Mike,well it depends... there are so many Markus' in the Swiss flightforum :)I got my Jetliner Yoke from "Verkosoft" in Germany because there was no way to get it here in Switzerland. Maybe you can stop by at their store to try this yoke?Regards,Markus

L.Adamson,>> these same "feeling" of forces are also built into many of the better flight models for MSFSCould you give me an example you are referring to ? There's a good chance I'll notice the difference too ;)>> IMO ---- the stick distance/length is irrelevant for the control of simulated aircraftTheoretically yes, practically no. Besides human differences (some are more fine motorics, some not), I think our "device" that holds the stick or yoke also has a certain, how shall I say, resolution ?So if you put the full elevator range in a longer travel, you can have more fine control. >> But keep in mind, that real aircraft (at least GA), seldom stay at altitude when trimmedYes, you're right, I also find the trim differences real vs. FS for e.g. a small 172 or a Turbo Arrow much less disturbing. The problem is for small GA planes and big jets in FS the behaviour is too similar. So the more weight and inertia comes into play, the more questionable it gets.However, I still have an old Thrustmaster stick here and might try to build in a logarithmic poti (as suggested by Andrew). Mike

Robert,I'm really enjoying your comprehensive answers regarding flight relevant subjects in your Forum, so you point of view on that pitch subject would be really interesting.BTW, I hope I wasn't the reason for removing that "1%" thingie in your annoucement. My comments regarding that must not really be taken serious. Probably I forgot some -> ;) ;) ;) in my message. Mike

>>Could you give me an example you are referring to ? There's a>good chance I'll notice the difference too ;)>I have a number of examples, but then this aircraft add-on forum isn't exactly the best place to promote them... :)Do you use third party payware add-ons?L.Adamson

L.Adamson,>> Do you use third party payware add-ons?Sure, otherwise I wouldn't be here :-hahSeriously, I bought a lot, sold some and these three I kept : - 767PIC (probably no need to mention it's qualities),- 320PIC (great AP routines), - Piper Meridian (lovely little "airliner") 737NG sounds very much like a keeper, too :-smile12So let's talk about freeware planes then. The best I found regarding feel and stability is the Embraer-145 by Bill Grabowski.But most probably I missed something, so now it's your turn. Just feel free to send me an Email (see profile), I'm also not really sure if this disturbs the Forum in any form.Mike

My all around favorite is the Marchetti SF260 from RealAir Simulations. A really great programming job for doing manuvers outside the usual limitations of MSFS, and the fact that I've flown the real one for some comparison sake. And BTW ---- hope you have rudder pedals, for at least the GA aircraft. Any simulation of real flight without them is ------ bogus! :)And of course 737NG should be a keeper too, because I had great success with PMDG's FLY series. (thrown in to keep on the good side.... but very true non-the-less :) ) L.Adamson

