+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: FsPassengers (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: FsPassengers General (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Suggestion for payload editor (/showthread.php?tid=552)
Suggestion for payload editor - Giorgio - 25-07-2005
I know this has been discussed before, but I'd want to formalize this idea as a suggestion for a future update.
The focus of the proposal is the payload editor. It works fine 99% of all times, but there are some complex add-on aircraft that come with
their own load editor and they do NOT like being loaded by an external program like FsPassengers. When FsP is used with them, a
problem with Center of Gravity arises and they cannot be piloted adequately.
Two examples I know about are the Altitude Concorde SU3 (Concordes are always a nightmare with fuel and CoG!) and the LAGO
MadDog. It seems that creating a working FsP payload model for these aircrafts is not possible at the moment (judging by the efforts
read here in the forum). And maybe there are other "difficult" planes.
So the suggestion would be as following (actually it's only a question, I absolutely don't know if it's possible, feasible, or simply absurd):
Would be possible to have an option to make a "virtual" aircraft load with FsP? I mean, the payload editor should work exactly as it works
now, but optionally it should just "pretend" to write the weights in the FS memory, while actually the "real" load would be made externally
by the add-on dedicated editor. Of course it would be player's responsability to make sure that weights, passengers and cargo are
synchronised, but anyway the aircraft values would be used only for the flight model while FsP should continue to use its own calculated
values (so economic mode would be not disrupted).
Example: FsP says I can take only "x" passengers and "y" lbs of fuel. I could use the external load editor to match these values. If the
external editor is not happy with my settings, who cares? I could load the aircraft more or less the same way, or even in a completely
different configuration, but FsP should make its calculations with "x" and "y" numbers. The actual payload would be used only to "satisfy
the needs" of the aircraft flight model.
I hope my English is still understandable enough at this point. What do you think?
Giorgio
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - Giorgio - 26-07-2005
Any comments from the testers?
Giorgio
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - DanSteph - 26-07-2005
Quote:Giorgio wrote:
Any comments from the testers?
Giorgio
That's more a work for me
given some problem with some aicraft I *may* add a parameters in "more_option.cfg"
to disable the payload dialog number writting....
the advantage of that method overs some other:
to not mess completelly the stats or cheat people have to load their aircraft
with an external payload editor that give more or less the number of pax they want.
So this method is an active decision so people know that the payload model is now "fake"
Another method would be to add a parameters in the payload model,
this would allow to disable payload editor for only one aircraft (ie: PMDG 737-700.ini)
but I see the day were one guy will do a 737.ini payload model and hundred people
will wonder while the payload model don't load anymore any 737 they have...
and why the stats look completely fake... So I don't think I'll do that.
Anyway the "fake" payload editor is not easy to do, the code is one of the most complex.
it will be basically the normal one with the number that don't change appart the
passengers number.
Another method would be to see why PMDG and some other cause problem
and adjust FsP so it take this in account.
what ya think ?
Dan
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - pilot3033 - 26-07-2005
What I have been doinb for the aircraft with this problem, is loading them empty with the external editotr, and then hopeing FSP does it's thing
correctly with the model. I have not had too many problems, but assurance and compatability would be good
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - Giorgio - 26-07-2005
Dan,
basically the three solutions proposed are:
1) a parameter in the more_option.cfg
2) a parameter in the specific payload model
3) an analysis of the incompatibilities of each specific aircraft
The #3 seems the less practical to me. AT THE MOMENT I know of two planes with serious problems, the Altitude Concorde SU3 and the
Lago MadDog. Well, make it two and an half, with the 737 PMDG. Maybe it would be possible to "cure" these aircrafts perfectly with a fine-
tuned payload model, but a) I think it would be very hard (particularly for the Concorde) and b) what about future add-on planes?
The #1 is a good idea. The drawback I see is that it would be a "global" setting for ALL aircrafts, while maybe I own only one plane with
this problem. Every time I flight , I should remember to switch the file "on" or "off".
The #2 seems better to me: a specific parameter for the payload model of the specific parameter of the plane. But I understand your
objection about compatibility of the previous models.
So I have thought about solution #4: a checkbox in the payload window, switchable "on" or "off" each time we load an aircraft, not linked
to the INI file. Obviously it should be "off" by default and there should be a BIG warning "Advanced Users Only! Are you really sure you
want to disable the payload editor?" when it is activated. This way the existant models could be left as they are and it would be
impossible to make a "wrong" model, and at the same time the option could be activated or not for each plane.
Am I ranting?
It's 11 pm and I need sleep.... I should not write so much English at this time!Giorgio
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - Giorgio - 29-07-2005
What do you think, Dan? Could work?
Giorgio
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - DanSteph - 29-07-2005
I'll see what I can do, first I'll do some search in 3) if I fail at this I'll go for 1) or 2)
Ideally 3) would be fine... for now the payload model reset your weight and search the CG position
by placing various weight at some location. I don't know yet why this cause problem with PMDG
and some other. maybe because the CG is artificially forced to a position while the real weight doesn't
give this result ? I have to investigate,
on my todo list...
