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

[Guest JonP01]

I wouldn't be surprised, given (i) my experience with the stock FS2K2 flight models (ii) what I 've heard about the CFS3 flight models and (iii) this "mass market" push for FS9, that the new FS9 flight models will display all the realism of a toy plane on the end of a stick that you buy from the local fun fair.I'd actually rather MS just leave the FM code alone in case they wreck it even more. At least there are two FM designers out there who know how to make flight models. One has posted here, the other works for RealAir Simulations. Unfortunately, neither work for Microsoft.

[Guest cwright]

>I would like to see Microsoft build the sensitivites into >the flight model..... Barry, we already have this in effect. Look at the flight_tuning section of aircraft.cfg for a default aircraft and you'll see a set of effectiveness settings for all the axes. Reducing the effectiveness setting can give a much smoother control. Best regards, Chris

[Guest byoung]

Chris,Why should I need to tune the aircraft? I want to get the same results as the next person. And if people are tweaking the A/C flight dynamics, are they themselves jeapardizing the flight model?The point is that the Aircraft Designer / Producer needs to take responsibility to ensure that the Flight Model is correct. MS needs to provide the detailed documention so number settings are based on aerodynamic models, etc. They need to establish the method and standards in which Aircraft are to be delveloped. Hacking numbers and doing re-iterative tuning just doesn't cut it. It needs to represent the flight model of the aircraft as closely as possible.Is it the flight model? Or the joystick hardware? Or the software drivers? Or a combination of all three? Does Microsoft need to establish a HAL standard for Flight Simulator? Give the hardware maufacturers the necessary tools so they can design their hardware responsiveness correctly. I have read and discovered that there is not too much support for harware manufaturers from Microsoft (Hardware Vs Software). MSFS will not transistion from being a "Game" until this HUGE HUGE issue is addressed.Make it a contest with a $10,000 first prize! This is pennies in the overal spectrim of development. Although, kind of late now for a summer release. There are some many dedicated people that have driven this simulator in the realism perspective, that I believe the problem could and would get solved.Open Systems concept please!Barry

[LAdamson 240]

>Chris, >>Why should I need to tune the aircraft? I want to get the >same results as the next person. And if people are tweaking >the A/C flight dynamics, are they themselves jeapardizing >the flight model? >Barry,With all the differences in hardware, there will always be differences in results. It's no different than shortening or adding to a real aircraft's joystick. Or adding a few hundred pounds of instruments & leather seats to the same plane. The flight characteristics become quite different.Being around homebuilt experimental aircraft, as I am, it's easy to see what small changes can do to the same basic airframe. IMO---- your'e over doing it! Maybe I'm overstsating your issue, but I percieve you calling MSFS just a game until it becomes a full motion simulator! :) While in reality, it can be either a game or a very useful (for real life) simulation, but never take the place of a real one.edit...... not only that, but I often see reports of tweaking flight models around here, when the model was doing something correctly to begin with! So yes, they are jeapardizing................but I wouldn't worry too much, as the results won't be too painful! :) Just seperating real life & the PC desktop here!L.Adamson

[Guest byoung]

L Adamson,I guess you are totally satisfied with your FS environment. Maybe I need to purchase more expensive hardware, who knows? Although I think I am using pretty standardized hardware. (CH Products USB Yoke and Pedals). I wonder what the FS 9 development team tests with? Probably Sidewinder Joysticks and that is probably the extent of it.I worked for a company at one time in my life and their Credo was "Do the Right Things, Right." With all the flight data, experts used during the development, why do these problems still exist?I realize I am pushing the point here. Only because the situation can improve... Do you agree with this statement? And it is up to the FS community to voice their opinion. I have read many posts regarding problems with the Flight Models (most of which stem from lack of or incorrect FM engine) and basic flight characteristics.I realize Flight Simulation will never be perfect like the real thing, but why not strive toward satifying the fundamental requirements?You are correct, there are many aspects of FS 2Kx that are increadibly accurate. So accuracy is obtainable, why not strive to get these other issues resolved? Do you feel this is unrealistic?It is a problem with lack of standardization. That I feel can be rectified... So, we are all going down the same path. When I hear Steve Small say there is no way to fix a certain flight characteristic, than there is an opportunity for improvement.Ron, a poster in this thread has pointed out some solutions, but the question is are they feasible? I don't have access to the FS 2Kx code so I can't comment. I can't imagine why it wouldn't be.Unless computers can't do mathmatics and physics??? The key is to have people who understand Flight Dynamics do the programming. But obtaining people is purely market driven. Maybe AVSIM needs to hold a Wish List Survey. I wonder if I am a minority on this issue? Computers (even PCs) are used to design complex aircraft in real life. Accurate Simulated flight models are required during design, all performed on computers. We're just talking about effort here!This will be my last comment on this issue until FS 9 is released.Thanks again to all (especially Ron and L Adamson) for great discussion.) I can only hope somebody on the FS Development team is reading this thread! Barry

