[1.4.x-1.8.x] Airplane Plus - R26.4 (Fixed issues/Github is up to date) (Dec 21, 2019)

[Guest]

Well I was thinking it through and now I made the monsterous fate of making a cockpit (No IVA obiously)

 

[tg626]

Sound issue work around.

Install Camera Tools. Hit "Home" key to enter cam tools view, then hit "End" key to return to normal view, and.... Stereo engine sounds.

As of this posting, a v1.2.1 compatible version of Camera Tools is stable here:

 

Edited December 3, 2016 by tg626

[blackheart612]

16 minutes ago, tg626 said:

Sound issue work around.  Install camera tools, hit home to enter cam tools view, the end to return to nornak view and.... Stereo engine sounds.

Relevant. Also, could you rephrase your question earlier? I didn't understand. Also, putting this in OP.

[NeoFatalis]

32 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

@Red Iron Crown Oh. Alright. Thanks. I don't know if it's that necessary to add a poll for that. I'll think about it.

Maybe you can use something like this to make a poll and put a link in the first page?

[blackheart612]

@NeoFatalis Great Idea. I'll make one as soon as I can. Thanks a lot.  

[tg626]

4 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

Relevant. Also, could you rephrase your question earlier? I didn't understand. Also, putting this in OP.

Irrelevant :). I tried it and it doesn't work.  I seem to recall a time (long ago?) When it seemed that the SPH assumed all thrust would be away from the door, and the VAB assumed all thrust was toward the floor.  But that might have been as far back as .24 and no long seems to be the case.

[blackheart612]

@tg626 What doesn't work? I was referring to camera tools. I tested it and it worked. Have you taken this to FS users? Should be important to the mas well.

I think the CoT is non-existent because of the different module. It doesn't show as thrust even though there is actually one when using it. So it renders it like there's no thrust in CoT. 

--

I've created the poll. Please, if you're having part requests or have time, I would really appreciate you taking this. It's also on the OP.

POLL CLICK

 

[tg626]

"what doesn't work"?

My earlier idea about the cot not shiwing, which you had asked me to clarify.  Nevermind, my idea didn't work, do let's drop that bit.

The workaround for sounds does work, no question.  And no I haven't posted it in the fire spotter thread because I only use it via this mid, so it didn't occur to me.

[blackheart612]

Oh alright. I just thought it would be helpful to them.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

16 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

@Red Iron Crown Oh. Alright. Thanks. I don't know if it's that necessary to add a poll for that. I'll think about it.

Nay. Last I checked, they can be added in OP edit mode.

[blackheart612]

@OrbitalBuzzsaw I've already made a poll from another site, sadly. But I still don't know how to do it even if it was possible. Where on edit mode is it?

--

I just realized how bad Tandem Rotors would be on release with the non-functional CoT. I tested this on 1.1.3 so I was able to make a working helicopter. I'll see what I can do, I might have something in mind. I'll also take the issue to FS.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Just now, blackheart612 said:

@OrbitalBuzzsaw I've already made a poll from another site, sadly. But I still don't know how to do it even if it was possible. Where on edit mode is it?

--

I just realized how bad Tandem Rotors would be on release with the non-functional CoT. I tested this on 1.1.3 so I was able to make a working helicopter. I'll see what I can do, I might have something in mind. I'll also take the issue to FS.

Do we really need FS rotors? Do it the same way you do the plane engines, those work fine.

Also, r.e the IVAs on cockpits : Maybe release them in a beta w/out IVA for those of us who don't use the things anyways?

[blackheart612]

True. I can use those, but the RPM acceleration is a little bit of additional detail unique to helicopters so that there's no flying away until there's enough RPM. If there's no other way, I can always revert back to your suggestion.

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Just now, blackheart612 said:

True. I can use those, but the RPM acceleration is a little bit of additional detail unique to helicopters so that there's no flying away until there's enough RPM. If there's no other way, I can always revert back to your suggestion.

I note that KAX has a helirotor with that same behavior with working CoT measures. Also, FS engines throw tons of NREs on my install

[blackheart612]

Understood. I'll do what I can about it. NREs are bad. For both rotors of AP+?

[OrbitalBuzzsaw]

Just now, blackheart612 said:

Understood. I'll do what I can about it. NREs are bad. For both rotors of AP+?

Yep.

[blackheart612]

Alright. Thanks for the information. I really like the acceleration though to be honest  It's so sad FS is getting so old.

[StereotypicalBrit]

46 minutes ago, blackheart612 said:

Alright. Thanks for the information. I really like the acceleration though to be honest  It's so sad FS is getting so old.

