|
Post by kronzky on Apr 18, 2013 14:38:58 GMT -5
Make/Model? American Champion Scout Variant? Standard tires Author? RealAir Sim (FSX or FS9)? FSX Free or Pay? Pay Maximum Cruise Speed? 123 KTAS Download URL? www.realairsimulations.com/flash.php?page=scout07_introOther Models: Scout Tundra tires 120 KTAS Scout Amphibian: 113 KTAS Decathlon: 133 KTAS Citabria: 122 KTAS (significantly faster than the FS9 version!) I tested it at two locations (KTTD & PHNL, each at 2,000ft), and the results were identical. ( I don't know what I did yesterday at KEDW to get those different results, but I suspect that, since the runway's altitude was already higher than 2,000 I may have used AGL instead of ASL.) I also was able to duplicate the performance of the other already submitted FSX planes —e.g. the Cessna 185T and Katana— so I guess my procedure was correct this time.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Apr 18, 2013 17:12:25 GMT -5
Well, the requirement for an FS settings of "clear weather" during the flight test will set the sim to the same temperature and pressure settings, no matter where you are in the virtual world. So, there shouldn't be any difference running it out of KBVS or PHNL, as long as you are at 2,000' MSL. But, yes, testing from an airport with an altitude greater than 2000' will skew the results somewhat.
@teson: good call on the links, I'll update some of those areas to make it more visible.
|
|
|
Post by jimmy on Apr 18, 2013 17:26:05 GMT -5
I'm a little confused on the American Champion download details... are the Scout, Citabria, and Decathlon variants all included in the same download file? Or, are these different downloads?
There is an American Champion in the list of approved aircraft (for FS9, from RealAir), but there are 3 different download IDs assigned, which indicates that the Scout and the Citabria are in different download packages.
I was going to duplicate the list for the FSX models tested by Kronzky, but I am not able to get to the RealAirSimulations website to check if the download is a single download, or multiple.
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on Apr 18, 2013 19:25:05 GMT -5
I'm a little confused on the American Champion download details... are the Scout, Citabria, and Decathlon variants all included in the same download file? Or, are these different downloads? Yeah, they're sold as a package. Here's a purchase link: www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=amerchamp
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on Apr 19, 2013 10:20:07 GMT -5
I just realized that the Carenado 185 Bush isn't actually in the list for FSX yet (only FS9), so I may as well add my data: Make/Model? Cessna 185 Skywagon Bush Variant? Tundra Sim (FSX or FS9)? FSX Free or Pay? Pay Maximum Cruise Speed? 155 Download URL? www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=c185fbushOther variants: Amphibian: 126 Float: 130 Ski: 157
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on Apr 29, 2013 13:35:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bushflyer on Apr 29, 2013 21:18:37 GMT -5
That's a very nice list for freeware planes there sir, thanks!
|
|
|
Post by bushflyer on Apr 29, 2013 21:49:26 GMT -5
I just realized that the Carenado 185 Bush isn't actually in the list for FSX yet (only FS9), so I may as well add my data: No, from what I see for May's registration, the FSX version is the only Carenado C 185 available for the race -and there are 4 Bernt Stolle FSX versions and 4 non-Bernt versions, all for FSX. A screenshot: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ I went to register for May using the FS9 Carenado C 185 (non Bernt Stolle), and the option's not there. Only Stolle/non Stolle FSX 185's are available. Now in the Aircraft Nomination link found here: sites.google.com/site/fsebprl/aircraft-nomination, the FSX version shows up. For FS9, only the freeware version shows up, not Carenado's 185. Yet another screenshot: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ I'd like to use the non Bernt Stolle version FS9 Carenado C 185 for the next event. I won't register anything until I get more info on this. Anyhow, now seems like a good time to go and practice the route.
