Request TAS and Altitude change from metric to standard

[edjohnbus]

Is there a way to change the altitude to display in feet/miles and speed from meters per second to knots or miles per hour?

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

even a TAS in kilometers per hour if there is not one with knots or miles per hour?

 

[Urwumpe]

Is there a way to change the altitude to display in feet/miles and speed from meters per second to knots or miles per hour?

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

even a TAS in kilometers per hour if there is not one with knots or miles per hour?

As said by the FAQ, Orbiter is strictly SI and what you want is pretty useless for spacecraft in general. But there are add-on MFDs that can provide the quantities you are seeking in US units. But furlongs per fortnight (x1000) would be still better than US units in space. (Don't get me started on feet per second for measuring velocity in space - they didn't even try using this nonsense in Fundamentals of Astrodynamics)

As little help: 1 m/s is approximately 2 knots.

 

[N_Molson]

:hesaid:

Get used to m/s, in space that's the standard.

And I'm pretty sure you can find MFDs that display different units on OrbitHangar...

 

[edjohnbus]

it's all good, was just a question because the flight simulators i'm used to playing are all knots for speed and altitude in feet/miles...i'll get used to meters per second, just find myself sometimes over-reacting still when it says "100" as i'm descending and my mind thinks "oh no, i'm only 100 feet up" not realizing i'm 100 meters up.
Just a part of my learning curve.

 

[Urwumpe]

it's all good, was just a question because the flight simulators i'm used to playing are all knots for speed and altitude in feet/miles...i'll get used to meters per second, just find myself sometimes over-reacting still when it says "100" as i'm descending and my mind thinks "oh no, i'm only 100 feet up" not realizing i'm 100 meters up.
Just a part of my learning curve.

Yes, you ARE only 100 ... up. What for a normal aircraft is 100 feet, is 100 meters for a spacecraft descending at about 50 m/s. Or approximately 900 ft/min.

Better free your mind from too many aircraft references. It gives you some good clues about instrumentation and aerodynamics, but misleads you into terrible fiery deaths (TFDs) quickly when it is really about spaceflight.

 

[icedown]

It has taken me a while to get used to the SI system, but it's worth it in terms of calculations. Everything, not only in orbiter, but documentation too is in SI so it's better to get used to it.

 

[edjohnbus]

I'm getting used to it...and you're right, it's much easier to figure things out using the metric system...

 

[Urwumpe]

I'm getting used to it...and you're right, it's much easier to figure things out using the metric system...

Especially when converting units around. Nautical miles are for example great when reading nautical maps, but are pretty disturbing as unit of altitude. (Since one nautical mile is exactly one minute of arc on the equator)

 

[edjohnbus]

i spent 8 years in the Army, so I am used to measuring distances in meters/kilometers, it's just really throwing me a little curve thinking of velocity in meters per second (it doesn't really translate in my head yet) I would understand moving 1000 kilometers an hour more easily than 1000 meters per second (i know 1000 kilometers an hour is not equal to 1000 meters per second, was just an analogy). I'm getting it tho...just too many hours playing other flight simulators and driving too many cars that do not measure velocity in meters per second.

 

[Urwumpe]

i spent 8 years in the Army, so I am used to measuring distances in meters/kilometers, it's just really throwing me a little curve thinking of velocity in meters per second (it doesn't really translate in my head yet) I would understand moving 1000 kilometers an hour more easily than 1000 meters per second (i know 1000 kilometers an hour is not equal to 1000 meters per second, was just an analogy). I'm getting it tho...just too many hours playing other flight simulators and driving too many cars that do not measure velocity in meters per second.

The problem is, that you might experience easily, that the speeds in spaceflight are outside what you can practically describe by terms as a groundhog.

Just as example, since I also spent some time in the army, you might understand it: You fire a tank projectile at 3600 km/h at it - how long will it travel until it hits the target 2 kilometers away?

As you can see, the velocity is so much bigger than the distance, that you will spend quite a while with fractions to get to your result.

if you use 1000 m/s or 1 km/s instead (the equivalent to 3600 km/h), you get simply 2 seconds.

How much does it help you, when you read that you get a head on collision at 57,000 km/h? Can you imagine that speed better? Likely not. as 15 km/s instead, you can quickly tell how much time you have to react at shorter distances than almost one full orbit.

 

[edjohnbus]

I know, just something new to learn. and, no one is ever to old to learn something new.

Is there a way to change the altitude to display in feet/miles and speed from meters per second to knots or miles per hour?

---------- Post added at 12:42 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:40 PM ----------

even a TAS in kilometers per hour if there is not one with knots or miles per hour?

The problem is, that you might experience easily, that the speeds in spaceflight are outside what you can practically describe by terms as a groundhog.

Just as example, since I also spent some time in the army, you might understand it: You fire a tank projectile at 3600 km/h at it - how long will it travel until it hits the target 2 kilometers away?

As you can see, the velocity is so much bigger than the distance, that you will spend quite a while with fractions to get to your result.

if you use 1000 m/s or 1 km/s instead (the equivalent to 3600 km/h), you get simply 2 seconds.

How much does it help you, when you read that you get a head on collision at 57,000 km/h? Can you imagine that speed better? Likely not. as 15 km/s instead, you can quickly tell how much time you have to react at shorter distances than almost one full orbit.

 

[asbjos]

[ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3349"]HUDdataMFD v1.2[/ame] has something of what you are looking for. While it's not a MFD, it displays the data on your screen. You can display airspeed (in km/h, mph, kts and mach), vertical speed (in m/s and ft/min), acceleration (in m/s^2 [sorry, RisinFury]), vertical acceleration (in m/s^2) and much more.

 

[edjohnbus]

Thank you

HUDdataMFD v1.2 has something of what you are looking for. While it's not a MFD, it displays the data on your screen. You can display airspeed (in km/h, mph, kts and mach), vertical speed (in m/s and ft/min), acceleration (in m/s), vertical acceleration (in m/s^2) and much more.

 

[RisingFury]

acceleration (in m/s)

Noooooope.

 

[TMac3000]

Metric I don't mind, but I would wish time would display in minutes and seconds...