Tech Support Blog

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Wednesday, 24 June 2009

Do Not Work Around Our Bugs!

Posted on 11:21 by Unknown
For most of its beta run, X-Plane 930 beta 14 didn't handle engine power limiting very well*. Here's the short version of the saga.
  • Real planes sometimes have systems to limit total power output, because the power output of the engine (whether torque or internal temperature) can exceed safe operating limits at sea level).
  • With X-Plane 9.00 you could set a critical altitude for an airplane - below this altitude, X-Plane would limit the power output of the jet. The idea is (roughly) to simulate these limiters by derating the engine's power output below this "critical altitude".
  • This feature was really only meant for reciprocating engines - when Austin discovered in 9.20 that people were using this for turbines (understandable, given that there was no alternative) he simply disabled the feature for turbines. That wasn't so good.
  • To resolve the situation a little bit more cleanly, X-Plane 9.30 has a setting per airplane called "FADEC - automatically keep engines from exceeding max allowable power or thrust" that, when checked, gives you version 9.00 style behavior.
Now this was mostly good except for one problem: the betas would default this setting to "off" when loading an old plane. Since version 9 always acted as if the "FADEC"** was on, this meant that old planes would need to be edited.

Finally with beta 14 we switched things: beta 14 and newer default old planes to have the FADEC checkbox on, so that planes match their old behavior - you can turn the check-box off if you don't want this behavior.

There is one final hitch: if you already went in and edited your airplanes for the earlier betas, you will find that they are now set wrong. You will have to reset the check-box. If you go back to the original, unedited, 920-compatible airplane you will find they "just work".

I mention all of this to make two points:
  1. File formats for new features are subject to change during beta. In this case, the file format for the new FADEC check-box (introduced in 930) changed at beta 14. The OBJ syntax for dynamic lighting changed during beta too. Don't do "bulk" work (e.g. change a large number of planes in the same way ) on your fleet based on betas - you might have to redo that work again! Wait until the sim goes final. That's when the file formats are locked up.
  2. Don't work around bugs in the sim. I have seen so many forum posts where there is a trivial bug in the sim (e.g. the sim is just screwed up in a simple way) and authors go in and update scenery to work around the bug. File a bug, then wait! If you work around the bug, we can't fix the bug, and if we don't fix the bug, then the bug just bites other users.
* Disclaimer: I don't do systems, I don't know anything about airplanes, so this whole discussion will be heavily simplified. The point of this post is not to get into a discussion of FADECS - in fact, don't even bother to post about FADECs, I'm not going to approve them. If you want to talk about FADECs and engine modeling, email Austin. The point of this post is one about file formats and compatibility.

** FADEC isn't a very good name for this feature - the feature generically limits power, without specifying a mechanism. My understanding is that some airplanes have mechanical limters, like a pressure valve on a turbo. Some planes have no limiters at all...ask a pilot "can you cook the engine by pushing the throttle too far" he will say "I'm not going to be the one to find out."
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in file formats | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Pixel Shaders and Moore's Law
    In my post on 64-bit computing and X-Plane, there's a point that's implicit: there is a cost (in development time) to adopting any ...
  • Hierarchy and WED
    I just finished fixing some bugs in WED regarding the hierarchy view. (To get a sense of what a hierarchy view is like, try AC3D...) In WED...
  • Is Bigger Always Better?
    We've been preaching "one big texture, not lots of little textures" for a while now, and generally speaking, packing a lot of ...
  • Systems Modeling and Physics Modeling
    In past blog posts I have tried to contrast two very different different approaches to simulation, which I would loosely call: "Predic...
  • How Framerate Dies - Glitching
    Back in the good old days (that would be X-Plane 6), X-Plane's framerate would suffer in two ways as you cranked up the rendering option...
  • The X-Desktop and iPhone Are Not Zero-Sum Games
    On the menu this morning: first a whiny rant, then a nerdy one. Someone pointed me at this post. Before I go into my geeky diatribe about l...
  • Clean Airport Layouts
    I have blogged about correct airport layouts before, but let me bring the point up again, because it is so important: You must create struc...
  • So How Big of a Mesh Can You Build?
    I get asked about the maximum mesh density in X-Plane a lot. First, I must note that X-Plane's mesh is adaptive - the triangles are not ...
  • What is a panel region?
    X-Plane 9 introduces a new OBJ feature: panel regions. The basic idea is this: In X-Plane 8 you could use the 2-d panel as a texture in you...
  • Why Do Custom Lights Use the Object Texture?
    I am trying to be disciplined and put documentation on the X-Plane wiki , and limit the blog to announcements, rants, and explanations of wh...

Categories

  • absurdly cute
  • Air Traffic Control
  • aircraft
  • Android
  • animation
  • announce
  • cockpits
  • documentation
  • drivers
  • file formats
  • global scenery
  • Goofy Screenshots
  • hacks
  • hardware
  • hobbies
  • inside x-plane
  • installer
  • ipad
  • iphone
  • legal
  • localization
  • modeling
  • off topic
  • palm pre
  • panels
  • performance
  • plugins
  • political
  • scenery system
  • tools
  • X-Plane 10
  • XSquawkBox

Blog Archive

  • ►  2011 (12)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2010 (111)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (10)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (12)
    • ►  July (8)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (13)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (11)
    • ►  February (12)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ▼  2009 (130)
    • ►  December (16)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (16)
    • ►  August (12)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ▼  June (9)
      • Do Not Work Around Our Bugs!
      • Optimization By Check-Boxes
      • To Copy Or To Reference
      • The Constraints of Hardware
      • Glass vs. Glass (Translucent)
      • A Few More Manipulators
      • Multi-Threading Is a Weird Feature Request
      • Masks for Glass Instruments
      • I'm Back
    • ►  May (5)
    • ►  April (10)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (9)
    • ►  January (16)
  • ►  2008 (147)
    • ►  December (18)
    • ►  November (10)
    • ►  October (7)
    • ►  September (11)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ►  July (9)
    • ►  June (14)
    • ►  May (9)
    • ►  April (14)
    • ►  March (13)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (21)
  • ►  2007 (100)
    • ►  December (17)
    • ►  November (13)
    • ►  October (13)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (17)
    • ►  July (7)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (9)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile