second as appropriate. I grew up with MPH and FPS, so I use those because I have a pretty good feel for what they mean.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 15th, 2015, 13:03
    Hello Aleatorylamp, I wish I had some words of advice and wisdom, but the problem right now is that I no longer have a feeling for where your flight model is as compared to where it started. It is very much like playing a long game of blindfold chess. Each move isn't hard. Early on, the moves are obvious because the position is easy to remember, but as the game gets longer, the current position gets much harder to remember and the problem becomes one of figuring out the position first before deciding what to do. I don't suppose there is really very much difference between 73 Knots and 70 Knots but part of the problem is that you are expecting some pretty different things to happen between 56 Knots and 70 Knots and there isn't much room to change things. By the way, after all...
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 14th, 2015, 15:02
    Ivan replied to a thread Warhawk in CFS1 General Discussion
    .....And just when you thought it was safe, I just found that one of my reference drawings probably had a slight error. The actual drawing wasn't bad. The annotation on it was incorrect. The drawing listed the P-40E Thrust line to be 3.75 inches above the FRL The newer drawing found in looking for data for the P-40F states that it should be 3.078 inch. The really ironic thing is that this is pretty much the difference between the current model and the prior model so I am putting things back the way they were before.... Sheesh! The change would not really be visible (about 0.06 foot difference) but I have to do it anyway for the P-40F..... Corrections in the quest for perfection. It never ends....
    67 replies | 3023 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 14th, 2015, 14:31
    Hello Aleatorylamp, Actually, I would expect the climb rate to go UP instead of down. Record 512 is actually a "Propeller Power Coefficient" Table. It has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of Thrust being generated. Earlier, the Propeller achieved full 1450 RPM just a bit before 73 knots or 84 MPH at 4350 feet. That means that it may not achieve 1450 RPM at the new maximum speed of 81 MPH. In order to correct this, you will need to drop the Power Coefficient slightly but the side effect is that the propeller will spint up a bit faster at lower airspeeds as well. Therefore at climb airspeeds, the power coefficient will now be lower and provide less resistance and the resulting RPM will be higher.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 14th, 2015, 11:23
    Hello Aleatorylamp, I believe your latest comments about superchargers is pretty much correct. Ratings however are an interesting thing and I am not sure they usually provide useful information for a CFS Air File. The reason is this: We may have a particular radial engine soon to be adopted by the US Army Air Corps. It is rated for 1000 HP at 2550 RPM at 10,000 feet So what does this number really mean? Sometimes not all that much as far as we are concerned. The maximum continuous output of this engine is 875 HP at 9,000 feet at 2400 RPM. The Take-Off power is 980 HP at 2550 RPM that may be used for 1 minute.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 13th, 2015, 14:21
    Hello Aleatorylamp, I am sure you probably understand but your statement didn't seem quite right. A supercharger allows an engine to maintain maximum boost pressure up to its critical altitude. In the Giant's case, it allowed SEA LEVEL manifold pressure 29.92 (?) inches Mercury to be maintained up to 4300 feet. Above critical altitude, the supercharger can not compress air enough to maintain maximum boost and power falls off. Because 4300 feet was such a low altitude for maximum power, we used propeller drag and RPM limitations to reduce power on the Giant. If you have a higher altitude for maximum power, perhaps the supercharger alone can do it. The problem though is that you may end up with an even stranger power to altitude curve than the Giant has.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 13th, 2015, 08:15
    Hello Aleatorylamp, There is nothing idiotic about a zero Rate of Climb at 12,500 feet. That just means 12,500 feet is your "Absolute" Ceiling instead of Service Ceiling. The original tuning I did for the 14 foot propeller was so that it would achieve 1450 RPM at 4350 feet with 265 HP AT 84 MPH. Perhaps it could do this with a touch less power or a touch less speed, but probably not much less. If you change the maximum speed to 70 Knots (80.5 MPH), you MAY have to do some tuning on the Power Coefficient Table (Record 512) to make things work out. It won't be much of a change I expect, and perhaps the original values might work. From a conceptual standpoint, it isn't the Supercharger that is letting you achieve a power difference between Sea Level and 4300 feet.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 12th, 2015, 14:11
    One thing worth tuning: If I were you, I would seriously consider tuning the Maximum level speed at critical altitude. You will most likely find that several extra knots will increase your power and rpm numbers and put them in your target range. Remember that propeller drag by low advance ratios is how we are limiting low end power. - Ivan.
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
  • Ivan's Avatar
    February 12th, 2015, 14:10
    Which I believe is called Dienst Hoch Gipfel by the Germans..... If I understand you correctly, you are getting 93 feet / minute climb rate at the service ceiling altitude o 12,500 feet but you wish to bring this down to 16 feet / minute at the same altitude Eeeek! What I am about to tell you may upset you a bit: Typically Service Ceiling is defined as the altitude at which the aircraft retains some capability of maneuver. With most aircraft, this is defined as the altitude at which it can maintain a 100 feet / minute Climb Rate. The Germans use a Metric Equivalent that also converts to something very close to 100 FPM. Some aircraft may use a different Rate of Climb specification. This is why sometimes we see two very different Service Ceiling specifications, This is more...
    1053 replies | 62649 view(s)
More Activity

1 Visitor Messages

  1. How do I download your jeep for cfs1
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 1 of 1
About hubbabubba

Basic Information

Date of Birth
July 2, 1956 (58)
About hubbabubba
Location:
Montréal, Québec, Canada

Signature


Torture numbers and they'll say anything.


Hubbabubba, Touche à tout.

Contact


Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
836
Posts Per Day
0.24
Last Post
Conspicuous by Their Absence February 23rd, 2015 00:20
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
1
Most Recent Message
April 18th, 2010 08:24
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 22:08
Join Date
September 15th, 2005
Referrals
0

3 Friends

  1. Ivan Ivan is offline

    Charter Member 2012

    Ivan
  2. minuteman10 minuteman10 is offline

    Member

    minuteman10
  3. No Dice No Dice is online now

    SOH-CM-2015

    No Dice
Showing Friends 1 to 3 of 3