Fuel consumption and sim-rate
-
Hey,
the fuel consumption isn't scaling with sim rate. I'm one of those unlucky guys with a full time job and some kind of social life, so I really like to use sim rate. recognized, that the fuel consumptions isn't sclaing with the sim rate. Would be nice to see that fixed in the next update.
Best regards
Stefan -
I might be out of the loop on this one, but does anyone know if this is a global sim problem? I haven’t heard this mentioned for any of my other products, and I know a lot of people use sim-rate. What have you observed that leads you to believe this is the case? Some of my users are very ambitious and measure fuel burn independently of any instrumentation, haha.
-
Hey, thanks for the questions. I'm using MSFS 2024. I haven't observed this in other planes I frequently use (FlightFX Citation, A2A Aerostar and Comanche, JF Avro RJ, PMDG 777-300ER).
The readings on the progress page and the actual fuel left in the tanks after landing are a pretty good indicator. On the progress page, the endurance doubles the moment you double the sim rate and the ammount of fuel left in the tanks after landing reflect that. It reflects the fuel burn of the real time spent in the air, not the simulated time.
This is also a problem with pressurization system. It also doesn't scale with sim-rate in the Starship (and the Dukes.)
I haven't had the chance to try the TBM yet, so I can't tell if this is true for the TBM, too.
-
I do suspect the progress page or other avionics features would not reflect the simulation rate. Now that things are stable with Starship, I can look into adding this. However, I’m surprised to hear that the actual burn rate differs upon landing, since that is controlled by the simulation itself, and I only read the variables. I recall that this may have been a problem within the simulation upon release, so it’s possible there has been a regression. I will check the developer forums.
-
I have not actually tested this in SU3, but there has been a clock sync issue since release that may have been resolved, potentially not (I'm thinking not). Sim Rate and Sim Time are not in sync: if you accelerated Sim Rate, the time would move at normal speed (e.g. if I go to 4x sim rate at 19:00, and I stay at 4x for 10 minutes, I would move as if I'd traveled for 40 minutes, but the time would read 19:10. I found this in the PMDG 777 and to deal with it, I had to use Sim Time Rate Adjuster. It seems to work pretty well, but caveat that it isn't foolproof and may not correctly deal with fuel burn depending on how it is calculated in a given plane.
EDIT: well I read the comments on the utility: the author can't get it to work with SU3, so it seems this is still broken, and there is no available solution presently.
-
I do suspect the progress page or other avionics features would not reflect the simulation rate. Now that things are stable with Starship, I can look into adding this. However, I’m surprised to hear that the actual burn rate differs upon landing, since that is controlled by the simulation itself, and I only read the variables. I recall that this may have been a problem within the simulation upon release, so it’s possible there has been a regression. I will check the developer forums.
@Black-Square in Germany we have a saying: Ich nehme alles zurück und behaupte das Gegenteil. Which translates to: I take verything back and am now saying the opposite.
I just did a longer flight. The problem isn't your plane, it's the simbrief profile that seems to be a bit off, predicting a lot more fuel burn. On shorter flights that are between one or two hours airtime it's so severe that it actually presented to be in parallel with my use of the sim-rate. After a four hour flight (with a noticeable headwind) it's a bit closer and not in parallel with my use of the sim-rate.
Hope you didn't put any time in investigating this, yet. Sorry about this.
