Swapping Out Generic Glider Model for Multiplayer

The default Blue/Yellow glider, used in multiplayer for unavailable aircraft.

 In Flightgear multiplayer, users whose plane models that you don't have will show up in the world as a generic blue & yellow glider to indicate that other players are there, with a plane model that you do not have. These gliders will represent the direction, and pose of the multiplayer planes in real time.

 There are several problems I have with that.. for one thing, it detracts ever-so-slightly from t he multiplayer experience - imagine if ATC asks for you to look out for traffic nearby, and you see this blue-yellow low polygon thing zipping, or hovering through the air. Certainly not visual candy.

  You can actually change the model from the generic blue and yellow glider to whatever model you like.

In the preferences file "preferences.xml

< default-model type="string">Models/Geometry/glider.ac

You can search in the Models folder for an .ac file that you may fancy, for example, replace it with Models/Aircraft/rafale.ac, and all the mp aircraft will show Rafales, improving the experience.

 Personally, there's still something that bugs me and that is, helicopters. If you change the model to a Rafale for example, and one takes off vertically, it also makes it off somewhat. Also, if there is an ATC in the area, they are also represented by these models on top of the tower, then you have a Rafale, or whatever fixed wing aircraft hovering on top of the tower, which looks odd.

 My personal preference is to use the UH-60 helicopter;

change the code from

< default-model type="string">Models/Geometry/glider.ac

to

< default-model type="string">Models/H-60.xml

and you get a UH-60 model, complete with running engines and spinning rotor, and this bumps up the realism a little bit more. In multiplayer, you will have these UH-60s zipping around in the air, hovering or just making those slow movements for those users who use helos, and they will look (almost) totally authentic. The only difference is that some of them take off like a plane down the runway but otherwise, you have a UH-60 hovering over a tower (ATC), it looks totally fine and believable!

Don't remember what aircraft this was supposed to be.

This is supposed to be an Airbus 330-300, an aircraft I haven't downloaded.

A "Clipper". Over MP, it's a UH-60.

Old 1960s Boeing 707 Promo Video

Old 1960s B707 promo video. Seems so relaxed and carefree, those days.

Flightgear Plane Download : 787-8

  I downloaded the 787-8 manually from work and after some difficulty, installed it on my computer at home with a USB drive. Loaded up for a test flight, in its Boeing Dreamliner livery, what a beauty.

  First "test" is to pushback, taxi out into an empty spot, and look through all the cockpit systems, test out the flaps, spoilers, thrust reverse, engine, aileron and rudder. Looks great. Position it on the runway, check flaps, brakes on, throttle up, release brakes, roll down the runway. Awesome. The animations are very nice, the nosewheels turn, on rotation the rear wheels angle upwards.

  Unlike the FG 777, the FG 787 is doesn't jump off the runway with ease, and seems to require a little bit longer runway than the Triple Seven. However, it does get off into the air nicely, and once in the air flies smooth and easy.

  A short round trip in the air and got back in for a landing. I set the autobrakes setting to "2", and lined up nicely with the runway with surprising ease, checked the speed and it's about 140knots. Seemed like my best approache so far, every is right. HOWEVER, upon touch down (a little long, thanks to my flare that kept it in the air for a little bit longer) about a few feet from the runway numbers I activated the thrust reverse, spoilers, added some power, waited for a bit and......

  Wait.... it's not stopping. OK, add more thrust. Brakes. Slowing, but still not stopping.. brake, brake, end of runway is fast approaching... in that panic I activated the parking brakes... but the plane went off the end of the runway.

  So imagine, the 787-8, with the nose poking into scenery just off the runway, and the tail still within airport boundary, slightly nose down position (runway elevation is slightly higher). How embarrassing.

  To save from the situation I thrust reversed out back onto the runway, which must've looked real funny to any bystanders.

  It seems to fly very although obviously I have never flown a 787 IRL (or any aircraft in real life, for that matter), but I'm may have screwed up the approach. Perhaps I let the speed increase during the approach, resulting in my overshoot.

 Comparisons: From what I could see, the 787 has the advanced stuff (such as Electronic Flightbags, Fly-by-Wire, etc.), and a great failure management system but then again I have to get familiar with the plane more to provided a better summary.

