Update Douglas_C-47_Beta_V3.14 feedback and support topic

[jandjfrench]

Hi Pat,
I haven't modified any of the values in the aircraft.cfg. As the value was simply copied from the default DC3 I think it was just a typo and apparently had little effect on operation. But I'm not sure something in either the .air or .cfg file wasn't jockeyed to compensate for it. I will get around to changing it after getting a bit more comfortable with the plane.
I Googled "Visualizer FSX" and it's readily available at Developer. You want to use it with FSX in a window and Visualizer visible also. When you start it first click "Connect to..." then choose something you'd like to see the location of like Wingtips then "Force A/c..." . After you see the aircraft reload click in the FSX window and unpause. You can click as many points as you like if you'd really like to be confused!. And for some odd reason "Datum" is listed in the Wings section. For this C-47 you'll see the datum is located 20 feet forward of the reference and at the nose of the plane. This is handy if you have the plane 3 views drawn on graph paper as you can read the values directly from the graph paper graduations without having to go positive and negative from the reference.
The main reason I'm looking so carefully at the plane is it's my intention to modify some of the panel window numbering as I have buttons on my yoke dedicated to do certain things and I really don't want to mess up things like the monitor and checklist features. And I still haven't figured out what changes the overhead panel panel lettering between the standard and paratroop versions.
Jim F.

[ncooper]

Hello Jim,

At the risk of being overlooked a third time, this would be the ideal single place to post
feedback about the current model.

The main reason I'm looking so carefully at the plane is it's my intention to modify some of the panel window numbering as I have buttons on my yoke dedicated to do certain things and I really don't want to mess up things like the monitor and checklist features. And I still haven't figured out what changes the overhead panel panel lettering between the standard and paratroop versions.

The 2D panel window numbering can be changed to suit yourself.
They must be in numerical order but there is no reason why you should not change them around.

The difference between the standard and paratrooper VC overhead is
SimObjects\Airplanes\Douglas_C-47_Beta_V3.14\texture.Paratrooper\panel_3.dds and
SimObjects\Airplanes\Douglas_C-47_Beta_V3.14\texture.Paratrooper\panel_3_LM.dds
which are loaded when the paratrooper version is selected.

[gaab]

Hi Pat,
I haven't modified any of the values in the aircraft.cfg. As the value was simply copied from the default DC3 I think it was just a typo and apparently had little effect on operation. But I'm not sure something in either the .air or .cfg file wasn't jockeyed to compensate for it. I will get around to changing it after getting a bit more comfortable with the plane.

Really looks like it is a typo when we see the same value for pos_lon and pos_vert (from FSX default DC3) !

htail_pos_lon           = -52.7                 //Feet, longitudinal distance from reference point, negative going aft
htail_pos_vert          = -52.7                 //Feet, vertical distance from reference point, positive going up

The exact same lines have been ported to various sorts of DC 3 : C117, Basler BT67, C47-V2

I wonder what's are the value in the DC3 MAAM (I don't have it) or the FS2004 DC3...

Gérard

[ncooper]

Fs9 DC3:

htail_pos_lon = -52.7
htail_pos_vert = -52.7

MAAM sim DC3 and C47:

htail_pos_lon=-41.666667
htail_pos_vert=0.000000

FSX default DC3:

htail_pos_lon = -52.7
htail_pos_vert = -52.7

My question remains, does this make any difference to the way that the model looks or performs?
A second question, what can this possibly have to do with VC textures or 2D panels?

