Sign in to follow this  
Guest CapHavoc

Very Nice Cirrus SR20

Recommended Posts

Done by Guenter Kraemer in FSDS 2 with VC and a very good 2D panel, find it at the other site (flightsim.com). The file name is gkcirr.zip. Hopefully it will be available here as well, but Avsim usually gets their files up first and I haven't seen it.There are also several good repaints for the new Gmax Commander that state in the readme they will not be uploaded to any other site.K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Most excellent visual model, but I found that it doesn't "fly" the best.I really hate it when I spend more time with the trim wheel than I do with the yoke!gwillmot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great find...very well done aircraft...I noted the comment about the flight dynamics. I always encourage people who add such comments, especially in relation to freeware aircraft, to open up the aircraft.cfg in notepad and tweak settings until they get the right "feel". Within the flight tuning section, a few tweaks to the sensitivity and stability factors can go a long way towards taming an aircraft. Those, and attention to the MOI parameters, have allowed me to make every freeware aircraft I've ever downloaded (and some payware aircraft, like Ariane's), fly according to my tastes.-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that this is possible (if you have played with and understand the parameters).I am just giving my opinion as I am not able to "fiddle" with these parameters. Just comparing to the flight characteristics to other freeware offering.I guess, using your logic, that every freeware developer should have done the same "tinkering" before releasing their product. I wouldn't even go so far as to suggest that, as it is obviously an art......All and all....it's still a very twitchy and sensitive little (but pretty) bird.gwillmot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, these quotes:"I am just giving my opinion as I am not able to "fiddle" with these parameters. Just comparing to the flight characteristics to other freeware offering."and"I guess, using your logic, that every freeware developer should have done the same "tinkering" before releasing their product. I wouldn't even go so far as to suggest that, as it is obviously an art......"I wasn't going to go this far, but considering the word "freeware" in the sentence, perhaps you need to consider learning how to open up a text file and tweaking a few parameters the price you pay for freeware--otherwise, show some class and at least keep quiet over any issues you have. Expecting a freeware author to be all things--FDE expert, CAD expert, panel layout expert, and expecting to receive something for free at the expense of that author's time, says a lot about why folks like Pete Dowson are going the way of payware. 'Nuff saidEdit: I should note that Pete is probably a poor example, as his forte is utility design. Still, it applies in the sense that most freeware authors, myself included, love to hear from our users about issues--that's how we learn. But we don't get paid for our work, so in a sense it is very poor taste to gripe about issues in the public forums. That freeware is supported at all is a credit to the 100's of contributors who maintain that type of value for our community. We often hear about the bad, but rarely the good. And seeing the bad griped about in a public forum--well I can only say that is perhaps why some freeware authors are "one-hit wonders"--loading one aircraft and then giving up.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I normally stay out of these types of threads but your arrogant response was just too much too ignore. All he said was the plane was twitchy and required a lot of trim tab work. So happens it is very touchy. No big deal really. I haven't decided whether to keep it or not, but usually when a plane exceeds the "stupidity threshold" it quickly winds up in the scrap heap. No yelling or screaming -- either at the developer or in a forum. No harm, no foul.Personally, I'm not about to tear up the insides of the cfg file to make it fly right. Asbsolutely no interest in doing that. If i can't get a bird up and pretty stable after the first couple tries, it's outta here.Doesn't really matter whether it's freeware, shareware, or payware. Except the latter will usually be contacted to try and get any problems fixed. I wouldn't attack a freeware developer over the same issues. I respect their tremendous efforts too much.After all, this is a fantastic hobby(read GAME) supported by a very diverse group of Simmers. As with any large group of human beings, there will always be the twit casting stones at those less technically inclined, but that's to be expected. One just accepts the fact and moves on to more interesting thoughts.Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well worded reply Racartron, except the arrogance is in those who publicly trash freeware efforts.... What have you designed? I'll pick it apart in the public forums, then we'll see if you adjust your rather "holy" take on this....As I was in the midst of editing my reply while you were preparing your response, I don't know if you happened to see it. You mentioned that you wouldn't attack a freeware developer--IMHO, the way he worded his comments is an attack, in the sense that it was shared in a public forum. I would consider that "casting stones", as it implied the freeware author didn't do his/her job right. I long ago realized that some freeware aircraft had great visuals, but as I have aged, a twitchy aircraft just can't keep up with my shaky hands. Yet the edits involved take a few seconds to learn and apply, and have saved many an outstanding aircraft from the scrap heap. I only suggest people with FDE critiques, which appear here often, take the time to learn....if they know how to post in these forums, they know how to edit a .cfg file. Or, if they make the decision that it is too high or "technical" a mountain to climb, they should at least not try to publicly gripe about issues....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I took it up for a night flight and the 3d panel...well not the panel, but the inside of the cockpit is so bright with the panel lights on that it is distracting....the garmin radios look really cool but I can't figure them out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did not see your edit before I posted. Had I done so, mostly likely would not have even bothered to comment as it was a more reasoned conclusion. Besides, I entirely agree with your comment about not publicly griping about something one usually couldn't do themselves in the first place.Like I said, I very rarely get sucked up into these threads. Rather just read 'em, enjoy them, sift through the noise and learn.Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fellas,I was thinking of starting another thread but this one suits me just right and I can even shed some constructive thought on it while I get the help I need.I have always tried to leave positive public feedback to all those who dedicate enormous ammounts of time and effort to providing us with outstanding quality freeware. However I don't consider bringing up issues related to how freeware aircraft look or perform, a matter of "casting stones" towards the author. I'd rather think the author learns from these remarks and improves his technique towards future projects.As far as I'm concerned, I can say that 90% of all the tweaking and cfg editing I have learned come from this public forum and lets face it, most freeware developers don't have the time to answer private e-mails while other people have a lot more knowledge about certain subjects than the authors themselves.That being said (and hopefully someone is still reading this), I am currently trying to configure the absolute best freeware 727 available to date, FFX's 727. I can't get this bird to slow down on approach, even with gear extended, confirmed throttle idle, full flaps and spoilers deployed. Anything over -500 ft x min will get me speeds in excess of 160kts. I have tried increasing the drag scalars (induced and parasite) in the flight tunning section of the aircraft.cfg from 1.000 to 4.000 to no avail. I tried three different FDE's: Mike Stone's, Charles Fox's and Kevin Trinkle's but the plane keeps speeding. Is there any other parameter on the aircraft.cfg file that I can try tweaking? JohnCi you seem to be the guy. Any clues?Thanks in advance.Maurice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thing that'd come to mind, have you looked at the flap section and adjusted the drag scalars there? You might have to adjust them in combination with the lift scalars.... If the lift is set too high, forcing you to come in at a steeper angle, it may only add to the problem with speed. I also hear you on your post. I guess I wouldn't have reacted as strongly as I did had the response to my suggestion of editing the .cfg been more open. I hate to see people give up on the concept before they try--it really does extend the library of useful aircraft one can have, and I believe that if anything, it would encourage freeware designers to focus on CAD, which is where the art really comes in. How many times have I DL'd beautiful designs, only to have a squirrley aircraft? Many, but boy, those beautiful A/C were worth a tweak here and there.Usually, if I encounter an obvious issue, I'll edit the .cfg and send it off to the author. I'll rarely make a comment publicly, as I know some authors are very shy about releasing in the first place. I know I was--it's been almost twenty years since I last had my hands on the yoke of an aircraft, and I'm very shy about submitting an FDE based on a fading memory of the way a 172 felt when I put 'er through 'er paces...I didn't realize until I decided to tackle a very simple project, how challenging it was to build a complete package. I was blessed that some came in on their own time and helped me out, giving my effort a polish it wouldn't have otherwise had. -John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your response.It eloquently explained exactly what I was trying to say...nothing more...nothing less.I LOVE freeware designers. I am INDEBTED to their hobby/vocation.I mean no ill will towards ANY of them.May they live long and prosperous lives...and keep those of us who just relish the pure joy of flying their creations in their debt.g (non-tweeker) willmot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone post a copy of their version of the edited .cfg file?Alex.AlexNatchev@Yahoo.comERROR:Banner is 6.6KB, 15 pixels (width) above limit. Cannot Display!