The A2A Simulations Community

"Come share your passion for flight"
It is currently Tue Nov 20, 2018 3:48 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:02 am 
Offline
Chief Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:30 pm
Posts: 3441
Location: Typically hanging around N07, 12N, KLDJ, KCDW
I'll leave A2A to comment on that as I'm sure they researched things very carefully and the attentionbthe detail shows this.

That said, my thinking in this is that there are so many types of controllers on the market, pretty much none of which simulate the travel in the real world aircraft. Then add the dimension that the controllers don't shift neutral position as the aircraft is trimmed.

Compromises must be made in the visual representation of the position of control surfaces relative to the physical controllers.

_________________
Flight Simmer since 1983. Private Pilot
Paramus Flying Club http://www.flyingclub.org


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:14 am 
Offline
Airman

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:25 am
Posts: 25
Location: London, UK
Oracle427 wrote:
[...] Compromises must be made in the visual representation of the position of control surfaces relative to the physical controllers.

I agree on compromising hardware vs. visual_model, and that is where FSUIPC usually comes in, to fix any mismatch. But I would be surprised and disappointed if there was a mismatch between visual_model and flight_model, which I would not know how to justify...

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:26 am 
Offline
Chief Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:30 pm
Posts: 3441
Location: Typically hanging around N07, 12N, KLDJ, KCDW
Hmm a mismatch between visual and flight model...

I feel that would be beyond the scope of FSX or any developer. A2A feel free to correct me if I am wrong here. I'm not sure that they would be computing the correct flight control position as that would involve moving the control surfaces to new positions due to aerodynamic forces for a very miniscule benefit of visual accuracy.

If this were the case the elevator would hang down loosely with the engine shut down and move move slightly up and down as throttle is added or taken away. I am speaking for the new fleet of GA aircraft modems that they have produced.

The elevator position in particular is affected by so many variables in a single engine prop that this would not be a simple undertaking if we want to talk about accuracy.

Then there is the issue of what to do when the user moves their control to a position that conflicts with the accurate position? Accusim could effectively recalibrate the controller on the fly and treat it as device that inputs displacement on a relative instead of absolute scale. That would be very clumsy when the engine is shut down and the elevator is hanging all the way down, but the user joystick is centered. Which position is the right one in that case? The joystick or the aerodynamics?

See where I'm going?

_________________
Flight Simmer since 1983. Private Pilot
Paramus Flying Club http://www.flyingclub.org


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 11:47 am 
Offline
Airman

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:25 am
Posts: 25
Location: London, UK
Interesting.
Clearly the sim hardware is in the way because (a) it is never standard and (b) it is not controlled by the software developer.
This leads me to suggest that A2A should starts developing hardware, as well. Anyway, this is beyond the point, here.

I would imagine that a good compromise (here we go, again) could be that the visual does match the flight_model all the times, BUT that some (minor) aspects of the aerodynamics are ignored by both.
It is still just a model, after all. But at least it should be a model with consistency between its parts (visual and dynamics, in this case).
So, for example, the model could very well ignore the minor feedbacks between engine power and aileron position (I actually don't understand this one...).
But I still don't see any reason why the visual position of an aileron should not faithfully represent the actual number used in the underlying flight model.

I am still pretty sure this is what AccuSim does.... I hope A2A can confirm this.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:13 pm 
Offline
A2A General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:55 pm
Posts: 15333
Location: USA
Oskar was speaking about, in general in FSX (or any simulator for example), you have a visual model and a physical model. You can, for example, replace an airplane with, a bus for example, and the bus would fly. The physical model thinks it's an airplane, and thinks it's moving all these parts, yet all we see is the bus. However, this is getting into a subject that really has no importance here.

The surfaces on our airplanes are obviously driven by the physical model, so you can look at the external surfaces and pretty much see what is happening physically.

The point of this thread is to get people to open their SETTINGS and move those sensitivities RIGHT, to get rid of the delay between your controller and the actual surfaces that move the plane.

Scott.

