Boris-Barboris

[1.2.2-1.7.3] AtmosphereAutopilot 1.5.15

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Cruise Control makes some very strange decisions sometimes (like dipping a few kilometers before almost reaching setpoint altitude)...

Should bee fixed in dropbox build, i remember noticing it 4-5 days after 1.4 release (as it always happens with releases). I was not careful enough with vertical acceleration.

"Write Telemetry" is for angular motion of respective axis debugging, keep it on for a bit and when you turn it off you'll find csv's in KSP resources folder, wich correspond to rotation dynamics during the period the button was on. You can then plot it the way you like, i use matlab (matlab/plotter.m and matlab/import_telemetry.m needed). Other flight parameters are easily estimated visually, i don't really need telemetry of long-term stuff.

Ok, I will rework settings to be availiable before first master switch press when i have time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Boris-Barboris said:

Should bee fixed in dropbox build, i remember noticing it 4-5 days after 1.4 release (as it always happens with releases). I was not careful enough with vertical acceleration.

Cool, good to hear :) I will download. A little note: version numbers don't cost money, but on the other hand they really reduce confusion. So if you make a "silent" patch, maybe add a .1 to it, like 1.4.1. 

 

4 minutes ago, Boris-Barboris said:

"Write Telemetry" is for angular motion of respective axis debugging, keep it on for a bit and when you turn it off you'll find csv's in KSP resources folder, wich correspond to rotation dynamics during the period the button was on. You can then plot it the way you like, i use matlab (matlab/plotter.m and matlab/import_telemetry.m needed). Other flight parameters are easily estimated visually, i don't really need telemetry of long-term stuff.

Ok, cool, I will keep that in mind.

 

4 minutes ago, Boris-Barboris said:

Ok, I will rework settings to be availiable before first master switch press when i have time.

Thanks! It's not really priority, but more like something to consider for next time you rewrite GUI. TBH, maybe you should wait for KSP 1.1, when there will be better GUI API available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great mod; I was getting tired of constantly tapping keys to keep my plane pointed right (might be fixable through tweaking the plane design, but I'm not quite sure how).

However I have reassigned my keys extensively and P in particular clashes with RCS toggle - I would like it to be changeable, even if it's only through a config file.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Spheniscine said:

Great mod; I was getting tired of constantly tapping keys to keep my plane pointed right (might be fixable through tweaking the plane design, but I'm not quite sure how).

However I have reassigned my keys extensively and P in particular clashes with RCS toggle - I would like it to be changeable, even if it's only through a config file.

What does your R key do now???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DownHereInChile said:

What does your R key do now???

I actually use a Dvorak keyboard configuration, so my keys are reassigned according to their QWERTY-equivalent positions, for the most part, although I did customize a few keys (most notably for rovers)

Edited by Spheniscine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it be difficult to implement Prograde/Retrograde/Maneuver Node hold? Now that I know what is possible with modern technology, stupid stock SAS is starting to annoy me...

Or better, replace Stock SAS completely with your "Fly-By-Wire" implementation? I tested it quite a bit in open space now, and it is simply better in all cases that I tested.

Edited by Kobymaru

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt i'll find time, and if I will, i'll prefer fixing existing stuff and finishing planned features. On the first glance vacuum direction hold problem has simple time-optimal analytical solution. If you're interested, I can help you to craft simple custom plugin for AA.

If not, i'm sure you'll find mechjeb's ASS tool usefull. Don't be put off by sarbian's leviathan's scale, it's well-crafted and, afaik, has good non-overshooting PID code for direction-hold task (shame on him if it does not). Not to mention years of polish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:)Amazing work... The stability the mod provided reminds me of some arcade-ish fighter games!

BTW, is it possible to automatically disable the function "moderate sideslip" in low airspeed(e.g. 80 KIAS or less) but still keep it enable in high speed? That would be very helpful for some super maneuvers.

Sorry for my poor English:(

Edited by Fat_Bird
grammar correction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Fat_Bird said:

is it possible to automatically disable the function "moderate sideslip" in low airspeed

It already does it around 25-30 KIAS, i'll make field responsible for it visible for editing in next release. For now, "O" hotkey is the shortest way for you to toggle it along with pitch one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, would it be difficult to somehow implement this with the BD Armory AI?

