Jet engines are supposed to have higher efficiency and power at higher speeds and altitudes. That's why airliners use them.
But in SP, jet engines perform the same, no matter what (if they don’t, maybe the difference is just so small it’s unnoticeable). This may apply to other types of engines too, but I’m not sure. Sea level physics apply for all altitudes, apparently. That's why most of the realistic planes that claim to have realistic thrust output actually don't have realistic thrust output.
There are many solutions to this problem. The simplest of them is sticking an extra engine somewhere and ask the user to activate the engine at a certain speed.
I certainly use this a lot, especially before Overload (which makes most is not all of the more advanced solutions possible) came to iOS, which I play SP on.
Like all solutions to problems like this, there are cons for this. Most notably, as non-xml modders use this the most, if zeroOnDeactivate is not on, and thrust is applied when the AG is turned off, the extra engine will continue to operate through the entire flight. On the ground, there are many foreseeable problems with this. The extra engine can also provide too much of a boost when turned on, especially during the initial climb when full power is usually applied.
A similar solution is to use the extra engine and use Funky Tree inputs to automatically turn it on when above a certain speed. This shares the con with the method above. As seen in my regional airliner, it doesn't work well.
There are also more solutions to this, but I don't know all of them. I now present the solution that I think is the best. Maybe it's not.
Funky Trees is awesome.
For (semi-)realistic engine performance, use this as input in your engines.
2*Throttle*(Altitude/X) where X is 1/3 your max cruise altitude in feet.
@Aeromotive @DPSAircraft @WarshipDude
Obviously, I have made some mistakes here.
I’m not qualified to teach you the mechanics of jet engines. You can spend years learning this. But the solution I presented works pretty well and that’s why this post was made. Some of your comments point out that there are mistakes, but I can’t seem to understand all of them.
Is there a way that i can make engine shut down over certain altitudes?
@WarshipDude Oh.
@FeiWu i know there are some mistake, im also not qualified for this, my only source is Wikipedia because of course, and even with it i still not fully understand...
Thanks @F104Deathtrap
You seem concerned about realism, so I'll share what I know about engines and fuel consumption. All jet engines burn an alarming amount of fuel, modern turbofan are much more efficient than older turbojets but they're so much bigger that they still guzzle fuel at an astonishing pace.
Each engine has ideal conditions based on vibration, efficiency, temperature a d airflow. Usually this boils down to a range of throttle settings and a range of altitudes. All aircraft fly slower at low altitude, but some are suited for it than others. Only certain engines work well at higher altitudes, usually these have sophisticated air intakes. Aaaaand finally, afterburners. Afterburners just about double your thrust, but they triple your fuel consumption, a MIG-21 can only use afterburner for 5 minutes before the engine literally shuts itself off!
@FeiWu Hey no worries, it doesn't have to be super realistic, as long as it works and you are satisfied with the performance it should be ok. In reality, there's a lot more variables coming in to play that I myself will probably never even know about.
I have used input before @DPSAircraft
It’s just that I forgot - I changed the post now.
About SR2, yes. The highest bypass is 7 to 1
Jet engines have mostly constant thrust output, it's the mechanical power (the amount of work that the engine is doing) that varies with speed. Jet engines do perform better at altitude than a piston/propeller setup, because it's these that lose thrust. But for a jet engine, thrust does NOT get higher with altitude, it stays constant and often decreases because of the lower oxygen levels leading to a less powerful combustion.
With low input the fuel can last longer but in turn the acceleration is too quick
@DPSAircraft also happen to raise the fuel burned, the higher the input (i usually use 4 because it got a good silent tone) the more fuel it will use, my fighter jets rarely have noise because their engine input is like 0.5 or 0.25 with power multiplier 2 or 4, the only problem with such input is that the jet accelerate like nothing else, 0-100 (kmh) in just 0.7 second, that's too suick as well
@FeiWu ok I'll test it on prop soon
@rexzion Most likely
powerMultiplierispowerfor props thoughI haven't read the entire post yet but will it work for props
@DPSAircraft