This is only a suggestion, but how about talking with @Eskandare about rotors? Just an idea....

[blackheart612]

5 hours ago, StereotypicalBrit said:

This is only a suggestion, but how about talking with @Eskandare about rotors? Just an idea....

I just discovered KRX recently. Not very recently but after I revisited my Skylift Engine. (Because I'm not much of a lurker.) I realized another mod which had rotors came out before I could release mine. Though rotors was already in my roadmap all along since I posted it in the earliest of pages, just wasn't the time to release it yet (by era release + it wasn't the mod's focus alone).
I haven't taken a look at how KRX is implemented though I would guess it's through ModuleEngines. If I were to drop using FSEngines, it would surely coincide with KRX if that was the case. Though last time I checked, I don't think we're duplicating parts. So all's good. After all, AP+ isn't rotor focused so we're not in entirely the same theme. Plus, I think KRX is modeled better than my rotors

TL;DR, I just saw KRX recently, so I don't know. But models look better than mine and it's purely focused on rotors the way I see it. (AP+ may or may not release rotors on each release).

[ThirdOfSeven]

How you do altitude/velocity thrust curves for each engine? It is very interesting how it is related to reality and how to compute it.

It seems strange to me when Cyclone has 54 kn thrust when it has less hp than, for example any Merlin engine, but, for sure, it depends on propeller step. For sure there are math behind this value, interesting how it is computed. I spent hours in google to figure out "typical thrust" for WWII prop plane without any result.

[blackheart612]

@ThirdOfSeven Sure there are complicated stuff going on there.

Max Thrust is affected by both velocity and atmospheric pressure so the performance varies, the Max Thrust goes down and goes up. Some engines have better performance the higher they go. Some are specifically best at very thin atmosphere. But propeller engines aren't going to go that high or fast. Take a look at this.

This graph is an example of performance being affected by velocity. See how turbo-props just go down massively at ~400mph. The earlier piston props such as the Baron and the likes are very poor performing ones. Even though they are powerful enough for take-off, they lose power close to ~50+m/s in game. Here's a stock example relating to the topic. The configs use mach to set the curves.

Then there's also atmospheric pressure which pretty much relates to altitude. There are many factors IRL which contributes to why an engine is more efficient in specific altitudes. (RPM, Thinner atmosphere, bigger blades etc) But it's science. It works. So things happen. And we do the configs to match that. For some reason, The graph for this one is smaller resolution...

Turbofans fly lower altitudes so it curves down at some point. Piston Engines fly low as well but some pre-modern engines on AP+ have performance boost on right altitude because the engines are equipped with superchargers which increase air pressure even though the altitude is high. May have missed a couple points but I kept that one short, didn't I? I guess? 

[ThirdOfSeven]

@blackheart612 It is something I have figured out already. I'm more interesting to me how engine performance in Ap+ is chosen, so I can balance something else around Ap+ values, for example.

What I want to know is why Double Wasp with its IRL ~2000hp has maximum thrust of 129 kn (at certain altitude/speed) while DB-601 (don't know which model) with ~1000-1500hp has only 29 or less (or, from curve, at same 0.2 atm. pressure as wasp it has x2.25 thrust). Is it based on some real performance or balanced around some in-game planes? If it is based on real, is there any known way to compute thrust without measuring propeller+engine performance at all?

[VoidGap]

Really great mod, but all the engines in my game have really low thrust. The tornado engine only generates 2.5 thrust. In an earlier version it worked fine, but I can't seem to figure out why it isn't working anymore. I tried a fresh install of the game with only airplane plus, so it can't be a mod conflict or a bad save. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[blackheart612]

@ThirdOfSeven Not all of the configs are made by me. In fact, only very few of it is made by me. The two you've mentioned are made by Tanner Rawlings. Though I believe it's a balance of how it performs irl and a bit of balancing in game. The Bumblebee has a massive boost on 0.2 because it has a supercharger and it performs best at that altitude. It's also very powerful because of the fact that it should be able to take-off quickly (being an aircraft carrier plane's engine). I think Tanner does maths but I don't know how specifically, you could try message him for details.

@VoidGap It's normal if you just started the engine. You have to gain some speed first before the propellers get some pull going.

[Mecripp]

16 hours ago, blackheart612 said:

Alright. Thanks for the information. I really like the acceleration though to be honest  It's so sad FS is getting so old.

If you wanted to try and drop the FS plugin you could look here

just a option maybe