[jandjfrench]

Hi ncoop and gaab,
Appreciate the replies. Hard to know where to start here. This C-47 is is right at the top of the finest offerings I've seen for FSX. I don't know how many of the unique features work and am hesitant to make any substantive changes in fear of screwing something up. Whenever I get a new plane I tailor it to my liking and correct any deficiencies I come across. That's what I'm up to.
The FSX DC-3 which was ported over from FS9 had many problems such as controls that did not work properly, flaws in the new internal VC and cfg entries that were not in accordance with the FSX SDK. The inability to properly select the fuel tanks was the final straw for me, so I simply used the FS9 version and made my own changes. As a general rule I replace any pop up windows with cameras that vary as little as possible from what the pilot would see in the actual aircraft.
I'll try to respond to your posts.
My concerns about where to post were based on not knowing if this was a thread for general questions/observations about the C-47 and not just the latest update. Unless I'm advised otherwise I'll post here regardless.
Due to the dynamic nature of the checklist and monitor windows I wasn't sure if they could be renumbered without causing problems. In all of my aircraft I have Window 00 configured to display the Airport Chart. I use Apchart to show info about an airport I intend to land at such as elevation, frequencies and layout on something that looks like a tablet without having to pause the sim by going to the map screen.
I saw the info about different overhead views and will look into that further. Still not sure what is keyed on when making the selection.
And finally I haven't made any changes to the htail values so I don't know what effect on performance it would have. I was mainly seeking input if anyone had any additional info on this. I do not expect to find anything in the aircraft.cfg that would have any impact on the VC textures or 2D panels as the same panel folder is selected for both versions. I didn't mean to cause confusion and just mentioned it as part of my general plan.
And please, don't under estimate my ignorance and post anything you think I might find helpful. I won't be offended.
Jim F.

[MZee1960]

Hello,

This should do it.

Aircraft.cfg file, [lights] section, copy and paste all of this over all of the existing light.6 line.

light.6 = 1, -35.75, -1.75, -2.9, fx_beacon ,

FSX



P3Dv4

Thank-you, Nick. This works, but for some weird reason you can see the red flash of the belly beacon inside the plane also - especially when the rear doors are open. Not sure why this would occur.

[PhantomTweak]

Thank-you, Nick. This works, but for some weird reason you can see the red flash of the belly beacon inside the plane also - especially when the rear doors are open. Not sure why this would occur.

I'm not certain, but: I believe seeing a light inside the plane is caused by it being just a little bit "inside" the plane. Try moving it down just a little bit and see if that helps.
A problem FS9 had with lights flashing inside the VC could be fixed by turning the cockpit lights off, and back on again. I don't know if that works in FSX, though, never having had that situation arise.

Best I can offer, I'm afraid...
Pat☺

[Ganter]

I'm not certain, but: I believe seeing a light inside the plane is caused by it being just a little bit "inside" the plane. Try moving it down just a little bit and see if that helps.
A problem FS9 had with lights flashing inside the VC could be fixed by turning the cockpit lights off, and back on again. I don't know if that works in FSX, though, never having had that situation arise.

Best I can offer, I'm afraid...
Pat☺

Still does it with FSX Pat,
In fact more so - I don't think I've got a single payware a/c that doesn't show lights in the VC.
A much hailed A320 that came out not long ago will (as well as flashing beacon light) have rain falling in the passenger cabin when such conditions exist.

[ncooper]

Hello,

It does appear that the beacon will light up the aircraft cabin, regardless of where it is placed
and regardless of which beacon effect is used.

None of them however show in the VC and I believe this was not the observation.

[jandjfrench]

Hi Nick,
I hadn't followed what was going on with the C-47 for awhile and when I heard that a new beta was available I came back. I checked the first post in this thread and it seemed that the only posts wanted were those regarding V3.14. I suggest editing the initial post to include "for all beta versions" if this is what's wanted. A link to the latest update would be helpful also. And perhaps a link to the initial release thread. I don't enjoy asking questions that I find have been answered previously. Trying to be helpful here.
Jim F.

[jandjfrench]

Hi,
Regarding "htail_pos_vert" in the [airplane_geometry] section of the aircraft.cfg:
I haven't flown the V3.14 extensively but I didn't notice any appreciable handling difference between this one and previous MS DC-3 or the new C-47 versions. When I noticed the apparently incorrect "-52.7" value I was hesitant to change it. Well, I bit the bullet and changed it to "2.5" which seemed proper. I took it for a test flight and this may be subjective but the transition from roll out to flying felt substantially smoother. I'd like to hear if it's just me or others notice an improvement. It's very hard to believe this hasn't been addressed previously.
Jim F.

