Started by passengerpigeon, April 12, 2022, 06:11:57 PM
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: jamespetts on April 15, 2022, 12:50:48 PMThank you for the report - I have removed the non-jetway apron retirement and added class definitions to the DC-6B. As to the minimum runway lengths - do you have data as to the correct minima for these aircraft? There is no point in changing these data unless we can be sure that we are changing them to the correct values.
Quote from: Spenk009 on April 13, 2022, 02:56:45 PMFor power, there is a limitation/bug in the physics engine, where increasing power does not increase actual top speed. Also Iirc, cruising speed is used for top speed as this is where planes are flown. If you can list what is wrong with evidence why it's wrong, a pull request is very likely to be accepted.
Quote from: jamespetts on May 24, 2022, 11:27:55 PMAs to runway lengths, I know that most of these have been researched and calibrated very carefully by Giuseppe over the years, so I am reluctant to change them without being able to be very confident that the replacements are part of a consistent system applicable to all aircraft.
Quote from: jamespetts on May 25, 2022, 11:43:34 PMThank you for that. I have now recalibrated the air resistance for those aircraft, too, which I think fixes the problem.As to runway length - if I am to adjust this, what I will need is a consistent and sensible way of going from readily available data for the whole range of aircraft in the pakset to the in-game number, since we do not simulate varying takeoff and landing weights. I should note that we cannot assume for these purposes that all aircraft will be going on short journeys with minimum fuel, since it is planned in due course to introduce an overseas journey feature, which would involve simulating aircraft and ships travelling to long-distance off-map destinations and back, making full use of the range parameter of existing aircraft. Currently, I do not know what such a consistent system would be.
Quote from: passengerpigeon on May 27, 2022, 12:46:25 AMI think that a better way of doing things would be to look up examples of the longer routes operated by each aircraft type, and then out of these long routes, which airports had the shortest runways, to get a good idea of what runway length was needed in practice to depart with a nearly full load. This is relatively easy to research, at least for newer planes (the old ones apart from the Viscount, JU-52 and Trimotor seem pretty accurate already). For instance, Airliners.net says that the 727-200 operated flights in excess of four hours from Minneapolis-St Paul to the Caribbean and Mexico, flying to Ixtapa with a runway of only 2500m and an even longer trip to Montego Bay-Sangster with a runway of 2,653m, in both cases configured in a high-density layout. The same website says that the 747-100 operated from Minneapolis to Tokyo-Narita, at the upper limit of its range, with the longest runway at Minneapolis being 3,355m. Because of the fact that the 747-100 had a particularly poor power to weight ratio, I still think that runway requirements for the other widebodies and the Boeing 707 should be capped at 3,048m, if no information can otherwise be found confirming that they can take off nearly full in a shorter distance.
Quote from: 1993matias on July 24, 2022, 08:45:48 PMMy apologies for digging up an old topic. One way to satisfy the requirement of easily available runway data would be to use minimum runway length requirements. If the only other option is to use maximum possible runway requirement in a worst-case scenario, then this might actually make more sense. Aircraft rarely fly at 100% allowed weight, thus rarely using maximum runway requirements. Minimum runway length should be available for most popular aircraft types on wikipedia, which usually takes data from Jane's All The World Aircraft, a reputable source.