Cls dc10 hd

**BendyFlyer** · June 6th, 2018, 02:23

Not much of a military bent with this one but anyway thoughts and input on some aspects would be appreciated.

Background - I have always liked the DC-10, it actually was a pretty good looking aeroplane and despite its original problems in the real world which gave it bad press only two major accidents were caused by design issues the first the Turkish accident near Paris and the Sioux City turbine blade failure accident, the rest were the usual cluster of weather and poor flying, bombs etc. CLS originally made this for MS2004 then did a portover for FSX. I bought it to get the DC10-30 and the Tanker version the Extender. While it was ok it was not great and after a time I parked it and forgot about it. I had also forgotten about the rebuild by CLS for JustFlight as FLite version and after a preliminary look thought for $20 why not.

What can I say, still a good looking aeroplane and the rework has actually done wonders, a more functional VC and it now included a FE position that worked as well (to a point) they obviously reworked the interior model because the window frames and general layout are now spot on in terms of visuals and the texturing work I thought was pretty damn good. The HD paints are also pretty good as well. The upgrades to the VC - Pilot and FE are substantial and about 80% of it is functional. Then I did well attempted to do some runs and flying to see how it went - ummm, in a nutshell, very disappointing.

The acceleration on takeoff was more like an F18 not a 300 ton airliner especially at max weights. Pitch control was poor and trim responses very slow as well.

Major issues - the FMC while looking great is only about 10% functional and would only work it a flight plan was loaded first and then only partially. The Autopilot and speed control were completely out of sync and fluctuated badly. The Autopilot would fail to hold a VS mode properly either and around 25,000 foot despite being at 98% N2 the speed would decay and it would stall. Regaining control by AP disconnect and after substantial height loss waiting for the appropriate pitch down to recover (woeful control response!) you could get it back up to about F300 but only at about 500 fpm in very cold conditions (ISA -10). Not sure what the FD is supposed to do but whatever it is it it does not do it. Basically something was seriously amiss with the engine data configuration and it basically would not develop power above F180 or manage a reasonable rate of climb as a result, this was not the way a DC-10 behaved. They were pretty damn good.

The fuel cut off controls on the pedestal while moving if activated via the 2D pop up would not work by mouse in the VC despite indicating they should. None of the comms control panel on the pedestal work either, only for show.

A lot of close investigation of data, gauges, configuration and air files has been going on ever since because there is no support forum of any worth and no responses to issues either. Please take note those interested. My impressions, CLS did a lot of really good work and that is obvious from the VC and new interior model, textures etc, but it is full of basic errors that are carried across the various variants in the files and after a while you realise that this was a rush job and the outcome is basically what had the potential to be a very good sim model has been stuffed up badly, why I have no idea, it is almost like they got so far, stopped and just put it out there anyway.

So far I have fixed the following:

Actually put the correct light data and points into the cfg files (they were missing nearly all of them)
Corrected all the turbine engine data, fuel usage values and other critical variable and values so it is now correct for the CF6-6 etc. (For example the inlet area was so totally out of whack no wonder it ran out of puff at F180).
Corrected all the fuel tank quantities and values.
Corrected the performance data (They did not seem to know which was which at one stage and had them mixed up, DC-10-10 or DC-10-30 or DC-10-40)
Finally grafted in the freeware Honeywell FMC which now works as intended and does work with the AP properly now.

If anybody has any ideas how to make the fuel cutoff switches work if they are modelled in 2D and operate in the VC once operated in 2D your thoughts would be appreciated.

If anybody is interested I do intend to make available via uploads probably here, the new aircraft and panel config files with all the changes and fixes, simply because I hate to see such good work as was done go to waste or hit the dustbin of history. Still a way to go while I sort out to my satisfaction what needs to be done and what can be done.

Anybody else tinkering or trying to fix this one up?

**Bjoern** · June 6th, 2018, 08:56

If the 2D and 3D cutoff switches are out of sync, they're not using the same variables. Load the interior model into ModelConverterX, check the 2D gauge (if XML) and see where things are out of whack.

***blanston12*** · June 6th, 2018, 10:37

Are you using the CLS or the JustFlight version? I have the JF version and they have made updates to it, at least the last release updated it to support P3D4.

**BendyFlyer** · June 7th, 2018, 01:00

It is the JF version for FSX not P3D.

