The A2A Simulations Community

Same logic could be used to need to model overheating related damage and coolant loss: just don't overheat. Same logic could be applied to landing gear collapsing under too rough landing - just land safely, or damage to gear when dropped at too high speed - don't drop it ...and so on.

____

@Caldeway
Some of my workaround ideas would add a gallon to total capacity ("at 1 tablespoon add 1 more"). Some on the other hand cause premature fuel pressure loss ("interpret 1 gallon as 0 gallons"). The latter would be OK if you think that the last gallon wouldn't be drained from the tank due to location of fuel pipe... but in reality the remainder of fuel wouldn't continue to decrease after it starts to ingest air into fuel line.

For absolute accuracy, you'd have to model capacity of fuel lines and float chamber and drain equal amount of fuel as engine is primed and cranked so that by the point your engine coughs to life, your tank is no longer full but actually gulped a ****load of fuel to fill that huge float chamber... and combine that with "at 1 tablespoon add 1 more" workaround. Then the total usable tank capacity would match with tank capacity (the extra fuel given after tank is dry through "add 1 tablespoon" would be taken from the tank during start-up so there's no net mismatch in fuel amount).

Of course you could add a micro-fuel tank to model fuel lines and float chamber but I don't see why this tank should be visible to FSX manager if you can hide that "tank" inside Accusim. It's just needed that a constant 1 tablespoon of fuel is in the (FSX acknowledged) fuel tank to fool FSX to not kill the engine prematurely.

But I think I've speculated enough. I don't really know FSX's internals and whether it's a bug in Accusim or merely FSX property that hasn't been by-passed by Accusim. Running-out-of-fuel is a rare occurrence so it's obviously the highest priority thing to make it right... but I wouldn't think it's the lowest either, considering the dire consequences of running out of fuel in low altitude without knowing you've run out of fuel (engine purring normally and fuel pressure reading normal!).

I say "Speculate!!!" until someone with more knowladge doesn't come and destroy the joy of it. (Joke)

It would be good if someone from A2A would come and put us where we belong , it would dispel concerns regarding this fuel modelling.
(I know you all, you just sit there, read our scribble, and wonder, from where do we have these ideas, who's been drinkin huh? burp. .... )

I do not see those items as being in the same category at all. They are quite different in application and end results.



If you are so concerned with this minor discrepancy, and it seems you are, and have "ideas" on how to fix it, why don't
you just do what I do when I come across something that I perceive as a bug, or a feature I don't care for or something I would
like to have done differently....I just do it!
I either dig into the code and make any necessary changes or create my own XML gauge to do whatever I
want/need done and be done with it without a prolonged dissertation on the issue at hand. I don't bug the creator,
if free-ware, or the payware designers to "fix" something that probably only 0.1% are bothered by while the remaining
99.9% couldn't care less. I make changes or add code for my own edification and use if it is something that I wish to "fix" or
"enhance".

Back when FSX came out I discovered, along with many others, that ACES made a change to the way the "Toggle_Starter_x"
KEY function and as a result most FS9 models that were imported into FSX just flat would not start without having to
resort to Ctrl+E. Knowing what ACES did, I simply changed the code for the aircraft in my "hangar" or created my own
XML "starter" gauges for props and turbines. Installed that code to the models that needed it and went on my
merry flying way.

When I come across threads like this a few "terms" come to mind...mountain/molehil, rivet counting, beating a dead horse.

Paul

I would, if it was a major issue. It isn't. It's definitely not worth for me to use hours and hours of my time to dive into FSX specific XML notation so that I might (or might not) be able to solve the fuel run-out issue... just for myself.

While it's not worth for me, I think it's worth for A2A to workaround it: thousands of customers, they get paid for doing the "magic", updates get wide distribution (maximizing community benefit), etc. They use couple of hours to work it out: big effect.

