Modifying the Aircraft.cfg

[windrunner]

Let's say I want to convert my Cessna Centurion or my Beech F33 to turbo version and edit the engine entries.

Just a dumb question: when you change some parameters in the aircraft cfg do you have to change them in the air file too?

[denniss]

Hi, WR,
I believe I've read that aircraft.cfg entries override those in the .air file. This has certainly been my experience as well.
All in good fun.
Dennis

[windrunner]

Ok, that will save me lot of time!

Thanks Denniss!

[jimslost]

I'm still learning how all this stuff interrelates, but it appears that in SOME cases, modifying the aircraft.cfg file overwrites the appropriate airfile parameters and others, FS simply uses the aircraft. cfg data in preference to airfile data. One source I have says better results ensue if you can change the airfile to match the .cfg file. I've been experimenting with that, but I'm not yet good enough to detect any significant difference.

[windrunner]

Hi guys!

I've been experimenting with the Centurion, converting the default 210M to 210T (turbo), with the specs I found in a internet page.

First, I've tweaked the cfg, and saw some changes were effective (speed and fuel fload the most evidents). Later, I've modified the air file, assigning the same numbers that the cfg. No great changes to be notice; but in some way, I'm convinced that changing the air file is also necessary. Not sure enough, I still need some hours to see what's going around.

[Keith]

Sometimes yes and sometimes no. If you just make changes for an engine upgrade you can do that in the aircraft.cfg in most cases without changing the airfile, however once you make one change other things like temps and so forth will follow so one small change in the aircraft.cfg can mean a faster plane but unrealistic temps and pressures etc. and those must me changed in the airfile but only if you already know what those should be.

Sorry if that sounded confusing. I guess a quick answer would be: NO if you only want faster speed and don't mind unrealistic gauge readings, un-normal fuel buen, aircraft drag etc. and YES if you want to try to make the plane fly by the real world specs.

[jimslost]

That doesn't sound confusing, Keith, just like a lot of work. The biggest challenge I've found is digging up what the "realistic" gauge readings are and how to program the rate-of-change values for them (e.g. how fast does a cylinder head heat up with the cowling flaps open vs closed?). Wish I'd paid more attention to such things when I was younger and there were more "old timers" from whom to learn this stuff.

[windrunner]

Yes keith, you got the point: not confussing at all but very clear, and in fact I have come to the same conclusion.

Actually, I'd like all my planes behaving so close to the real as possible, but then...are the flight models as accurate as they should be? I think Aeroworx King Air is, the Carenado's 206, also.; not pretty sure about the Centurion; look at the fuel flow scalar: 1.00 what it means the range of a Piper Cub if you are lucky. So I changed to 0.75, like the 206s series.

Tweaking the engines is a question of expertise: that's why I am not flying my turbo mod very often, but only experimenting: there's no point of flying a Cessna with the F14 flight dynamics. I am not entirely satisfied when flying the Centurion Turbo I did, so, I rarely touch it. I feel like a sort of "traitor" ;D

This is a very interesting discussion. I remember my early days with Flight Simulator. I only wanted to fly cool planes, more interested in the exterior model than the flight dynamics and I liked the big jets and fast fighters, taking off and landig with a single finger. Now, I prefer to fly planes than are claimed to be more "loyal" to the real ones, may be not so fancy, but certainly more challenging. Call it Evolution! but those days were full of green lands and blue seas (fs4, FS98) and you never thought about your fuel tanks being emptied, or those heavy nose winds. Now we have FS9, more "quality" can be asked to the sim, when quality means accuracy, within the limits of a pc sim, of course.

Oh those old days of yesteryear! so full of innocense flying! everything was so simple then...and so basic. I prefer the "mature" todays sim. We all here do, don't we?