The critical issue I have is really this:

Thrust appears normal and N1/N2 values are ok and remain constant on the climb (assuming MTOW) and ISA temperatures. The ECR unit appears to calculate correct EPR settings on the N gauge which do adjust.
Engine Inlet Heat is selected.

Aircraft climbs normally and accelerates to only about M0.58 (@300kts IAS) but this a barber pole limit now on the ASI. The proper climb speed should be around M0.68.
From about F140 speed begins to decay slowly with no change in the Engine output indicators on the gauges.
From about F180 speed decays further back to about 200 kts IAS, then decays rapidly approaching F250 to 180 kts IAS and corresponding M numbers.

The autopilot is correcting properly for the lack of climb by pitching up, however controlling the VS reducing from 2000 FPM to 1000 FPM then even to less than 500 fpm will not prevent the speed decay, pitch correction (lowering the nose) does not improve the speed issue which tells me the thrust values are completely wrong because if it was merely and over pitch problem, lowering the nose would increase the speed and the aircraft if it was developing correct thrust would begin to accelerate again, this it will not do until it is allowed to descend back down to below F200 and then it will increase speed slowly.

I have checked the inlet area values, the static thrust, fuel, bypass ratio etc and have the proper values which are not all that much different to those CLS put in the config file.

This tells me there is something amiss with the tables in the air file. I am currently hunting about for a similar engined model to compare it with. Probably the CS767 at this stage is the best bet as the default FSX 747 is based on RR RB211 engines not the GE CF6-6 engines.

Any thoughts appreciated. Probably should post this over at FS Developer but thought I would start with the SimOuthouse folk who are generally pretty cluey about a heap of stuff.

**Bjoern** · June 7th, 2018, 08:41

No need to post on FSDev. I can tell you right here that you'd be in for a lot of blood, sweat and tears if you want to correct the lift, drag and power tables in the AIR file, if only by trial & error.

An easier solution would be trying this, although it's mostly stability derivatives:
https://simviation.com/1/browse-Civi...rk=54263#54263
(Second from bottom.)

**BendyFlyer** · June 7th, 2018, 23:05

Bjoern - that sure is true. Sounds like you talk from experience. This area of the sim sure is a problem. XML stuff I am happy with once I know what I am looking for but fiddling or doing air files is a whole business, I have enough aerodynamic and power plant knowledge to work this stuff out but easy it is not.

Took me all night to discover that the ACES tool referred to in the SDK was not actually shipped with the SDK and to get it apparently you had to pay for the developer tools for ESP. I also discovered that AAM or the simple editor tool which is actually very good for a lot of simple changes or tweaks could not edit tables, let you look at them but not edit or change them due to some major compiling issues. Fine found another tool from MS to do the recompiling using MS Visual Express C++ 2005, no cannot load it out of date, update it, no cannot do it VC not found even though it has been updated and loaded into two locations on the drives just in case. No answer to that issue either. Finally found a good little tool to open up the file, get it to text but it will not recompile hence the need for MS Vis Express C++.

On a positive note found thanks to FSDEV a neat tool on the NASA website to model the engines and develop the tables. Comparison with some tables done by folks in Russia at Captain Sim on the identical engine showed pretty close comparison so the tables should be good. So at the moment I have the tables done, that took a while, but no means yet of getting this data back into an air file format. Now having a look at AAM V2.2 see if that will do the job.

Seems this jet engine turboprop modelling for the sim is not very straightforward at all. The other issue is the placement of out of date syntax and variables in both air files and config files. Seems no body is quite sure if this works or does not work. For example bypass ratio was used in older sims but not in FSX and is not mentioned in the SDK yet there it is in any number of files for turbine aircraft in FSX, does it do anything not sure because I cannot find out what value it would reference in the air file. So it goes on. Something to do on a cold winters night down under anyway.

**BendyFlyer** · June 8th, 2018, 03:03

Bjoern and any one else interested, after much searching found Aircraft Airfile Manager V2.2 by Karl-Heinz Klotz. Very nice little freeware package, still cannot do the tables (but now I know why) but lets you get to the files much more easily but the great part about it was it gives you a history of all the simulator variable changes over time in a discreet window for each air file variable, which should work and which will not. Very handy.