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on May 2, 2013 7:10:58 GMT -5
I'd like to use the non Bernt Stolle version FS9 Carenado C 185 for the next event. I won't register anything until I get more info on this. Anyhow, now seems like a good time to go and practice the route. Why don't you just do a quick test run, and post the results here? That's what I did for the 185 Bush, and then Jimmy added it to the list. (I don't have the regular 185, otherwise I'd do it.) And I guess for most payware planes we'd have to rely on those people who actually own them to do the testing, as nobody has them all. But it only takes a few minutes, so it's not too bad...
|
|
|
Post by bushflyer on May 3, 2013 9:18:59 GMT -5
I did exactly as you suggested Kronzky, thanks. A mistake on my part, I simply assumed the FS9 Carenado C185 was already in the database here, since the FSX ones were. I wasn't logged into the site here when I did the test though, so that might be a problem. If that is why the info didn't get submitted, then I can refly the test. FWIW, here's what I entered in this page: sites.google.com/site/fsebprl/aircraft-nomination...in case it didn't go through: Which simulator (FS9 or FSX)? * FS9 Is this aircraft freeware or payware? * Pay Maximum Cruise Speed * Please enter the GS as indicated on the GPS under flight conditions specified above 147 Please paste in the URL where this aircraft can be downloaded * If possible, please do not link directly to the .zip or .exe download file. Rather, link to a page where the user can click the download link. www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?showd80!20,6383282380,D11223_1 The above link is dead 'no aircraft available', so go to here: www.aerosoft.com/cgi-local/us/iboshop.cgi?show80,6383282380,20 Who is the author of this download? * If possible, please identify the author. It may be listed in the download readme, or elsewhere. If unknown, just put unknown. If payware, just put the company name. Aerosoft Carenado Comments Flew from McCarran Intl in Las Vegas, altitude 5960.
|
|
|
Post by kronzky on May 3, 2013 9:22:31 GMT -5
I just made a very worrying discovery — some of the results I posted (and perhaps those of others as well) may be inaccurate... When I retested some of the planes today, I noticed that some were significantly faster than during the initial test. I had not changed anything on these planes (I hadn't even flown them since then), and the conditions were still the same, but they were all consistently faster (by about 5-7kts). I had noticed something like this before — where planes got inexplicably slower during subsequent tests, and I had written it off to FSX getting confused with flight dynamics when I switch planes in flight, but I had always started my "official" tests on the ground, so perhaps something else is going on that makes planes slow one day, and fast on another... Anyway, I've redone the 185 Bush variations, and posted the new results below. Luckily, the results for the Tundra that I had raced were correct. I guess I was always only really interested in racing that particular model, so I had tested that the most, and had lots of independent and matching results.I am not going to re-test the big list I had posted above, though. If I have to reboot FSX every time I want to test a plane, then that's just too much hassle. Perhaps somebody else would like to verify some of the submitted results? I guess it would be most reliable to always have results confirmed by two independent people, but that, of course, is a bit of a hassle, too... So anyway, here's the new results for the 185 variations: Make/Model? Cessna 185 Skywagon Bush Variant? Tundra Sim (FSX or FS9)? FSX Free or Pay? Pay Maximum Cruise Speed? 155 Download URL? www.flight1.com/products.asp?product=c185fbushOther variants: Amphibian: 138 ( was 126) Float: 135 ( was 130) Ski: 164 ( was 157) I also just realized that it is possible to retract the wheels on the amphibian model, so that'll gain you another 6kts (with the wheels out it's 132, wheels up it's 138).
|
|
|
Post by bushflyer on May 3, 2013 9:44:28 GMT -5
Yes, I was a bit apprehensive about testing myself, being I'm not sure if I did it right. I never tested anything before now. In fact, I'd feel better about it if I did a few more test flights in this plane, and to run those tests in other areas, being McCarran sits over 2000 feet.
Do some tests at lower elevation airports, for example -when time permits, of course.
|
|
teson1
Commercial Pilot
Posts: 243
|
Post by teson1 on May 3, 2013 14:29:22 GMT -5
An important note - aircraft have to be tested at 2000 ft MSL. So you'll have to start from a low level airport.
