Post by volkerboehme on Aug 10, 2008 9:13:00 GMT -5
Note: This was originally posted at the Sim Outhouse Forum. The original thread can be accessed here:
www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=57095&highlight=Zmike
***********
As PeteHam has partially explained the C-119 in question was an 'AI traffic' release.
You are just flying the default DC-3 flight dynamics with a 3D picture of a C-119 attached to them. To provide slightly better performance than a DC-3 the fuel is restricted so that you are flying a very light DC-3 whilst sitting inside a C-119 cockpit environment. The files uploaded by the original author deliver SDK complaint AI animation of the MDL, but as with most AI FD they do not relate to the aircraft depicted by the MDL in any way. There are many other AI FD 'out there' which project a 3D picture of a C-119 whilst you fly something else instead e.g. the Microsoft default Baron.
You cannot add the realistic masses associated with a C-119 to (fully AI compatible Microsoft) flight dynamics for a Baron or DC-3. It will just crash.
There has never been any significant interest in realistic flight dynamics for the C-119 and if they were developed they would require different gauges whose limits encompass the real values, rather than the output values associated with a Baron or DC-3.
It follows that the correct solution to this generic and very common problem is always to seek a third party aircraft whose FD are 'realistic' and which you 'like' and that approximates the performance envelope of the C-119 (any target aircraft) much better than the default DC3 or Baron. Install the third party alternative and then 'transplant' the model, texture and sound folders from the C-119 to the 'host' aircraft after adding the suffix .C-119 so that you have folders called;
model.C-119
texture.C-119
panel.C-119
Before transplanting.
Then simply alias the C-119 MDL, textures and panel from the chosen host 'big transport plane' aircraft.cfg as the final fltsim.n option;
[fltsim.0]
title=original Big transport plane
sim=original
model=original
panel=original
sound=original
texture=original
kb_checklists=original
kb_reference=original
atc_id=original
ui_manufacturer=original
ui_type=original
description=original
....
[fltsim.last]
title=C-119
sim=original
model=C-119
panel=C-119
sound=original
texture=C-119
kb_checklists=original
kb_reference=original
atc_id=C119
ui_manufacturer=Fairchild
ui_type=C-119
description=C-119
From then on you will be flying the original 'big transport plane' using its dynamics, its checklists and its handling notes instead of just the default DC-3 or Baron dynamics with no handling notes, whilst looking at, or sitting inside a C-119 in both cases.
Very few MDLs have had realistic FD developed to drive them and so it is always a question of choosing, more carefully than the original author, which realistic third party FD you alias their model, textures and panel from after downloading. In this case I suggest you dump the unrealistic default DC-3 sounds. Some AI releases may have sounds worth retaining however.
The 'best' set of FD to alias a C-119 from may change over time as new 'realistic' FD are slowly developed and uploaded. Eventually someone may develop 'realistic' C-119 FD, but there is little interest in the realistic operation of big military transport aircraft in the FS9 community, even though 'propliners' which can be painted in many liveries are 'popular' and many now have 'realistic' dynamics and handling notes available.
My suggestion would be that you download the Convair CV-340 and all relevant updates from www.calclassic.com, install them as instructed, and then transplant only the C-119 components above into it. The result would be about 15 KTAS faster than it should be, but if you then replace the CV34 fuel with the real (early variant) C-119 fuel, which was 2670 USG, that will degrade the performance close to reality provided you fly the C-119 carefully in accordance with the supplied CV-340 on screen handling notes.
[fuel]
LeftMain=0,-23,0,1335,0
RightMain=0,23,0,1335,0
fuel_type=1.000000
number_of_tank_selectors=1
electric_pump=1
The input values will be CV-340 and R-2800 but the output from FS9 will be about as good as it can be for a C-119 with either R-4360 or R-3350 engines given the absence of 'realistic' C-119 FD with either real engine.
If the inputs mandated by the host FD handling notes go 'off scale' on a particular gauge in the C-119 cockpit environment you can either operate the C-119 using the CV-340 panel or with two minutes of effort you can use any text editor to replace the C-119 gauge in question with the CV-340 gauge in question within the C-119 panel.cfg, knowing that the 'host' gauge will solve the problem.
