Condor 3 Bugs

[mzeddd]

1) When release at the beginning of takeoff glider does not fall on a wing and keep standing on one wheel

2) When finish AAT task with time less than minimum please show in TAB (and in FTR/IGC) real time, but not minimum AAT time.
People should see their error.

[wickid]

2) When finish AAT task with time less than minimum please show in TAB (and in FPL) real time, but not minimum AAT time.
People should see their error.

That wouldn't be correct. If you finish at less then T-Min, your task time is T-min by definition. So the scoring and FPL result is correct.

[mzeddd]

2) When finish AAT task with time less than minimum please show in TAB (and in FTR) real time, but not minimum AAT time.
People should see their error.

That wouldn't be correct. If you finish at less then T-Min, your task time is T-min by definition. So the scoring and FTR result is correct.

From my point of view it should be correct. I don't want to see that I'm so accurate finishing in exact defined minimum time. I want to see how much time I lost finishing early. Speed calculation and scoring should use T-Min. At least this kind of results SeeYou makes in SoaringSpot. (show time "as is" and speed according to pules)

[6266]

Today I had a flight that reminded me of old and bad times. Usually I don't fly longer than absolute max 2 hours, because of the memory on the sink bug I have experienced some years ago. Today as the last flight of the year I thought a little bit bigger, took (unusually for me too) the JS1-21 and tried a 290 km flight in flat land. The whole flight took ca. 2:10 h and ended with an outlanding after 230 km. At round about 1:40 h flight time I observed first time a not really good performance of the plane (of course, could have been me too), so I switched to netto vario, where the best values were -0,5 m/s, but the average maybe -0,7 m/s. Finally I left a dying lift at 600 m heading to a better looking cloud. But I never reached it, because I was washed from the sky, The netto vario showed values between -2,0 m/s and -3,0 m/s, the plane was sinking with 3 - 4 m/s the rest of the flight until the ground. With MC at 1,5 and full ballast speed should be 178 km/h and sinking 1,04 m/s. Ofcourse there can be sinking areas, but this was strange, because it never ended, not even close to the ground.

I will not call it a bug yet, but I have a bad feeling about it. If someone is interested I can send the ftr/igc file or what ever is needed

[Vertigo]

Do you have XC version? Are you sure your wipers were not stuck? That kind of sink rate is roughly what Id expect for stuck wipers (+lots of bugs) at that speed. edit: actually no, if that was netto, its worse than stuck wipers. Do you have a FTR?

[Bre901]

Was VSYNC activated?

[6266]

Do you have XC version? Are you sure your wipers were not stuck? That kind of sink rate is roughly what Id expect for stuck wipers (+lots of bugs) at that speed. edit: actually no, if that was netto, its worse than stuck wipers. Do you have a FTR?

No xc version, no bug wipers, and no bugs activated, the plane was clean like in C2

Here the ftr, thanks for looking at it

https://prosjekt.baleit.no/condor/VS-2024-12-29.zip

[6266]

Was VSYNC activated?

Yes, vsync is activated in Condor, FPS was a little bit over 70, with max 80 set in NVIDIA

[Vertigo]

https://prosjekt.baleit.no/condor/VS-2024-12-29.zip

Seems you flew in Germany N landscape, which I dont have installed, and is the most likely culprit. You could try airstart spawning in the same region, if the problem re occurs, contact the landscape developer. Also check your error log, Im not 100% sure but I think there should be an entry in there if there is a problem with the landscape.

[wickid]

https://prosjekt.baleit.no/condor/VS-2024-12-29.zip

Also check your error log, Im not 100% sure but I think there should be an entry in there if there is a problem with the landscape.

No, error log only gets written when there is a bluescreen.

[6266]

Seems you flew in Germany N landscape, which I dont have installed, and is the most likely culprit. You could try airstart spawning in the same region, if the problem re occurs, contact the landscape developer. Also check your error log, Im not 100% sure but I think there should be an entry in there if there is a problem with the landscape.

Thanks for your answer and your thoughts.

Yes, GermanyN. It's maybe my most flown landscape, and when I fly it then very often in that region, where I today observed the problem. Because that is my old homeland (was a home run as last flight of the year, luckily I reached all points i was interested to fly to, only the finished missed ).

I don't believe it's a problem of the landscape, because it's an easy landscape like the other 38 I have made so far. Height map, textures, forest map and very simple airports (defined, flattened, G and O file with runway border and windsock), nothing else. And if there should be a problem, then cheating protection. But this will lead to a crash and will happen at the beginning of the flight. The regional cheating problem with the OSM buildings isn't relevant here, because I haven't used them until now.

The ErrorLog.txt is last modified 04.12.2024, and the Logfile.txt is unfortunately overwritten because of a test after reboot (I wondered if it's right that the netto vario shows -1 standing at the ground, but it is always that way. Maybe there is a division by speed in the formula, and speed 0 gives then -1 instead of an error in netto vario).

For me it's not a big problem, because I have my workaround since years: not flying longer than 2 hours (usually round about 1:45 like a tv film). But if someone else get the same problem, he/she should know, that it happened to me too.

[6266]

Used now some hours to analyze the igc file of that flight, focused on the cruise. I didn't found a change over the time, so the sink rate isn't significant different at the end of the flight to the beginning, except the last 2-3 minutes.

Finally I compared the statistic data from SeeYou with a Condor 2 flight with the same plane in the same region.

In SeeYou the average cruise speed of yesterdays flight is 183,5 km/h, L/D is 38, so average sink rate is 1,34 m/s. The polar shows a sinking of 1,12 m/s (MC = 1,7, speed = 183 km/h). In average I had 0,2 m/s more sinking over the whole flight than the polar says.

The Condor 2 flight has an average cruise speed of 175,9 km/h, L/D 59, average sink rate 0,82 m/s while the polar says 1,01 m/s. On the barogram I can see a lot of pull ups, that explains the lower sink rate. In yesterdays flight was nearly nothing worth to pull up.

Of course I will not claim that as an error, I only want to understand it. I read that in Condor 3 you have to follow the energy lines (hope to remember the correct word). I understand that f.x. flying on the wrong or right side of a ridge makes a difference, even if it's maybe only a smaller hill far below. But in flat land, where I flew, there is no wrong or right side of a ridge.

The day before I flew the LS3, average sink rate was a little bit lower than the polar says (without thinking about energy lines).

So my questions to this are

Where will I find those energy lines in flat land?
Is it possible to fly so bad to get 0,2 m/s more sinking on cruise? (gear was up, flaps at position 2, no bugs, turbulence slight)

Thanks in advance for any hint

[OXO]

Condor 3 has inter-thermal area sink to more accurately model real life.

[6266]

Condor 3 has inter-thermal area sink to more accurately model real life.

Thanks, yes I remember that. Maybe I didn't realized that before, because I usually fly lower performing planes. A stone falling a little bit faster makes not really a big difference ...

I have to observe it

[Claraflies1]

More of a feature request than a bug, but please could we have a gender selector for those on-screen messages? My lady pilot group are slightly tired of seeing "his plane". Alternative pilot avatars would be a nice future dream so they aren't so "white middle aged man" but appreciate there's a lot of physical modelling involved there. A checkbox to generate "her" instead of "his" seems pretty easy to implement, though.