Jump to content

fat creason

3rd Party Developers
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About fat creason

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS, IL2
  • Occupation
    Systems Engineer and FM Modeler - Heatblur Simulations
  • Website

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. You're right, but the point is that the infobar is showing you a TAS speed that doesn't include winds, which is misleading since it's not showing you the airspeed the plane is actually "feeling". If I'm waiting on the runway with a 25 knot headwind, the infobar TAS currently says speed is 0 while I really have 25 knots of extra wind over the wings. That's incorrect and that's the issue. It's not reporting the speed of the aircraft relative to the airmass which is the very definition of TAS.
  2. In that old post I said that ED doesn't provide any FM tools, which is true. I didn't say we lack a test system or tools. Those tools still take large amounts of time to run and set up, so the statement about test coverage gaps is still true when time is a very limited resource. The main thing the tools provide is the precision and repeatability needed to properly analyze the FM to determine what changes need to be made. You can't do that by hand-flying. The infobar "TAS" shows a speed that is (TAS - winds) which I refer to as "inertial speed", so technically not TAS. If you have z
  3. TAS is the speed of the aircraft relative to the airmass through which it's traveling, which obviously will include the wind's effect on the airmass relative to the aircraft. If your aircraft speed measured relative to a stationary object is 200 knots and you have a 200 knot direct tailwind, your TAS will be zero since the airmass and your aircraft are heading the same speed and direction. Read this for more explanation. Groundspeed is just your speed across the ground (XY) plane. If your flight path angle is 90 deg (flying straight up), groundspeed will be zero. Obviously wind wil
  4. As long as the only value being used from the infobar is TAS and you have zero wind, you're ok. I just checked and confirmed that "TAS" in the infobar is definitely not showing groundspeed, but it doesn't account for wind so it's technically not actual TAS. In @captain_dalan post you can see the F-15C seems to be displaying EAS on all of its speed indicators. I'm not super knowledgeable on the F-15 but it's probably wrong, I've never seen an aircraft display EAS. Also brings into question the Mach indicator readout, if they're using (EAS/SpeedOfSound) that number is going to be way off compar
  5. Huh? I'm fairly certain this is the first time I've mentioned them, but I've also never denied their existence. They're a semi-recent development. The need for them arose when performance in the automated test system didn't match what we were getting in-game. I now suspect that might have been due to stores drag mismatch in the offline system, but the scripts are a nice-to-have for verifying things in DCS itself. When I'm done making changes I'll post videos of these scripts in action along with some data over-plotted on the EM charts. Now to further erode confidence everyone's in the inf
  6. I'm not sure you guys are understanding a lot of what I've been saying. The idea that we're tuning the FM by hand-flying maneuvers while staring at the infobar for TAS (and then busting out a calculator to figure out TMN) is amusing. Ain't nobody got time for that. The FM is not off because we forgot about the infobar or have been using some erroneous source. The FM is not off because we're using a bad value for airspeed. We know exactly how fast we're going (assuming DCS output is correct) and we have much better ways of getting that info than staring at the infobar, hence the reason it's ign
  7. TAS and TMN on the infobar are likely to be valid, it would be pretty hard to screw that up (although nothing would surprise me at this point). The problem I'm talking about is the IAS labeled value in the infobar and HUD/instruments of some modules, it's actually EAS or something else that's not IAS. F10 view "TAS" might also actually be groundspeed. Like @Victory205said above, the performance charts are against Mach and IAS since that is what's available to the pilot from the cockpit. I'm going to make sure the IAS from the cockpit is correct, someone smarter than I (@Super Grover perhaps?)
  8. The number you're seeing labeled as IAS in the infobar and various HUDs/gauges isn't IAS though, it's EAS or something else that's definitely not IAS. TAS and TMN are the only numbers I'd borderline trust there. I didn't work on the CADC in the F-14 but I'll be checking to make sure we don't have the same problems as the modules in the post above. Pretty sure we don't but will verify to be certain. You definitely don't want to be using infobar airspeed when testing F-14 performance, go with Mach number or the airspeed in the cockpit itself. Infobar may as well not exist when I'm doing work on
  9. This is a good question that I have no answer to, other than to take the infobar with a big pinch of salt. At the very least, it's not displaying IAS. That reddit post lays out the evidence that many of the HUDs and the infobar are all showing EAS which is mislabeled as IAS and F10 shows ground speed, not TAS. Most FM charts are going to use IAS, CAS, or Mach number. The infobar true Mach number is probably accurate since that's super easy to compute: TAS/SpeedOfSound. TAS is going to be the easiest of all parameters to measure since it's the inertial/physical speed at which an aircraft is tra
  10. No one at HB uses the infobar as far as I know. I wouldn't trust the infobar much at all, read this if you haven't seen it. Most of the FM tables in the F-14 use CAS and Mach number because CAS is an analog to dynamic pressure. The infobar shows EAS or TAS (or maybe even groundspeed, who knows), neither of which are very useful for FM work. There are several "truth data" sources available to developers via the API. I can compare multiple values for IAS and Mach number, none of them agree completely. I'm currently doing some digging to figure out which is the most correct.
  11. That may just be a side effect of how inputs work in the SP track playback mode. That's not really my area of expertise, but if we ever look at any more replay related stuff it's all going to be very very low priority. If you need perfect track playback for anything please use the server method mentioned above.
  12. I've never done it myself but I'm pretty sure you can run a server and a client on the same machine, some HB devs use that method to test certain systems and MP features.
  13. When the discussion directly involves engineering and project management, it seems appropriate, does it not? If you feel "alienated" even before talking numbers and having technical discussions, how can we have any meaningful conversion about problems with a mathematical model of an airplane?
  14. If you turn down the OAT in MSFS 2020 you can take a CJ4 supersonic (LOL), but I guess we're the ones with the "FS-98 flight model" Also if you think good/realistic ground interactions in flight simulations are not complex, you're insanely naïve. They're often more complex than the FM in many regards.
  15. What would those be exactly, since you seem to have specific knowledge of this? The ground handling is a math model that's unique to every aircraft and must be done via an interface provided by ED, meaning super custom ground handling is not exactly possible. We have to work within the bounds ED has provided when it comes to ground interactions (as well as hook physics btw, which meant that hook skipping and missed traps weren't even possible for 3rd parties until this week, but somehow it's HB's fault that it's not already on the F-14). It would extremely naïve to think that all we do is just
  • Create New...