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 23, 2015 12:54 pm 
Offline
Airman

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 7:25 am
Posts: 25
Location: London, UK
Scott - A2A wrote:
[...]The surfaces on our airplanes are obviously driven by the physical model, so you can look at the external surfaces and pretty much see what is happening physically. [...]
Scott.

That's what I thought, and that's what I wanted to hear. Thanks.

Scott - A2A wrote:
The point of this thread is to get people to open their SETTINGS and move those sensitivities RIGHT, to get rid of the delay between your controller and the actual surfaces that move the plane.

Perfectly understood that we need to eliminate delays between hardware movement and virtual movement in FSX, whether it's done via FSX/Settings ("sensitivity") or FSUIPC ("calibration", I believe).

Thank you for the clarification and the suggestion, Scott.
And many thanks for your products, very much enjoyed and fully appreciated!

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 24, 2015 10:54 pm 
Offline
Airman

Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2015 2:57 pm
Posts: 45
I was having some issues with my Saitek yoke & Rudder. My issue was the (FSX) "default" brake insisted on staying on even if I tapped my toe-brakes while attempting to take off. This issued REALLY slowed down my take off speed. I contacted MadCatz. Josh sent me a couple links with step by step instructions on dialing in my yoke, throttle quadrant axis, and rudder/toe-brakes. The instructions also went into the sensitivity settings and null zones. The instructions took care of my issue and from there I just tweaked a little to my liking. The links are below if you're interested.

Rudder...
http://support.madcatz.com/Knowledgebas ... -fsx-setup


Yoke...
http://support.madcatz.com/Knowledgebas ... -fsx-setup

_________________
ImageImage


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 28, 2015 2:41 pm 
Offline
Technical Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2014 12:27 pm
Posts: 997
WOW! Thank you for that! I just moved the sensitivity sliders on my uber-tech Microsoft Sidewinder joystick and tried it with my P-40. Now when I want to point the nose down I roll her over inverted and pull then roll back again, true fighter style. No more negative g, and it's as fast as simply pushing the nose down with the default settings! She's not too much twitchier on final, so it's all good! Thank you!

Seeya
ATB (sensitive new-age P-40 driver)

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 12:36 am 
Offline
Airman First Class

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 10:24 pm
Posts: 65
Location: 90DME YMIA, on 160Deg Radial
FSUIPC is essential, if you have home made instrument switch panels.

Neil

_________________
CPU Intel i77740X FROST FLOW 240L Cooling, M/B ROG STRIX X299E GAMING, GPU NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, RAM G SKILL 32GB RipJaws Blue.



Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:08 pm 
Offline
Airman

Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2014 8:36 pm
Posts: 26
I've had the good old Microsoft Sidewinder as a stick since I started FS - must be about 10 years now. Still chugging along very nicely, and with CH pedals I have great control. AND all sensitivities to the max with minimal null zone. I had an interesting thing with the pedals once, intermittently losing the left brake. I corresponded with CH, but live half a world away from any of their backup, so opened them up myself. I found that, in assembly, someone had pinched the wire between two screwed-together parts, which finally gave way. A bit of solder and tape, all's good. :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:57 pm 
Offline
Senior Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:39 pm
Posts: 1919
Location: Northern New Jersey
Interesting stuff- checked my sensitivities and they were about 1/3 from the left with decent size null zones. So I moved them all the way right and killed the null zones... woah! I'm using an old MS Sidewinder 2 with a twist rudder. At those sensitivity levels the rudder is too much, especially since it can be unintentionally twisted in small amounts during the regular axis which is a killer. So I dialed that back left a lot and increased the null zone to eliminate unintentional twist.

I did find that due to the short travel of the joystick vs the long travel of actual flight controls that these new sensitivites take a lot of getting used to, as a hair of movement causes the aircraft to respond like I'm trying to be Sean D Tucker! So for now I've dialed the elevator and ailerons about 1/3 from the right (much more than I've ever had before), and introduced the tiniest null zone I could select. The Comanche (the only aircraft I've tried on these settings) is flying amazing like this, and once it feels natural and comfortable again I'm gonna crank those 2 sliders all the way right!