Dan
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - psolk - 29-07-2005
Dan, PMDG just released the manual for the upcoming 747 Queen of the skies. It specifically mentions this issue in their manual on page 0-35 through
0-37. Unfortunately, it is a PDF so I can not copy/paste from it but they make it very clear not to use any external loading programs for the
upcoming 747. I wish I could copy/paste it for you for the manual is free from PMDG so maybe you can download it and check out those three pages. I
wanted to bring it to your attention,
-Paul
Liquid Cooled
Asus K8vSE- Deluxe
Amd 64 3400
2 gigs Kingston HyperX DDR 400
GE Force 6800GT
Dual Sata Maxtor 120 gig HD's in Raid-0
Dual Samsung 997 DF Monitors
SB Audigy2ZS
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - DanSteph - 29-07-2005
Appart if they intentionnaly do something to mess FsP I cannot see why they would be any problem
that can't be solved... basicall it's just a problem of putting weight here and there.
I'll see that later...
Dan
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - psolk - 29-07-2005
I don't think they are doing anything on purpose but they state they using complex mathematical formulas to figure out loading which affects things
such as wing flex etc... I will write it out for you so you don't have to dig
PMDG states in their manuals and I am quoting this and it is copyrighted by PMDG so I would appreciate if no one copies/pastes it elsewhere:
On page 0-35
Begin qoute
"Do Not use any Non PMDG product to alter the aircraft.cfg"
"Do Not use any Non PMDG product to alter the fuel load of the airplane"
"Do Not use any Non PMDG product to alter the loading of the aircraft"
"(PMDG uses actual manufacturer data to model the CI/Cd, moment influence and drag models for our aircraft. Using this data, the aircraft's reference
point is placed realistically ahead of the nose of the airplane as per the manufactureres specifications. Most MSFS addon aircraft use the erroneous
MSFS concept of placing the model's reference point in the center of the airplane. This results in reduced realism and impacts negatively the
accuracy of the airplane's behavior)
Form page 0-36:
"Overview: In the process of modeling PMDG aircraft, we use a different format than most developers in the implementation of the flight model. MSFS
assumes incorrectly that the "refernce point" from which the airplane is described is located at some point witihn the airplane. When engineers
design and build aircraft however, the reference point used to describe the airplane and it's various physical, inertial and lift centric properties
islocated in front of the nose of the airplane.
We make this decision because we are using actual mathematical models for everything from the control laws of the autopilot system and autothrottles
to the manner in which the lift/drag curve is modeled for the simulation. This process allows PMDG to put a flight model/autopilot control process in
place that exceeds the capabilities and performance of those that are based upon the center of rotation method used traditionally in modelling MSFS
airplanes.
There is a particular downside to this affinity for accuracy, however. Occasionally users write to us to explain that various commercial addons or
free addons toload anything from passengers to cargo to fuel do not work correctly with their PMDG airplane. This is an unfortunate effect of our
modeling decisions and we are sorry for any inconvenience it may cause.
As will be discussed in various places in this manual, PMDG recomments that you use only those tools we have provided with this package to interact
with the loading of cargo, passengers and fuel into this airplane."
End Quote
Whew, I am going to take a breath now, that was a lot of typing
Hope the info is usefual to you Dan,-Paul
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - Giorgio - 29-07-2005
Well, NO aircraft developer will ever tell you "yes, please, mess up with my files!".....
Anyway I still think that the best solution would be #4: an option in the payload window to disable the actual writing of weight values, to be
used only for "difficult" add-ons.
But this is not a poll and Dan is the only one who can decide the best solution! So I'll just listen to him!
Giorgio
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - psolk - 29-07-2005
I agree with Giorgio, an easy option to disable writing to an individual file would be great.
I also agree with you that no developer is going to tell you "yes change our files" but there appears to be more to it than just that with PMDG.
Especially based on the issues some users have seen, they definitely appear to do something differently. Just trying to help out and give Dan that
info. I have never seen it mentioned in a manul like that so they sem to be really trying to get their point across...
Just trying to help,
-Paul
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - Giorgio - 29-07-2005
The same "something" just applies to Concorde (PSS and Altitude, this last one is the best in my opinion). It is not an aircraft, it's a
nightmare! (A wonderful nightmare, actually). It has 13 fuel tanks, but FS2004 cannot manage so many tanks, so internally they are
simulated with a very complex system. Balancing the CoG is like keeping plates on a stick! It definitely requires a dedicated load
manager. If FsPassengers could simply say "Ok, I'll assume there are x passengers and y lbs of fuel, now it's up to you" it would be
great.
Giorgio
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - lot737 - 30-07-2005
I didn't bought FSP because of that problem with loads.
I don't really like solution #3. It would be better to have an option to turn it on/off, either in cfg (#1), or in the editor (#4).
FSP looks great and I would love to buy it. If you will create that I will buy 3 copies8)
Re: Suggestion for payload editor - DanSteph - 30-07-2005
Quote:lot737 wrote:
If you will create that I will buy 3 copies8)
keep money in reserve, I'll find a solution
Definitively not for the 3 copie but because I like when the job is well done.
Dan