Larry / Mike-Lively discussion gents! ;-)Okay- two items to add!1) 1% of actual performance is what we predict for our 737NG model. Indeed, during my few flights, I have found the airplane to be marvelously well behaved. But I think it is important to describe what we mean by 1%....Our flight model has been designed and tuned by a fellow with a PhD in the field. With all of his knowledge comes a highly friendly flight model that, when properly treated behaves incredibly well. If you pull the flight manual off the shelf and predict a particular power setting at a particular weight and a particular configuration, our flight model will almost perfectly respond with the predicted result.This is true of climb. cruise and descent to landing operations.As many of you know, I have always been a bit critical of 99% of the MSFS flight models out there. I won't pick on any one model, as that would be uncharitable, but everything from pitch angles to 25 degree nose-up pitch in the flare to 80% power settings to maintain 140 knots in the landing configuration.... These things just don't work for me as as simmer and as a real-world pilot.I'm quite impressed with the work Vangelis has put into this flight model, and I'm sure you will find it to rank at the top of the airliner category for fitness and feel.Now- on to joystick sensitivities...Although I'm not quite so colorful- I tend to agree with Larry on the principle that you just aren't going to get a good control input "feel" with a 9" tall plastic joystick. Part of this has to do with range of movement, part of this has to do with the potentiometers, but to me a LARGE part of this has to do with the fact that there are two primary parts of the feedback loop missing:1) Control Pressures2) Seat of the pantsControl pressures in a force-feedback stick are grossly inaccurate. Maybe this technology will improve in the years to come- maybe it wont, but control pressure response is tremendously important in the accurate flying of airplanes. I mentioned a few months ago that during my last Proficiency Check, I found that I was "rattling the sim" with PIO during one particular maneuver that is normally quite mundane in the real world. This constant PIO cycle was very distracting to me- but I realized that it was induced as a result of the fact that I was not experiencing the same tactile sensation through the sim that I was accustomed to in the airplane. As a result- my "muscle memory" was causing my to rattle the sim around while trying to match the mathematics, the brain work and the physical yoke work while missing part of the tactile response....You are always going to have that in a desktop sim unless we devise REALLY good yokes. (I can hope, right?!)2) Seat of the pants: This is very closely related to the tactile feedback loop you get when you have your hands on the yoke.... While flying the airplane in the real world, I am very careful to provide an "acceleration force-free ride" to my passengers. This takes practice and a relentless commitment to ensuring passenger comfort. When transitioning from level flight to a climb or descent, or leveling off from a climb/descent, or when configuring the airplane for landing- I don't like the folks to feel the changes in angular forces. This means that I make gentle control inputs based mostly on my "tactile knowledge" of the airplane's inertial qualities in order to ensure the forces are minimized.In a desktop simulator, that is much harder to do. In a desktop sim, I can add a control input and watch the airplane begin to change pitch- but I never FEEL the inertial response to my inputs. As such, there is no real tactile learning curve for my control inputs. As such, I may be continually over controlling the airplane within MSFS- but I'll never unlearn the behavior because there is no tactile penalty...Any of that make sense? I hope so....Oh- one more thought: Larry makes a very good point about the control differences when flying different types of airplanes. Last summer I leared to fly the YAK-52 with a buddy of mine who lives out west. As he was teaching me the airplane, I found the pitch sensitivity to be very close to what I was used to in the J-41. But while my pitch control was easily adapted, I nearly made both of us sick with my ham-fisted roll control.Why?The ailerons/stick roll sensitivity on the YAK-52 was FAR greater than the J41. Thus, even the slightest twitch of my rist resulted in a roll left or right. The dramtically increased sensitivity of the YAK-52 to roll input had to be learned by my "tactile feedback loop" before I was able to setting in and fly the airplane effectively.I've found this to be true with most airplanes.... You have to learn the way it FEELS......That's part of the beauty of the artform!

Great post Robert![h5]Best Wishes,Randy J. SmithSan Jose Ca[/h5][h3]" A little learning is a dangerous thing"[/h3] [h5]AMD XP 2200 |MUNCHKIN 512 DDR RAM |ECS[/b ][i] K7S5A MB[/i] |GF3 64 MEG @ 215/545|WIN XP PRO |MITSUBISHI DIAMOND PLUS 91 19"[/h5]

Robert,Thanks for the big picture. I understand that changing the potentiometers could help to a certain degree, but the right mechanics (and damping, feedback) are also needed to get real close. Well, I guess I have a new project now :)

Robert,thanks again for a comprehensive answer !Well, I tend to not looking at things which I consider unsolvable for the moment, that tactile feel being one them. The current force feedback solutions are just toys. Too low forces, but more important there is too low resolution of forces.One could think about mapping stick positions to forces. But as you need to supply a big amount of "force", then under normal and well trimmed flight conditions you have all of the "normal" control range mapped to a tiny region in the center of travel. Again not useful. But even with a more perfect FFB Stick a 50% deflection would "feel" the same under all flight conditions, so the pilot that is just "holding" the controls will hold that 50% deflection indefinite. But on the real aircraft, the pilots perception of feel corresponds to constant force, not constant position.But assuming a well trimmed plane and the theoretical "clear weather" in FS, forces are not that much of an issue, since under that conditions they would be also neglectable in a real plane ?So "Seat of the pants" is of course unsolvable. Also the fact an awful lot of information comes through the yoke and not through the windshield or through the instruments. My flight instructor used to say, long time FS pilots tend to chase needles and overcontrol planes and he has some trouble to have them unlearn that bad habit.So that still leaves the problem of controllability, which at least might be improved. One example : Let's assume I need a certain stick deflection to rotate an FS airliner to approx. 3 deg/s at takeoff. Than later at cruise if I use half of that stick deflection and I end up having a 600000 lbs mass of plane jump up from level flight to 6000 fpm climb in 2-3 seconds. Often found in FS airliner flight models and I somewhat refuse to agree with that.Reducing sensitivity only works to a certain extend, so I still think logarithmic scales would be desirable. I know it would be cheating since real yokes are linear, but what else can we do ? For my rudder pedals that has enhanced handling a lot. Also normally I don't use combat sims, but for the flight experience some of them are nice. The more sophisticated ones like Flanker 2 or Janes F/A 18 all have customizable stick response curves, which can drastically enhance the controllability in situations like carrier landings, where tiny control inputs are needed. The same would apply to e.g. flare a plane in FS.Would be a nice achievement if anyone would come up with such a utility for FS. >> rank at the top of the airliner category for fitness and feel.This is most important sentence regarding the upcoming 737NG, because I think this is the biggest challenge for a flight model "artist".Don't get me wrong, your 1% explanation is also a quite remarkable achievement, but in flight your performance tables are somehow stowed under your seat or elsewhere ;)Mike

