The funny thing is, I watched that video from start to middle and closed the tab since I can't read polski and I though I was mistaken on it being related FSX.lucas wrote:I made a short presentation about this field and posted on the YT (just scroll to the mid of the movie to see the animations from the FSX): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ihEJgomoTc
I had a hunch that might be the cause because the plane is capable of some maneuvers FSX craft typically can't do. Also, the rate of turn when using rudder only isn't horribly too much... only the skidding angle. Maybe add more horizontal stability by faking a bigger vertical stabilized in .AIR file? I know Albatros's vertical stab isn't exactly a big one. But at least it has one (unlike DR1). And the fuselage would also provide some resistance to excessive ~70 degree skids.lucas wrote:2. Rudder. I always want to be honest with the customers. The key was to make this plane fully aerobatic. To be able to perform some vertical maneouvers like wing over or hammer head, I had to make the rudder more effective. When the rudder area/effectiveness were set to the original values, the plane was not able to perform any of the mentioned above.
Of course, vertical stability might also hurt acrobatics because to do acrobatics in FSX, you actually have to "break" the simulation. You can't for example fly backwards with Flankers after a vertical climb and stall. FSX just won't let you no matter who master's the flight model. Because of the conflicting interests, maybe it would be better to have .AIR file separately for acrobatics and flying nicely, and create a .BAT script for "swapping" (=renaming) the active .AIR.
Yet SE5A had a reputation of being sluggish. And DR1 (with 3 planes but only 1 pair of ailerons) has a reputation of being agile. Are these stereotypes purely produce of imagination?lucas wrote:3. When speaking of the elevator and ailerons, I must add that those areas were calculated and the real values were put into FSX cfg/air. The plane was very pitch sensitive from what I know and did not have a spectacular roll rate. The planes which had four ailerons, like British Camel, SE5a had much better input.
But I do agree that looking a SE5A, it does seem like it should have agility (at least in controller flight). The "being too stable for dogfight" might in reality only have applied to departed maneuvers like flick rolls.
Also, NeoQB's DR1 is also relatively sluggish on roll axis. You are supposed to help the plane by using rudder, i.e dancing on the fine edge between a controller roll and a flick roll. It's a tight margin of rudder control to stay out of a spin when accelerating roll on DR1 but doing it properly, you get it to roll. I find it more difficult to roll Albatros over, with or without help of rudder. It attempts to plummet very fast whenever the plane is at an 90 deg angle (basically dropping sideways in a skid). I know this is actually what would be expected from a realistic simulation as there's little to keep the plane from falling downwards in a skid whenever the wings aren't level but it could be the slugginess that makes it difficult. Or the lack of awareness that you are dropping (AccuFeel open cockpit might help - I haven't updated my AccuFeel yet) but I have a hunch that your nose should drop as a result of skidding downwards: Albatros do have a vertical stabilizer and there's that heavy piece of metal on the front end of the plane while the fuselage itself is light-weight (thus expect the entire fuselage to add to the vertical stability).
I've fixed the rotational inertia on many added planes after I've installed them to my computer so it's not a big deal. I'll post the corrected value once I've found it.lucas wrote:4. Propeller
I completly agree that statement. It has to be tuned and I need to work on that one. Any help or suggestions are welcomed In an exchage for help I can create a custom paintscheme or some historical one