How do I stop slewing violently to the left or right?

[Guest cliffie1931]

Hi Cliffie,1.) This is normal and realistic behaviour, and should easily be countered with proper application of (usually some right) rudder.2.) The easiest way to find out is to output the data for wheelbrakes on screen. Click on tab "Settings" then choose "Data Input+Output". Under line number 14 "gear/brakes) hit the rightmost checkbox. This will display the "brake application" data on your screen. If you find one to be applied (more than 0), you might have one axis of one controller set to "wheelbrakes", and this axis must be either calibrated properly (if intentionel, i.e. rudder pedals with toe brakes), or assigned to a different function.If the slew is still a problem when in the air, then I suspect a problem with controller setup (you can also output data to verify that).3.) Just to make sure you can output data in line 5 (atmosphere: weather) on screen, to make sure that no wind is set (for example by "realistic" weather).Hope this helps, Jan

Bingo! With all the help I've received from you and the other Forum MembersI've finally licked the problem. Now, for the first time, I can get a feel of what X-Plane is all about.The major solution, I think, has been to install the latest driver for my Saiteck Cyborg Evo. In addition I've set the Control Responses to 43% and the Stability to 64%. Both seem high but I now have a basis to experiment in reducing those settings.Allow me to thank you and all the other Members that have offerred guidance. I've tried X-plane several times over the years and this is the first time it's operating satisfactorily.With my regards and appreciationCliff (in sunny Spain)

[GoranM 3,772]

In future, please visit www.x-pilot.comYou'll find a lot of helpful people over there, me being one of them, who will help with anything you have problems with.Unlike the other x plane forum, x-pilot does not ban or delete posts. If a post gets deleted, it gets deleted by the OP.Also, unlike the avsim forums, free speech is encouraged.Even FSX vs X Plane discussions.Look forward to seeing you over there.Greg

[LAdamson 240]

You seem to be a person suffering from Simmers Insecurity Syndrome. Are you that protective of FSX and how it performs???

I actually prefered Pro-Pilot over MSFS at the time. In those day's I had a tendency to look down upon Microsoft products. Pro-Pilot simply performed more realistically in regards to what an airplane should do. Over the years, third party authors for MSFS were able to continually raise the bar in regards to sytems and flight modeling. The worst thing that Microsoft did, was to remove some of the better effects of transitioning from the ground roll to flight. They did it to improve FPS. Prior to that, Microsoft was doing a great job of the ground roll with it's Combat Simulator #2.

Are you not hyping FSX to be a superior sim?

It is superior.....

And yes, I had a look at your other posts where you keep mentioning your ownership of a single engine aircraft. Hardly worth bragging about. Most PPL holders would have as many hours in a larger aircraft as you do without owning an aircraft.

This particular single engine aircraft is flown by many current and retired airline pilots as well as military. A 380 Airbus test pilot owns one. The top #1 man in charge of space shuttle launches owns one. Don't dismiss it so easily. BTW ---- what's this PPL holder stuff? Are you another one.... who has seen the current FAA database in which the listed date is actually the "date of issuance" of the new plastic license, to replace the old paper certificates? They no longer publish the original date.L.Adamson

[GoranM 3,772]

In your opinion, and many others, FSX is superior. In my opinion, and many others, it's not.Is your opinion more valid than mine? Or anyone else's for that matter?How many flight simulators have you coded?Do you have a Masters in Aviation?Have you flown for any airlines?What is your engineering background?What is your aerodynamics engineering background?You fly a plane? As a matter of fact, so do I. Twin engine certified, IFR and night rating. All in a Duchess.And no, I haven't seen the current FAA database. Things work slightly different in my country when it comes to licenses.I'm not dismissing the Vans. But you're banging on about it like it's some kind of major accomplishment to own a Vans and to actually fly one.BUT, can you navigate cross country without a GPS?I saw your post about the avionics you have in your Vans. GPS's have been known to fail. Could you find your way back?Do you know how to use flight computer? Not the electronic version. I'm talking about the alloy or plastic versions.Larry, none of us care that you love FSX that much. If it floats your boat, then by all means, keep flying it. However, to come into a dedicated x plane forum and keep banging on about how good it is and how much better it is (IN YOUR OPINION), shows extremely bad taste and is just plain rude. And the more you do it, the more x plane users and SOME MSFS users will think less of you. You may even decide to be pro x plane some day. (Don't think it can't happen. I was just as bad as you in the fact that I was very pro FS9 until I really got down to knowing X Plane.)Judging from some of your posts, you seem to be a man who is up there in age. So I choose my words carefully. Put it this way, if you want to talk about how great FSX is, go to a forum where it is more appropriate to do so.(If you can read between the lines, you will know exactly what I am saying)Have a nice day, sir.Greg

