Scott - A2A wrote:The engines in the Connie (and 377) us the Microsoft built-in tech that includes the superchargers. You can see the difference of this depth in the maintenance hangar.
Scott.
Thank you for your answer Scott,
What you've described is what I experienced with the 'supercharger' behavior. It's barely fair to call what Microsoft has modeled a supercharger.. but it's probably more complexity than was demanded by the vast majority of their users. It seems that Microsoft views a supercharger as a ratio of increased boost output over the standard turbo coding. That's what's happening when we switch to high blower.
This default engine behavior is well hidden by the turbocharger management in the B-377, and that's probably why nobody recognized it until the release of the supercharger only Constellation. I realize now that the different product lines have different levels of fidelity, not just user interface (eg, the maintenance hangar). After thinking about the problem I can see why the decision would be made; a 4-engine propliner may need 4 times the computing power of a high quality single engine offering.
With your information in mind, I made some tests of my A2A hangar. Here are the results:
L-049 = Default FSX engine behavior. During my tests I also realized that you can change the propeller pitch using the control on the ground with the engines stopped. This isn't possible in a constant speed propeller, but is default FS behavior.
B-377 = Default FSX engine behavior under the turbo regulator. I discovered this by disconnecting all turbos then performing the RPM change at 10,000'. Again, since so much of the boost comes from actual turbos the supercharger modeling is very academic. Also, moving the propeller control with engines stopped does not change prop pitch (which is realistic and not default FS behavior)
B-17 Wings of Power = A2A Supercharger modeling with an MAP dependent on RPM. This is modeled even though this aircraft uses turbochargers. Your clue about the maintenance hangar helps clarify the difference.. as the flying fortress hangar is more complex.
Since you talked about "default FSX supercharger behavior," I checked to see if indeed Microsoft modeled a supercharger. So I took the Acceleration (the last pure MS product and update to FSX) up to 15,000' and cycled the prop. No change in MAP despite large changes in the RPM of the "supposed" supercharger impeller wheel. So we know there is nothing functional. I know the default DC-3 functions the same, and imagine the G-21A goose handles this issue the same. I believe those are the only default aircraft equipped with centrifugal superchargers.
I still think the new supercharger code would be a drastic improvement to the L-49. But since you've discussed why it isn't present, I accept that this isn't an 'issue' with the aircraft. I am more than happy with the explanation.
Would still be overjoyed to find one day that it's been include at some distant point in the future
Thanks again for the beautiful aircraft!