Search the archive:
Simviation Main Site
|
Site Search
|
Upload Images
Simviation Forum
›
Addons Most Wanted
›
Other Add-ons Wanted
› 100,000ft,why not 1000nm!!!!!!!!!!
(Moderators: Mitch., Fly2e, ozzy72, beaky, Clipper, JBaymore, Bob70, BigTruck)
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
Pages: 1
100,000ft,why not 1000nm!!!!!!!!!! (Read 553 times)
Feb 7
th
, 2002 at 9:13pm
katana_1000
Offline
Colonel
a_blesk
patomac,MD
Gender:
Posts: 1803
as some of you know,in fs2000 slew takes you up to 100000, but i`ve once flown concorde to over 200000.in fs2002,slew takes ya up to 100000,and you can`t go any higher than that.why not make a download to extend it to 1000nauticle miles!!!!!!go higher than the aurora borialas!!!!!!better yet,make a whole line of rockets,space shuttle discovery with boosters and hydreden tank,soyuz,satern V,vostock 1,buran space shuttle...etc. it would be awsome
&&and yet i cant say it in the chat room:P&&&&
http://airliners.net/random.inc&&&&
;
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #1 -
Feb 7
th
, 2002 at 11:47pm
Praying_Mantis
Offline
Major
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Posts: 4
I think that would be a great Idea if someone could figure out how to do it.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #2 -
Feb 8
th
, 2002 at 12:27am
BMan1113VR
Offline
Colonel
Los Angeles, California
Gender:
Posts: 9196
good idea but i am pretty sure it is impossible, anyways when you get that high it gets bumpy
Sincerely,&&Me&&
&&SimV NFL 2006-2007 Season Pool Co-Champion (157-99; 9-2)&&SimV NFL 2005-2006 Season Pool Co-Champion (163-93)&&SimV NFL 2004-2005 Season Pool Champion (166-90) &&
&&
Click for Assistance
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #3 -
Feb 8
th
, 2002 at 4:59am
Bonzonie
Offline
Colonel
The fate of my PC?? Maybe....
Yokohama, Japan
Gender:
Posts: 1762
Don't know why, But MS probably stopped th slew mode from going any higher.
Its Hardcoded and not editable....
Visit the WireFrame!&&
http://www.simviation.com/bonzonie/index.htm&&They
said it was a million dollar wound, but the Army must keep that money cause Ive never seen any of it
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #4 -
Feb 8
th
, 2002 at 10:51am
BMan1113VR
Offline
Colonel
Los Angeles, California
Gender:
Posts: 9196
yah i thought so
Sincerely,&&Me&&
&&SimV NFL 2006-2007 Season Pool Co-Champion (157-99; 9-2)&&SimV NFL 2005-2006 Season Pool Co-Champion (163-93)&&SimV NFL 2004-2005 Season Pool Champion (166-90) &&
&&
Click for Assistance
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #5 -
Apr 4
th
, 2002 at 9:46pm
Maverick_803
Offline
Colonel
aww damn i spilt my coffee
!
Leeds, UK
Gender:
Posts: 155
but i thought concorde coudnt operate at those altitude?? the pressure must be son strong plus there is hardly any air up there providing nearly no lift whatsoever
its funny- 100 years ago people coudnt fly- now we finding it hard to keep out of the sky
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #6 -
Apr 5
th
, 2002 at 12:44am
Kittyhawk
Offline
Colonel
Auckland, New Zealand
Gender:
Posts: 14
I was watching a documentary on aviation a few days ago and I think remember it mentioning that jet engines operate more efficiently at high altitudes, whereas propellor engines become less efficient.
Anyway, Airwolf's theory of Concorde not being able to operate at 100,000 ft altitude because of the lack of air to provide lift sounds reasonably... er... reasonable.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #7 -
Apr 5
th
, 2002 at 5:08am
Matt
Offline
Colonel
Wales, UK
Gender:
Posts: 419
Jet engines are designed to operate at different heights.
E.g Concorde uses RR-Snecma Olympus engines. They are useless at low level but amazing at high level.
Panavia Tornado uses Turbo Union RB199-34R Mk.104's that are amazing at low level and useless at high level
He who takes to the air, will walk with his eyes to the skies&&&&Flights never leave from Gate #1 at any terminal in the world
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #8 -
Feb 10
th
, 2005 at 3:29pm
rentsch
Offline
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 5
well, maybe not 1000nm, but why not 60 or so nm, like spaceship one? while it is 'space', microgravity and micro atmosphere still applies...so the FS 'code' should be able to be extended to handle it.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #9 -
Feb 10
th
, 2005 at 3:36pm
Hagar
Offline
Colonel
My Spitfire Girl
Costa Geriatrica
Posts: 33159
You might have a problem as I believe the FS world is actually more cylindrical than spherical. I could be quite wrong about that as I usually fly VFR.