[LAdamson 240]

You fly a plane? As a matter of fact, so do I. Twin engine certified, IFR and night rating. All in a Duchess.And no, I haven't seen the current FAA database. Things work slightly different in my country when it comes to licenses.I'm not dismissing the Vans. But you're banging on about it like it's some kind of major accomplishment to own a Vans and to actually fly one.BUT, can you navigate cross country without a GPS?I saw your post about the avionics you have in your Vans. GPS's have been known to fail. Could you find your way back?Do you know how to use flight computer? Not the electronic version. I'm talking about the alloy or plastic versions.

In 1968 we had to do it the old way too...Other than that, I'm not taking this all that serious. Have a good day & enjoy X-Plane. Perhaps I will someday too.Regards,L.Adamson

[GearMO 0]

L.Adamson whats the point of bashing X-Plane in a forum its repetitive and juvenile. I read these forums often and I see many of your posts, I'm pretty sure you have more important things to do..

[GoranM 3,772]

In 1968 we had to do it the old way too...Other than that, I'm not taking this all that serious. Have a good day & enjoy X-Plane. Perhaps I will someday too.Regards,L.Adamson

You're not taking this all that serious?You keep mentioning you own a plane.You keep mentioning that FSX is "superior" to X Plane.You keep mentioning that FSX's lookup table is superior to X Planes Blade Element Theory.You keep mentioning that the Vans default aircraft in X Plane has it's flight model all wrong when it has been explained why.You keep mentioning you had Tom Kyler fix the flight model for the Vans in X Plane.And you do all this in X Plane dedicated forums.Nah, you're not taking this seriously.Before you say things, it may be wise to be careful who you say them to. There just may be more people out there that know more about the flight characteristics of both FSX and X Plane than you do.Makes me wonder why you waste your time.Please, no one is telling you to drop FSX. Please stop coming to x plane forums preaching about FSX. No one is interested in your opinion. It's gone from a simmers opinion to an annoyance.Regardless of your aircraft ownership, I suspect you are far from qualified in making an informed opinion about lookup tables and blade element theory. Please correct me if I'm wrong and feel free to list the aircraft you have developed for both FSX and X Plane and share with us your pro's and cons of both simulators from a developers perspective.THIS developer would sure love to read what you have to say.We all know you love FSX. Please, feel free to enjoy it to your hearts content and let us enjoy x plane without you're extremely biased "reviews".Greg

[LAdamson 240]

Larry, please, no one is telling you to drop FSX. Please stop coming to x plane forums preaching about FSX. No one is interested in your opinion.Regardless of your aircraft ownership, you are far from qualified in making an informed opinion about lookup tables and blade element theory.We all know you love FSX. Please, feel free to enjoy it to your hearts content and let us enjoy x plane without you're extremely biased "reviews".