[ncooper]

Hello Jim.

Not too hard to believe, that value has been there since Fs9.
One might have thought that someone would have noticed it and
made a change in thirteen years or so, if it was a problem.
Not to mention many complaints about the various aircraft and
derivatives that continue to use it.
It could still be a typo, there are one or two (!) errors in default FSX

Just thinking logically.

[jandjfrench]

Hi Nick,
I found this totally unbelievable and thought it was likely there to compensate for some other design problem which is why I was so hesitant to try a different value. I didn't state it but I thought the DC-3 always handled very well. Maybe some one will try the change and notice a problem but after take off I couldn't notice any difference in handling as a result of the change. But then again the MS DC-3 has always been the easiest plane to fly under any conditions.
Jim

[MZee1960]

Hello,

It does appear that the beacon will light up the aircraft cabin, regardless of where it is placed
and regardless of which beacon effect is used.

None of them however show in the VC and I believe this was not the observation.

Hi Nick,

Thank-you, for the quick response. I only see the 'beacon light' light up the interior cabin when looking at the AC from the outside viewpoints, especially when the rear doors are opened. The VC views do not show any sign of the beacon light, and for my purposes this is fine, as otherwise it would prove a bit distracting, not to mention - unrealistic.

Cheers,
MZ.

[jandjfrench]

Hi,
I'm not sure what type of feedback the authors were looking for but I've gone through the aircraft.cfg and here are my observations. The only thing I noticed that could have an effect on performance was the tail position value that I posted about previously. These comments apply to the pedal sensitive version.

There are Flaps.1 thru .3 entries which I believe are ignored in this plane. My guess is that they are alternate versions that may be used and this was the easiest way to hide then rather than remarking them out.

In [contact_points] the Class description identifies 3 as Float points. 3 is actually Skid but they're unused in any event. Points.10 and .11 are float points and my guess is that they are there to simulate the effects of an unwanted water landing. I haven't checked this out.

The [exits] section is not in accordance with the FSX SDK. Not a problem as the plane comes with it's own stairs and a jetway will never be needed. I see no need for the .2 entry but perhaps future expansion. The 100 entry makes the paratrooper door be removed so quickly it just seems to disappear!

The [lights] section has entries for points .6 to .9 which have type assigned but no further info. Points .0 to .5 have unnecessary trailing commas.

A few observations/suggestions: I noticed that the engine sound, when viewed from the rear in spot view, seems too low. A very slightly different checklist for the different versions would be nice. I'd like to know why the external textures are the same for both provided versions; couldn't figure that one out as the thumbnails are different. Perhaps different audio files as well. I don't know how the included ( but not used) .mdls differ.

If it's obvious that I'm missing or simply not understanding something I'd appreciate being notified of what it is.

And I can't say it too often: A FANTASTIC aircraft!
Jim F.

[PhantomTweak]

The [lights] section has entries for points .6 to .9 which have type assigned but no further info. Points .0 to .5 have unnecessary trailing commas.

The SDK I use, which is the ESP SDK, so may not be accurate in all cases, but seems pretty accurate for FSX, shows the trailing commas in all the entries. I am going to presume until further notice they're supposed to be there for some reason...

The [exits] section is not in accordance with the FSX SDK. Not a problem as the plane comes with it's own stairs and a jetway will never be needed. I see no need for the .2 entry but perhaps future expansion. The 100 entry makes the paratrooper door be removed so quickly it just seems to disappear!

You are 100% (pardon the pun, I couldn't help it...) correct. The exit entries don't have the position or type information, just the opening rate. And 100 does seem awfully overdone. Mayhap they should have been 1.00, and the decimal point was somehow omitted? I wonder why the position and type information was omitted though. Perhaps if they are defined in the .mdl file, they aren't required in the aircraft.cfg? Just a thought.