The BDArmory autopilot tends to overcorrect and lose control of unstable aircraft, those aircraft are almost always flyable with your autopilot enabled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, martinezfg11 said:

Hi, would it be difficult to somehow implement this with the BD Armory AI?

Good quality is very hard and would require complete rewrite of AI code to work under AA control framework. Some simple integration is not impossible though. You can try to poke @ferram4, afaik he's working on BD AI now. I think he can make BD AI feeding input to AA even without reflection or dll referencing by using OnPreAutopilotUpdate instead of OnFlyByWire to use BD AI code to feed inputs to AA FBW, wich is working in OnAutopilotUpdate. Of course, it will still require tuning of BD AI PID parameters, manual activation of AA FBW, but that may actually work. I'm in a kind of blackout state right now and can't give KSP a lot of attention, though i think i'll have spare time to fix 1.1 update issues and recompile mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello again! Thank you for your quick reply!

I somehow managed to build an (awful) airliner

A4qNhy4.png

And I've found several features very useful for those jumbo jets if they were included in AA...

  1. Less AOA moderation for heavier aircrafts. When I turn AOA Moderation on with max_angle = 15 on this craft, it keeps pitching the nose down to limit the AOA to about 2~5 degrees, but the actual stall AOA is above 15 degrees in 165KIAS in landing configuration. (At least I can handle the plane in this situation without any flight assistance since the plane has trimmable horizontal stabilizers)
  2. Pitch hold during turns. In level flight the mod does well but during turns it keeps pitching down to hold AOA instead (even with AOA Moderation OFF).
  3. KIAS hold and mach number hold. Travelling at 200m/s surface speed is too fast in low altitude and is too slow in high altitude. KIAS is a good reference in low level flight and as altitude gains the mach number becomes important. It would be even more helpful if the mod automatically switches from KIAS hold to mach hold when the plane reaches the desired mach number.
  4. And airspeed-based pitch control maybe. In real world the function is called Flight Level Change, which keeps the engine thrust to MAX (thrust reference, to be exact) on climbs and to idle on descends while using the pitch to maintain specific KIAS or mach number. This one would be really, really helpful on climbs and descends as it can maximize the efficiency, and I've dreamed of it for years.

 

To say, the mod is PERFECT to most crafts and KSP players. I just expect those features for my personal needs. A huge thanks in advance, not for actually realizing them but for your patience to read all those above!

Edited by Fat_Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fat_Bird

Paragraph 1 and 2 are obviously issues. If you want me to look into them, i need a way to reproduce (screenshot of your gamedata folder to replicate mods and craft file), or very detailed description of your experience, what and when do you do and observe, as well as info, described in the end of this post . On the first thought, AA's is more friendly to excessively-controlled crafts, try larger elevator control surfaces.

3 and 4 are possible, but, honestly, you're willing to replicate real-life mechanics with very little use in KSP. I see a lot of people willing to use stuff like vertical speed hold and others with the reasoning of efficiency or convenience, but the problem is, it usually gives neither of those. Simply selecting some random number to maintain, pulled right from the player's pants, won't give efficiency (just like the law you described in 4 is not efficient in any sense but probably engine thrust). And I do believe, that there is no convenience in numerical input, in comparison to interactive WASD or mouse one. I personally find FBW more than enough for every task you can think for a plane, when i ascend, i just pitch up when i see good ascend speed, when I see engines spooling down, i pitch down. Why would i need some other tool for this besides caps-lock and arrow keys, when it's already so simple? Complete SSTO ascent, maybe... but that's simply playing the game for you, wich i don't like.

Please understand my laziness, there is infinite number of autopilots, that can be implemented, but since my time is limited and development of each of those takes absolutely random amount of time from 1 free week to half a year, i choose very carefully. I will include mach and IAS hold, but I feel Flight Level Change is redundant and will probably dodge it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Craft file and CKAN Modlist (and the GameData Folder) download link:

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/p2vnk5an5n9mt8g/AAC2-4gHYPWJEoo9ehmcBf10a?dl=0

Sorry I had left the redistribution link up for too long. Please respect the authors of the mods.

