One Request, One Observation
-
Hello BlackSquare,
-
The first one is just a feature request which has disappeared due to time. It is to simulate proper feathered propeller motion on the props instead of the disc like motion currently displayed when feathered. I have read from another user that turboprops on other aircraft by BS already have this.
-
Although already mentioned, the registration plates were working absolutely fine up to MSFS 2024 SU3 Beta 1.5.9.0. But after the .10 fiasco over FSExpo and subsequent builds, the plates broke. Any update on getting these back?
-
The third is a bit more complex. It is regarding indicated vs. actual fuel flow. I noticed this on my flights and comparing table fuel flow vs. indicated. I am referencing the values on the Maximum Range Power Tables from a Beech 2000 POH on a personal website that has excellent Starship documentation. I was indicating a fuel flow value much lower, however on my OFP, I was not gaining fuel. For the test, I have set a 1-hour timer and noted the fuel value at start and at the end. I was cruising at FL370 and ISA was at +4°C. So, I extrapolated between the ISA and ISA+10°C tables. But that is not the point. The point is the difference between indicated and actual. Barring you from the minutiae of a ton of observation values, I have taken calculated fuel flow at time stamps 15 min., 30 min. and 60 min.. I have taken the average of that.
The result is, in this hour:
- Indicated fuel flow dropped from 210 to 203 pph per engine.
- Calculated fuel flow also dropped a bit across the 60 minutes.
- Taken the average of three time stamps, I conclude,
- Average Indicated fuel flow is 206 pph per engine.
- Average calculated fuel flow is 228 pph per engine.
- Conclusion, the panel fuel flow indicator should be (228-206=22 / 22/206*100=10.7%) 10.7% higher to match what the engine is really consuming.
Lastly, let me just say what an ABSOLUTE dream this thing is. After all the planning is complete, you depart in twilight and the lighting as absolutely amazing! From the blue area lighting to the red RTU LED's .... absolutely delightful and satisfying. A HUGE thank you as well for the SimBrief takeoff and landing performance. I doublechecked it with the AFM and it is just SPOT on !!!
Cheers,
Xander a.k.a. 777Drvr
-
-
Hello BlackSquare,
-
The first one is just a feature request which has disappeared due to time. It is to simulate proper feathered propeller motion on the props instead of the disc like motion currently displayed when feathered. I have read from another user that turboprops on other aircraft by BS already have this.
-
Although already mentioned, the registration plates were working absolutely fine up to MSFS 2024 SU3 Beta 1.5.9.0. But after the .10 fiasco over FSExpo and subsequent builds, the plates broke. Any update on getting these back?
-
The third is a bit more complex. It is regarding indicated vs. actual fuel flow. I noticed this on my flights and comparing table fuel flow vs. indicated. I am referencing the values on the Maximum Range Power Tables from a Beech 2000 POH on a personal website that has excellent Starship documentation. I was indicating a fuel flow value much lower, however on my OFP, I was not gaining fuel. For the test, I have set a 1-hour timer and noted the fuel value at start and at the end. I was cruising at FL370 and ISA was at +4°C. So, I extrapolated between the ISA and ISA+10°C tables. But that is not the point. The point is the difference between indicated and actual. Barring you from the minutiae of a ton of observation values, I have taken calculated fuel flow at time stamps 15 min., 30 min. and 60 min.. I have taken the average of that.
The result is, in this hour:
- Indicated fuel flow dropped from 210 to 203 pph per engine.
- Calculated fuel flow also dropped a bit across the 60 minutes.
- Taken the average of three time stamps, I conclude,
- Average Indicated fuel flow is 206 pph per engine.
- Average calculated fuel flow is 228 pph per engine.
- Conclusion, the panel fuel flow indicator should be (228-206=22 / 22/206*100=10.7%) 10.7% higher to match what the engine is really consuming.
Lastly, let me just say what an ABSOLUTE dream this thing is. After all the planning is complete, you depart in twilight and the lighting as absolutely amazing! From the blue area lighting to the red RTU LED's .... absolutely delightful and satisfying. A HUGE thank you as well for the SimBrief takeoff and landing performance. I doublechecked it with the AFM and it is just SPOT on !!!
Cheers,
Xander a.k.a. 777Drvr
@MD82 I don't think that it is theoretically possible that the fuel flow indicator on the EICAS is incorrect. That value seems to correspond to the native fuel flow value from MSFS, which is what is actually consumed by the simulated engines. However I've found the displayed value oscillating a lot, like plus/minus 20 pph or more per engine, so it might be impossible to get an average fuel flow just by casual observation.
-
-
-
I have done nothing different to any of my other aircraft, so I will have to look into what could be causing any visual difference.
-
This is 100% up to Asobo from here.
-
I agree with the comment above that you should really not be seeing any difference, as I am using the native MSFS system for fuel flow and control. Do you think it's possibly a unit/weight conversion problem, like using a value other than 6.7 lbs/gal for Jet-A?
-
-
To be honest, I'm not sure. I've read up on the SDK to see if I could find something, and that 6.7 keeps coming up indeed in the [FUEL]/[FUEL SYSTEM] SDK. But I couldn't see anything different in your .xml file (with my 1 cent worth of code reading experience). Since it's only an indication problem, I'll try and do a few flights while changing weight units to see if I can spot anything else.