There are Flaps.1 thru .3 entries which I believe are ignored in this plane. My guess is that they are alternate versions that may be used and this was the easiest way to hide then rather than remarking them out.

Yes. All that information, lift, drag, and pitch, can be defined in the .air file, maybe not easily, but that's where/how I would have done it. I don't know why they were placed in the aircraft.cfg file that way. Even if not correctly defined in the .air file, only one flaps entry is needed to define those values. Perhaps experimental entries for fine tuning or something like that. I'd say see what the dev, Mr. Jahn, has to say about them.

In [contact_points] the Class description identifies 3 as Float points. 3 is actually Skid but they're unused in any event.

Really, that's irrelevant, as those lines are just comments a lot of devs leave in. Whatever they say, though, means nothing to the actual aircraft. Not criticizing, just noting.

I noticed that the engine sound, when viewed from the rear in spot view, seems too low.

Easily fixed in the sound.cfg file. Not really a huge problem...

I don't know how the included ( but not used) .mdls differ.

Perhaps for upcoming, but not yet released, slightly different models for slightly different Paints, something along those lines.

Best I can do, sorry...
Pat☺

[ncooper]

Hello.

Reading this, I see that essentially you have been able to find nothing in the aircraft.cfg flie that adversely affects
the aircraft model or its performance.

The parachutists door is either there or removed.
How would one animate that any other way than instantly?

During development, it was requested that it was made possible to belly land the aircraft without triggering a crash.
I believe that the contact points were edited for this purpose.

There are three models,
wartime with aerials, no beacon, wartime without aerials with beacon and German air force.
Any of the three can be chosen in the aircraft repaint config entry.

[jandjfrench]

Hi Pat and Nick,
I'm playing catch up here so I really appreciate your posts. I made an effort to scan this thread and the initial one to see what had been posted before but didn't find much that seemed applicable to beta testing. Due to the excellence of this aircraft I found it completely understandable that people would want to tailor it to their liking. Whenever I find an aircraft I intend to keep, I generally go through the aircraft and panel .cfgs, the Check and Ref files, any pop up windows and cameras and tailor these to my liking. I alternate editing with flying to make sure I don't screw something up and look for anything strange. For this plane, as it's in beta, I took notes as to anything I noticed with the idea of sharing this in this forum. The point I'm trying to make is that I'm not trying to be picky but comprehensive!
When going over the files it's obvious that they are largely based on templates taken from previous FS versions. It was strange to find a Tailhook section in a GA aircraft, and seeing this line in almost every FS9 and FSX aircraft: "// Radio Type = availiable, standby frequency, has glide slope" Unless "avaliable" is an alternate British spelling of which I'm not aware that's spelled wrong. Nick? The point is that templates are used.
Okay. My comments about the paratrooper door opening quickly were meant as a joke. The trailing commas are part of that template thing. I've always removed them without a problem. After I posted I tried a water landing and immediately crashed. After seeing the post I'll try a wheels up belly landing and see what happens. I appreciate the info about the .mdls and will be looking into that at some point. I've done a bit of flying and haven't noticed any problems. I've been trying to use the voices and was pleasantly surprised when rolling out and just as I determined it was time to rotate I heard "N1". It seems my modified htail value didn't mess things up.
As I am playing catch up any additional info will be welcome.
Jim F.

[jandjfrench]

Hi again,
I just discovered that with any taildragger I can only backup straight; no left or right turning. Works fine with tricycle gear aircraft. Is it just me?
I got thinking about that belly landing stuff and maybe whoever was trying this, went by the mis-identified Class and used Float as opposed to Skid points. Seems worth checking into. I've changed them to Class 3 in my .cfg and will take a look at them in Visualizer and if they look okay I'll try a belly landing. Maybe not immediately. My main focus now is the Monitor, Status, and Clipboard panel workings. I'm having a hard time figuring out what "Window11=Keys" in the panel.cfg referred to and how it's used. Any help with that?
Jim F.