Other critical items : a. Check "Enable Automixture" b. Check "Unlimited fuel" c. FS Weather Theme = "Clear Weather" 3. Ensure that your aircraft is set to 0 fuel and 0 payload
Planes with normally aspirated engines will fly slower at higher altitude which would (slightly) skew competitive ballance.
To doubblecheck could you please send me the aircraft.cfg and the .air file (just these two) by email to teson1 (at) gmail (dot) com (I can test these in FS9 and FSX by replacing the aircraft.cfg and .air file of a default plane. Unless it's a very complex plane - (accusim?) where performance is determined by addon modules, this would give the default plane the same performance as the full plane.)
Regarding any inconsistencies in aircraft speed I'd say we just have to accept speed data submitted until wave have confirmation by second side. (I'd be willing to test any aircraft.cfg and .air file pilots would send me to doubblecheck.)
If there's a gross error in the speed tested we'd catch that by a review of the Duenna tracking files anyway.
Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by bushflyer on May 3, 2013 14:53:07 GMT -5
An important note - aircraft have to be tested at 2000 ft MSL. So you'll have to start from a low level airport. Other critical items : a. Check "Enable Automixture" b. Check "Unlimited fuel" c. FS Weather Theme = "Clear Weather" 3. Ensure that your aircraft is set to 0 fuel and 0 payload Planes with normally aspirated engines will fly slower at higher altitude which would (slightly) skew competitive ballance. To doubblecheck could you please send me the aircraft.cfg and the .air file (just these two) by email to teson1 (at) gmail (dot) com (I can test these in FS9 and FSX by replacing the aircraft.cfg and .air file of a default plane. Unless it's a very complex plane - (accusim?) where performance is determined by addon modules, this would give the default plane the same performance as the full plane.) Regarding any inconsistencies in aircraft speed I'd say we just have to accept speed data submitted until wave have confirmation by second side. (I'd be willing to test any aircraft.cfg and .air file pilots would send me to doubblecheck.) I think I did everything right, except for the airport location. Will do it over once I get caught up on other things. I emailed you those AIR and CFG files in a zipped folder. They'll show up in your subject line as " A to teson ". Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by bushflyer on May 4, 2013 9:33:34 GMT -5
After further review: Imo, the Carenado C185 plane is the same in FS9 as it is in FSX. The screenshots below are from owner's manuals from each plane's respective folder inside the SimObjects/Airplanes folder in FSX or FS9. Anyone owning these planes can verify these manuals... Now, did Carenado simply copy one owner's manual from another, to account for laziness on their part (which wouldn't surprise me btw...)? That's not my call to judge, but for now I think the info here this morning is good enough to rely upon here, without us (meaning me, and now Teson...) having to waste much more extra time doing more test flights, when I got other things to do irl (or fly...), besides here. The manuals. Identical specs shown, as per the owner's manuals: FS9 manual: FSX manual: Pretty much what I assumed (and I use that word lightly) all along. Anyways, I did another Carenado C185 FS9 test flight from 2S9 Willapa Harbor. It sits at 19.7 feet. That should be close enough to sea level, right? A side note: I found the airport using the KOMO news site, under "Whats My Elevation?", found here: www.komonews.com/news/content/17832439.htmlWhich led me to a neat site for finding elevations anywhere called " HeyWhatsThat Path Profiler ", found here: www.heywhatsthat.com/profiler.htmlThe author of this has all kinds of cool links on this page. His Twitter account ( twitter.com/heywhatsthat ) gives greater insight to what's behind it. I thought it was pretty neat myself... A screenshot from my test flight his morning: Back on subject: I didn't bother to resubmit this "new" info, being it appears that it's the same plane as FSX. My pre-flight in game plane settings for the 185 before taking flight: empty weight 1700 lbs. payload 0 lbs. fuel 0.00 gal. gross weight 1700 lbs. max grossweight 3350 max allowable fuel 65 gal. We can test it all day long, but I think it will come up pretty darn close to or the same as the FSX version, correct? I think the FS9 Carenado C185 should be eligible immediately -of course, that's up to the race committee. Thanks.
|
|