[LAdamson 240]

>L Adamson, >>I guess you are totally satisfied with your FS environment. It helps to have a real plane in the garage! :)>When I hear Steve Small say there is no way to fix a certain >flight characteristic, than there is an opportunity for >improvement.Was also... once impossible to do spins in FS2002. With a lot of additional thought, creativeness & programming, Rob Young (RealAir Simulations) succeeded. But he did spend 100's of hours programming spins alone. This is why I find no problems with 3rd parties and an expertise developed over years. Therefore, "no way" is....... no longer in effect :) >Thanks again to all (especially Ron and L Adamson) for great >discussion.) I can only hope somebody on the FS Development >team is reading this thread! >they always do.. L.Adamson

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>L Adamson, >.........> Although I think I am using pretty standardized hardware. >(CH Products USB Yoke and Pedals). I wonder what the FS 9 >development team tests with? Probably Sidewinder Joysticks >and that is probably the extent of it. >I worked for a company at one time in my life and their >Credo was "Do the Right Things, Right." With all the flight >data, experts used during the development, why do these >problems still exist? 3D graphics is in a state of development, and users find the bugs. Similar for FFB JS'. While FS people don't like the current FFB results, the Reviews I've seen say they rate 'five stars'. >I realize I am pushing the point here. Only because the >situation can improve... Do you agree with this statement? >And it is up to the FS community to voice their opinion. I >have read many posts regarding problems with the Flight >Models (most of which stem from lack of or incorrect FM >engine) and basic flight characteristics. At least MS sorta 'documents' MSFS now. But, the SDK's are full of errors and usually don't cover the stuff thats need to get desired results. Thus, gauge programmers have worked for a year at a time just trying to get what they need to write and compile good gauges. Similar for Scenery and .mdl design. One might think the flight dynamics would be the heart of a Flight Simulator, most important to be able to model different AC for it. But, MS has been of nearly zero help and there would be nothing but old converted AC done originally with one of those FS 5 level Design Apps. now without a lot of independent effort.>I realize Flight Simulation will never be perfect like the >real thing, but why not strive toward satifying the >fundamental requirements? Tell MS. >When I hear Steve Small say there is no way to fix a certain >flight characteristic, than there is an opportunity for >improvement. >>Ron, a poster in this thread has pointed out some solutions, >but the question is are they feasible? I don't have access >to the FS 2Kx code so I can't comment. I can't imagine why >it wouldn't be. Steve tried to get MS to fix problems with the turboprop and twins in the FS2K2 beta test. He didn't get much cooperation. MS explains very LITTLE, not even what's been fixed in many cases. Of course, they probabley don't even know what they broke. Get it out on TIME! That's their main objective. However, a lot of the problem of designing accurate Flight Dyanmics is in understanding aerodynamics and powerplants in the first place. What I and some others have been doing for years. >Computers (even PCs) are used to design complex aircraft in >real life. Accurate Simulated flight models are required >during design, all performed on computers. We're just >talking about effort here! >Barry One pay $2500 for MathCad and some aerodynamics addon and model AC and autopilots. Then, interface the output to FS or Flight Gear. Clearly only for professionals. And, this is mainly for development, not flying a simulator.Ron

[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 A jolt...? Heck, Kilstorm! My landings (when I do make it back down to Earth), are so lousy, my monitor vibrates off the desk! lolI have a MS/Sidewinder Force-feedback2, and that thing can really kill your arm! I have every force set to maxium (including those in the joystick/calibration properties). Whenever I do attempt a landing, I usually have to turn off "Realism/Collision", or else I would never make it to the parking gates! The forces are realy jerky, when going from the pavement to the grass... yes -- I said grass! lol

[Guest JonP01]

>Steve tried to get MS to fix problems with the turboprop >and twins in the FS2K2 beta test. He didn't get much >cooperation. MS explains very LITTLE, not even what's been >fixed in many cases. Of course, they probabley don't even >know what they broke. >>Ron But it is *not* the role of beta testers to suggest improvements to program code. A beta tester is there to test the program code for stability and to report outright bugs (as in the program aborting, blue screening, producing hex dumps, hardware compatibility etc). As far as overall program design, features, level of realism and sophistication of flight modelling, that has nothing to do with a beta tester and that is the responsibility of the MS project team and any third party consultants they have contracted (as opposed to beta testers).