As far as the CLS DC-10 is concerned I have now tidied up the DC-10-30 with the GE CF6-50 Bypass turbines, corrected all the incorrect data for thrust, inlet ratios, fuel flow scalars,turbine speeds,etc. Fixed up the lights section, corrected the reference speeds and grafted in G Smiths great freeware Honeywell FMC. This works as it should with the autopilot. Curiously the one in the VC is only partially operative and looks identical but turned out to be basically all for show only.

The aircraft model now performs as I would expect and will climb at the right speeds and attitudes to its cruising altitude. It also appears the ECU is now in tune with the way the engines should work. I do think the FE station is not to bad either and the various switches and dials indications appear to be ok as well which is strange that they put so much work into this one yet left so many fundamental errors and other niggly bits and pieces undone or missed. Will probably look at the DC-10-40 then the DC-10-10 before packaging it all up.

I did come across one issue with FSX that I had overlooked, how it provides OAT and the fact that SAT which is what is given in the VC's of most jets is different but more importantly FSX if not corrected to world weather or real time weather basically will take a base value or left over temperature/pressure value and use that. Took me a while to realise that the weird OAT at F300 (+7.0 C not -45.0 C or lower) and engine performance had nothing to do with the gauges and model but how FSX was working. Connected to Real Time weather and the correction was immediate. I wonder how many have been caught out trying to figure out why the performance was so out of whack when it was this little bug in FSX. Cannot change it or set it either without using real time weather.

**BendyFlyer** · June 8th, 2018, 03:05

A couple of screenshots for anybody interested.

**simtech** · June 8th, 2018, 09:57

Bendy, you're so right on about this DC-10 model. The FE station has the basis for a whole lot of exploring but seems unfinished. IE, the generator switches, the bus reset, the voltmeter bus select switches could have been enabled. I'm not adequately XML knowledgeable enough to modify this situation. I found it to be disappointingly underpowered just after takeoff at mtow. Even the new FDE that Bjoern pointed out didn't seem to remedy it totally. Sounds like you are on the trail to improving this delightful model and I applaud you. I am definitely looking forward to your completion and hope you will grace the community with your endeavors. Thank you for your diligent efforts. tp

**BendyFlyer** · June 8th, 2018, 13:30

Simtech, spot on. At it's fundamental level this DC-10 was very nicely crafted. The flight dynamics and aerodynamics are basically correct what is really glaring is the systems integration and understanding of turbine engines. That issue also goes back to the developers and coders for FSX and you can see how imperfect knowledge of the intracacies of say turbine power plants has led to some less than desirable outcomes, the way turboprops behave is one example, jet thrust is also another has carried through the various renditions of the sim program.

Normally like a lot of users or sim nuts (

) I would have parked this one and waited for a replacement, which does not always happen. Some however are special because the original development work was well done and while unfinished or lacking in some departments is simply to good to throw away or dismiss. I understand if your doing this sort of stuff commercially there comes a point where you have to get something out the door and make a buck, you just cannot keep tinkering, in other cases the developer(s) get too far down the rabbit hole of detail before it is apparent, well we bit off more than we could chew becomes apparent. I thought the original CLS DC-10 was not bad and they have actually done a great job of making this a full FSX model including the HD texturing, they obviously rebuilt the whole VC including the FE station which was once just a serious of flat textures. That is why I have persevered with this one it is special and the DC-10 was actually a very good aeroplane and besides I do have a preference for stuff made by the Douglas company.

A number of posts on other simulator aircraft, especially from the developers makes you appreciate how difficult and time consuming this all is. It increases my respect and appreciation of even the most simple effort by a lot of folk. I guess to put it in a nutshell FSX and its predecessors were never a game, even though we play games with them, FSX and P3D are serious simulators and the task of recreating an aeroplane via a 3D model, then creating the eye catching texturing (painting) before you even consider and make work, electrical systems, flight instruments, hydraulics, engines, pressurisation systems, etc etc. is an enormous task. Especially impressive is that the FSX engine has to be able to take real world variables such as atmospheric pressures and temperatures, distances, heights and speeds and dynamically calculate all these inputs and then work with what the model designer has produced.