If you require cowl flap drag you will need to transplant the CV-340 cowl flap gauge(s) into the C-119 cockpit environment (panel.cfg).
The requirement is widepsread and the solution is generic. The correct choice of 'host' FD varies of course.
I am pleased to hear that this information may be of generic use. Here is the equivalent 'dissertation' concerning aquisition of functional 'Cockpit Views' for use within FS9.
Before the relevant C-119 MDL can be used as anything other than AI traffic, it also requires a cockpit environment that is both representative and functional. The AI C-119 release discussed in this thread has a representative panel, but lacks both a functional panel and functional gauges.
Fortunately an excellent freeware C-119 Cockpit View is available from K. Mitchell within C82phx.zip. Mitch's cockpit environments and gauges are always worth seeking out. However that Cockpit View was originally created for use in either FS2002 or CFS2 and requires the usual mandatory FS9 panel.cfg scenery driver code before it can drive the FS9 scenery display engine.
Firstly scenery *perspective* is only correct within FS9 when any panel.cfg mandates;
[Default View]
X=0
Y=0
SIZE_X=8192 (spreads 0.8 radians of azimuth scenery across multiples of 8k pixels)
SIZE_Y=6142 (spreads 0.6 radians of elevation scenery across multiples of 6k pixels)
This code must replace the existing code to render the code FS9 compatible.
Secondly scenery *placement* is only correct in FS9 when any panel.cfg mandates the view_forward_dir that positions the sea level horizon mid windscreen at zero aircraft pitch from the encoded 2D eyepoint; with the values above already in place to control perspective, and when the FS window is in an 8:6 aspect ratio.
Non 8:6 aspect ratios are corrected in scenery perspective and scenery placement by software inside MS FS9, MS Windows, and hardware specific screen & video card drivers, provided the alternate aspect ratio is (can be) selected inside FS9 before use.
In the case of Mitch's excellent C-119 Cockpit View;
[views]
view_forward_dir=12
provides adequate, (but not micro radian perfect), scenery display instructions to the FS9 scenery engine.
This [views] code must be added to the panel.cfg to render it FS9 compatible
Obviously scenery placement and perspective is only correct when ZOOM =1, (FS9 defaults to this realistic zoom in the absence of any daft ZOOM code), causing the scenery to display at its real LAT/LON in relation to our current LAT/LON.
Many panels uploaded and said to be 'FS9 compatible' still have nothing more than out of date values to drive the FS9 scenery display engine, or often no FS9 scenery driver code at all!
Panel.cfg code which drives the CFS2 scenery display, (gun sight harmonisation), engine correctly will NOT drive the FS9 scenery display engine correctly. Each version of MSFS has its own scenery display criteria, and each must be encoded differently. FS9 requires the scenery display engine driver code to be encoded within the panel.cfg, but other versions of MSFS differ.
My fix does not attempt to match anything in exterior view such as the contact points or lights.
The original C-119 (like many other releases) works well when viewed from the airport spectator perspective, but does not work at all from the perspective of the captain on the inside looking out, or when attempting to fly a realistic mission profile.
My generic fix only delivers 'the other alternative', which is an aircraft that 'works from the captain's seat looking out' whilst delivering a 'representative' mission profile, but no longer works as an AI aircraft viewed by an airport spectator, unless by co-incidence because the CoG is the same height above the ground in both aircraft and oleo compression is similar, etc, etc, when the contact points may work, but the light positions etc still would not.
'Transplanting' contact points and lights is too complicated a subject to deal with in this forum since it depends on the defined datum and CoG, and in the original AI release 'daft' dynamic values were chosen for both in this case.
reference_datum_position = 19.25, 0, 0
empty_weight_CG_position = -20.90, 0, 0
Consequently in the absence of 'realistic' dynamics for the C-119 we pretty much have to decide whether we want to use FS9 to simulate being a spectator or a pilot and switch between the two file sets using the 'select aircraft' option according to what we want to do next; operate or spectate.
