Elevator Effectiveness =2?

[Kisha]

I recently purchased the C172 for P3D. It's fantastic, it has raised the bar in terms of immersion and quality for GA aircraft for fs. However I found the elevator to be overly sensitive (using a Saitek Cessna yoke & pedals), especially on landing, the tricky bit. The slightest of inputs would send the A/C back into the sky which was not really comparable with my rw (although limited) experience flying a C172. After exploring my calibration settings to little effect I turned towards the aircraft.cfg file and discovered the Elevator Effectiveness line was set to 2. Changing it to 1.00 seemed to solve the issue and made control much more manageable, I can now 'hold off' after closing the throttle, adjusting pitch far more accurately.

I was just wondering if developers intended the shipped setting and if other users have some across this issue?

[Welsch]

I would not change any values in aircraft.cfg. That might have unintended consequences elsewhere.

Instead, I would try to experiment with controller sensitivity, either in your calibration tool (be that FSX, FSUIPC, or some manufacturers tool). Additionally, you could use the sensitivity slider in the lower left corner of the Shift-3 panel - put it up to 100 and see if it makes any difference for you.

[Scott - A2A]

Most FSX planes, the elevator is not powerful enough. So when people fly an Accu-Sim plane with the proper elevator authority, the reaction is it's too strong. When in fact, it's the first time this person is experiencing real elevator forces in the simulator.

This is based on precise tests we have done ourselves. Since Accu-Sim handles the elevator, we doubled the elevator authority in FSX which gives Accu-Sim the headroom it needs to provide the proper elevator authority in all flight situations. At all times, the elevator authority is very close to the real plane.

If you change this to 1, you have basically cut your elevator authority in 1/2. Just keep in mind that in those situations where you need the full elevator (very slow flight, stalls, etc.), it won't be there.

Scott.

[bobsk8]

I know this is a really old thread, but in the last couple of weeks since I have started flying the C 172 again, I have been really unhappy with the elevator response, compared to my experience flying the real C 172 aircraft, which I have a couple of hundred hours in. I never remember the real C 172 having a twitchy elevator response, especially in the approach and flare. The 172's I flew, and I flew a few of them were always very docile to land, so I kind of expected that from the A2A C 172. What I found instead, was an aircraft that would balloon at the slightest pressure on the elevator control during the roundout and flare. In addition, it seemed that once it flared, it would not sink like a real 172, if the attitude was held steady, but would seem to float and float until the airspeed was ridiculously low and then drop and bounce. I spend hours and hours doing touch and goes in this aircraft, which has the latest updates by the way, and never could land it consistently. In the past week or so, I found several threads on the A2A forum, dating back a year or two, of pilots experienced in flying the real C 172 having the same exact impressions of it's handling that I have experienced. Several of them commented that they had found a solution, by changing the elevator- effectiveness in the aircraft.cfg from the default of 2, to 1. I also read comments about not changing this because it could affect the handling of the aircraft in other ways, but having been a pilot in the real world for many years, my feeling is if the elevator authority and response felt like the real thing , to me, then I would be happy with the result.

I made the change from 2 to 1 , and then tried some slow flight, stalls both approach and departure stalls, and finally some landings, both soft field and short field as well as normal landings, and I find the handling now with the modified cfg reminds me much more of my experience in the real 172. The round out and flare is much more predictable, and no more ballooning and dropping and bouncing down the runway. All I can say, is if you are unhappy with your experience in consistent landings with the C 172, give it a try. You can always easily change it back to the default if you don't like the result. By the way, I have no problems at all with the Cherokee and the C 182, in landing them, so the C 172 is the only one that I am changing. Incidentally I am using P3D rather than FSX, so maybe this affects how this mod works.

[ilya1502]

I know this is a really old thread,

I cannot thank you enough for raising this old thread as I am ready to sign under every single letter in your message! I will definitely give a try to your finding as I suffer from the twitchy elevator in A2A C172 as well. In fact, if it was not for you I would hardly, if at all, look so deeply into the C172's aircraft.cfg as I have always respected the A2A team so much to assume they have done something wrong with the flight dynamics. In fact, the very use of such a coarse flight model tuning by A2A surprises me a lot, as it is well known among those who have ever tried to investigate into the FSX/P3D flight dynamics engine that these coefficients may be used only for terribly crude adjustment of the flight model properties. Standing by what I said here, I still stand on the point that in the P3D the flight dynamics processing has its own peculiarities, and when the porting of the A2A C172 was committed something was overlooked, otherwise I cannot explain so many complaints of the same nature raised by you.

