Flames - Update - with Video

[CAPFlyer]

Which seems an odd position for a representative of a video game company to take.

The issue for me is that the flames are something we had to constantly educate on throughout development with more than a few threads that kept asking us "where are the flames?" and we had to repeatedly inform the posters that it wasn't correct for this aircraft. I have no issue with fantasy paint schemes. If you check, you'll find that my only repaint for the L-049A is in my VA's colors - 100% fake.

I see A2A's products as educational as much as entertaining, and I'm pretty sure that Scott and the team agree. As such, it is important to represent these aircraft physically correct. This is why Scott and the team takes such time to get SPECIFIC examples to build the aircraft from, not just a "generic" representation of them from the manuals.

I know some people may like the flames, but I think it goes beyond the "well I like them" point when adding them directly contradicts the development team's hard work to correct this misconception because it will be taken as "he's fixing an error" when it's uploaded outside this forum (which it will whether the OP wants it to or not, it's another fact of how these things work unfortunately). This will lead to an inevitable wave of people coming here wanting support for "our fix" or wondering why they don't "have the flames" on their copy.

I'd like to think that a mod like this could be put up and not result in the above, but unfortunately, 20 years in this hobby have taught me otherwise.

[Warbirds]

As for FSX being close to real and teaching one how to actually fly I learned that was not the case the first time my buddy put me in the left seat of his Cessna 150 and said "let's go" and off I went into the wild blue yonder without a clue fighting that rudder trying keep the 150 even close to straight on that bumpy grass strip. I knew how to make it go left and right and up and down but when I was in that seat everything I thought I knew went out the window. I found out that 15 or so years of all types of flight sim flying was not even close to that experience.

This is a game/sim and you can take it anyway you want to take it. I do have times where I want to fly the Connie per real as possible and tell the FE to stay home but there are also times when I just want to shed the problems of the day and go fly, letting that beautiful airplane pull me into it's virtual world.

A funny thing about putting out a virtual airplane or paint of same. A long time ago when I was building planes for Fs9 I made a series of 1930's air racers and uploaded them to Flightsim.com. Year was 2000 or abouts and soon after I saw some paints someone did for them with Budweiser and Pepsi and other products plastered all over their sides. I think at that time I felt as you do now and was a bit horrified that my work was desecrated in such a way. Years later I look back on it with a smile and know that we are all different and we like to make something we own ours by changing it or painting it differently. After all my car did not come from the factory with mag wheels but it was my choice to put them on.

[Warbirds]

Can the flames simple be set to the throttle levers position?

Kinda like afterburner on a jet sim

I think I will use mp for the switch. Rpm is always pegged when the FE is active and he also eventually sets the mp at around 35 with me at full throttle. The rpm does not move much from the close to red he sets when I throttle back but the mp does move and decrease so that should be the switch. Run the switch around 34 or 35 mp and it should only be on at max power. Throttle back and let the mp drop and flames go off.

I have a guy willing to work this out for me so I will just have to experiment with it and see how it goes.

Screenshot of mp and rpm at full throttle with FE engaged.

[alan CXA651]

Hi Warbirds.
I have a lot of hrs now on the connie since she was released , i have the props controlled through the A2A configurator , and throttles mapped individually through the licenced version of FSUIPC , and i have the engineer controlling everything , yet i can still control the manifold with throttles , and rpm with the prop switch increase/decrease , and the settings shown in your pic , will prematurely wear the engines out ,
For takeoff/climb , depending on aircraft weight/runway length and alt , i set no more than 40man for take off and as she lifts of , i reduce it to 35man , get gear/flaps up , bring rpm to 23 for climb 22 cruise 20 decent and on climb once aircraft clean , i bring man to 30 once in cruise it is reduce to about 28/29 on decent 20 , all my engines show excellen condition.
regards alan.

[Warbirds]

Thanks, yes I was at extreme but the point was to find where to put the switch for the flames and I think they should only be on at extreme or around 35mp. So they would be on at climb and off at cruise. But open to ideas so please continue.

[maddz]

You could use

Example : (A:ENG1 MANIFOLD PRESSURE,inhg) 39 <-- Set desired number to see flames

OR, if you wanted flames on start-up

(A:ENG1 COMBUSTION,number)

Hat is off to you for the time taken to find the exhaust co-ordinates - i gave up lol

[Stearmandriver]

I meant no offense. Believe me, I'm continually impressed at how good this all is! There's no doubt that desktop flight sims have enormous value as training tools. That's actually what led me to them in the first place.

My point was only that we all do this for enjoyment. Whether that enjoyment is derived from maximizing accuracy as much as is achievable in order to learn, or taking artistic license to create some beautiful scenes, it's all still just for fun. And since even the latest level D sims are incapable of perfectly simulating flight (though they are, as Sixgun notes , very VERY good, they are still not REALLY the same), it seems a little silly to exhort someone to not have the fun they want with their own simulator, just because you feel it wouldn't meet your own personal standards of realism.