Greg, That's where I'll need to correct you. I am very qualified when it comes to lookup tables. I have beta tested models for some of the best 3rd party software for over 10 years, as well as two version of MSFS. Didn't go with FSX because I didn't have a capable CPU at the time, even though I was sent the software. Therefor, when anyone dismisses lookup tables as simplicity, or mistakenly believes that "blade element theory" is much more powerful than it really is......................I know much better from experience.I've had very interesting conversations with people (all pilots) regarding blade element theory over the years. What stands out most of all, is that you just can't throw dimensions/ weights/HP in, and expect a perfectly representation of an aircraft coming out. Actually, in more cases than not, it seems far from the perfect aircraft. I'm not saying these people dismissed X-Plane; but just the fact that they are aware that the blade element theory requires a lot of manipulating and tweaking to get the models to hit the numbers (if possible at all). The way blade element theory is marketed, you'd really start to believe that it's a case of throwing dimensions in & putting out a true replica on your CPU screen. On the other hand, you can manipulate lookup tables to give near exact performance figures of "known & flying" aircraft. How often at the "org." do you see excited "converts" to X-Plane going on wildly of the differences? Such as the plane is always moving about while MSFS seems to be on rails, or X-Plane has ground effect or interacts with the water for float planes. But in reality, ground effect is faked in both sims with a percentage of wing area, both sims have rather simple effects in regards to water, and real planes are not a tail wagging jerk fest as is often displayed withX-Plane default settings.I could go on and on, but one thing is for sure. Lookup tables can be an excellent method of portraying the motion, feel, and numbers of a computerized aircraft. There is nothing arcade about it. There is nothing "simple" about it in regard to programming. Lookup tables have been used in professional simulators for a long time. If you move from MSFS to X-Plane, it's nothing like going from "Kiddie Land" to something real.............as has been put in print by at least one X-Plane enthusiast. At the end of the day MSFS and X-Plane are both desktop flight simulators for the home. They can both be used for realistic practice or entertainment. L.Adamson

[Guest Setanta]

Bingo! With all the help I've received from you and the other Forum MembersI've finally licked the problem. Now, for the first time, I can get a feel of what X-Plane is all about.The major solution, I think, has been to install the latest driver for my Saiteck Cyborg Evo. In addition I've set the Control Responses to 43% and the Stability to 64%. Both seem high but I now have a basis to experiment in reducing those settings.Allow me to thank you and all the other Members that have offerred guidance. I've tried X-plane several times over the years and this is the first time it's operating satisfactorily.With my regards and appreciationCliff (in sunny Spain)

Glad to hear you got things working in the end :)As to your settings being high - I wouldn't worry too much about that. I would recommend settings like that to most people trying X-Plane who are coming from FSX. Most people coming from MSFS tend to feel that X-Plane is 'very twitchy' while most X-Planers trying FSX tend to feel it's too much 'on rails'. The high artificial stability setting will make X-plane feel a little more like FSX while you get started, though you may find that after a while you decide to lower it or even turn it off completely. Be warned though, artificial stability can cause problems if you want your aircraft to fly 'by the numbers'.Setanta

[Guest cliffie1931]

Glad to hear you got things working in the end :)As to your settings being high - I wouldn't worry too much about that. I would recommend settings like that to most people trying X-Plane who are coming from FSX. Most people coming from MSFS tend to feel that X-Plane is 'very twitchy' while most X-Planers trying FSX tend to feel it's too much 'on rails'. The high artificial stability setting will make X-plane feel a little more like FSX while you get started, though you may find that after a while you decide to lower it or even turn it off completely. Be warned though, artificial stability can cause problems if you want your aircraft to fly 'by the numbers'.Setanta

I note your comments Setanta and they make sense to me. Thanks pal.Regards.............Cliff

[GoranM 3,772]

