defaid

I think I may have found confirmation (though it could just be confirmation bias...) but on a smaller scale, Slow Mo Guy Dan got a nasty Van der Graaf shock here: https://youtu.be/HDzVD-cqiWM?feature=shared&t=234 There's a single frame in which, after the purple/blue nitrogen luminescence, the spark becomes distinctly redder though to be honest the very faint line that follows afterwards may be the incandescence (certainly is on the back of Dan's finger). I'm pretty sure the same happens in lightning but I can't find a suitably exposed high framerate colour video. Slow Mo Guys also did a lightning video in Singapore. It looks monochrome but there are some great sequences of stepped leaders descending before the main arc flares everything out.

I'm repairing lightning-damaged equipment at work and a colleague has just been wondering if the light in a lightning stroke outlasts the current. We think yes, because lightning's light is partly from incandescence and partly from luminescence but that leads to another question: While the luminescence presumably stops when the current stops, the incandescence must persist until the plasma's cooled so is there a brief colour change before the flash fades entirely?

Thanks @ScottishMike for your unadorned thoughts. I'd penned a much longer comment than this but it seems that almost any statement concerning 2020 is controversial and the sim every bit as divisive as larger issues affecting the whole world. Even Nels has succumbed. I'm on the cusp of spending a ton of cash on a new PC, driven by reviews of Starfield and my (limited) experience of Bethesda. And a new-found need to discover what other entertainment is out there. The proposed hardware should run 2020 perfectly well but I'll be holding off investing in the new sim. The reason? Mike's comments are the first dispassionate review I've read and I think I'd find the current version of 2020 frustrating despite its visual appeal. I'll be moving forward as soon as what I have no longer meets my requirements. I'll stop when I find a suitable replacement.

It's been a while since I used RC. I'm too happy to up the sim rate if I'm pressed for time, and RC doesn't like it. Yes, the original voices were terribly slow & mechanical. The Meatwater packs are a big improvement in terms of speed: almost natural. The only thing I don't like about the voices is that accents are fixed so don't match the part of the world in which you are flying. I'm using Graham Jackson as pilot and Dale Collins as co-pilot. Geri Jackson & Ray Proudfoot (mods the RC forum over ar Avsim) are my favourite controllers but Gerhard Brouwer seemed oddly appropriate in S America. Geri particularly sounds as though she's wearing a blue-grey uniform and working in a Nissen hut. I've never been directed into a conflict: it seems I've just been lucky. Controllers aim to have you down and level by 40 nm from the airport; I suspect TOD is based on 300 or 500 fpm. I think it's possible to decline by selecting the arrival notams checkbox in the controller info page while setting up but I've never bothered. If you aren't intending to follow a STAR and are expecting vectors to, say, a localiser then you'll probably also have to notify the controller once you are able (or willing) to resume following their instructions. Also, Notams or not, somewhere on the rather wide downwind leg, you should be able to ask for a short final. D

But I've just bought myself a bag of popcorn.

My first thought too. I think Microsoft used to refer to it as "the game", which put paid to all my thoughts of having to be serious all the time. To the OP, what do you like most about using FS9? If you've only just started out with it, what attracted you? That will determine what sort of modifications you make first. For sightseeing it might be terrain or weather improvements. For ten minutes of barnstorming fun, a few small player aircraft that handle realistically or perhaps just some better-looking farm strips. Extra desktop hardware... joystick, yoke, pedals, three monitors... a new graphics card... Good looking addon airports? And the AI traffic to go with them. And an ATC package to go with them. A lot of folk couldn't do without complex systems modelling in their jet liners. Pretty well all of us are in to modding to some degree so external scenery-building apps eventually also become essential. There's a huge volume of outstanding freeware covering every aspect of the sim but, if you have cash to spare, there are also some very impressive payware addons though, as FS9 gets older, support is diminishing. FS9 starts as a relatively clean canvas and yours will evolve over time to match your interest. Let us know what you like about aviation. We'll find something . D

