USB / Joystick / Yoke Sensitivites in FS 9 ( FS 9 Team

[Guest byoung]

I would like to see Microsoft build the sensitivites into the flight model. Or the third party Payware or Freeware aircraft developers will develop all aircraft for the Defaults (PSS does this as a standard). Or at a minimum, be able to save the sensitivity settings with the aircraft or have some parameter [Aileron Sensitivity = (Setting on the current scale)] in the aircraft cfg file. And then the "Reset to Default" will be the one that is provided by the Payware or Freeware aircraft developers. I understand that the user will need to adjust these settings to compensate for system performance. But some kind of standard of handling sensitivities needs to be addressed...Would like to hear other comments on this issue of sensitivities.Thanks!Barry

[Guest]

I don't know much about the sensitivites but it would be nice if they allowed a "jolt" on touch down for forceback joysticks. Kilstorm

[Guest byoung]

Kilstorm,Some people adjust the sensitivities to compensate for system performance issues and / or problems in flight dynamics (hopefully this is not the case). I will often tweek the sensitivities to make the aircraft fly the way I think it should fly. Some Payware and Freeware aircraft fly great (FSD International RealAirSumulations, Flight 1, (just to name a few)) with no adjustments...PSS recommends that you to set the sensitivities to the defaults for their A/C. If this is the case, why have a sensitivity adjustment panel? Why not due away with it altogether, and make the Aircraft designers use the defaults? If you look at the Joystick tab in FSUIPC, you can see the issues with spiking, etc, or needing more control over the null zone. Is this a Device Driver issue or an FS 2002 / FS 9 issue?I hope the Microsoft FS 9 Development Team is looking into the issues with controls and sensitivities..Barry

[LAdamson 240]

For the record, I use default sensitivity for everything, as well as realism set to high----- for everything.The sensitivity slider is for simmers who will tend to over-control certain models. The same applies in real aircraft. If one jumps from a mild behaving airplane such as a 172 into an aerobatic or high performance experimental----------it's really easy to over-control. I also know of commercial pilots with ten's of thousands of hours who completely over-controlled radio control aircraft their first time out. I myself, learned a light touch with R/C and then full size aerobatic aircraft. It has translated to flight simulation also. As you can see, I don't care at all, if designers use default settings. I probably even prefer it. But I still keep realism settings high, regardless of what the designer recommends.L.Adamson

[Guest SoarPics]

Like Larry I set my sensitivity to default and realism to high. I have better control over sensitivities in my flight controller profiles, so I make any tweaks there.The one exception in my hanger is the RealAir Siai Marchetti SF 260. Rob recommends that the "General Realism" slider be set to max for spins (of course "Auto Rudder" must be disabled for spins).If I'm not mistaken I believe Steve Small recommends that the "General Realism" slider be set to midpoint for his airfiles.

[Guest byoung]

Thanks for the feedback...Barry

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>I would like to see Microsoft build the sensitivites into >the flight model. Properly designed Flight Dynamics (which does not include some MS AC) have the appropriate 'sensitivities'. AC should be able to roll, pitch, and yaw about the same as the AC modeled. One should be able to stall most AC with elevator control, also have appropriate trim ranges. Jet airliners should be able to pitch up for rotation at least 4.5 degrees per second. A bit higher is common. However, 'real' control moment limits may make an FS AC too sensitive, there is poor or no Force on the JS and the range is limited. In particular, I reduce elevator moment a bit from the real value in many of my AIR files. While I check that I can get about 15 degrees of sideslip with crossed ailerons and rudders. > Or the third party Payware or Freeware >aircraft developers will develop all aircraft for the >Defaults (PSS does this as a standard). Or at a minimum, be >able to save the sensitivity settings with the aircraft or >have some parameter [Aileron Sensitivity = (Setting on the >current scale)] in the aircraft cfg file. And then the >"Reset to Default" will be the one that is provided by the >Payware or Freeware aircraft developers. The "Sensitivity" sliders in FS do not change the range of control effect, they only slow it down when set low. I set mid range, which is plenty fast for non-acrobatic AC -- making it 'high' has little effect. AC dynamics should limit the attitude rates, not the JS filtering.>I understand that the user will need to adjust these >settings to compensate for system performance. But some >kind of standard of handling sensitivities needs to be >addressed... There has has been since FS2K. In FS98 users set varying sensitivities. That amounted to changing the built in control settings. Which is no more appropriate than changing the steering ratio of a sports car to that of a big truck. --- Except, FD people also had their own settings, so everone was different. >Would like to hear other comments on this issue of >sensitivities. >Barry I found a Wingman FFB JS to be very poor and too sensitive for my AC. My Sidewinder 3D is much better. The fault is with the JS, not the flight models. Ron