Thanks for this info, every little bit helps!

Joe

_________________
Joe


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:19 pm 
Offline
Staff Sergeant

Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 7:32 pm
Posts: 393
Using a CH Products Flightsim yoke, I cannot find any combination of sensitivity settings (including Scott's recommendations here) that will give me any semblance of precise pitch control when attempting to flare the Comanche. All attempts at raising the nose to hold off the aircraft a few feet above the runway result in a balloon or outright climb instead of a gentle setting down on the pavement. I've tried using Scott's sensitivity settings, FSUIPC, as well as the Accusim pop-up menu slider for elevator sensitivity.

I've almost always had to tweak elevator sensitivity with each GA Accusim aircraft I own, but every one with the exception of the Comanche has a 'sweet' spot sensitivity-wise that works out more or less perfectly after adjusting. The Comanche just refuses to cooperate for me at this stage. I've also tried deleting the .dat files associated with the Comanche and letting Accusim rebuild it after rebooting P3D. Very weird since all other Accusim aircraft are behaving quite well on the P3D platform. The latest Accusim update did not help, unfortunately.

I'm flying approaches as per the recommendations in the POH with default weights and fuel loads, but there is just no way I can land normally without at least some precision in pitch control.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:54 am 
Offline
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2009 4:27 pm
Posts: 331
Location: Gibsonville, North Carolina, USA
Wow! Amazing! I'm embarrassed to say that I'd never even given these sliders much thought before. :oops: I just tried these settings and took some test flights in the Comanche, C172, and Cherokee. I had been living in flight simulation darkness until today! Now I see that much of what I thought was poor piloting skill on my part was actually poor sensitivity settings. Control is markedly more precise thanks to these new settings; it's much easier for me to control the aircraft. As you point out, Scott, with the previous settings I always felt behind the aircraft. Now I feel far more in control. Thank you for posting this, Scott! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jul 02, 2015 5:58 am 
Offline
A2A General
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 12:55 pm
Posts: 15333
Location: USA
BPL wrote:
Wow! Amazing! I'm embarrassed to say that I'd never even given these sliders much thought before. :oops: I just tried these settings and took some test flights in the Comanche, C172, and Cherokee. I had been living in flight simulation darkness until today! Now I see that much of what I thought was poor piloting skill on my part was actually poor sensitivity settings. Control is markedly more precise thanks to these new settings; it's much easier for me to control the aircraft. As you point out, Scott, with the previous settings I always felt behind the aircraft. Now I feel far more in control. Thank you for posting this, Scott! :D


This is why we made this a global post and will keep it up here for a while to really get the message out.

Scott.

_________________
A2A Simulations Inc.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jul 04, 2015 4:00 pm 
Offline
Senior Master Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 3:39 pm
Posts: 1919
Location: Northern New Jersey
JoeS475 wrote:
Interesting stuff- checked my sensitivities and they were about 1/3 from the left with decent size null zones. So I moved them all the way right and killed the null zones... woah! I'm using an old MS Sidewinder 2 with a twist rudder. At those sensitivity levels the rudder is too much, especially since it can be unintentionally twisted in small amounts during the regular axis which is a killer. So I dialed that back left a lot and increased the null zone to eliminate unintentional twist.

I did find that due to the short travel of the joystick vs the long travel of actual flight controls that these new sensitivites take a lot of getting used to, as a hair of movement causes the aircraft to respond like I'm trying to be Sean D Tucker! So for now I've dialed the elevator and ailerons about 1/3 from the right (much more than I've ever had before), and introduced the tiniest null zone I could select. The Comanche (the only aircraft I've tried on these settings) is flying amazing like this, and once it feels natural and comfortable again I'm gonna crank those 2 sliders all the way right!

Thanks for this info, every little bit helps!

Joe


Just two days after posting this I moved all the sliders fully right (including rudder) and as I hoped it now feels great! I'm using just a little null zone for each axis and I couldn't be happier. Thanks, Scott for bringing this overlooked setting to our attention.

Joe

_________________
Joe


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 98 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group