Truly. It depends on which gauge is installed. I'm amused by the article which says both; that's not uncommon on the internet. Different people will tell you different things and sometimes the same person will tell you different things. They've seen one aircraft panel (their favourite) and have decided that all other planes must be just the same. They'll also pass off their supposition as incontrovertible fact, even when their understanding is so incomplete as to result in such contradictions. I assume you already use FSUIPC. I'll suggest again that you download and install AFSD by Hervé Sors. You can run multiple instances to observe concurrently several groups of data relating to different aspects of the aircraft. It's so useful that in flights where fuel economy is critical, particularly with Air Hauler, I have it running alongside FS9 in the role of a more precise set of digital gauges. https://www.aero.sors.fr/designer_pilot_utilities1.html It will show the propeller speed for whichever engine you've selected, so eliminating any confusion. Does it show the same rpm as your gauge? Yes? - gauge shows prop rpm No? - gauge shows engine speed (or fan speed in %) Three a/c below: 1. The cub has a 1:1 engine:prop ratio because it's just a couple of blades on the end of the driveshaft. It also has no record 510 in the airfile. 2. The Mosquito's gauge is very well coded -- the popup tells you it's showing engine rpm, which is confirmed by AFSD and AAM. 3. Rick Piper's HS.748 not so good but given the gear ratio in the airfile, it's unlikely to be showing prop speed. Again, AFSD is definitive.

Going back to your original post, this is because the prop governor has already reached the limit of prop blade angle (prop beta). I experimented with Alpha's Bristol Beau and discovered while checking some stuff that its airfile doesn't have a section 510 -- the prop stuff is already covered in the aircraft.cfg file. If FS9 uses aircraft.cfg in preference to the airfile then it makes sense to leave it out. The maximum blade angle is 65° (beta_max) and once that has been reached then changes in throttle just change the rpm. In any case, I wonder if the problem may be simpler that we've all thought... What is the weight of the hybrid and what is the weight of the P47? If, at full chat, your prop beta is at its limit and you're still not getting up to speed then possibly your hybrid plane is simply under-powered. Drag and aircraft weight can be altered but it may be simpler to go to the [piston engine] section in the aircraft.cfg file and increase power_scalar.

I think your 2700 rpm is engine rpm. I guess that you're looking at the same gauge or variable when you achieve 1200-1500. That would still be engine rpm which may be why you descend. It's the props that should be doing that speed. Use AFSD and the FS9 tooltip popup to monitor. You can check the relationship between engine & prop speeds with AAM. Here's JF's Mosquito, with technology broadly comparable to the P-47, with AAM and AFSD to one side of FS9. Engine speed / gear reduction ratio = prop speed 2811 / 2.38 = 1181 As for the low speed theory, the comment in AAM states, "Propeller thrust is usually defined as follow: Thrust = Power * Efficiency / Flight Velocity This simplified propeller thrust model can not be used for calculating static thrust or thrust at very low flight velocity. If flight velocity = 0, the Simulator have to divide by 0. To avoid this, the Low Speed Theory Limit is introduced. Probably the Simulator calculates thrust below this speed only based on Power, RPM and Pitch..." There's confirmation in the FS2020 SDK: "With the legacy FSX propeller model, the simulation did not work at low airspeeds and a fallback simpler simulation was used at lower speeds." It seems the maths has been updated such that for 2020 native models, the value should = 0

Lots of that. Record 510, the variable Low Speed Theory Limit is a more fundamental case in point. Some prop maths doesn't work at the start of the roll (or at engine startup) because airspeed = 0... and 'divide by zero' errors are frustratingly familiar so MS made their own maths for very low airspeeds.

This thread is one of the most interesting I've read for a while: not only the coffee-break maths but the vagaries of the airfile & config file too. I had guessed that the aircraft.cfg data supersedes the airfile data and that is mentioned in the notes appended to data in both Aired and AAM. What is being reduced is the engine speed down to prop speed. Transmission is not via a fixed shaft but through a gearbox. If you have seen an unadorned rpm quoted somewhere with a value of 2700 then it's surely engine & not prop rpm because at 2700 prop rpm, the tips will be supersonic. The 12' 2" prop disk has a circumference of 38.22 feet Speed of sound at fl280 is 1003 feet / second, which comes in at 60180 feet / minute The absolute maximium prop rpm to avoid supersonic tips is 60810 / 38.22 = 1574 rpm. To avoid also transonic issues, the practical limit would be rather less. If the engine speed is 2800 rpm then a 2.0× reduction is about right, giving 1400 prop rpm. This C441 below being a turbo prop, AFSD shows N2 rather than engine rpm but the aircraft.cfg gives the 100% N2 = 29920 rpm. The tips of the 7' 6" dia prop will go supersonic at around 2550 prop rpm. The constant speed of the prop is fixed at 2000 rpm through the 14.96× reduction gear (29920 / 14.96 = 2000). D

I'm not sure how these things work but I think the P-47 had a switch for selecting manual/auto prop pitch control. Perhaps your hybrid needs one too though I've never known the selection to be available in FS9. Tom? My immediate thought is that at some speed at each altitude, the governor may be maxxed out (no more prop pitch trim available) so the prop rpm will increase with throttle. It''s a possibility. I think AFSD shows prop pitch so it should be easy to verify and if it is the case then there must be a table parameter that is applicable. There's also a distinct 'tropopause' type effect in FS9 at around 36 000 feet. That could be having an effect. As an aside, if the 12' 2" prop disk is doing 4500 rpm at fl400 then the tips are doing mach 2.96 D

From memory again (lunchtime this time...) Aren't the wave effects part of the vector coastline? If so, you should be able to pinpoint which coastline BGL you want to disable (TCalc2004 perhaps). You'll still have the same LWM so the shape of the land won't change -- you just won't have a beach. Also, possibly, you could modify the relevant bgl in Sbuilder or make a replacement. D

Two things come to mind, both of which may open a more complex wormcan. Bear in mind that I'm at work so trying to do my thinking from memory and without an installation to refer to... 1. The default Bristol is in AP946130.BGL or something like that, which implies that your discrete AF2_EGGD.bgl file must be something else. As ScanAFD doesn't see the bgl that you just put into ../Scenery/World/Scenery then there's a good chance it's either corrupt or -- rather less likely -- simply not an afd file. (1.5. or you have a third forgotten Bristol afd lurking somewhere. Also unlikely as ScanAFD hasn't found it.) 2. I need someone else's help with this... Assuming that you only have (copies of) stock Bristol then the player a/c should taxi at the same elevation as the AI. What else can cause player a/c to sit on the surface while still allowing AI to sit at the airport elevation? In case things get messy, this may be a good time to remove those ineffective copies. D

Your cfg file and layering both look ok too but ScanAFD is not finding the copy you put into M:\FS_Scenery\afcad\scenery, which suggests FS9 will also fail to find it. Can you move the copy into \World\Secenery instead and see if ScanAFD finds it then? I have had trouble with FS9 accessing two hard drives in the past, though other people have never had an issue. D

Everything looks ok so far, except for the no-show. I haven't used SCM2004. I guess it's just a scenery.cfg editor, is that right? If you open scenery.cfg with notepad, does the new entry look correct? Does the new 'afcads' layer show up in FS9's own Scenery Library page? If you move the copy to a different layer, does ScanAFD find it then? D

That's really unexpected. What does ScanAFD show up now? Nice repaint, by the way. D

It's because it has a .pln suffix. That's how MS applications identify stuff: by the suffix, not the content. Right-click on the Flightradar24 plan and select Open With... Under 'More Apps' you should find notepad or wordpad. Either will do. Can you post a few lines from it here? The plan should start with header info like this: [flightplan] title=SBNT to VECA description=SBNT, VECA type=IFR routetype=0 cruising_altitude=3000 departure_id=SBNT, S5* 54.50', W35* 14.94', +000168.50 destination_id=VECA, N27* 27.73', E95* 7.05', +000349.50 departure_name=Augusto Severo Intl destination_name=Chabua and then it should continue with the stuff that was in the csv, but bear in mind the order of data may not be the same. It should be ICAO, type, lat, lon, elevation. waypoint.0=SBNT, A, S5* 54.50', W35* 14.94', +000168.50, waypoint.1=FHAW, A, S7* 58.20', W14* 23.60', +003000.00, waypoint.2=DGAA, A, N5* 35.78', W0* 10.20', +003000.00, etc. It's really that simple. D

I'll add that FS9's .PLN files are in text format. You can open one of the stock plans with Notepad and compare the format with what you've created. D

I've managed to get by on trial and error but I guess we're all still waiting for work on the new site to be completed:

MS have always been good at that sort of thing. Probably several teams working on different aspects of development with the odd failure to communicate. It's not uncommon. My employer makes electronic equipment. Some is designed in India, some in China, eastern Europe, UK, USA and we don't always manage to join things up. Finding that a signal name has changed from one circuit schematic to the next or that pin-out numbering has changed orientation between plug & socket makes life more interesting. The base World scenery folder works very well and it is where ADE puts stub afd files if the user makes an airport elevation correction. For myself, I made a new scenery layer for such files because, as you pointed out, I'll know where to look if I ever deactivate a scenery. Bear in mind that ScanAFD will then show both. If you alter the duplicate's filename from say, bristolafcad.bgl to bristolafcad_for_ai.bgl then you'll know it's ok. D

Hi. Your screenies show an addon with a field elevation of 634.9 feet less your aircraft's datum. I have JF's British Airports Bristol, whose elevation is 622 feet. I think the stock is also around 622 feet but I've disabled the relevant bgl, AP947130, in my setup because of other conflicts. I don't think ScanAFD will show the stock airports so you'll probably see only the addon in ScanAFD's list. For illustration (and because I know that stock bgl is still enabled), here's my UK2000 Prestwick in ScanAFD. Note the stock EGPK doesn't appear in the list. Find your addon Bristol's afd and put a copy of it in the lowest possible layer. That will cause the AI to use the addon's field elevation instead of the stock. Cheers. D

Hi. Two disparate afd files for that airport would be my guess, with different airport elevations. AI use the first afd they find working from layer 0 upward. Player a/c uses the topmost airport. If that turns out to be the case and you have a reason for keeping both (e. g. 3rd party addon not based on the stock airport), then make a new layer as low as possible and add a copy of the addon afd file to that layer. That will put the addon in a position to supplant the file with the 'wrong' elevation. D

We do still see the odd new member in the FS9 forum so perhaps it hasn't yet lost its appeal. I've had Skyrim for three years to the detriment of my simming. I've exhausted all but the radiant quests in two play-throughs (did resort a couple of times to looking stuff up in walkthroughs, though). I drop by Nexus occasionally and have picked up some very large free extensions that are quite remarkable for their scope & detail. Some took years to create. Some are still taking years to create. A lot of the comments left for freeware devs show downloaders at the opposite end of the commitment spectrum and run along the lines of "The quests required to complete this new village took too long" or "Just give us the new [whatever] from the start" or "Monsters are too hard to kill" or "I want unlimited [whatever]". They boil down to the 12-hour "Too hard, didn't play". But then what comes with experience is understanding that too easy has very little intrinsic value and rapidly loses its shine. And, I suppose, that going to the races to watch the crashes is ok too... The lost shine suggests the possibility that monotony has a lot to answer for but that contradicts my continuing delight in just flying from one place to another -- without shooting anyone. I find working for an outcome in Skyrim enhances the immersion just as it does in FS9, just as a (forgotten) persistent mission did in FU3. Others perhaps are short of time as much as they are short of natural inclination and simply want a couple of hours bandit-bashing. Perhaps also I'm just getting old: had such games been available when I was in my teens, I guess I'd have had no desire for lengthy quests or missions and I'd certainly have preferred a combat flight sim. Since acquiring Skyrim I have found that I'm regressing and don't spend nearly as much time with books, an effect that flight sims never had. Whole weekends used to go by when the furthest I travelled was from one cover to the other. Still, the new names that occasionally appear in this forum reassure me that FS9 still has a lot to offer, both to adherents and to newcomers. D

I believe it's the Berliners' name for jam doughnuts. They have a different name for pancakes. I found out by looking up your JFK quote. The urban myth passed me by -- in my neck of the woods jam doughnuts are not Berliners, just doughnuts. The toroid type are ring doughnuts. You could try pfannkuchen AND "berliner OR "jam donut"" -eierkuchen. Can you nest search terms inside extra set of quotation marks? I think I'm developing one of those headaches. What I've learned today is that... I don't have enough deep-fried sweet stuff in the house.