[Guest byoung]

Ron,Thanks for your reply... Good points, well taken...When I think of the Flight Model, I think of how the simulated aircraft responds to control inputs as well. (It has to fall in to the other flight dynamics as well V speeds etc).It is frustrating when doing an approach and the plane careens a bit because as you noted, there is no physical force. Something must be done to compensate for this. Try different designs of Potentiameters (hope I spelled that correctly). The landing phase is where you need pin-point accuracy. It is frustrating to move my Yoke a tiny bit and not be able to put the A/C on the numbers or at least on the center line consistantly (even in totally calm weather) which I used to do fairly consistantly in my real world flying. The gap between MS and reality is closing, but this is a Cement Wall in my opinion.I would like Microsoft to put some development effort into this core component. It should be a priority in my view. If the Product Development Manager who is a CFI accepts this fundamental flaw, I will be very disappointed. Unless they are using hardware that doesn't respond erratically? Then they should publish a Hardware Application Layer like they do for the Windows Operating System (really out there on this one.)Of course ATC and Weather need to be addressed as well, as well as the gaps in scenery.But, again the issue of JS sensitivities needs to be a high priority.Or will it take another generation of Joystick / Control Hardware development to get even close or narrow this major gap.Would like to hear from the Electronics Engineers regarding the flight dynamics and getting them in "sync" with the drivers and FS 9 Or finally, are my expectations just too high?Barry

[LAdamson 240]

>It is frustrating when doing an approach and the plane >careens a bit because as you noted, there is no physical >force. Something must be done to compensate for this. Try >different designs of Potentiameters (hope I spelled that >correctly). The landing phase is where you need pin-point >accuracy. It is frustrating to move my Yoke a tiny bit and >not be able to put the A/C on the numbers or at least on the >center line consistantly (even in totally calm weather) >which I used to do fairly consistantly in my real world >flying. The gap between MS and reality is closing, but this >is a Cement Wall in my opinion. >From using different joysticks & yokes over a period of years, I've seen obvious differences in the hardware myself. I don't use the cheaper yokes anymore, & probably wouldn't be content unless I had one of those $400+ models. My Saitek joysticks have been quite consistant in giving fairly accurate control ----- for hitting the centerline. In other words, I don't find a large gap in control movement versus simulated aircraft movement. And as I've previously mentioned, rudder pedals are also essential for getting the perfect last second alignment with the center line -------unless it's perfectly calm with a straight lined up approach. But then I like to impersonate some of the better aerobatic pilot.. landings who think of landing at the last second when they're 90 degrees sideways to the runway, & near over the threshold! :)Note: Never used the newest CH yoke & can't really comment on it. But have tried the expensive metal yokes which immitate an aircraft rather well.L.Adamson

[Guest kdfw]

Saving sensitivity would be nice. Would also be great if we are able to save graphics setting with an aircraft.