It is quite clear to me now after years of looking at a variety of simulation models that to do good simulator models you do have to have a good understanding of the principles of flight and of power plants because they are to a point properly replicated by the internal coding of the ESP engine that makes FSX (and its predecessors) work. Creating a gauge or switch is an art form almost because the gauge has to capture and use the variables that are possible within the ESP engine to work effectively if you have more complex systems that interact with one another, that is they are co-dependent.

This post really is just to put some of this in perspective for myself and others as well. If anybody would like the new air and config files for the DC-10 -30 model only at this stage feel free to PM me and you can try them out and offer some comments and or observations any input is appreciated.

**BendyFlyer** · June 8th, 2018, 17:29

Originally Posted by Bjoern

No need to post on FSDev. I can tell you right here that you'd be in for a lot of blood, sweat and tears if you want to correct the lift, drag and power tables in the AIR file, if only by trial & error.

An easier solution would be trying this, although it's mostly stability derivatives:
https://simviation.com/1/browse-Civi...rk=54263#54263
(Second from bottom.)

Thanks Bjoern - looking at that now as the CLS version does not appear to reducing the speeds correctly (not badly) with flap deployment to allow for a correct Vapp Vat. Basically you need to remain at no less than minimum stall speed 142 which is too high with full flap for threshold touchdown speeds, the pitch angles appear ok but seems there is a lack of lift.

**Bjoern** · June 8th, 2018, 18:46

If flap speeds are not correct, you'll need to edit the lift and drag scalars for them. AIR file table 1101 or aircraft.cfg.

Your new bible for aerodynamics:
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/re...msfs-v1-0.169/
Same for jet engines:
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/re...lculations.43/
Config reference:
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526949.aspx

Working the tables can either be done with AAM 2.2 or AirUpdate.

Spending a bit of money on AirWrench might improve the workflow.
http://www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=airwrench

Other than that, there's always compiling AIR files from human readable ASM sources.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc526961.aspx
https://www.fsdeveloper.com/forum/re...air-files.210/

**BendyFlyer** · June 8th, 2018, 19:57

Bjoern - thank you for the links and tools. Appreciated.

**BendyFlyer** · June 13th, 2018, 00:58

Bjoern you were so right, blood sweat and tears. Finding out what is wrong is like chasing gremlins in the dark. Fixing up basic data does not fix the interpretation by the ESP engine. Changing the air file does not fix a lot of problems either. I think there are gauge issues and some functions which are supposed to be turned on are now quite obviously not functioning (wing anti ice, engine heat, pitot heat etc,) and there is something wrong with the way the ASI works as well. They also have the 10 series mixed up withe the 30 series and then the 40 series if you get my drift, in short what a mess!. Going to perservere for a while before surrendering, at the moment is one step forward 3 steps back. CLS provide no response and no answers and the seller support folk put you back in the contact the maker loop, which goes nowhere. SIGH!

I am perplexed how can you do such good work, which is obvious and then ignore the faults? The JF forum page is got lots of queries from the P3D people about this an other problems I don't have, no answers forthcoming yet!

**Bjoern** · June 13th, 2018, 13:27

This is what happens when a developer emphasizes looks over brains. It's not the first one to do so and it won't be the last.

Correcting performance should start at the lift and drag side of things. C_L vs Alpha in table 404 needs to be adjusted for stall AoA (usually around 15° or 15/57.29 rad clean), 401 needs to be reset to 1 (since its useless), 413 to zero (equally irrelevant) and 430/154a requires a bit of preparation work with a drag polar. Excel, interpolation, etc. Mind CD0 in table 1101.

But you're lucky, since there's a bit of usable data out there.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...e1nOMnhoWEVof3 (p. 33)
http://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cg...ntext=aero_fac (p. 2)
A fair gold mine for any curve marked as "baseline" and C_L vs Alpha: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9850002628.pdf

Once you figure drag is more realistic, do the engine stuff according to Roy's paper.

After that, it's flap and gear lift and drag and then you shoud be all set to tweak anything else (moments or else).

**BendyFlyer** · June 15th, 2018, 16:11

FWIW - Thanks for the additional data and information Bjoern. All donations gratefully accepted.

