Stuck...
Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Stuck...

  1. #1

    Stuck...

    Hello all,

    Sort of a puzzle for me: I have been trying (in TOW-1) to take off in one of the TOW Lancasters from Woodhall Spa... but with brakes released and at full throttle, props at full pitch, it just sits there like it's glued to the runway. (As an aside, I tried from Middleton St. George and had the same experience.) First testing the aircraft, I could take off in the Lanc from any grass airfield without any issue. I went back to Woodhall Spa and tried different aircraft-- a Stirling also stayed stuck (interestingly also a large-wingspan 4-engined bomber), but a Blenheim rolled easily. I did notice that (whether I tried in Quick Combat, or a mission I set up just to see if there was a QC glitch) the aircraft, regardless of the type, start off to the right of the runway centerline near its junction with the perimeter track (?), and in the case of the Lancaster the edge of the runway (if I could have actually moved the aircraft) is somewhere between the two starboard engines. My kneejerk thought is that the sim thinks Im off the runway and therefore *actually* stuck.

    So... is it just my installation or does something need to be altered, or both?

    Scott
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Runway.jpg 
Views:	59 
Size:	92.2 KB 
ID:	88119

  2. #2
    Kurier auf Stube...pauke! NachtPiloten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leland, North Carolina, USA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,829

    Stuck

    Hi,

    I will look at this. We tested the planes at various bases, maybe we missed one. I'll see what we can find out.

  3. #3
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    After checking on various bases, there are definitely some issues on some concrete runways with The Lancasters, Manchesters, and Stirlings, but not with the Halifaxs. That is always true with full loads,but not always with clean aircraft. Also grass seems OK as you said. I will ask NachtPiloten to see if we can solve the problem. What missions weer you flying as I made so many?

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  4. #4
    I just created a triangle route taking off and landing at Woodhall Spa, just to see if there was something in particular
    at that location with that aircraft...more specifically to see if I would still start off to the side of the runway like that. Now that you mention it, it does seem a bit inconvenient that you also can't take off from a concrete runway with a full bomb load, at full throttle. Kind of defeats the purpose a bit...

  5. #5
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    Well. the problem is partly due to CFS3 architecture, "It is the low speed prop thrust settings in cfs3. There is a trade off between accurate rate of climb and being able to move from a dead stop."

    Now the fact that the aircraft is not on the runway is another matter all together and can be more easily fixed.

    I shall investigate the runways on different bases more as well to see if there is any issue there, including looking to see if the issue is the same in different installs. As I asked you, please advise which mission(s) you first noticed this issue.

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  6. #6
    Kurier auf Stube...pauke! NachtPiloten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leland, North Carolina, USA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,829

    Icon4 Solution

    As James said there is a trade off between climb rate and low speed prop thrust in CFS3. The prop tables can be manually edited to yield more low (in this case zero) speed thrust which will enable the planes to "unstick" and move. All the sea planes need to have this done and I did this with all of mine (Sunderland, PBY, HE115 (yes I have one)) and the Do 24. It is a very tedious task of trial and error. Also, the climb rates posted for the WW2 planes are usually grossly overrated or with planes that are lightly loaded - no bombs, half full tanks etc. So for the Lancaster it had an advertised C/R of 723 ft per minute at what load? Need to get the climb rate charts. Optimal speed up to 12000 feet was 155 (150) with engines at 2850 rpm at 9 lbs boost - the pilot notes manual stated max climb. This being said, I will venture back to see what can be done to get the C/R within 1% of this AND have the plane take off. Now max load is another thing we ignore. For the Lancaster it was 65000. So with 14000 and a all up weight of 56000 you see that we are at 70000. So what needs to happen is a reduction in fuel to about 50% and you will have a weight of 65000. Unfortunately most of us just click and select the load out, ignore the weight and think we can zoom off (I do all the time). I will say even at 65k the Lancaster sticks in some cases. The same is true for the Manchester(twins bombers are tough in CFS3). The Stirling does roll and max fuel and load with WEP. I will go back and tinker with the flight models and see what I can do. Where is Gregory Pierson when you need him

    Ta

  7. #7
    Just a small suggestion, don't know if this is relevant, At what setting is your Realism set? For most 1% flight models (esp. where Gregory Pierson was involved ) it was best to set it to 100%, but it's been a while since I tried the heavies with full loads like you've been.