[Guest byoung]

L. Adamson,Thanks for the reply...Maybe it is just a CH thing?Barry

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>Ron, >>Thanks for your reply... Good points, well taken... >>When I think of the Flight Model, I think of how the >simulated aircraft responds to control inputs as well. (It >has to fall in to the other flight dynamics as well V speeds >etc). >>It is frustrating when doing an approach and the plane >careens a bit because as you noted, there is no physical >force. Something must be done to compensate for this. Try >different designs of Potentiameters (hope I spelled that >correctly). The landing phase is where you need pin-point >accuracy. It is frustrating to move my Yoke a tiny bit and >not be able to put the A/C on the numbers or at least on the >center line consistantly (even in totally calm weather) Some of that is likely related to 'static pitch stability', also 'lateral stability'. And the dynamics associated with each. The Elevator Moment needs to be consistent with the Pitching Moment vs AoA curve, and the pitch MoI affects the dynamics over shorter term variations. I set up one FS twin with a pitching moment from a list of real stability derivatives. I took very little change in elevator or trim to climb or descend. I finally decided there was a decimal point error in the data and increased the pitching moment vs AoA by 10X. Making it similar to other twins. This fixed the imbalance between short and long term elevator and trim effects.>I would like Microsoft to put some development effort into >this core component. It should be a priority in my view. >If the Product Development Manager who is a CFI accepts this >fundamental flaw, I will be very disappointed. I have decided the 'flight model' people at MS are incompentent and mess up more than they fix in the flight model code. Which I think was originally purchased from BAC, then improved by contractor(s). Many things in the FM code were screwed up in FS2K2 relative to FS2K. I have heard that nothing will be done in the next version of FS on the flight dynamics. I don't know; eye candy, clouds, and ATC appear to be where MS is putting its effort. I don't think 'Big Woff' knows enough about AC in general to know what's right and what is wrong. One thing MS mentioned for FSCoF is 'good perfornamce on lower level machines so more people can be introduced to the world of flight'. MS goes after the big market, not the people who care how their AC fly. They pretend to care but don't/can't come through. > Unless they >are using hardware that doesn't respond erratically? Then >they should publish a Hardware Application Layer like they >do for the Windows Operating System (really out there on >this one.) My new Wingman FFB is nearly useless (fortunately only cost me $30 with rebate) in any of the recent MS simulators, also in X-Plane. Forces are weak, or when stronger, not smooth. This makes control very sensitive. If I could reduce the control I wouldn't get realistic roll and pitch rates. I guess as long as gaming reviewers give high marks to FFB sticks realistic FFB will be neglected.>Would like to hear from the Electronics Engineers regarding >the flight dynamics and getting them in "sync" with the >drivers and FS 9 >Barry I am an Electronics Engineer. At least when I still was employed. In fact, I worked at NASA Ames decades ago on really big motion simulators, control systems, and Wind Tunnel components.Ron

[Guest byoung]

Hey Ron,Thanks again for your reply.I hope Microsoft is reading this thread! Thanks again for your input!Barry

[LAdamson 240]

>> One thing MS mentioned for FSCoF is 'good perfornamce on >lower level machines so more people can be introduced to the >world of flight'. MS goes after the big market, not the >people who care how their AC fly. They pretend to care but >don't/can't come through. >>I suppose they could care & most likely can't come through, unlike you 3rd party people who have developed an expertise over the years..... seriously! Which is exactly why I prefer 3rd party modifications for the defaults, and additional 3rd party aircraft.Lately, I'm even back to the default 172 & 182 with your (Ron Friemuth) file, and the RealAir file for the 182. I was checking out the Boston scenery by Aerosoft Australia which uses the 182 as default. I had forgotten just how smooth the fps is with this plane.But on to another point....................... While MS obviously goes after the BIG market, and has not produced flight characteristics as well as add-ons (a few more thousand hours); there is MUCH more to care/worry about than just the airplane side. I contend they have "cared" quite a bit about real pilots & simmers interested in increasing realism. This is reflected by the fact that they go all out to provide a large airport, Jeppeson navigation, and a reasonable topography data-base. And this year will also include taxiway signs as well as a much improved real-time weather system. The items I've mentioned, arn't just for the "run of the mill" arcade crowd, who wouldn't know any different. L.Adamson