Modlist

xTY1YBw.png

Note that the "-" and "=" key is to trim the stabilizers down and up (try it - it is just like elevator trimming using alt+W/S but is much more powerful). AG9 is to increase flap deflection and AG10 is to decrease.

The plane should lift off at about 180 KIAS with stabilizers trimmed 8.5 degrees up(which can be seen in Infernal Robotics in-flight UI).

(You may press W a bit during takeoff roll since I had a bad CG and gear configuration:(, or the nose will raise quickly at 130+ KIAS)

 

I've done several tests then and some information might be useful:

On 2016/3/11 at 4:48 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

AA's is more friendly to excessively-controlled crafts

Probably not the point, as the control indicator in the bottom-left corner shows that AA's keeping the pitch control down.

Note that the "horizontal stabilizer trims" mentioned above means moving the whole tailfin (which is a static surface in ksp's code) using Infernal Robotics. A great possibility is that AA's preventing my horizontal stabilizer form stalling (which ALWAYS happens in order to take effect). When I made no trim to the stabilizer, AOA Moderation works fine. I even built another version of the craft, removed the IR part and manually turn the stabilizer's angle in the editor (as most people do to their jumbo jets). The same happens in the new version too.

:(Maybe very hard to fix this then. But in real world airliners can't even lift off without stabilizer trims. I may have to turn AOA Moderation off while flying these clumsy birds. (And Mouse Director and Curise Flight Autopilot will never be useful so...)

On 2016/3/11 at 4:48 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

Paragraph 2 is obviously issue

Isn't that even intended? AA does this with all crafts, and yes it is a good design to small planes (well fighters I'm saying) for better maneuverability.

Edit: Sorry I mistakenly described the behaviour. In fact it should be holding the longitudinal position and starts to pitch down as the aircraft heading changes.

On 2016/3/11 at 4:48 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

I will include mach and IAS hold

:DThanks!

On 2016/3/11 at 4:48 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

Simply selecting some random number to maintain, pulled right from the player's pants, won't give efficiency

Well atually Flight Level Change (or "FL CH" in short) doesn't require a random climb rate input (which I hate, too). All pilots have to input is the desired airspeed, then the autopilot would do the rest, to climb or descend AS FAST AS POSSIBLE without going faster or slower than the desired speed (that's what i mean "efficient").

BTW, FL CH is described efficient in both Airbus' and Boeing's manual. I know that's excuse for an even-lazier request so never mind.:)

 

Again thank you for your patience!

Edited by Fat_Bird
update link & edit description

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12.03.2016 at 6:21 AM, Fat_Bird said:

Craft file and CKAN Modlist (and even the whole GameData Folder) download link:

Well, you have installation problems and craft problems. Look at this picture, taken using your craft and your gamedata folder:

Cn8a1Eo.png

 

  • First rule of FAR club is: you don't have CoL arrow.
  • The second rule of FAR club is: you DO NOT HAVE CoL arrow.
  • Third rule of FAR club: just like in stock, zero-aoa wings don't produce lift. If you simply copy real-life setup, you'll have to use wing rotation for balancing. That is what you are trying to do with infernal robotics. The error is in details. Main wings are main target for rotation, not tail stabilizers.

Currently, your setup is overdamped. I can fit a working SSTO between your CoM and CoL, wich means, that your craft's controllability region has a span of 2-3 degrees. That has nothing to do with AA, your 1st and 2nd points are symptoms of this problem.
Solution is undamping. AA excels at statically-neutral crafts, so let's move CoL forward:


xdvZAV8.png

 

Looks stupid, doesn't it? Yet It flies under AA and is very close to neutral. Why does it have to be stupid while being balanced? The cause is 3rd rule of FAR club.

 

Solution?

1). FAR and everything procedural manual reinstall, wich will probably translate to CKAN uninstall.

2). Wing and tail rotation:

6uCHB82.png

I rotated positively main wings to provide level flight around 4-5 degrees AoA on cruise speed and rotated tail stabilizers negatively to add some pitching torque and stabilize on 1.5 degrees AoA. Scale of Cm slope can tell you, that it's not that overdamped any more, has good controllability region and can pull something around +- 13 AoA. Craft file , please look at it. I also added additional ailerons, your roll is too slow for my taste.