However, I may have misinterpreted CapFlyer's reasons, and I apologize. I can appreciate your points about what this add-on might make people think regarding the "missing" flames. Maybe a fair compromise would be to request that Warbirds include a disclaimer in the add-on documentation that these flames are cosmetic but not necessarily realistic for this engine? Just a thought.

Also, a bit OT but I'm curious - do you know WHY this engine does not produce a visible exhaust flame? My experience with radials is limited to GA-sized engines, but even the little stock 220hp Continental produces a nice blue flame in the dusk. That's a much smaller, lower - powered engine than these... Maybe length of exhaust system is the difference, so the flame is there but buried in the stack? Just curious...

[Warbirds]

No disclaimer because then I would have to disclaim my fantasy paints and my custom smoke config and on an on.

By the way you better tell Just Flight to put a disclaimer for their L049 Connies because they also have a bit of flame licking out of the exhaust.

I just had a thought. My next paint will be a restored L049 with the PRT-equipped "Jet Stack" R3350s installed, thus flames.

[maddz]

Eagerly waiting Paul..

[sixgun]

How about flames on the P-40 and P-51 ?

[severniae]

Warbirds - carry on the good work sir! It's a shame that some people try to impose their version of fun on all of us. Looking forward to this version, even though it's using a little artistic license!

[Tomas Linnet]

Also, a bit OT but I'm curious - do you know WHY this engine does not produce a visible exhaust flame? My experience with radials is limited to GA-sized engines, but even the little stock 220hp Continental produces a nice blue flame in the dusk. That's a much smaller, lower - powered engine than these... Maybe length of exhaust system is the difference, so the flame is there but buried in the stack? Just curious...

A little more info on the flame spitting engines: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo-compound_engine

Even my 5hp Briggs & Stratton vil produce a small flame if I remove the muffler, but the flames fro, the turbo compound engine was I a league of their own.

[Stratocruiser2]

At the end of the day, no one is being forced to install the exhaust flame modification! It is an option in the same way as choosing to install a fictitious paint scheme is an option and, although it may not be accurate in terms of the 049, if it gives addditional pleasure to some 049 flyers then why not? I personally have great though slightly blurry childhood memories of watching night take-offs of large piston airliners and the one thing that stands out from the blur was the sight of the blue flames licking back from the exhausts. OK they were probably Super Connies and I do like to stick to realism as far as possible but I'm still tempted to add the modification to the 049 if only for the fun of it! If simming ceases to be fun then why bother with it?

Bill

[thunderstreak]

I have to support "Warbirds" on this one.
Most large piston aircraft engines with relatively short exhaust systems have some amount of flame coming from the exhaust.
Especially when taking off at full rich mixture with high power settings.
It's not always obvious in the daylight but becomes very apparent at night.
The majority I have experienced are usually more blue than orange but each one is unique.

I'm going to download it for sure!

[cflord]

Many years ago I got to be an Aircraft Mechanic on the USAF EC-121D aircraft stationed at McClellan AFB, Sacramento, California. The one thing I remember clearly after watching hundreds of engine runs and takeoffs (especially at dusk or night) was the beautiful flames coming out of the exhaust with the engines at a higher power setting. During takeoff climb, and low altitude the flames are usually orange in color with the higher power settings. During approach and landings the flames will pretty much go away with the power pulled back. At the higher cruise altitudes with the engines leaned out properly the flames will be bluish in color. During bright sunlight the flames are still there; but may be difficult or impossible to see. The pics & videos below are just but a few examples of the flames coming from a Super Connie:

Flames viewed from the passenger compartment
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFEQvBhW4dU[/youtube]

Flames viewed at takeoff
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dExlu488bM4[/youtube]
















Now let me say this: I am a flames kind of guy and I understand the realism/accuracy issue CAP is talking about; however I see no real harm with Warbirds flames and flight simmers use of them to have some visual fun. Heck the Connie FE can't even do his job half the time and where is the realism in that?

My personal opinion is this when it comes to the flames on the airplanes that should have them and don't. As a developer, to stick your head in the sand and pretend the engine flames don't exist is ignoring one of the most important flight simulator sensors and that is the sense of sight. To say, "because I can't see it from the cockpit, it's not important enough to waste our time to develop the effect" is simply short sighted and wrong. If that's the case, why do we need to see the gun turrets rotate on the B-17 and why do we need to see the landing gear go up and down? The answer is, their visual effects that bring the airplane alive from the outside. For example, I think it is very important to be able to see the bluish exhaust flames coming from the engines of the P-51, P-40, & Spitfire at dusk or at night from outside the airplane. Besides the sound of the engines running and the flames coming out of the exhaust would really bring the engine and airplane to life. I've beat this drum to death in the past and got no where, so I really don't expect any movement in this area of aircraft development now. People are stuck in whatever mind set their in and can't see the forest for the trees!

Anyway enough of the hot stuff and have fun with Warbirds flames.

Keep the shiny side up and the dirty side down!

Ret SMSgt Cliff Lord - C-130 Flight Engineer & Mechanic