Jump to content

Photo

Concorde fuel flow


  • Please log in to reply
7 replies to this topic

#1
FishermanIvan

FishermanIvan

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 99 posts

User's Awards

2   
Is outrageously high. It does not burn 318,000 pounds an hour.

It burns less than the Tu-144 in real life and it’s double that in the game.

#2
atnt71eb

atnt71eb

    Emperor of AE - Most Trophies, Undefeated

  • Member
  • 276 posts

User's Awards

38    48    87    5    2   

Is outrageously high. It does not burn 318,000 pounds an hour.

It burns less than the Tu-144 in real life and it’s double that in the game.

 

The game uses a ridiculous, pseudo-scientific way of calculating fuel flow: it multiplies takeoff thrust-specific fuel consumption (TSFC) times takeoff thrust and assumes that the resulting product holds for the entire flight. The game apparently isn't aware that TSFC differs between takeoff and cruise.

 

In reality, planes cruise with TSFC slightly higher than TO but with actual thrust at ~30% of TO thrust, depending on the type of plane. A real calculation would match cruise TSFC against the actual cruise thrust, which is a product of cruise drag:lift ratio times average cruising weight. For the Concord and Tu-144 this is particularly nonsensical, as a plane produces less thrust as it goes faster and higher (thrust lapse). Obviously the supersonics cruise faster and higher than other planes, so the game's calculation is further off for them than for any other types. 

 

I don't know much about the Tu-144's actual fuel efficiency compared to Concorde so I'm not sure why the supposed disparity in disparities. Given the non-realistic fuel-burn modelling overall, however, it's a minor bug. 



#3
Hermii

Hermii

    AE Addict To-Be

  • Member
  • 13 posts

Concorde used about the same amount of fuel as a 747 when doing LHR-JFK, the fuel flow in the game is crazy for example the A340-300 which uses less fuel than the A330-300.



#4
Maestro69

Maestro69

    El Original Mod, AE Beta Tester

  • AE Moderator
  • 4,006 posts

User's Awards

     

You have to remember that some of the fuel flow values for certain aircraft, are perhaps not as realistic as they should be. Also the calculation of such fuel flows for various aircraft leaves a lot to be desired.


dleLlDN.png?raw=1


#5
RehanTheBlock

RehanTheBlock

    known weeb and commulist infiltrator

  • Member
  • 233 posts

From what i know and what others here are saying fuel flow in this game is a giant meme



#6
atnt71eb

atnt71eb

    Emperor of AE - Most Trophies, Undefeated

  • Member
  • 276 posts

User's Awards

38    48    87    5    2   

the fuel flow in the game is crazy for example the A340-300 which uses less fuel than the A330-300.

 

The inversion of A343 and A333 is directly related to the game's reliance on takeoff thrust and TSFC for its fuel calculation. The ratio between takeoff and cruise thrust is lower for quads than for twins. This is because total takeoff thrust is set by the total thrust needed if you lose one engine during takeoff - a plane needs enough remaining thrust to climb from the runway if this occurs after it's too late to stop safely on the runway. Obviously a quad retains 75% of total thrust with one engine out while a twin has only 50% of total thrust. Because the game assumes the A333 does the entire flight with both engines at full blast, it puts the A333 at a disadvantage. A plane's engines are at full blast only when taking off at maximum weight and only until the plane reaches about 1,000 feet. Then it's free to throttle back as there's enough safety margin to spool up the remaining engine if one goes out. 

 

A relatively easy fix would be to use an average fuel flow calculation derived from the payload-range charts published for every airliner, for example: https://www.airbus.c...aft-AC-A330.pdf

 

This would still be a gross approximation, however, and would assume max-range missions and typical payloads. In fact, fuel burn varies with range and payload. It would be a lot closer to the current modeling, however. 

 

This is one reason I always roll my eyes when people complain about "realistic" play. These people clearly have no concept of realism regarding aerodynamics and engine parameters, let alone the game's passenger modelling. Taking the game more seriously than as a minor diversion while watching TV or listening to podcast is ridiculous. 



#7
FishermanIvan

FishermanIvan

    AE Player

  • Member
  • 99 posts

User's Awards

2   
It’s annoying because it makes the planes unusable. Same with anything Conway powered, the 707-420 and the VC10.

There’s gotta be a way to make this at least a bit better.

#8
KJS607

KJS607

    Absolutely Fabulous

  • Member
  • 3,794 posts

User's Awards

3      

There’s gotta be a way to make this at least a bit better.

 

It's called AirsimWorld


Signature general 1.png

 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users