Fuel flow bug was never fixed?

So I just picked up the baguette today after a while, and noticed that fuel flow is still only taking into account altitude and not airspeed.. So at high altitude you can go Mach 2 for ages 'cause you're not burning any more fuel than if you were going slower....

This has been around for ages (two years?), and it really isn't very fair when other airplanes are burning realistic amounts... Come on Razbam, fix this stuff, it's pretty fundamental stuff you know?

So I just picked up the baguette today after a while, and noticed that fuel flow is still only taking into account altitude and not airspeed.. So at high altitude you can go Mach 2 for ages 'cause you're not burning any more fuel than if you were going slower....

 

This has been around for ages (two years?), and it really isn't very fair when other airplanes are burning realistic amounts... Come on Razbam, fix this stuff, it's pretty fundamental stuff you know?

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

Passed to the coders for you

 

Sent from my SM-G960F using Tapatalk

I don't wanna sound like an ungrateful a-hole, and I know you're busy and all, but this was "passed to the coders" when it was reported years ago... :music_whistling:

Hopefully this is the time it'll actually get sorted!

Thanks

I don't wanna sound like an ungrateful a-hole, and I know you're busy and all, but this was "passed to the coders" when it was reported years ago... :music_whistling:

 

Hopefully this is the time it'll actually get sorted!

 

 

 

Thanks

UPDATE ** This has been acknowledged by the team and will be fixed

I leave this here for commenting:

I done that some months ago, standard conditions with advanced weather model, and by reading cockpit instruments. Full lines are clean configuration, 50% fuel, dotted are full AA armed, 90% fuel.

In short, if the fuel consumption was constant at any speed, the FF/TAS ratio lines would be linear I guess.

Bonus, same with IAS:

So I just picked up the baguette today after a while, and noticed that fuel flow is still only taking into account altitude and not airspeed.. So at high altitude you can go Mach 2 for ages 'cause you're not burning any more fuel than if you were going slower....

 

This has been around for ages (two years?), and it really isn't very fair when other airplanes are burning realistic amounts... Come on Razbam, fix this stuff, it's pretty fundamental stuff you know?

When you say airspeed, do you mean throttle setting/engine RPM? Because airspeed is not really tied to the fuel flow, fx going insanely fast in a dive with the throttle at idle will let you have a really fast airspeed with very low fuel flow.

So, are you trying to say that the fuel consumption is constant at a given altitude, no matter what the throttle setting is and despite the fuel flow gauge rising along with the throttle setting?

I leave this here for commenting:

 

 

I done that some months ago, standard conditions with advanced weather model, and by reading cockpit instruments. Full lines are clean configuration, 50% fuel, dotted are full AA armed, 90% fuel.

 

In short, if the fuel consumption was constant at any speed, the FF/TAS ratio lines would be linear I guess.

 

 

Bonus, same with IAS:

 

 

Interesting. If I'm reading that correct, then the fully armed AA craft with more fuel at 20.000 feet, spend less fuel going at a speed, compared to a clean craft with less fuel?

...That seems wrong somehow.

fixed internally awaiting testing