I use twice the amount (as I have zero prior knowledge and have to learn it first) in futile attempt to fix it, and I don't get paid, and I could only release it as unofficial fix (no wide scale distribution, no community benefit) and I couldn't even distribute the fixed XMLs since 99.9% of the lines aren't my writing, thus distributing the fix (even just a single XML file) would be a copyright violation and I could only distribute the fix by publishing only the instructions on how everyone could fix it for themselves, which would effectually reduce people willing to go through the trouble rendering something that has minor community interest to something that has none. So, if you do the math, what's my motivation on (performing futile attempts at) fixing it?


A workaround to fix Spitfire's fuel-out bug isn't applicable to other planes than Spitfire itself (except maybe P-51 and P-40 but I don't know as they're not public betas). I can understand that finding a solution to make all FS9 planes startable without cheating is a lot more rewarding hack than hacking Spitfire only for your own pleasure of hacking it.


I could say the same about MkI accumulator trolley (only one out of thousand examples). It even has it's own 3D model. And what's the chances you need it? You're unlikely to ever run out of battery even if you never used the generator switch or had a broken generator. Why? Because maintenance hangar FORCES battery recharge every time you visit it.

I could also say the same about ladders & chocks on the B-17G. They're more of a nuisance than a feature since the landing lights 3D effect interfere with these ghost ladders that are made invisible and placed next to the flying B-17.
(I don't remember whether I've seen a ghost of accumulator trolley flying alongside Spitfire, though).


A) It wouldn't be the first time a molehill would be modeled.

B) I wouldn't compare that to rivet counting. The stretching antenna cable on P-51 is comparable to that. And even that has been modeled...

C) Beating a dead horse would in this case mean either
C1) hoping for something that has been openly admitted it's a bug that will never be fixed, or
C2) over-analyzing.

I acknowledge the latter, which is why I said I've speculated enough. I hope it's not about C1. While it certainly doesn't require any hotfix, I hope it'd be fixed in the next bigger update, even though it will take several months for that to be out as v1.1 was just released. And I'm fine with waiting. Not a big bug. I also hope fuel run-out is modeled properly for all the new aircraft as well so that they'd need less fixing once they're out. It's not like figuring out the best workaround over it would only apply to Spitfire but to all craft published in future as well. Take that for incentive. (This is also why I consider it a total waste of effort to try to fix it UNOFFICIALLY.)

If you want/need it fixed then I suggest you do it yourself or get off the stump.

If I thought it was a big issue I would find a solution, for myself, and share that with interested parties.

I'm going to ignore this thread from this point on as my time is better spent elsewhere.

Paul

Holy cow, I had to quit 1/2 way through reading this topic.

So I missed a lot of the discussion in the latter part of this thread but I caught the part of the pneumatics and the fuel cutoff on page 2. The pneumatic system did properly bleed air off in beta, but this behavior did come back. It has been fixed and will be in the next core update

The fuel delivery part of the code has been re-worked and will also not starve the engine quite so fast in the next core update. When you push that cutoff back in, the fuel goes right back into the system, usually resulting in some sputters and then smoothening out with time.

Anything beyond the fuel cutoff and pneumatic system, please just list here in simple, short explanations.

Scott.

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.

On Mr. Whiic behalf:

1.When taking away the fuel from tanks to 0%, the engine works normally on vapors and fuel in ducts, but doesn't produce any propulsion, its like the FSX is recognizing the engine off, but accusim doesn't, the artificial horizon is failed, the prop doesn't pull the aircraft, but the propwind through flight controls works.
When the engine works on vapors and you fill the empty tank by 1% for example, it suddenly gives a kick and most of the time it is enough to nose-over.
2.The cold temps don't provide problems anymore in cold&dark, but it was fixed i believe.

Nice to hear it's already fixed. From Killratio's "making it work properly when repeated needlessly on a Tuesday by a one legged dwarf who has two maiden aunts named Clarice" I was afraid that A2A development team couldn't care less about the pneumatic system.


Ok. I'll summarize. TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read) version of past few pages:

How engine behaves when tanks run empty. In current version, running tanks empty causes engine power to instantaneously go to zero horsepower: no sputters, not even loss of fuel pressure or any other indication of fuel run-out is evident prior to sudden loss of all propulsion. Fuel pressure loss and coughing comes only several seconds after your engine is effectually dead and the plane already falling like a brick.