3rd rule also means, that slats are not really usefull and you would be better off disabling them.

On 12.03.2016 at 6:21 AM, Fat_Bird said:

A great possibility is that AA's preventing my horizontal stabilizer form stalling

AA was made aerodynamics-agnostic in 0.90 days in the prespective of 1.0 release, easy FAR integration, reduced dependency count and great chance of continued support of new game versions even when i'm gone. That means, that it has no knowledge of stalls, and is simply limiting your AoA and G-force under very general assumptions. Should those assumptions fail, autopilot fails or looses quality.

On 12.03.2016 at 6:21 AM, Fat_Bird said:

But in real world airliners can't even lift off without stabilizer trims

    I assure you they don't rotate the tail fins. They are well-balanced and crafted with great wit to use very little control authority. To copy that you need to have good understanding of basic dynamics, kinematics and KSP aero (both stock and FAR) mechanics. Drop the idea of IR-rotated fins, it's a bad concept.
    AA is a tool, not a cure, and it cannot handle crafts without basic controllability traits. And like every other autopilot, it complements competent pilot and engineer, while leaving someone with idea of "let it do it for me" with a crashed craft, and a community with a hundred of threads about MechJeb flipping rockets.

    I would recommend anyone without substantial FAR craft building experience to stay away from AA until they are able to consistently build balanced, well-behaving crafts. Only then, when the man grasps it, he gets thoughts like "i always make the craft damped and stable, but i'm losing in drag and fuel efficiency because of this, i wonder if i could interactively fly neutral craft", or "the craft is well balanced, but i just can't tune authority enough to have good maneurability, safe high-Q flight on Mach 3 and stable 60-AoA re-entry simultaniously, if only there was a control system, that would utilize excessive control surface area that I throw at it to forgive my balancing mistakes". At this point a man will have his time and neurons saved, while not blindly relying on someone's magic dll, but using it as a tool it is.

On 12.03.2016 at 6:21 AM, Fat_Bird said:

Well atually Flight Level Change (or "FL CH" in short) doesn't require a random climb rate input (which I hate, too). All pilots have to input is the desired airspeed, then the autopilot would do the rest, to climb or descend AS FAST AS POSSIBLE without going faster or slower than the desired speed (that's what i mean "efficient").

    And that desired airspeed fits the definition of random "pants" number perfectly. You are getting a number from your intuition, instead of just tapping W or S sometimes on behalf of the same intuition. I have nothing against the desire to ascend as fast as possible while maintaining speed setpoint, but i also feel it is desired, not required, hence i'm dodging. It may be helpful on Cruise controller ascend handling though.

Edited by Boris-Barboris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/3/12 at 7:04 PM, Boris-Barboris said:

Well, you have installation problems

That's probably because i uploaded the GameData folder after a clean mod installation without even running the game:D

On 2016/3/12 at 7:04 PM, Boris-Barboris said:

you need to have good understanding of basic dynamics, kinematics and KSP aero (both stock and FAR) mechanics

That's true! For years I've been building KSP crafts using only my experience but not with strong foundation of knowledges. Maybe I should give up all those child's plays and learn a bit for a moment.

On 2016/3/12 at 7:04 PM, Boris-Barboris said:

your 1st and 2nd points are symptoms of this problem

On 2016/3/12 at 7:04 PM, Boris-Barboris said:

Craft file , please look at it

The optimized craft solved problem #1 but not #2... Maybe I still failed to describe the problem then.

The behaviour I expected is to keep an exact pitch angle during turns, instead of holding longitudinally and makes the plane to point down eventually.

These two gifs are recorded using the optimized craft you've given:

tsJiOrB.gif

In this gif I used AA only. The navball turns laterally and resulting the aircraft to pitch down.

PG3WwwO.gif

In this gif I used another autopilot mod to assist the turn. Note that the navball turns in the direction of the horizon line and the pitch is maintained to 10 degrees.

I expect the latter one though.