I have had at last contact with CLS. They are also perplexed (hmmm) obviously they never really beta tested the model. After responding to the usual questions (are you a dumb ass variety and turn this this or this or that on, what were conditions blah blah) I drew their attention to the fact that the MS2004 version and port over worked as expected but this rebuilt FSX/P3D version does not. I also drew their attention to the fact there is an issue with the engine tables in the air files evidenced by the fact they are obviously not calculating air flow into the turbines correctly and hence burn or simulate burning large amounts of fuel right up to flight levels and there is no N2 decrease as the aircraft climbs. Even allowing for gross areas my focus is actually the gauges, which are all new in this version and three in particular, the ASI, the ECU (EPR Management Unit) and the Autopilot. They do not work together properly and the AP does not control speed via N1/N2 settings and it seems the ECU overrides all of them in a peculiar way. I suspect this is because the coding is mixed up between 64 bit (P3D)and 32 bits (FSX) systems (a wild guess but most probable) or some logical path is missing. People using this one in P3D also have a lot of peculiar problems, with sound and switches which I do not but it seems the performance is out in both versions.

Anyway I do not have the model code to get into the guts of the AIR file because there are some dependencies that relate to a model file in the AIR file which I do not understand.

Guess we will see what happens, in the meantime I am going to play around with this one a bit longer but less energetically. Anyhow I now have the latest Tom Ruth version and while it does not have as much eye candy, it actually is a DC-10 so will enjoy that instead. Sheesh after all the damn thing was only $20.00

**PeteHam** · June 15th, 2018, 21:10

I had the CLS DC-10 in FS9 but not yet in FSX.

There's a deal on at FS Pilot Shop where the FSX one is priced in the mid $20's.

I might just get it and hopefully your tweaks will make it another superb aircraft once more.

Pete.

**BendyFlyer** · June 16th, 2018, 16:20

PeteHam, on one hand I would say save your money on the other they did such good work upgrading the interior model, texturing etc I still cannot yet bring myself to bin it for those reasons and unlikely anyone else will do the DC-10. PMDG have pulled the MD-11 from sale as well. I am not bagging it must have taken a hell of lot of work to get it to this stage, But! You may like it, I still do but it frustrates the hell out of me!

The CLS HD version just does not perform like a DC-10 nor even work like their previous 2004 version did, which is a real puzzle and so far none of my work has fixed the problem with the flight dynamics and I suspect dodgy gauges (they work but are not working as they should in terms of data relationships). P3D users have similar but different issues. I just cannot resolve the loss of thrust and lift at altitudes above F180 at the moment. I have properly integrated the Honeywell FMC into the panel and it works properly with the AP, fixed the lights and changed the sounds to a more authentic set so those bits are taken care off.

I can really understand Bazaar (AH) firm stance on not doing variants but sticking to one type. You can see the outcome here in the DC-10. All the various DC-10's had different engines and the fuel tankage and fuel loads, take off weights and pax capacity changed and increased as the DC-10 went from the original 10 series to the 15 to the 30 and then the 40. I have done a lot of reading on the DC-10 and it was actually an impressive performer, while notionally limited to M 0.88 max speed it would go to M 0.92 without any problems or dramas. The aircraft climbed well except in hot conditions and you would have to step climb to burn fuel off (all the older jets did) but you could still get it to F420 in the right conditions. I cannot get past F300 in this one at the moment.

**BendyFlyer** · June 16th, 2018, 16:29

For those interested here are the relevant panel mods to get the Smith Honeywell into the panel and working. You will need the Honeywell FMC (freeware on most sim sites) installed:

[Window11]
Background_color=16,16,16
size_mm=325,512
window_size_ratio=1.000
position=0
visible=0
ident=GPS_PANEL // change if you keep your GPS window
window_size= 0.255, 0.475
window_pos= 0.745, 0.520

gauge00=HoneywellFMC!fmc, 0,0,325,512

[Window14]
Background_color=0,0,0
size_mm=433,656
window_size_ratio=1.000
position=0
visible=0
ident=10014
window_size= 0.271, 0.547
window_pos= 0.600, 0.430

gauge00=HoneywellFMC!fmc, 0,0,325,512
gauge01=CLS_DC10_FSX!ICON_FMC, 74,50,286,239

//gauge00=CLS_DC10_FSX!FMC, 0,0,433,656
//gauge01=CLS_DC10_FSX!ICON_FMC, 74,50,286,239

and this one for the VC section:
//--------------------------------------------------------
[Vcockpit12]
Background_color=0,0,0
size_mm=1024, 1024
visible=1
pixel_size=1024
texture=$CDU

gauge00=HoneywellFMC!fmc, 0,0,674,1024
gauge01=CLS_DC10_FSX!ICON_FMC, 100,60,478,400