Larry,thanks for the suggestion, this is not the first time I hear good things about the SF260, so I'll try that. Yes, I have pedals (SIMPED), I think the best ones on the market (logarithmic response curve).But since Airliners are mostly subject in this thread, I was hoping you come up with an Airline flight model you like most !?Mike

>>So that still leaves the problem of controllability, which at>least might be improved. One example : Let's assume I need a>certain stick deflection to rotate an FS airliner to approx. 3>deg/s at takeoff. Than later at cruise if I use half of that>stick deflection and I end up having a 600000 lbs mass of>plane jump up from level flight to 6000 fpm climb in 2-3>seconds. Often found in FS airliner flight models and I>somewhat refuse to agree with that.>I suppose I'd like to see an "airliner driver's" answer for this too, since I havn't flown a commercial airliner lately, as well as never. :) My largest aircraft has been a Seneca.But what I personally question................ is stick deflection. I learned to set my rate of climb through the window and instruments, or instruments only. With so many varying stick lengths and forces for different aircraft, I've never thought or relied on a set amount of stick movement to set climb or descent rates. During some checkout time in various aircraft, you'd certainly note stick forces and rates, to get an idea of what to expect, before launching off on your own. For instance, regarding single engine aircraft, a 2 seater high performance Lancair will have a very short joystick between your legs. The four place has a side stick, the WWII era Stearman I flew has a long stick; and my own RV6A has a stick between these two in lengths. If I was relying on stick deflection to set climb rates, I think I'd be in trouble. Maybe all those years of R/C flying where stick length is truely irrelevent..............helped a lot. Mike, regarding my favorite "airliner", I don't have one. I have the PSS Airbus and Flight1 DC9 for FS2002, but don't get into the mechanics of them often. My preference in real life are high performance homebuilts, which all those airliner drivers that I know ........ gravitate too, when tired of their "day" jobs!!! :)L.Adamson

Larry,>> During some checkout time in various aircraft, you'd certainly note stick forces and rates, to get an idea of what to expect, before launching off on your own.Yes, absolutely. Probably a misunderstanding, as with the stick reflection remark I didn't mean real aircraft, just FS planes (where we have to put force and feedback and depth perception and whatever ... aside due to the lack of equipment and 3D limitations). My stick or yoke for FS is the same, no matter what aircraft I use in FS. Also a stick deflection comparison for one particular airliner regarding different maneuvers was meant, not measuring a certain deflection for a particular maneuver such as takeoff and then use it for all planes. That would be double rubbish of course. I rotate the plane to the specified pitch attitude at takeoff, after a while you can maybe memorize the needed stick deflection for that, but of course the PFD would remain the primary source for feedback. >> and I end up having a 600000 lbs mass of plane jump up from level flight to 6000 fpm climb in 2-3 secondsSo that remark was just directed at the overnervous big iron pitch syndrome in FS.Phew, hard to express what I mean with my limited "German" english :-hmmmMike

>>Phew, hard to express what I mean with my limited "German">english :-hmmm>If "English" is your second language, I didn't even catch it.... :)And if you're from Germany, then I'll mention that my daughter visited Berlin for three weeks last December...... if you havn't heard it before.L.Adamson KSLC

Where can we get the the SF260? (sorry for being off topic!)Thanks,Mark