[Guest Ron Freimuth]

>>Steve tried to get MS to fix problems with the turboprop >>and twins in the FS2K2 beta test. He didn't get much >>cooperation. MS explains very LITTLE, not even what's been >>fixed in many cases. Of course, they probabley don't even >>know what they broke. >>>>Ron >>But it is *not* the role of beta testers to suggest >improvements to program code. A beta tester is there to test >the program code for stability and to report outright bugs >(as in the program aborting, blue screening, producing hex >dumps, hardware compatibility etc). Then why did MS make such a big issue of 'Working with Aviation Experts' on FS2K2? To use them to test it for 'stability'?Ron

[Guest JonP01]

All the talk I heard about the use of aviation experts (in both Fs2K2 and FS9) refers to either members of the FS team itself or paid consultants contracted to the team. I have not read any statement from Microsoft that make an issue of employing "aviation experts" on the beta testing team. I am sure there were / are such experts on the team, not that I believe this to be important one way or the other, and I would not think that Microsoft consider this to be a priority either. Were I conducting the beta testing program myself, my priority would be to pick people who are thorough, patient and methodical - and realise that true beta testing is about as fun as mowing the lawn. As many aviation experts (including the three flight model designers mentioned in this thread) no doubt would have these qualities as well, there is no reason they could not participate as well. I just do not consider that being an aviation expert is a particularly important or even neccessarily desirable personal pre-requisite to being on a beta team.If people wish to complain about qualititative aspects of the sim, then they can do so a number of ways. Through these forums is one way (so this thread is useful in that way) or sending an email to their tell_fs email address is another. But to rephrase my previous post, unless the specific flight models being beta tested could be directly attributed to program abends, hex dumps, memory leaks, blue screens, re-boots, severe frame rate drops or specific hardware issues, then the issues so raised aren't related to the beta testing process.

[LAdamson 240]

A beta testing certainly could include model flight performance, as well as proper animation. You may have noticed or seen threads relating to the trim tab on the FS2002 182 ----- that moves backwards. Looks like this slipped through beta. :)But I can see "flight dynamics" as a near endless venture. While Steve & Ron's interest may be multi-engine & turbine management; there is "spins", icing, vortex generators effect on performance, departure stalls, ground effect, split flap scenario's, turbulence, mountain air waves, downdrafts, updraft's, tailwheels, castoring nosewheels, shock cooling, etc...................let alone providing the feeling of weight, mass, enertia, dampening, etc.Much too much for MS alone, and obviously for the 3rd parties too! I don't see every third party plane that's (real life)capable of it... stalling effectively or "spinning" much either! Perhaps in the near future, but I'm not I expecting it as the norm. However, it would be nice..................since it's proven it can be done :)L.Adamson

[Guest JonP01]

I guess that is why we can be thankful so many things in FS can be tampered with after FS "leaves the factory". I don't anyone would argue there are things 3rd parties can do better, and flight modelling is perhaps one of the clearest examples of this. Let's face it, the actual probability of having the *absolute best possible* people for each job in the FS team itself is very low. This is not at all mean't to be an offence to anyone at MS reading this - it is simply a statement of fact that MS simply cannot interview tens of thousands of people for each position on the team - and therefore the chance of finding the perfect applicant for each position is correspondingly lowered. Apart from that, many amply qualified people simply may not even be interested in doing such work, or are otherwise occupied, or are unaware that positions are advertised from time to time. I know of about 5 or 6 people on these forums who, employed by Microsoft could substantially improve the realism of the bog standard product, but probably half of them are too busy happily employed in unrelated occupations to begin with, or are happy to continue as third party developers.I think the other thing that needs to be stressed is the time constraints involved in a project such as a new FS release. I know in all my years in the workforce, there was never a situation when I was given as much time as I would have liked to complete a project properly. Any thing I did I always knew I could have done much better if I had been given more time, even though whatever I did seemed good enough to the people who "mattered" (my term for this was the lowest common denominator). The very fact that MS provides specific release dates for their software inevitably means that something, somewhere, is going to have to be a bit rushed to get the product out the door on time. We know, for example, that guys like Rob Young spend extraodinary amounts of time developing exceptional flight models. But in all fairness to Rob or any of the others, could they neccessarily keep to an official "Microsoft" timetable? A plane-a-day? Or a plane every two days? Even a couple of planes a week? It would be hard work, and there is a possibility that quality might have to suffer. There is a time limit and a definite limit on how much MS are prepared to pay someone to do this. And if people were going to develop flight models for no reward, my guess is they would prefer to continue as high profile third party developers rather than as unpaid (and much lower profile) employees of Microsoft.I think in the end Microsoft (usually) do an excellent job in getting an inovative product out the door that (in all fairness) essentially works as advertised and represents extraodinarily good value. If poor quality flight models (that can be "swapped out") and a few other dodgy things is the price we have to pay for being in the imperfect world that I have described above, that seems a pretty fair compromise to me.

[Guest MikeEppright]

A jolt would be OK for your landings but I "touchdown" not plunk! A jolt would tell me I had arrived rather crudely instead of the desired kissing of the tarmac(;->.