Founder & Sole Member - Grumpy's Over the Hill Club for Veteran Virtual Aviators
Member of the
Fox Four Group
Need help? Try
Grumpy's Lair
My photo gallery
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #10 -
Feb 11
th
, 2005 at 12:02am
SilverFox441
Offline
Colonel
Now What?
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Gender:
Posts: 1467
It
used
to be a cylindrical world...not sure if that is still true. I honestly haven't tried 90 Deg N or S to see what happens in FS9.
Steve
(Silver Fox)
Daly
&&
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #11 -
Feb 11
th
, 2005 at 9:25pm
JBaymore
Offline
Global Moderator
Under the curse of the
hombuilt cockpit!
Gender:
Posts: 10261
Actually...it used to be a
flat
world.... but for centuries now people have understood that ........... oops... nevermind......
best,
................john
Intel i7 960 quad 3.2G LGA 1366, Asus P6X58D Premium, 750W Corsair, 6 gig 1600 DDR3, Spinpoint 1TB 7200 HD, Caviar 500G 7200 HD, GTX275 1280M, Logitec Z640, Win7 Pro 64b, CH Products yoke, pedals + throttle quad, simpit
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #12 -
Feb 15
th
, 2005 at 3:47pm
Saratoga
Offline
Colonel
757/767 Captain Major,
USAF
Dallas-Ft. Worth Intl. (KDFW)
Gender:
Posts: 571
Well if it's in a file somewhere (which it obviously is or we wouldn't have a limit) I am sure someone on this here site can find it and edit it. I think it would very entertaining to take a plane up that high.
However, I forsee a problem. Vehicles flying that high have small thrusters to change direction. We don't have that luxury, so to get decent control, we would need huge control throws and gigantic control surfaces. Wonderful, until we hit low altitude and a small turn to final results in us rolling the plane several times.
Pilot for a major US airline certified in the: EMB-120, CRJ, 727, 737, 757, 767, and A-320 and military, T-38, C-130, C-141, and C-5 along with misc. other small airplanes. Any questions, I'm here for you.
Back to top
IP Logged
Reply #13 -
Feb 18
th
, 2005 at 7:52am
AndyG
Offline
Colonel
Up, up and awaayyyyyy....
England
Gender:
Posts: 185
You mean it isn't on the back of the giant turtle
Actually, if you're interested in going higher I would recommend looking at the Orbiter sim - everything from Sputnik to the Enterprise-E.
Back to top
IP Logged
Pages: 1
‹
Previous Topic
|
Next Topic
›
« Home
‹ Board
Top of this page
Forum Jump »
Home
» 10 most recent Posts
» 10 most recent Topics
Current Flight Simulator Series
- Flight Simulator X
- FS 2004 - A Century of Flight
- Adding Aircraft Traffic (AI) & Gates
- Flight School
- Flightgear
- MS Flight
Graphic Gallery
- Simviation Screenshots Showcase
- Screenshot Contest
- Edited Screenshots
- Photos & Cameras
- Payware Screenshot Showcase
- Studio V Screenshot Workshop
- Video
- The Cage
Design Forums
- Aircraft & 3D Design
- Scenery & Panel Design
- Aircraft Repainting
- Designer Feedback
General
- General Discussion
- Humour
- Music, Arts & Entertainment
- Sport
Computer Hardware & Software Forum
- Hardware
- Tweaking & Overclocking
- Computer Games & Software
- HomeBuild Cockpits
Addons Most Wanted
- Aircraft Wanted
- Other Add-ons Wanted ««
Real World
- Real Aviation
- Specific Aircraft Types
- Autos
- History
On-line Interactive Flying
- Virtual Airlines Events & Messages
- Multiplayer
Simviation Site
- Simviation News & Info
- Suggestions for these forums
- Site Questions & Feedback
- Site Problems & Broken Links
Combat Flight Simulators
- Combat Flight Simulator 3
- Combat Flight Simulator 2
- Combat Flight Simulator
- CFS Development
- IL-2 Sturmovik
Other Websites
- Your Site
- Other Sites
Payware
- Payware
Old Flight Simulator Series
- FS 2002
- FS 2000
- Flight Simulator 98
Simviation Forum
» Powered by
YaBB 2.5 AE
!
YaBB Forum Software
© 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.