Much appreciated. You may be right. In the simulator could be a bug in the conversion from airspeed to mach. I put a screenshot of the conversion to airspeed of the f-15 manual:
If we do the same traceability, the same thing happens, Mach 2.0 at FL50 is 540 knots and at 60,000ft it is 440.
Edit:
I am realizing that the conversion may be correct and there’s no bug, the charts of the concorde and the F-15 are showing the Values in CAS (Calibrated airspeed) and not IAS.
That means I probably have to open the autopilot limits to allow mach 2.0 at FL50, which seems to be within the allowable limits.
The IAS is not the actual speed through the air even when the aircraft is at sea level under International Standard Atmosphere conditions (15 °C, 1013 hPa, 0% humidity). The IAS needs to be corrected for known instrument and position errors to show true airspeed under those specific atmospheric conditions, and this is the CAS (Calibrated Airspeed). Despite this the pilot’s primary airspeed reference, the ASI, shows IAS (by definition). The relationship between CAS and IAS is known and documented for each aircraft type and model.
@CodenameJack447 Yes I agree with this. Please do tweak the IAS / Mach and Max Climb/Cruise Mach limits, that would be fantastic.
I too have noticed after several flights with 1.03 these things don’t match up with the published flight envelope graphs, books, photos even Concorde videos I’ve seen.
It seems either the Mach number displayed is too slow or the IAS displayed is too fast (or both I guess).
Here is a photograph of the IAS and Mach gauge from a Concorde at 60,000 feet.
Currently with version 1.03 Max Cruise at 50,000 feet seems to hold approx. Mach 1.8, even with colder than standard outside air temperatures and 59% CG. This is significantly slower than the real aircraft. There are many photos on the internet similar to this - it seems above 48,000 feet Concorde was normally cruising at approximately Mach 2.
In addition, a smaller detail, my understanding is that when Concorde entered commercial service maximum Mach was limited to 2.02. I believe the Max Cruise mode respected the Mach 2.02 upper limit, in addition to IAS and nose temperature limits.
Hope all this helps with your ongoing improvements. And thank you again (also @DEAN01973 ) - your Concorde is just a whole heap of fun to fly and keeps getting better.
All very helpful, thanks! Never rely on the passenger cabin Mach reference though - this was routinely tweaked up to Mach 2 to keep passengers happy, especially on the EGLL-JFK run where Concorde rarely reached Mach 2 at all.
Yes, I am seeing it, the airspeed gauge shows 440knots at 60000ft, which indicates that it is not IAS, but CAS. In the SDK i don’t find a variable to display CAS, only IAS, GNS, TCAS or MACH. It implies that I would have to do that conversion myself and square it for all altitudes. I don’t know if it will be that simple or allow more IAS to the autopilot.
The best topic of the forum, very interesting information here. I was unaware of the calibrated speed. I understand that it affects much more in planes as fast and that fly as high as the Concorde. On other aircraft there should be much less difference.
ok, i’m going to need some volunteers. The idea is that you open the flightmodel.cfg with a notepad and replace the fuel system lines with the ones I’m going to show you here.
It has no loss. They are the fuel pressure pumps.
Right now you should be able to fly with no problem. But the transfer between tanks 9, 10 and 11 are a bit slow now. I need to see how to increase the pressures along the lines as they were in SU8:
Dear Asobo Studios: Thank you for breaking our airplanes, for the third time, with Sim Updates. We will now once again cease production while we try to understand what you have broken, how to fix it, then get everything updated for our customers ( again ).
That is all. Concorde is effectively grounded until it can be fixed and updated. Apologies to all.
ETA: CodenameJack has narrowed the issue down to the new Asobo fuel_system. Yes folks, a year and a half since launch, and they’re still changing things as crucial to airplanes as fuel - this bug was reported during the beta by users, and yet SU9 was released anyway without the bug being fixed. Do we now fix it our end? Will Asobo issue a patch? Will the patch then break our fix? The beta system is of absolutely no use if Asobo do not act on crucial issues such as these before going live with their updates.
The fighter jets ( F-14, F-15 and F-15 ) and PT-17 Stearman are still on the older fuel system, so appear unaffected at this time.
So for what its worth – I 100% understand DC Designs’ frustration. I just hope they, as well as us, will be on the dev Q&A call tomorrow so we can ask them point blank why they’re continuing to not be good at communicating, especially during beta periods.
There was a stutter/bad performance bug for over a week that no one from Asobo would respond to us about (except the community mods who are amazing btw - they did let us know that they were investigating it) but we never heard back on what the issue was.
Anyways, hopefully we will get some response tomorrow.
Is this actually a bug, meaning a change that is undesired by Asobo? Or is it a change toward a new way that they want to move to? To know the difference, we need to know the intent of the change.
Just because it breaks existing planes and is undesirable to developers does not make it a bug.
Just because they are still changing fundamental things may be bad planning, but does not necessarily mean it’s a bad change if it makes things better in the long run.
I can sort of see things from both sides. I think they need to improve communication, certainly. I get the frustration. From both the developer and the paying public. If problems are brought to their attention they need to be quicker about addressing, or at least communicating when they will be addressed.
Asobo are only interested in ensuring the core sim functions though, aren’t they. Not to ensure all third party addons function as intended, before they release each update.