On 2016/3/12 at 7:04 PM, Boris-Barboris said:

desired airspeed fits the definition of random "pants" number perfectly

No, really. The desired speed can be calculated under several real-world rules, such as policies (e.g. 250 KIAS or less below 10,000 feet altitude), VMOs (Maximum Operaion speeds without damaging the aircraft), overspeed/stall margins,  economic speeds (provides max Lift/Drag ratio) etc.. I'll skip that as they actually make no sense in KSP but only to suit my stubborness after spending years on Microsoft Flight Simulator X.

But how about changing the word from “desired” to "limitation"? AA tends to climb in large AOA (with TWR < 1), regardless of stall and causes very low efficiency in both climb rate and fuel consumption (jet engines produces very low thrust at low airspeed and in high AOA regarding the dropping amount of intake air). For example, with the FAR stock jet "FAR Firehound MS", when I set the desired altitude to 10000 and click "Hold specific altitude", AA commanded a high pitch to meet the max_climb_rate = 20. But as the TWR of the plane is small, the speed dropped quickly and goes below 170 KIAS. AA then has to pitch down as AOA exceeds 15 and after several nods it finally decided to climb at 204 KIAS, with 15 degrees AOA and 2 m/s vertical speed (see below). But if I manually control the climb using the FL CH technique to maintain 320 KIAS, the climb rate is more than 60 m/s.

vG6OHrk.jpg

That is to say, I know a margin speed that the aircraft SHOULDN'T GO BELOW during climbs (or it will produce high AOA) but the mod might never know, as different aircrafts seldom share the same best climbing AOA.

I know over-pitching can be prevented by limiting max_climb_angle, but that's the real "random 'pants' number" IMHO.

On 2016/3/12 at 7:04 PM, Boris-Barboris said:

They don't rotate the tail fins. They are well-balanced and crafted with great wit to use very little control authority.

No offense, but I've found several video and pics to prove the existence of Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer (THS in short).

This Video shows the THS screw jack mechanics on a Boeing 777.

This Video, though recorded from Flight Simulator , shows the movement of the THS on a Airbus 320.

And finally, this pic and this pic show the installation and the possible angle of the THS form B777's Aircraft Maintenance Manual.

In real world, jumbo jets can't maintain a specific CG (center of gravity, or CoM) at most time, not only because the changing fuel configuration but also the changing cargo and passenger configuration. It is impossible to keep well-balanced with fixed flight model on these, well again, clumsy birds.

(And to be honest, the craft you provided is TOO unsteady for an airliner, as slight turbulences can make the passengers feel very uncomfortable. As main fuel tanks is located in jets' wings, it is even more unstable as fuel consumpts. By the word "Looks stupid" I may infer that you actually know no real-world airliners would be build in that way.)

 

 

Anyway, a huge, huge thanks, Barboris! The lesson in both aerodynamic and kindness you've teached in the past 48 hours is the most valuable among my KSP carrier.:) I appreciate that!

Edited by Fat_Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Fat_Bird said:

The behaviour I expected is to keep an exact pitch angle during turns, instead of holding longitudinally and makes the plane to point down eventually.

Ah, so that's what you meant. Yes, it is intended, FBW keeps sideslip at zero to minimize drag, and it doesn't control pitch angle, it works with different motion elements (consult FBW description in docs for exact info), copying military fly-by-wire mechanics. I can do some kind of "coordinated turn" mode to mimic that particular behaviour of Pilot Assistant. It doesn't look very hard.

41 minutes ago, Fat_Bird said:

AA tends to climb in large AOA (with TWR < 1), regardless of stall and causes very low efficiency in both climb rate and fuel consumption

Indeed, as I mentioned it earlier in dialogue with Koby, I slacked off and didn't properly develop a control law for ascend. Max_climb_angle is a crutch for you to limit it for now, I will implement a proper one when will get my hands off AoA controllers, they need a lot of love.

41 minutes ago, Fat_Bird said:

I know over-pitching can be prevented by limiting max_climb_angle, but that's the real "random 'pants' number" IMHO.

Good one )

41 minutes ago, Fat_Bird said:

No offense, but I've found several video and pics to prove the existence of Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer (THS in short).