My fix assumes retention of all the CV340 dynamics, including take off and landing, which depends on the contact points, so that we have a second C-119 to select from the 'select aircraft' menu that will allow us to experience 'representative' mission profile management when we choose to occupy the captain’s seat and operate the aircraft to control and experience the C-119 mission profile from the inside looking out. Switching between the two options on the ground will work well, switching in the air may cause the odd problem, but no worse than switching between any two transport aircraft with different dynamics.
We should NOT switch between spectating and operating at any time when we have flap deployed, or the aircraft is out of trim. In flight I advise turning the AP on before switching.
Of course the fix works best if we occupy the captain's seat throughout the mission so that we can control and simulate every aspect of the mission using the step by step on screen handling notes. Some of the inputs we make will be CV340 specific, but the FS9 output, and therefore the mission profile, will be 'representative' of the C-119 and its real capability whilst we occupy a 'realistic' and functional C-119 cockpit environment.
Finally, remembering that this is all about how well things work from the inside looking out, a good transplant ‘FD host candidate’ is one with;
1) ‘Realistic’ flight dynamics and comprehensive handling notes
2) Similar aerodynamic form. A biplane should not be used with a monoplane and so on. Same number of engines and so on.
3) Similar systems. If one has flaps the other should and so on.
4) Similar performance envelope.
Two aircraft will have a similar performance envelope if;
a)The power to weight ratio is similar, and
b)The weight to wing area ratio is similar, and
c)The critical altitude of the engines is similar
If c is not possible it will not matter below the lower critical altitude.
At a simpler level if the ‘Boys Book of Wonderplanes’ suggests that they share a similar maximum or cruising speed *at similar altitude* and they have a similar service ceiling then they are an adequate performance envelope match.
If take off distance data is available for both take that into account too, and then any other performance factor that you particularly intend to simulate and have data for.
Whether the host FD have code to drive the gauges in the intended panel will become important. If the systems were matched at (3) and the panel gauges match those systems this should be self solving. We may nevertheless need to create a functional panel using the ‘host gauges’ within the chosen ‘donor bitmap’.
FSAviator.
www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?t=57095&highlight=Zmike
***********
As PeteHam has partially explained the C-119 in question was an 'AI traffic' release.
You are just flying the default DC-3 flight dynamics with a 3D picture of a C-119 attached to them. To provide slightly better performance than a DC-3 the fuel is restricted so that you are flying a very light DC-3 whilst sitting inside a C-119 cockpit environment. The files uploaded by the original author deliver SDK complaint AI animation of the MDL, but as with most AI FD they do not relate to the aircraft depicted by the MDL in any way. There are many other AI FD 'out there' which project a 3D picture of a C-119 whilst you fly something else instead e.g. the Microsoft default Baron.
You cannot add the realistic masses associated with a C-119 to (fully AI compatible Microsoft) flight dynamics for a Baron or DC-3. It will just crash.
There has never been any significant interest in realistic flight dynamics for the C-119 and if they were developed they would require different gauges whose limits encompass the real values, rather than the output values associated with a Baron or DC-3.
It follows that the correct solution to this generic and very common problem is always to seek a third party aircraft whose FD are 'realistic' and which you 'like' and that approximates the performance envelope of the C-119 (any target aircraft) much better than the default DC3 or Baron. Install the third party alternative and then 'transplant' the model, texture and sound folders from the C-119 to the 'host' aircraft after adding the suffix .C-119 so that you have folders called;
model.C-119
texture.C-119
panel.C-119
Before transplanting.
Then simply alias the C-119 MDL, textures and panel from the chosen host 'big transport plane' aircraft.cfg as the final fltsim.n option;
[fltsim.0]
title=original Big transport plane
sim=original
model=original
panel=original
sound=original
texture=original
kb_checklists=original
kb_reference=original
atc_id=original
ui_manufacturer=original
ui_type=original
description=original
....