    Just a thought.
    Tom
    __________________________________________________ ___________________________________________
    Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding. Proverbs 4:7



  8. #8
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    I for one am always 100%. I think the ? of fuel is also important. I will spend a bit more time later today looking at loads and type of runways (that aspect bothers me a bit). I also will just make a short take off missions for a couple of the runways mentioned to see where the aircraft are starting.

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  9. #9
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    Further testing indicates that, with current specs, I have to reduce the weight to around 55000 lbs. Even >= 60K is not working with me.
    WRT to Woodhall Spa staring position, yes it is to the right of the runway, but still on it OK. I suppose we could look into that.

    If we get the issue solved so that
    -take off is OK at 65K
    -weapon and fuel loads are adjusted to fit that

    then I will re upload the aircraft with changes.

    Meanwhile, I will see if I can temporarily have those missions start in the air; one can still land, which is in any case more difficult!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Woodhall Spa.png 
Views:	9 
Size:	2.36 MB 
ID:	88124

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  10. #10
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    Further testing in missions revealed that:-

    -The Halifaxes never stick, while the Manchesters really are the worse.
    - If one changes the fuel load in one mission, that seesm to carry over to other missions; at with me. Important to know.

    QC testing revealed that the weight shown before I mess with the fuel %age is lower than after I change that. see before and after pics. actually the same in missions

    Before

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	weight1.png 
Views:	10 
Size:	83.2 KB 
ID:	88125

    After

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	weight2.png 
Views:	8 
Size:	80.9 KB 
ID:	88126

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  11. #11
    Kurier auf Stube...pauke! NachtPiloten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leland, North Carolina, USA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,829

    The Gods are listening

    Spoke to Greg last night and waiting to hear back on some guidence and advice.

  12. #12
    Kurier auf Stube...pauke! NachtPiloten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leland, North Carolina, USA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,829

    Update

    ok, I have the lower hp (merlin XX 1490 in WEP) Lancasters (early mk1s) in TOW able to roll with 65K all up weights. Throttle to 100% (hit zero ) or quickly move the trottles THEN hit WEP. It unsticks, I turn off WEP and off she goes. Found a site with a wealth of airplane test data WWII Aircraft Performance and will use this to see how close I can get it to fly. The big challange is roll distance to take off. 1100 yards seems tought but we'll see. Manchesters these were overweight underpowered so it takes some time. I tested this plane and at some bases as it is in the game was able to go at 45-50k. But alas not at all the bases (curses CFS3). I will trick CFS3 to get her to roll at a heavy weight just will take a bunch of trial and error.

    The issue is in reality the loadouts were never as high as we can have them in game. Watched a video on Lancasters and 10k lb load to berlin was full fuel - so aound 65K. The Tallboy and grandslam lancs were special light weight planes striped down and flew SHORT mission aka low fuel, so all up weights were reasonable. Trips to Essen and the Ruhr had higher bomb loads and less fuel since the distance was short, just a few hundred miles each way. Therefore to model the filghts with repsect to actual loadouts fuel load should be adjusted. I rarely do this, but I should. James' mission can do this so just a lot of tinkering as such to model as close to realism as we can get.

    Back to tinkering and modeling - do have surprise on the way........oh, and it is not the Whitley (still in paint shop)

  13. #13
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    I am working on getting fuel and bomb loads for certain distances from BC Group bases. In the xdps. I will specify the radial distance for each of 4-5 radial distances for each BC Group. This will take a bit of time but I will upload the changes along with NactPiloten's aircraft revisions for TOW Pt. I use. They also will be applicable for the TOW Pt. II coming up early next year. One chould note that, given the (corrected) available bomb loads, one can alter them before starting a mission, but bear in mind that setting (for fuel) will stay the same unless manually changed before starting the mission (under the 'Armament' tab) I will include a readme!