[bobsk8]

I know this is a really old thread,

I cannot thank you enough for raising this old thread as I am ready to sign under every single letter in your message! I will definitely give a try to your finding as I suffer from the twitchy elevator in A2A C172 as well. In fact, if it was not for you I would hardly, if at all, look so deeply into the C172's aircraft.cfg as I have always respected the A2A team so much to assume they have done something wrong with the flight dynamics. In fact, the very use of such a coarse flight model tuning by A2A surprises me a lot, as it is well known among those who have ever tried to investigate into the FSX/P3D flight dynamics engine that these coefficients may be used only for terribly crude adjustment of the flight model properties. Standing by what I said here, I still stand on the point that in the P3D the flight dynamics processing has its own peculiarities, and when the porting of the A2A C172 was committed something was overlooked, otherwise I cannot explain so many complaints of the same nature raised by you.

Been flying this modified aircraft.cfg now for 2 days and many landings, and have yet to experience any problems in attaining a smooth landing each time in the 172.

[alan CXA651]

Hi.
When i first got this aircraft , i set my controllers as per A2A recomendations in FSX , i did a quick flight , then set the controls up in FSUIPC to mimic the control response as in FSX , the ail/ele/rud , ended up with a slope value of 4 within the FSUIPC , she seems to handle ok , but not haveing flown a real cessna i cannot coment if its right or not , but i did not modify the aircraft.cfg.
I use CH yoke/rudder peddles/2 quad throttles.
Regards alan.

[bobsk8]

Hi.
When i first got this aircraft , i set my controllers as per A2A recomendations in FSX , i did a quick flight , then set the controls up in FSUIPC to mimic the control response as in FSX , the ail/ele/rud , ended up with a slope value of 4 within the FSUIPC , she seems to handle ok , but not haveing flown a real cessna i cannot coment if its right or not , but i did not modify the aircraft.cfg.
I use CH yoke/rudder peddles/2 quad throttles.
Regards alan.

I tried using FSUIPC , and in fact it does help greatly the elevator response using a slope, but there is another problem, and that is the trim wheel response. In order to use the A2A Input Config trim wheel assignment which gives a fast and linear movement of the trim wheel, one cannot use FSUIPC for the other controls, since you have to turn off the default controls in the sim menu to use FSUIPC, and when you do that the A2A input config doesn't work. I want both a good trim response, which I use the A2A input config tool for, and a good elevator response, which I am now getting with the modification of the aircraft.cfg.

[Nick - A2A]

In order to use the A2A Input Config trim wheel assignment which gives a fast and linear movement of the trim wheel, one cannot use FSUIPC for the other controls, since you have to turn off the default controls in the sim menu to use FSUIPC, and when you do that the A2A input config doesn't work.

There's no problem with using FSUIPC and the A2A input configurator Bob. As you say, you have to make sure "enable controller(s)" is ticked in the host sim to use the latter. However, it's just a case of deleting the axis assignment and hardware button inputs in FSX/P3D if you wish to use FSUIPC for this instead.

I'd tend to agree that A2A's 172 has the 'trickiest' feel during flare. It's hard to be objective about something like this, but my feel is that the increase in aft pitch input needed during the flare is a bit less linear than with its siblings. In other words, as we begin to level off above the runway, a very small amount of back pressure is needed and this must be quickly and smoothly transitioned into pretty much full aft yoke deflection at just the right time. This process just feels a bit more gradual in the Pipers and even the 182 with its 'heavier' elevator feel.

I do agree that using a +ve slope for the elevator in FSUIPC could make this pitch input transition a bit easier ('flatten the curve' so to speak), especially if hardware makes very small control inputs difficult to achieve.

However, changing that "elevator effectiveness" settings is a bad idea in my opinion. I did actually experiment with this at around the time this thread first aired, and the problem is that you run the risk of running out of elevator authority completely at a late stage in the flare. Though I'm not averse to being critical of the FDE on occasion (I try not to be a 'fanboy' ), I don't think this edit is the best answer to any handling difficulties.

I still stand on the point that in the P3D the flight dynamics processing has its own peculiarities, and when the porting of the A2A C172 was committed something was overlooked [...]

Can't say I've noticed any difference whatsover in the flight model between FSX and P3D Ilya. I guess the question would be: do you have your controllers set up identically in both sims?

Cheers,
Nick

[bobsk8]

In order to use the A2A Input Config trim wheel assignment which gives a fast and linear movement of the trim wheel, one cannot use FSUIPC for the other controls, since you have to turn off the default controls in the sim menu to use FSUIPC, and when you do that the A2A input config doesn't work.

There's no problem with using FSUIPC and the A2A input configurator Bob. As you say, you have to make sure "enable controller(s)" is ticked in the host sim to use the latter. However, it's just a case of deleting the axis assignment and hardware button inputs in FSX/P3D if you wish to use FSUIPC for this instead.

I'd tend to agree that A2A's 172 has the 'trickiest' feel during flare. It's hard to be objective about something like this, but my feel is that the increase in aft pitch input needed during the flare is a bit less linear than with its siblings. In other words, as we begin to level off above the runway, a very small amount of back pressure is needed and this must be quickly and smoothly transitioned into pretty much full aft yoke deflection at just the right time. This process just feels a bit more gradual in the Pipers and even the 182 with its 'heavier' elevator feel.

I do agree that using a +ve slope for the elevator in FSUIPC could make this pitch input transition a bit easier ('flatten the curve' so to speak), especially if hardware makes very small control inputs difficult to achieve.

However, changing that "elevator effectiveness" settings is a bad idea in my opinion. I did actually experiment with this at around the time this thread first aired, and the problem is that you run the risk of running out of elevator authority completely at a late stage in the flare. Though I'm not averse to being critical of the FDE on occasion (I try not to be a 'fanboy' ), I don't think this edit is the best answer to any handling difficulties.

I still stand on the point that in the P3D the flight dynamics processing has its own peculiarities, and when the porting of the A2A C172 was committed something was overlooked [...]

Can't say I've noticed any difference whatsover in the flight model between FSX and P3D Ilya. I guess the question would be: do you have your controllers set up identically in both sims?

Cheers,
Nick

OK, I see a way to delete the elevator only axis assignment now after reading your post, so I just tried it by only deleting the elevator axis in P3D, set an elevator slope in FSUIPC to +4, and returned elevator effectiveness to the default of 2, and it lands perfectly.

Thanks,

[Nick - A2A]

OK, I see a way to delete the elevator only axis assignment now, so I will try that this evening and use FSUIPC for the elevator.

Yeah, you can just delete just the elevator axis assignments if preferred, or you can delete all the axis assigments in P3D and handle them in FSUIPC instead, whilst keeping the "enable controller(s)" box ticked.

Nick

[ilya1502]

do you have your controllers set up identically in both sims?

Yes, of course.

[bobsk8]

OK, I see a way to delete the elevator only axis assignment now, so I will try that this evening and use FSUIPC for the elevator.

Yeah, you can just delete just the elevator axis assignments if preferred, or you can delete all the axis assigments in P3D and handle them in FSUIPC instead, whilst keeping the "enable controller(s)" box ticked.

Nick

Just shows in simming, you can learn something every day.....

[Nick - A2A]

Just shows in simming, you can learn something every day.....

Indeed! Just be careful to avoid potential control conflicts by deleting any default button assignments in P3D too.

do you have your controllers set up identically in both sims?

Yes, of course.

Hmm... Definitely can't see any differences in my set-up and I don't recall any differences between the flight dynamics in FSX and P3D ever being documented. If it was, this would presumably represent a real headache for add-on developers.

Nick

[AKar]

Not sure if the discrepancies in between the simulators could be traced to the third party add-ons. I've earlier complained about the curious yaw effect, almost as if scripted, when the airplane leaves the ground no matter how light on its wheels (speaking of Cherokee and Comanche in particular which I've flown the most lately). By an accident, as I forgot to enable it once, I noted it was linked to the ASN/AS16 real weather, simply in a way that if the real weather is enabled, the yaw effect is there. Otherwise it isn't. Pending further investigations after I re-setup my sim. The actual winds are not a factor, but having the real weather enabled seemed to be.

-Esa