[fltsim.last]
title=C-119
sim=original
model=C-119
panel=C-119
sound=original
texture=C-119
kb_checklists=original
kb_reference=original
atc_id=C119
ui_manufacturer=Fairchild
ui_type=C-119
description=C-119
From then on you will be flying the original 'big transport plane' using its dynamics, its checklists and its handling notes instead of just the default DC-3 or Baron dynamics with no handling notes, whilst looking at, or sitting inside a C-119 in both cases.
Very few MDLs have had realistic FD developed to drive them and so it is always a question of choosing, more carefully than the original author, which realistic third party FD you alias their model, textures and panel from after downloading. In this case I suggest you dump the unrealistic default DC-3 sounds. Some AI releases may have sounds worth retaining however.
The 'best' set of FD to alias a C-119 from may change over time as new 'realistic' FD are slowly developed and uploaded. Eventually someone may develop 'realistic' C-119 FD, but there is little interest in the realistic operation of big military transport aircraft in the FS9 community, even though 'propliners' which can be painted in many liveries are 'popular' and many now have 'realistic' dynamics and handling notes available.
My suggestion would be that you download the Convair CV-340 and all relevant updates from www.calclassic.com, install them as instructed, and then transplant only the C-119 components above into it. The result would be about 15 KTAS faster than it should be, but if you then replace the CV34 fuel with the real (early variant) C-119 fuel, which was 2670 USG, that will degrade the performance close to reality provided you fly the C-119 carefully in accordance with the supplied CV-340 on screen handling notes.
[fuel]
LeftMain=0,-23,0,1335,0
RightMain=0,23,0,1335,0
fuel_type=1.000000
number_of_tank_selectors=1
electric_pump=1
The input values will be CV-340 and R-2800 but the output from FS9 will be about as good as it can be for a C-119 with either R-4360 or R-3350 engines given the absence of 'realistic' C-119 FD with either real engine.
If the inputs mandated by the host FD handling notes go 'off scale' on a particular gauge in the C-119 cockpit environment you can either operate the C-119 using the CV-340 panel or with two minutes of effort you can use any text editor to replace the C-119 gauge in question with the CV-340 gauge in question within the C-119 panel.cfg, knowing that the 'host' gauge will solve the problem.
If you require cowl flap drag you will need to transplant the CV-340 cowl flap gauge(s) into the C-119 cockpit environment (panel.cfg).
The requirement is widepsread and the solution is generic. The correct choice of 'host' FD varies of course.
I am pleased to hear that this information may be of generic use. Here is the equivalent 'dissertation' concerning aquisition of functional 'Cockpit Views' for use within FS9.
Before the relevant C-119 MDL can be used as anything other than AI traffic, it also requires a cockpit environment that is both representative and functional. The AI C-119 release discussed in this thread has a representative panel, but lacks both a functional panel and functional gauges.
Fortunately an excellent freeware C-119 Cockpit View is available from K. Mitchell within C82phx.zip. Mitch's cockpit environments and gauges are always worth seeking out. However that Cockpit View was originally created for use in either FS2002 or CFS2 and requires the usual mandatory FS9 panel.cfg scenery driver code before it can drive the FS9 scenery display engine.
Firstly scenery *perspective* is only correct within FS9 when any panel.cfg mandates;
[Default View]
X=0
Y=0
SIZE_X=8192 (spreads 0.8 radians of azimuth scenery across multiples of 8k pixels)
SIZE_Y=6142 (spreads 0.6 radians of elevation scenery across multiples of 6k pixels)
This code must replace the existing code to render the code FS9 compatible.
Secondly scenery *placement* is only correct in FS9 when any panel.cfg mandates the view_forward_dir that positions the sea level horizon mid windscreen at zero aircraft pitch from the encoded 2D eyepoint; with the values above already in place to control perspective, and when the FS window is in an 8:6 aspect ratio.
Non 8:6 aspect ratios are corrected in scenery perspective and scenery placement by software inside MS FS9, MS Windows, and hardware specific screen & video card drivers, provided the alternate aspect ratio is (can be) selected inside FS9 before use.
In the case of Mitch's excellent C-119 Cockpit View;
[views]
view_forward_dir=12
provides adequate, (but not micro radian perfect), scenery display instructions to the FS9 scenery engine.