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  14. #14
    Kurier auf Stube...pauke! NachtPiloten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leland, North Carolina, USA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,829

    Icon4 Confusing and a mystery

    I revised the mk1 lancaster and manchester airfiles. Added a little more thrust and they seem to be reasonable. The issue is at Woodhall Spa and concrete runways (see more in a bit) the lancaster maximum weight is around 60 maybe 65k. The manchester 45 or so. However, when I go to say a grass BC base I can use 70 and 50 k respectively. The striling at max weight seems great at the grass bases too and finicky at best at the concrete ones (Gravey_42a particularly). That should not be. The grass runaways should always be more difficult to unstick and roll. So, there maybe a design issue with some of the concrete runways for the BC bases. We are now checking the NJG with the same planes as many of these are concrete. But when I built them I used the NJG bases too and all was well. So just an update have a good Monday what ever is left - back to reading dissertations seems like students really want to graduate - who knew. Hmm which one would I rather be doing .

  15. #15
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    Well I have the least problems at the moment with the Stirling on the Gravey_42a and the worst with the Manchesters. However the mystery is deepened by the fact that the pre QC 'mission' weights and the immediate post 'mission' (i.e. just start and finish immediately) ate totally different pre> post. I am now moving away from checking the runways for the moment to looking at bomb loads + fuel weights and rationalizing them also in s spread sheet. Also according to my info the Stirling max bomb size was 2000 lbs. so some loads with 4K lbs need to be changed.
    All this will now result in a TOW Pt. I upgrade to be submitted probably next month. As this is relevant to TOW pt II, it's now real delay issue.

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  16. #16
    Kurier auf Stube...pauke! NachtPiloten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Leland, North Carolina, USA
    Age
    64
    Posts
    1,829
    Quote Originally Posted by mongoose View Post
    Well I have the least problems at the moment with the Stirling on the Gravey_42a and the worst with the Manchesters. However the mystery is deepened by the fact that the pre QC 'mission' weights and the immediate post 'mission' (i.e. just start and finish immediately) ate totally different pre> post. I am now moving away from checking the runways for the moment to looking at bomb loads + fuel weights and rationalizing them also in s spread sheet. Also according to my info the Stirling max bomb size was 2000 lbs. so some loads with 4K lbs need to be changed.
    All this will now result in a TOW Pt. I upgrade to be submitted probably next month. As this is relevant to TOW pt II, it's now real delay issue.
    James,

    I think the pre/post weights are a glitch in CFS3 and not accurate (post). The pre flight weights are spot on given the data in the airfiles. If Graveley_42a is the issue, then we need to revisit the facility and object files. Have you tested the planes on german bases that are concrete - that will tell you if it is concrete on Gravely - just saying. I debate the bomb loads on the Stirling. 2000lbs is less than some of the twins which would make the Stirling a complete failure which it was not. Hmmmm.

  17. #17
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    Not checked on LW bases. 2000 lbs refers to bomb size; no cookies for Stirlings! I'll get back to runways once I work out some real weights to range figures.

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by mongoose View Post
    ... As I asked you, please advise which mission(s) you first noticed this issue.
    First in QC, later in one I created. I didn't go past that.

  19. #19
    SOH-CM-2022 mongoose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Navigator, where are we?
    Age
    77
    Posts
    3,248
    Well, as you have noted, we did find issues, which frankly I should have picked up earlier. We will try and fix them in an update soon. Tanks for drawing the problem to our attention.

    Cato said "Carthaginem esse delendam"
    I say "Carthago iam diu deleta,sed enim Bellum Alium adhuc aedificandum est"

  20. #20
    I've found that I need full flaps to get some bombers moving. Not sure that's relevant, but thought I'd throw it out there.

Members who have read this thread: 54

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •