Any other question that is not specific to an aspect of development or tool can be posted in the General chat forum.
By following these guidelines we make sure that the forums remain easy to read for everybody and also that the right people can find your post to answer it.
Side note: In case you are wondering, this is how FS produces thrust. static reference * 1506 scalar * (Delta * (1+0.2*M^2)^3.5). To convert thrust measurements in sim back to airfile you reverse the process. Measurement / Total Delta / static reference = 1506 scalar
To set 1506 to net thrust is very simple:
Ram drag pounds / static thrust reference = scalar to subtract from MACH lines after you have corrected each mach line.
SO, 1000 Fr / 10000 SSL Fg = 0.10 Fr scalar
1506 scalar of 1.0 - 0.10 Fr scalar = 0.9 entered into 1506 at whatever CN1 vs Mach we were converting.
To set 1507:
[ (661 * mach / 32.174) * Intake area * (Delta2/sqrt Theta2) ] / ram drag measurement = 1507 scalar...
(I hate this method, considering the table is completely useless.)
I understood, that I have to find out FS Fn by comparing the Fuel Flows, correct?
So would it be ok getting real world Fn by real ff/tsfc and then adjust table 1506 lines until AFSD gives my the correct reading for each mach?
If you set the CFG to 0.30 TSFC * 2, taxi performance will be spot on because your static chart is correct and your fuel is being derived from 2600 lbs/Fn * 0.3 = 780 lbs/hr. But if you set your CFG to cruise TSFC * 2, your fuel burn during taxi will be too high. Not knowing any better, nearly every FD file I have seen, compensates for this by reducing taxi thrust in table 1506. This results in 780 lbs/hr / 0.60 = 1,300 lbs/Fn during taxi, which is half of what is needed.
Not knowing any better, nearly every FD file I have seen, compensates for this by reducing taxi thrust in table 1506.
Question: Is there a way to correct my values for the given mach steps AND simultaneously correct CN1 for the same?
BTW: I set my table 401 (CL0 vs mach) to 1 all the way up. It flies well, pitch is spot on. I wonder what it is for?!