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am still at my office, but when I return home, I'll post my updates to the flight_tuning section, as well as my MOI entries. I may over compensate though, as I have a small joystick (no remarks, please :) ), so I tend to scale back the axis response anyway in most of the aircraft I D/L.... But I'll highlight the entries that make the most change, so folks can play with them.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance we could get the sr20 uploaded to the avsim file library? It is my favorite light weight GA plane. Jon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found these entries to work best for me for this aircraft:In the "Moments of Inertia" section, I use these parameters---empty_weight_pitch_MOI= 3829.000empty_weight_roll_MOI= 4208.000empty_weight_yaw_MOI= 4839.000In the "flight_tuning" section, I use these parameters---elevator_effectiveness=1.150aileron_effectiveness=2.000rudder_effectiveness=1.000pitch_stability=2.500Never having flown in a real Cirrus, I can't say how accurate these adjustments are, but they replicate the "feel" I prefer when flying light aircraft.Some use a formula for adjusting the MOI, where I use "feel" based on visual feedback to my joystick input. I usually increase it in 1000 unit increments on each of the three axis, until I find something that I like (which for me is a smooth, but steady response to joystick input).-John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just d/l and made my first flight in the Cirrus SR20. What a wonderful airplane!I made my first flight, and fell in love with it immediately. It showed none of the flight modeling problems mentioned by others here. Climbed cleanly to 3500' at 400fpm. Leveled out and trimmed for level flight without a hitch. The airplane held course and altitude (didn't touch the stick for twenty minutes while I took a phone call) as well as many payware aircraft with superb flight models. Very nice panel and visual model as well.Congratulations, Guenter. And thanks for making this an airplane that has found a home in my hanger.:-beerchug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Greg---I think many issues related to flight models are in fact caused by differences in controls used by simmers, and even their sense of "touch". In my case, I know that I prefer a lighter, smoother feel largely based on the tiny joystick I use. You know, I've used the same $10.00 joystick for the past ten years! :)I pretty much think this aircraft was right on, and I love the visuals. I've seen so many Pipers and Cessnas, that it's nice to see something like a Cirrus. Still, after playing with the aircraft.cfg a bit tonight, I love it even more.... It will be one of my favored aircraft, that's for certain. But having priced the real thing at Cirrus website, I have a feeling when I do buy an aircraft in the next 2-3 years, it'll be a nice, sleek, fast, used 152 or 172 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't taken the time you read all of these long responces but how can you critize his FDE if you've never flown a real SR 20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay John, never say I'm too old a dog to try something new. I've tried your edits to the Cirrus CFG file and they do make a nice improvement to the performance.Looks like you've opened up yet another avenue for me to increase my FS experience. Thanks a bunch.Racartronit means something, but I just can't remember what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I haven't taken the time you read all of these long >responces but how can you critize his FDE if you've never >flown a real SR 20. This is true!My first impression of the flight model is somewhere between "stiff as brick, stable" real 172's & the more touchy homebuilt "fighter" touch I'm somewhat use too. Somewhere in between the default Cessna's & the default Extra 300.The SR20 model's nose "hunted" slightly while trimming, but I didn't find trim much of a problem. The nose on this model, also raises quite fast with application of flaps. But does the real one raise (like a 172), stay rather neutral, or pitch down like some other "low wings"? I don't have the slightest idea, as I've never flown one!!!L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For some reason Im having problems getting this a/c to load in FS.It crashes the simulator everytime. Do you have to do something special to get this nice a/c running.ThanksEd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this