Download it here

A lone puffy cloud in the empty cloudless sky...

Lonely

Weight, load and distribution experimentaion (Flightgear Cessna 172)

After the eventful flight

 I experimented with the Cessna 172 KOAK to KHAF empty, then load it up with passengers and cargo, and then back to KOAK. The flight to KHAF was fine, but at KHAF I think I loaded up too much passengers and cargo and on takeoff it was barely flying. Using autopilot when loaded is disastrous, as it flew fine.... until it turned into the wind, then all it wants to do is just stall the aircraft, and I spent something like nearly 2 minutes just hovering in the air at less than 60knots with the stall warning siren blaring mucking with the AP until I finally decided to just get rid of AP and flew it manually. And it didn't fly well with that weight until but I committed to get back to KOAK, taxi back to the apron and shut down and offload the cargo and (green faced) passengers. After that, just watching other flights for a while before I quit FG.

First serious flight I've been experimenting with weight, cargo and load. Now I really the kinds of effect it has on everything.

Going Supersonic CitationX

Supersonic! Mach 1

Simulation freezes when I open Route Manager. Resizing the window fixed it, but this happened.

Ghostplane!

Random images of recent flights around San Francisco in Flightgear

Just some screenshots of random flights past few days. I gotten the hang of the CitationX, but the Seneca seemingly trying to fight me all the time, especially during take off and landing. Interestingly, several times one of the engine didn't startup as expected, I have to choke it or something to get it to startup. So naturally I didn't notice that one failed to start the first time (right engine) and took off with a single engine, resulting in yawing, stalling and going into the drink. Subsequent flights I actually checked to see that both engines start up.

Didn't help there was some wind and turbulance on that day too.

Shiny Cupholders! Important equipment in the Citation X

Approaching KSFO - Speedbrake on

Missed approach - go around, pilot sucks

  

Citation X cockpit, at KSFO

A failed takeoff ended in the drink (Piper PA34-200T Seneca II)

Seems all's well at cruise

...and a failed landing

My Flight Sim History, Part 1

When I was about 5 years old, bashing away at my father's Apple ][ , my father booted up a copy of Bruce Artwick's original flight simulator for me to have fun with. At that time, with the primitive graphics and wireframe outlines, I only recognized the runway and amused myself looking at the dials on the instruments watching them spin round and round. After a succesful take off in to oblivion (the map was only so large) and not knowing where the airport was I remembered typing in "A-I-R-P-O-R-T" to see if the computer got what I was trying to say. Of course, it didn't.. and that was it. I was having more fun with other games, namely, Hard Hat Mack, SeaFox, BreakOut and some sort of PacMan clone (I do not remember what it was called, but it sure wasn't PacMan), amongst plenty others.

Then we got a 286 computer. In 1990s, it came with Windows 3.0, which was state of the art. The 286 had been around for much earlier, but it was only after the price went down that we could get one. And there it was, among the dozens of games I got, was a diskette labeled "Flight Simulator 3.0".

That familiar startup screen - Runway 36, Meigs Field.

Flight Simulator 3.0. I actually (tried) learning VOR navigation with this one.

FS3 was what really got me hooked. The first FS, well yeah that was fun too, but it was the wrong time, I was about 5, it was on an Apple ][, and it's more like a novelty. FS3 was light years ahead in comparison. It had 640x480 graphics, it had nice vector graphics, it had color, it had buildings, and it had a whole world of airports to explore (north America). I also had manual for FS3, which I read it over and over the pages became so worn. I treasured that manual; I still have it today.

I cannot recall how many hours I put into FS3, even choosing it over other games of the time because my fascination with flight and planes are so strong. Eventually I figured out that there are other places besides Chicago Meigs Field, and make use of the airports list to explore places. I practiced takeoffs and landings, I show it off to many of my poor friends, whom, many of them was disinterested with my toying around with a computer plane that doesn't shoot missiles and things. I did get convert a few friends who eventually became simheads. At that time my passion for planes are going overdrive too, everything is airplane themed about my life, including a shirt and cap that my mother bought and sowed on various badges telling me that it was a pilot uniform. Although it had a shuttle on it. And I loved it.