//gauge00=CLS_DC10_FSX!FMC, 0,0,674,1024
//gauge01=CLS_DC10_FSX!ICON_FMC, 100,60,478,400

//Keep both in as is it duplicates but one is clickable to close the other is not.
No changes required to the windows list at the beginning. The buttons on the VC panel are not quite the same but are all clickable and follow the same pattern and logic of the normal Honeywell FMC so you get a proper FMC integrated with GPS in one unit as it should have been.

AS FOR THE AIRCRAFT CONFIG LIGHT CHANGES here are the relevant entries:

[LIGHTS]
// 1=Beacon, 2=Strobe, 3=Navigation or Position, 4=Cockpit, 5=Landing, 6=Taxi, 7=Recognition, 8=Wing, 9=Logo, 10=Cabin

light.0=1, 10.301, 0.000,12.391,fx_shockwave_beaconh ,
light.1=1,-31.000, 0.000,-7.552,fx_shockwave_beaconb ,
light.2=4, 91.500, 0.000, 5.100, CLS_DC10X_vclight, // Cockpit light
light.3=6, 84.100, 0.000, -8.476, CLS_DC10X_TaxiLight_Ref, // Nose taxi light reflection
light.4=8, 22.500, 25.500, 2, CLS_DC10X_WingLight_Ref, // Wing light reflection
light.5=8, 22.500, -25.500, 2, CLS_DC10X_WingLight_Ref, // Wing light reflection
light.6=5, 22.26,-10.70,-0.50,fx_Shockwave_landing_light // Shockwave light
light.7=5, 22.26,+10.70,-0.50,fx_Shockwave_landing_light // Shockwave light
light.8=5, 65.26,-0.70,-8.50, fx_Shockwave_landing_light // Shockwave light
light.9=2,-35.90,-82.56,0.-30,fx_Shockwave_strobe_l_2 ,
light.10=2,-35.90,+82.56,0.-30,fx_shockwave_strobe_l_2 ,

That will do anything else will just cause grief with the original model.

**BendyFlyer** · June 22nd, 2018, 01:57

An update on this one for those interested. Having both the 2004-FSX version and the FSX HD version of this one finally made me do some serious comparisons with all the relevant files that make up the models, why did one work and not this one?

Now it works. The engines are performing as they should with FF, temps, N1/N2 values being basically correct and reflecting what they should at various temperatures, altitudes etc. Aircraft handling is ok but the big surprise was that half of the switches, dials and function lights, on the various panels suddenly have come alive, in other words a whole bunch of stuff that I thought was just for show is now correctly operative and animated. The only outstanding issue is with the AP which I am fairly certain has an incorrect parameter in the xml coding which is not correcting for pitch correctly on level out at high altitudes, it wants to increase pitch attitude not decrease it to maintain level flight and the correct deck pitch angle, the result is a bleed off speed and eventual stall over the last 1000 foot on climb if not watched. So far the only solution has been to deselect the AP and set the correct attitude/altitude manually then reengage the autopilot.

So here is what is the solution so far. The earlier FSX air file works perfectly with the HD version and was basically well done. A fair bit of work has been needed to sort out weights, fuels, pax, cargo loads, speeds etc but most of this stuff is now rectified as well in the aircraft.cfg file. (Clue examining the various files showed left over comments and editing messages that programmers leave in a file when they are working on it before putting it to bed, the non executable bits, that told me what they meant to change, were unsure about changing and what they did change).

I now have fully functioning hybrid. I use the CLS HD model files, the CLS HD textures and the CLS HD panels. I use the earlier CLS air files and config files plus I have modified (corrected) many sections and errors within the aircraft configuration variables. I have added in the Smith Honeywell FMC integrated into the VC and available as a pop up, it functions as the Honeywell should and there are no issues with it and the AP. The lights have been fixed up and mods made for Shockwave lights. I have added GPWS and it works as well including cockpit warning lights.