[ncooper]

Hello again Jim,

How and why would you "back up in a taildragger"?

With all due respect, please leave the parts of the panel.cfg that you and I don't understand alone.
You will be able to renumber all the visible windows to your liking without disturbing those you cannot see.

As to the flaps, floats, aircraft.cfg etc, you are second guessing Alexander M. Metzger.
If you don't know, he is one of the most highly regarded in this field.

[jandjfrench]

Hi Nick,
I had the C-47 parked against a grass area. It seemed most realistic to backup and move the tail to the right to get to the taxiway without leaving the pavement. I thought I had a control problem but then I tried it with a couple of other tail draggers and discovered these wouldn't turn either. I learn something new every day but forget it pretty quickly. Somewhere in the included documentation I saw a reference to clicking help on one of the pop up panels and couldn't find it. Rather than waste anyone's time here I checked the panel.cfg and quickly realized I was in over my head which prompted my keys question. This aircraft has a lot of features with which I'm not familiar and I'm trying my best to learn how to take advantage of them. If I come across anything that doesn't seem to work as intended I'll ask for help here. It's not my intention to second guess anyone.
Jim F.

[flyblueskies]

Hello,

I'm replacing the GPS500 with the GTN 750. I'm able to show the GTN 750 by pressing the SHIFT 6 keys...

But, I would like to also click the word GPS in the monitor tool and display the GTN 750 instead of the GPS500.

I have not been able to figure this out...it looks like there are macro's associated with clicking the word GPS and displaying the standard GPS500...

Is there a way to modify the macro (if that is really the case) to display the GTN 750 instead?

Thanks!

[ncooper]

Hello,

The highlighted line in red allows the monitor GPS switch to work.
Make sure that it is still in your new [Window05] configuration.

[Window05]
Background_color=0,0,0
size_mm=416,338
window_pos= 0.58, 0.53
visible=0
ident=GPS_PANEL
window_pos= 0.000, 0.090


gauge00=fs9gps!gps_500, 0,0,416,338

[flyblueskies]

Hello,

The highlighted line in red allows the monitor GPS switch to work.
Make sure that it is still in your new [Window05] configuration.

[Window05]
Background_color=0,0,0
size_mm=416,338
window_pos= 0.58, 0.53
visible=0
ident=GPS_PANEL
window_pos= 0.000, 0.090


gauge00=fs9gps!gps_500, 0,0,416,338

Thanks Nick...that is it, now the GTN pops up when clicking the GPS. But, none of the click spots in the GTN work...

I need ident=14401 to activate the GTN.

Below, I now have both:

ident=GPS_PANEL
ident=14401


This allows the GTN to pop up when clicking the word GPS, but the GTN click spots do not work.

Is there a way to have the best of both worlds?

Do I need to add ident=14401 in the GPS_PANEL (macro?)?


Here's what I now have:


[Window05]
//Background_color=0,0,0
//size_mm=416,338
//window_pos= 0.58, 0.53
//visible=0
//ident=GPS_PANEL
//window_pos= 0.000, 0.090
//gauge00=fs9gps!gps_500, 0,0,416,338

Background_color=0,0,0
size_mm=937,887
ident=GPS_PANEL
ident=14401
window_pos= 0.660, 0.160
window_size= 0.340, 0.580
zorder=99
gauge00=F1GTN!GTN750, 0,0,937,887,UNIT1.POP

[ncooper]

Hello,
To be honest, I don't know.
I had thought that the ident= entry was only to identify the 2D panel to whichever icon was used to open it.

How about try removing

ident=GPS and replacing it with ident=14401.

Then you can open the window with shift+6 and see if the click spots work.

I don't have the Flight 1 product, I am assuming that you already have it installed and working elsewhere?