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>>people who care how their AC fly. They pretend to care but >>don't/can't come through. >>>I suppose they could care & most likely can't come through, >unlike you 3rd party people who have developed an expertise >over the years..... seriously! Which is exactly why I >prefer 3rd party modifications for the defaults, and >additional 3rd party aircraft. I figure it's this way: Millions of copies of MSFS are sold around the world. Of those millions, a few dozen users have investigated the Flight Model parameters and eventually gotten it 99% figured out. Though, that still doesn't tell one how to use what's available. OTOH, there are only a limited source of people available to MS to chose from and hire to do this work. Certainly not the whole world of people who get into MSFS flight models is availabe to them. Further, without expertise in the first place, I figure they don't really know who is qualified and who isn't. Recent college graduates may have the theory, but can't apply it well. They tend to learn from the large number of engineers at airframe manufactures such as Boing. Most only work on a few details of AC. Or, go into marketing. ;) Similar things apply to FS gauges, .mdls, etc. People who may already have expertise in grapics apps, etc. are the ones especially attracted to MSFS elements. Though, some learn from scratch. -------------------------->But on to another point....................... While MS >obviously goes after the BIG market, and has not produced >flight characteristics as well as add-ons (a few more >thousand hours); there is MUCH more to care/worry about than >just the airplane side. I contend they have "cared" quite a >bit about real pilots & simmers interested in increasing >realism. This is reflected by the fact that they go all out >to provide a large airport, Jeppeson navigation, and a >reasonable topography data-base...................>L.Adamson Yes, I think the MSFS managment would like to see the 'flight model' taken care of once and for all. Done correctly, it wouldn't need significant changes with new versions of FS/CFS. They do have two or three Aerodynamics Engineers on the staff. Unfortunately, you can't take just anyone with an Aerodynamics degree and get him to produce what's needed. Word is that MS contracted out the improvements of the flight model code. And, that company no longer exists. So, they are stuck trying to improve it and fix a few limitations and bugs in house. What have we seen produced by these MS engineers? Virtually nothing of value. As FS2K2 was in beta they were wasting their time trying to make a good FSEdit that would automatically set up the AIR file. Maybe time ran out, but everyone knows FSEdit does more harm than good. It does have some potential. If one knows what to fix in the parameters and tables it creates. That doesn't help the people who would use it very much. As I keep mentioning, many problems in FS2K were brought to their attention during the beta test. In the end, more was broken than got fixed. Then, in an attempt to 'make more of the aerodynamics parameters available' they have been moving stuff out of the AIR file and into aircraft.cfg. The end result is a cludge that is even more difficut to set up and work with. The tables that affect powerplants, props, stalls, etc. are still in the AIR file. Those are the ones I spend a lot of time on -- they are capable of considerable improvement. Further, generic tables will hardy cover more than a few types of AC. Not the range people want to see modeled. Turboprop AIR files may contain 14,000 bytes. Imagine how large aircraft.cfg would be if all that data were contained in ASCII, rather than binary data. Actually, one approach would be to have one set of powerplant models outside the specific AC. Another set of props. Then, flight models could be built up from common data files which would only need to be set up once. And, electrical, hydraulic, force FFB, etc. could each be in their own files. Something like the .fx and some sound files currently are. Note MS commented that they had enlisted the aid of aviation experts to help make FS2K2 better than ever. However, I know one of those experts was rather P.O.ed with what transpired in the FS2K2 beta test. He got into the FS2K4 beta, but was soon ejected (I don't know the details). From what I've heard, the MSFS beta tests are some of the most unprofessionaly run beta tests around. One normally has an 'open problems' list so everone knows what is fixed, what can't be, etc. But, not in the MS FS beta tests. ;)Ron