Basically, "0.1%" of Accusim users might want this to be modeled the same way engine reacts to closing fuel valves, that engine performance reduces gradually after running out of fuel due to empty tanks.

Hey Scott-

Did you guys ever manage to replicate or fix the bug which was the orginial topic on Page One and Two of this thread?

Thanks,

Joe

+ these problems, Mr. whiic mentioned ?

I think I've heard this sound a few times in the Mk.I while I've been setting up for final approach for landing (ie, making tight turns and descending). The first time I heard it, I noticed soon after saw my radiator was fully open -- but I don't know if I had opened the radiator earlier and simply forgotten that I did. Since then I haven't seen an obvious correlation between the sound and the radiator position.

_________________
I like Thunderbolts! (Link to MySpace tribute page)


120th Fighter Wing, Montana Air National Guard

Problems listed here aside (i believe, most of them existed before the core update), i think, that the core update wasn't given enough time for testing and checking how the new things work alongside the old, now the plane is self-priming and has no problems starting even in the worst conditions, no backfires etc. and that is the essence of these kind of packages.


Hope, the core update 2 will not bring anymore problems, and fix the ones listed here as well.

I just checked, and the piper cub doesn't have the same problem with not giving propulsion, when tanks are dry, i guess simply becouse, the fuel in a tank and in ducts are combined into one tank, and when you are emptying the tank with popup screen, you are also emptying the ducts, simple, yet working.

I can say that the REAL fuel capacity of the piper is used here, not the fuel capacity of the tank only,

Points to you Mr. whiic.

First thoughts after Core update 2

1. I don't think, that the way the gear pump was made here is better, now i just press shift+g and the gear lifts almost like with an automatic gear pump, it disconnects from the experience of flying a plane with a hand gear pump, fingers pumping was better in my opinion, why take this workload away if it was normal on these planes, maybe i can switch to the old way, but didn't see an option ?

2.Some refinements to the flight model, the airplane is more stable, even the flick rolls are better now .

3.Auto priming is gone, hurray , but the problem with the engine not giving propulsion, when the tanks are dry, but fuel in ducts is still available still exists

4.When on jacks - when i tested the new gear system, i stumbled upon something, it could be a bug, but not sure - the gear light is lit, when you rise and lock the gear, even if the gear position light switch is off

5.The pneumatic system is still repressurizing itself, without any action of the user, but read, that is a limitation of some sort so...(Edit: Mr Scott said earlier in this topic, that it has been fixed, but i guess it didn't work out, problem still visible )

and the rest is only good things.

Overall, i think that it could be a little better this time, but i don't really blame A2A, they have many other projects on their minds, i imagine, that adding new things from the new planes to the spitfire can be a pain (well look at the new features list ), but i found these after a roughly an hour of testing, i really can wait (and i think others too) for the next update, if it will mean, that i will have no problems, but like said previously, a very good update, keep it up all the way

I think, that too many projects at once are problem here, there is no time to properly test some things.

Hehe... and they didn't let me do the first thing, that comes to mind when on jacks , start the engine , sneaky little bastards..

Just to help you guys out. I noticed this the other day myself, and almost started a thread on it. However I got a hunch to reload the airplanein the game, and voila! It was gone. My recommendation to people using save flights like me is if you experience this, go to the menu, select aircraft, reload the exact plane you are using, and it should not be refilling itself anymore after that... For me it is intermittent, and I have not had it occur in a few days. Usually when it does happen it is after I shut the Spitfire down after a flight, but on my next flight it doesn't occur again. A small gripe, but one I myself am willing to live with. The air tank lasts through multiple flap, and brake deployments anyway.. So in theory you should not run it dry on an emergency landing. Hope this will at least help solve your issue.

_________________
S Jordan
Milviz Staff Member
AM; United States Navy
FSX Hours: 2000 and counting