I don't know why I can't figure this out but I need some help guys/gals-How do I gte more aelerion response exactly in FSUIPS.Can someone walk me through the adjustments. I tried by cycling from maximum negative to maximum positive values after moving the yoke fully to the right then fully to the left but when I'm back flying I really see no difference.I have the slider in FS2002 maxed out.Thanks all.

bump

Why do you think that you need more aileron response? If you get -16K in one direction and +16K in the other, in FSUIPC, then I believe that's all there is.Perhaps you should look in the aircraft.cfg or the *.air file. There are parameters with names like roll_scalar or aileron_effectiveness in the config file that might do what you want. The mysteries of the *.air file are beyond me. R-

With the calibration page open in FSUIPC (by pressing the single `set` button so that three `set` buttons become visible) you simply move the controller to the full limit of its travel, then press the appropriate `set` button. It's quite obvious which `set` is which, as only one of the numbers will be negative. Once you've clicked on both `set` buttons at the extremes of travel, you may see that the aileron response is now different `out` than it was `in`. Thats FSUIPC doing it's job. Don't bother adjusting the null zone at this stage - it has nothing to do with aileron response at the extremes of travel. Hope this helps.ChasW

I should also mention that FSUIPC also offers advanced calibration opportunities by setting a non-linear response curve for any axis. Details are in the Advanced User Guide.ChasW

The plane in use- Falcon 50 rolls into turns very slowly. While I know it's not a fighter or a light airplane, the Falcon's are known for their responsiveness. So I'm looking for a more responsive roll. I tried to get it with the sliders but after maxing out the aelerion slider it is still pretty slow. It should be a little sharper and crisper from Yoke input.I flew a 50 in a level D sim and am trying to match that response.

You should have said that at the start. You should not need to adjust the controller sensitivity to match the aircraft, you should adjust the aircraft to fit your expectations.Fortunately, Rob Young the air file designer visits the forum so he should be the best person to advise how to effect the required changes within the .air or .cfg file. ChasW

As already noted, to get the Falcon set up to your personal preferences, you want to adjust the FDE. The aircraft.cfg allows this to be done easily. Look for the flight_tuning section. If it isn't there, add it. Then look for or add these two lines:aileron_effectiveness=x.xxxrudder_effectiveness=x.xxxBy increasing the number (shown here as "x.xxx"), you can increase the effectiveness of both these control surfaces without influencing the overall control effectiveness in the sim. "1.000" defaults to the setting in the .air file. I think in this case, it's easier to modify the aircraft.cfg....You may also have to adjust the MOI entries in the "Moments of Inertia" sectionempty_weight_roll_MOI= x.xxxempty_weight_yaw_MOI=x.xxxA large number in the roll and yaw axis will make the aircraft slower to initiate a movement in that axis, and the movement will be harder to stop. Raising or lowering the MOI (I do it in small steps, usually +/- 10 pct of the original value) can help you get the feel you prefer.Many of the FDE's are well researched, so when I tweak them, I tweak them with the understanding that I may be simulating flight as I prefer it, but not as reality would dictate. But I think that choice should be the simmers :)

Thansk very much, very good advice.While I brag I was in the Level D Sim of this bird...I'm not a real pilot...I lucked out to get in the sim!So I don't have a day to day feel (wish I did) just what I remember from a few hours in the sim a full year ago (kinda tough to remember). I am reluctant to make major changes since I do sense that Rob Young has a very good working knowledge of this aircraft.I flew the 50 last night...quick question...Flight normal for Bus C&D should have the switch vertical or horizontal for energized? And what would that mean the Bus's are doing if they are energized?Thanks all!

What has been achieved with that flight model is `average`. And before Mr Young descends upon me for daring to `criticise` his efforts I'll expand on what I perceive he has set out to achieve - and achieved grandly. All aircraft have an operating envelope. However, in `average` use most aircraft never approach the corners of that envelope. Only test pilots and emergency situations go there. Given the limitations of flight modelling in FS an FDE designer can either try and represent the full range of response, leading to the possibility of over-sensitivity in some flight regimes, or he can concentrate on making it true within that `average`envelope, which gives more freedom to tailor responses that `feel real` on a simmers computer, in the normal operating environment for that aircraft.The Falcon 50 is a great example of this averaging philosophy. It feels `right` and was tested by actual Falcon pilots, as I recall. However, if you actually measure the responses it's nowhere near what the real aircraft is capable of - pitch rate is insufficient for FAA rules and regulation, so this aircraft would never be licensed if it truly handled like this. It simply cannot pull the 'g` required. But this should not matter providing those inadequacies occur outside the average - the normal - flight envelope, unless you want to aerobat a tri-jet.So you can return the roll response to a `better` rate, but possibly only at the cost of mucking up the autopilot turn rate, the altitude hold in turns or any of a number of interactive control responses.I would stick the FFB patch (with some flight model alterations included) in and fly it as it is, unless you want to get involved in complex flight model alterations, which will amount to a lot more than simply tweaking the aileron effectiveness.ChasW

I think that's good advice and will probably do that.But I'm tempted...