Greg, That's where I'll need to correct you. I am very qualified when it comes to lookup tables. I have beta tested models for some of the best 3rd party software for over 10 years, as well as two version of MSFS. Didn't go with FSX because I didn't have a capable CPU at the time, even though I was sent the software. Therefor, when anyone dismisses lookup tables as simplicity, or mistakenly believes that "blade element theory" is much more powerful than it really is......................I know much better from experience.I've had very interesting conversations with people (all pilots) regarding blade element theory over the years. What stands out most of all, is that you just can't throw dimensions/ weights/HP in, and expect a perfectly representation of an aircraft coming out. Actually, in more cases than not, it seems far from the perfect aircraft. I'm not saying these people dismissed X-Plane; but just the fact that they are aware that the blade element theory requires a lot of manipulating and tweaking to get the models to hit the numbers (if possible at all). The way blade element theory is marketed, you'd really start to believe that it's a case of throwing dimensions in & putting out a true replica on your CPU screen. On the other hand, you can manipulate lookup tables to give near exact performance figures of "known & flying" aircraft. How often at the "org." do you see excited "converts" to X-Plane going on wildly of the differences? Such as the plane is always moving about while MSFS seems to be on rails, or X-Plane has ground effect or interacts with the water for float planes. But in reality, ground effect is faked in both sims with a percentage of wing area, both sims have rather simple effects in regards to water, and real planes are not a tail wagging jerk fest as is often displayed withX-Plane default settings.I could go on and on, but one thing is for sure. Lookup tables can be an excellent method of portraying the motion, feel, and numbers of a computerized aircraft. There is nothing arcade about it. There is nothing "simple" about it in regard to programming. Lookup tables have been used in professional simulators for a long time. If you move from MSFS to X-Plane, it's nothing like going from "Kiddie Land" to something real.............as has been put in print by at least one X-Plane enthusiast. At the end of the day MSFS and X-Plane are both desktop flight simulators for the home. They can both be used for realistic practice or entertainment. L.Adamson

I can safely say that your opinion is shared by MANY MSFS enthusiasts. (read: a really excited user)It still baffles me why you would own X Plane 8 AND 9 when clearly, for you, x plane is vastly inferior.Please correct me if I'm wrong and feel free to list the aircraft you have developed for both FSX and X Plane and share with us your pro's and cons of both simulators from a developers perspective.You'll notice I said to correct me if I'm wrong and to list what you have developed, in this case, tested, as I assume you haven't developed anything and from what I can gather, have a significant amount of experience only in your vans aircraft.As I said, feel free to promote the microsoft series of flight simulators in other forums. As a courtesy to x plane users, refrain from doing so in X Plane forums.It's just manners.Have a nice dayGreg

[LAdamson 240]

I can safely say that your opinion is shared by MANY MSFS enthusiasts. (read: a really excited user)It still baffles me why you would own X Plane 8 AND 9 when clearly, for you, x plane is vastly inferior.Please correct me if I'm wrong and feel free to list the aircraft you have developed for both FSX and X Plane and share with us your pro's and cons of both simulators from a developers perspective.You'll notice I said to correct me if I'm wrong and to list what you have developed, in this case, tested, as I assume you haven't developed anything and from what I can gather, have a significant amount of experience only in your vans aircraft.As I said, feel free to promote the microsoft series of flight simulators in other forums. As a courtesy to x plane users, refrain from doing so in X Plane forums.

X-Plane is not vastly inferior. You said that, I didn't. But it's hyped as being vastly superior in the way of flight dynamics, while MSFS is a scenery viewer. At least that's what you'll get from most X-Plane forums. My main interest in X-Plane is the topography that comes with the sim. I live and fly in a mountainous area. I don't develop anything for either sim. My hobby has been building experimental/kitbuilt airplanes. My own & others. Before that, it was R/C.I have significant experience in many other airplanes besides my Vans. Just about every single engine that Piper & Cessna have produced from the 60's up. Also the Seminole, Seneca, but not the Beach Dutchess. Numerous gliders, the Pitt's S2B, Marchetti SF260, Maule, Diamond DA40,Super Stearman, Van's 6,7, and 9, as well as an aerobatic ride as a passenger in a 1944 P-51D......owned by a friend. And yes, I have quite an interest in GPSs. The past, present, and future.But since you asked. I do not enjoy the flight dynamics of the X-Plane Mustang as much as the RealAir Spitfire for FS9/FSX. I guess that's what you call a pro and con. I also like the RealAir SF260 Marchetti for FSX, as it's much like flying my own plane. However, I'm looking forward to the Falco Sequoia for X-Plane. It's a lot like my airplane too, and I'm always interested in what Tom comes up with.L.Adamson

[60North 120]