Back to the FS3. The sim had one annoying feature in that the planes flew totally unrealistically because of the simplistic flight dynamics. It flew on rails, basically. And the plane will continuously move forwards in flight, no matter what you try to do, even in a stall. It will move slowly, but it will be forwards. The very basic flight dynamics also meant that you will go upwards if you point the nose up, and down if you point the nose down, but not nose up downwards and not nose down upwards, which makes landings totally unrealistic, because with every landing, you slam the nose wheel into the ground. I couldn't figure out how to make planes land like the real-world planes, and bugged my poor father to no end wondering out loud about the problem, which he had no real solution for. This and a box of an older FS2 I found at a computer shop compounded the problem because it had a screenshot of a Cessna in flight at the end of the runway, in a nose up altitude, as if flaring for touch down (it was a box marketing trick, you see, and poor 7 year old me thought that FS2 had that feature.)

"Random failures"

 This morning I had some time, so I started up FlightGear and took off from WBGR and practiced touch-go a little bit with the Citation X. Once in the air about 6000 feet, I was browsing the menus and saw "Random failures".

 Feeling adventurous, I selected it. A menu popped up, asking for failure sequences and time to fail. I selected within 1 minute and some other option I did not bother to look through.

 Must be something I did, because the failures came piling on one after another!! First the electrical system, so all the instrumentation blanked out, including the Master Caution lights. I began turning the aircraft around, did my imaginary emergency calls, and prepare for an emergency landing. As I did so yet another message appeared telling me something failed.

And another.

And yet another.

 I simply did not have time to understand the failures! At one point I saw the message "Engine 3" fail, and thought, huh, CitationX only has two engines... but didn't think much about it - I was on single engined approach.

 Things kept failing. I couldn't even keep track of what, exactly. As I was appraching to fast, I hit the speedbrakes to slow down, and as I was slow enough I retracted it - and guess what? Speedbrake fail! So I increased engine thrust and pulled up - this was when I was about 1500ft agl, and just in front of the runway.

 On FlightGear at WBGR, there is a big tree at the end of the runway. I clipped that tree with my wingtips when I watched the replay later.

 The plane was not properly lined up, and I did some aileron turns to line up, and THAT failed. Fortunately, the last turn was lined up relatively well and I had to use rudder alone to align. Hit the runway - hard- at an angle, wit ha high sinkrate, at just stalling speed (less than 120kts) and probably slapped the wingtip there, used rudder to further align with the runway and hit the brakes.

 Screeched to a halt. Well the CitationX in FG had suspiciously good braking distances but I''ll ignore that for now, that would be a good thing in this situation.

And then, Engine 1 failed. The plane is now dead in the middle of the runway with no power.

Didn't stop there though, things kept failing. Things that I didn't know existed on a plane failed.

Oh, what fun! But I'm probably not going to try Random Failures again.... with the kind of failure I just had, it was probably an onboard fire by the looks of how everything just stopped working completely.



And someone needs to cut down that tree growing in the middle of the landing path...

Pictures soon..

Citation X WBGR > WBGB

I forgot to take screenshots. Here's a beauty shot of a Citation X from FlightGear wiki site.

What's up, internet!

 I have been neglecting this blog lately and for a good reason, I haven't touched FlightGear in a while. Busy with Kerbal Space Program... oh my that was so fun.

 So I learnt yesterday that FlightGear 3 was out and of course I downloaded it immediately.

 First flight I did was with the Citation X, taking off in the early morning (sim time) from WBGR (Miri) and, due to time restraint (it was night and getting late, real time) flew a short distance and landed at WBGB.

 I thought I did pretty well, landing was smooth although I did have to make a few steep turns and the roll & sink rate warning sounded a bit (oops), and did have to make use of the spoilers while in mid-air to slow the plane.

 Random thoughts : The FG3 is far smoother than FG2. And either my skills have improved, or it seems easier to land a Citation X (or it has to do with the smoother simulation).

 Terrain data for WBGR and WBGB is basic. I wished I could make the terrain and contribute scenery data here but I have tried and simply stumped by just how to go about it. Plus, I hardly have time nowadays, but I will figure it out one day.