This [views] code must be added to the panel.cfg to render it FS9 compatible
Obviously scenery placement and perspective is only correct when ZOOM =1, (FS9 defaults to this realistic zoom in the absence of any daft ZOOM code), causing the scenery to display at its real LAT/LON in relation to our current LAT/LON.
Many panels uploaded and said to be 'FS9 compatible' still have nothing more than out of date values to drive the FS9 scenery display engine, or often no FS9 scenery driver code at all!
Panel.cfg code which drives the CFS2 scenery display, (gun sight harmonisation), engine correctly will NOT drive the FS9 scenery display engine correctly. Each version of MSFS has its own scenery display criteria, and each must be encoded differently. FS9 requires the scenery display engine driver code to be encoded within the panel.cfg, but other versions of MSFS differ.
My fix does not attempt to match anything in exterior view such as the contact points or lights.
The original C-119 (like many other releases) works well when viewed from the airport spectator perspective, but does not work at all from the perspective of the captain on the inside looking out, or when attempting to fly a realistic mission profile.
My generic fix only delivers 'the other alternative', which is an aircraft that 'works from the captain's seat looking out' whilst delivering a 'representative' mission profile, but no longer works as an AI aircraft viewed by an airport spectator, unless by co-incidence because the CoG is the same height above the ground in both aircraft and oleo compression is similar, etc, etc, when the contact points may work, but the light positions etc still would not.
'Transplanting' contact points and lights is too complicated a subject to deal with in this forum since it depends on the defined datum and CoG, and in the original AI release 'daft' dynamic values were chosen for both in this case.
reference_datum_position = 19.25, 0, 0
empty_weight_CG_position = -20.90, 0, 0
Consequently in the absence of 'realistic' dynamics for the C-119 we pretty much have to decide whether we want to use FS9 to simulate being a spectator or a pilot and switch between the two file sets using the 'select aircraft' option according to what we want to do next; operate or spectate.
My fix assumes retention of all the CV340 dynamics, including take off and landing, which depends on the contact points, so that we have a second C-119 to select from the 'select aircraft' menu that will allow us to experience 'representative' mission profile management when we choose to occupy the captain’s seat and operate the aircraft to control and experience the C-119 mission profile from the inside looking out. Switching between the two options on the ground will work well, switching in the air may cause the odd problem, but no worse than switching between any two transport aircraft with different dynamics.
We should NOT switch between spectating and operating at any time when we have flap deployed, or the aircraft is out of trim. In flight I advise turning the AP on before switching.
Of course the fix works best if we occupy the captain's seat throughout the mission so that we can control and simulate every aspect of the mission using the step by step on screen handling notes. Some of the inputs we make will be CV340 specific, but the FS9 output, and therefore the mission profile, will be 'representative' of the C-119 and its real capability whilst we occupy a 'realistic' and functional C-119 cockpit environment.
Finally, remembering that this is all about how well things work from the inside looking out, a good transplant ‘FD host candidate’ is one with;
1) ‘Realistic’ flight dynamics and comprehensive handling notes
2) Similar aerodynamic form. A biplane should not be used with a monoplane and so on. Same number of engines and so on.
3) Similar systems. If one has flaps the other should and so on.
4) Similar performance envelope.
Two aircraft will have a similar performance envelope if;
a)The power to weight ratio is similar, and
b)The weight to wing area ratio is similar, and
c)The critical altitude of the engines is similar
If c is not possible it will not matter below the lower critical altitude.
At a simpler level if the ‘Boys Book of Wonderplanes’ suggests that they share a similar maximum or cruising speed *at similar altitude* and they have a similar service ceiling then they are an adequate performance envelope match.
If take off distance data is available for both take that into account too, and then any other performance factor that you particularly intend to simulate and have data for.
Whether the host FD have code to drive the gauges in the intended panel will become important. If the systems were matched at (3) and the panel gauges match those systems this should be self solving. We may nevertheless need to create a functional panel using the ‘host gauges’ within the chosen ‘donor bitmap’.
FSAviator.