LA,To me it sounds like you are confusing SIM flightmodel with AIRCRAFT flightmodel.Those are two VERY different things.SIM flightmodel.As an engineer with flying experience and having developed acf for X-Plane for about 10 years, I canassure you that X-Plane is LIGHTYEARS ahead of the FS model from an aerodynamic perspective. I'll give you a few examples;FS is what I would call a "one dimensional" sim.- It models ONE wing station at one incidence.XP is what I would call a "two dimensional" sim.- It can model dozens of wing stations and sections.- Each station can have individual incidence- Each wing section can have 4 different airfoils- Each wing section can have 4 different reynolds#'s(a "three dimension" sim would model lateral flow of air)In addition, there are many other areas where FS doesn't even have a model to my knowledge- Downwash effects- Blanking effects- Propwash effects- Ground effect- Far more advanced control surfaces and control systems- FS even turns OFF the flightmodel when on the ground, so in other wordsNo wind or other lateral or vertical forces acting on the aircraft turningit into a "2D car sim".- etc.If you had some technical background you would probably agree that FS has very little to do with simulating real aerodynamics - but you havnt.AIRCRAFT flightmodelThis is where things get interesting. Allthough the advertisement of XP saysyou can just add real numbers into planemaker and get GREAT results, that's BS!To make good performing acf in XP, one needs to do reverse engineering. This isbecause in some areas, X-Planes SIM flightmodel is a bit off. This means airfoils, enginesC values, gyration, controls etc etc needs to be tweaked AWAY from what you sometimes would expectto get the results you want. It's a long and tricky process, and having a technical backgroundand been around XP for a long while is almost mandatory.If you master this art however, the aircraft will perform very close to what they should.Unfortunately, very few XP designers are capable (or aware) of this. It also requires ALOT of hard to get data.The result is that from a performance point of view, 90% of aircraft available perform like crap.Thats what you with your pilot background are seeing - and I agree - but your conclusions are wrong!Just like in FS, if you input junk, you will get junk back out. In fact, it's alot easier to make an acf thats SEEMS ok in FS than it is in X-Plane. Thats why the general impression mightbe along your lines.M

[Geofa 108]

In future, please visit www.x-pilot.comYou'll find a lot of helpful people over there, me being one of them, who will help with anything you have problems with.Unlike the other x plane forum, x-pilot does not ban or delete posts. If a post gets deleted, it gets deleted by the OP.Also, unlike the avsim forums, free speech is encouraged.Even FSX vs X Plane discussions.Look forward to seeing you over there.Greg

Greg-I have a real problem with your statement "unlike the avsim forums, free speech is encouraged."Free speech is certainly encouraged here at avsim-insults and poor behavior is what is not acceptable here-period.I do find your statement rather an oxymoron because above you are above chastising Larry for exercising his free speech in this forum. You also state that x-pilot.com has discussions of fsx vs. xplane-yet you seem to be sensitive that this subject is discussed in this thread?!By the way I have developed stuff for xplane in the past, and have bought nearly every version because I support flight simming. I also have problems with xplane's fm along with other things-and I speak about it not to put the sim down but to hopefully improve it-especially now that it may be the only going concern left....and in the future I hope people will continue to visit our forum-it is good for Xplane. Xplane is viewed too much as a nitch market and it needs to be more widely accepted. A forum like this helps.

[LAdamson 240]

If you had some technical background you would probably agree that FS has very little to do with simulating real aerodynamics - but you havnt.

My technical background in why an airplane fly's, as well as construction is quite intensive. I could even tell you why the oil galley's and lubrication points are placed at exact places when it comes to a crankshaft. And why it was extremely important with radials. I could tell you all the why's and wherefores of constant speed props, governors and the importance propeller vibration, and fatigue, and rpm limitations. Four blades, versus, three versus two. It goes on and on. CG's, washout, incidence, engine offset, vertical stab offset. All about rivets, type, sizing, aircraft structural materials, electrical systems, backup systems. Paints & primers too. What's good or especially isn't good when it comes to using auto engines as an alternative. How to install auto-pilots, transponders, audio panels, aircraft grounding, lighting systems, and adjustments.And best of all, I can tell you just how a large variety of GA aircraft should feel and respond to control inputs. In this case, it's a pilots knowledge of feel & response versus that of an engineer. Sometimes...........we win! :( L.Adamson