The ASI has operative speed bugs which you can set and it seems that the ECU is correctly working out N settings for the various phases of flight. about 70% of the FE panel/station now seems to work as well. The aircraft now climbs at the correct speeds, appropriate rate of climb and attitudes to high FL's with appropriate VS control as they original aircraft would have done. Engine values decrease or change appropriately with altitude. I think they have got the air file for the FSX and P3D versions mixed up and some other stuff as well. It is clear that this was a work in progress that got dumped out before it was cleaned up and properly finished. As I said at the beginning they did a really good job of aspects such as remodelling the VC, redoing the textures, gauges etc and the night lighting is excellent as well.

I still have some issues with weights and loadings which were way out and basically left you with a grossly overloaded aircraft. The reference speeds are also a problem because in the real aeroplane these were variable dependant on weight, I figure I will set them for the minimum take off weights and provide a V ref chart (from Boeing/Douglas) so you can then use the speed bugs to get the speeds right for the weights, that seems to be working ok. A few shortcuts were taken with the design in terms of weight and payloads, passengers numbers (these were wrong for the 30 and 40 series) and freight capacity. The numbers were wrong for all of them. This aeroplane was capable of carrying 36 LDU containers or approximately 112,000 lbs of freight in containers underfloor, that was the volume, but the payload data given will only allow for about a quarter of that. I am also investigating the fuel tank situation because the design has a simplified fuel system which is not selectable but has gauges for a four tank setup, these work by the way, but the HD model only configures for 3 tanks but the older one for 4, capacities and hence fuel weight (as calculated by the ESP engine) were also completely wrong. This should fix the lack of range some people have, that and fuel burns.

So still working on this. My intent is to only do the 30 and 40 series because that is all I am interested in. I am also working with the tanker version or the Extender and think this should be a goer as well as a hybrid.

Ethically my issue is simple, this is all CLS's work originally and any upload would be a republication of their work, but it would not be for sale or profit but I am a little uncomfortable making it public for that reason, you never know with some folk. I will do the right thing and ask them would they like this to fix up the model package and make it available as an update, if they show no interest well those who want to know how to do it and have the models and can have it as far as I am concerned.

Sorry for the long story.

**Bjoern** · June 22nd, 2018, 12:52

Originally Posted by BendyFlyer

Ethically my issue is simple, this is all CLS's work originally and any upload would be a republication of their work, but it would not be for sale or profit but I am a little uncomfortable making it public for that reason, you never know with some folk. I will do the right thing and ask them would they like this to fix up the model package and make it available as an update, if they show no interest well those who want to know how to do it and have the models and can have it as far as I am concerned.

Just ask if you can publish the relevant files and guarantee that you'll take on any support issues that may arise. And give due credit.

Developers usually have little if anything against free value enhancements for their products, especially when said product is payware.

**PeteHam** · June 22nd, 2018, 18:12

Well I went out and purchased the CLS DC-10 HD from FS Pilot Shop, so I'd be keen to try your 'fix', if you're able to release it BendyFlyer.

One thing I did find though, is that the earlier textures aren't compatible with the HD version.

Sad, cause I've lost my beloved Wardair livery.

Pete.

**BendyFlyer** · June 23rd, 2018, 15:49

Peteham, that is a shame, I was particularly interested in the Air New Zealand DC-10 and Swissair, fortunately some good soul redid the livery and textures for the HD model. The textures are incompatible because the model needs to refer back to the fallback texture file for the DC-10 and the old and the new are completely different in file names and number of textures. The fallback texture folder or global textures are used or mapped internally and externally. I have not looked at those in any detail to see whether the textures are mapping differently but I suspect so because of the changes to the interior model are significant enough to prevent you simply aliasing the new interior model to the old, just won't show which means it is different. That tells me the HD model is a new model even though the main body and dynamics are basically identical. You never now somebody might redo the Wardair.

**BendyFlyer** · June 23rd, 2018, 15:55

On things FSX digging into the issue of the turbine engines and FSX and ESP has revealed that there is a major deficiency in the way turbine engines are modelled, effectively FSX does not allow for the ramjet effect, or why jets can go high and fly faster in a low ambient air pressure and temperature environment, basically FSX treats these engines as if they were a piston in the internal engine, so while pressure drops, airflow drops etc what it does not capture properly is the fact that jets go faster and faster thereby increasing the dynamic pressure. A small point but a critical one. Fascinating! You can see why so many developers have problems getting real life turbine performance outcomes.