I actually didn't know that, thank you, that was not enough googling from my side. I remember one time the captain of A-320 asked us (around 15 people) to stop crowding near tail toilet because of imbalance, it now seems strange that he didn't simply use that mechanism to give stabilizers more lift. Such lust for fuel...

41 minutes ago, Fat_Bird said:

By the word "Looks stupid" I may infer that you actually know no real-world jets would be build in that way.)

Second pic had wings sticking out of the cockpit.

41 minutes ago, Fat_Bird said:

And to be honest, the craft you provided is TOO unsteady for an airliner, as slight turbulences can make the passengers very uncomfortable.

Well, you can always tune it to your likings, but keep in mind, that AA needs the craft to have enough authority, it has no knowledge about your secondary measures of control by IR.

 

That KSP plane on your ascend pic is also overdamped, you're barely maintaining 15 AoA on full pitch. Try neutral. Also, canards in FAR usually stall with default deflection of 20, or even 15, I usually use something around 11.

Edited by Boris-Barboris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016/3/12 at 0:01 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

I can do some kind of "coordinated turn" mode to mimic that particular behaviour of Pilot Assistant. It doesn't look very hard.

:DKind of you!

On 2016/3/12 at 0:01 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

it now seems strange that he didn't simply use that mechanism to give stabilizers more lift. Such lust for fuel...

IMO it is not just in consideration of fuel, but of trimming margin. A320 has their stabilizer trimmed fully automatically for most time. Even with those authority stabilizers could easily go out of trim if CG changes rapidly moves beyond limitation. Several crashes were due to the crowding passengers in civil avation history if I remember correctly.

On 2016/3/12 at 0:01 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

AA needs the craft to have enough authority, it has no knowledge about your secondary measures of control by IR.

:)Forget this and never mind it again. You are doing the right work and I was just trying something that's not originally supposed to do in KSP.

On 2016/3/12 at 0:01 AM, Boris-Barboris said:

That KSP plane on your ascend pic is also overdamped, you're barely maintaining 15 AoA on full pitch. Try neutral

That plane is Ferram4's design... I just used it as an example to show AA's behaviour.

Edited by Fat_Bird

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like an idiot, i've been spending the last while trying to figure out why you're mod wasn't working properly...turns out if you have SAS on it wont work :P. Now that I have it working this is a godsend, thank you for making this mod

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

v1.5 up, https://github.com/Boris-Barboris/AtmosphereAutopilot/releases

Changelog:

  • MiniAVC integration
  • Some math, control and logic fixes
  • Coordinated turn mode for Fly-By-Wire (mimics pitch hold, not a true pitch hold).
  • Speed control reworked, support of ias, mach, knots
  • pseudo-FLC law for ascent of Cruise Flight autopilot
  • craft settings window can create autopilot context without pressing master switch
  • moder_cutoff_ias parameter visible in ang vel controllers GUI to tune minimal ias, below wich moderation is turned off
  • P hotkey configurable in global_settings
Edited by Boris-Barboris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:PGlad to see you again!

Thank you for adding so much features requested by me! The update is perfect, except for some minor issues founded during some unreliable tests.

59 minutes ago, Boris-Barboris said:

support of ias, mach, knots

The (k)ias the mod reported is a bit different form one reported by FAR. When I turned on the kias hold and set expected kias = 320, the mod held at 290 kias (read from FAR) ASL and 350 kias at 13,000m altitude.

The same problem happened with moder_cutoff_ias too, while the surface m/s, surface kts and mach hold matched with FAR's readout.

1 hour ago, Boris-Barboris said:

pseudo-FLC law for ascent of Cruise Flight autopilot

Yay this worked beautifully! Thanks ALOT!:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Fat_Bird I have no idea what is ferram's code here supposed to mean, he is using pressure instead of density, probably trying to simulate some pitot shenanigans, instead of simply scaling with dynamic pressure. For now I'll take the stance of disagreeing with FAR on definition level. While being an eyesore, both AA's and FAR iases should be doing fine in functional sence, so I'll let it be for now.

Edited by Boris-Barboris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, tempsgk said:

Awesome mod, was wondering any progress on 1.1 implementation?

I'll wait for debugged release. Is it spamming errors or crashing in 1.1 beta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.