Question on the behavior of piston Duke during holdings

[Boris_The_Spider 0]

I'd never noticed this before, since I use external 2D gauges with the duke (Reality XP Flightline N and T) which I'd highly recommend (even though I am annoyed at RXP for not responding to requests for a Prepar3D version of them, and their GNS units).

 

Not only do you get a TC that works correctly (although you still have to hold rudder through the turn to keep the ball in the middle and achieve an actual rate one turn, but that's just FSX), you also get an ADF that dips (and jumps around realistically), DI/HSI that drifts or is coupled according to airplane fit and various other excellent instruments, and you can click them to put a rubber suction-cup cover over them to practise partial-panel work.

 

As you said, the TC in the duke VC doesn't work properly. I just timed some turns, holding rate one using the reality XP TC, and for a standard 2-minute turn, the reality XP TC was correctly indicating rate one while on the duke VC instrument, I had the needle well past the rate-one markings, pointing approximately at the middle of the "R" and "L" letters beneath the rate lines.

 

Although you can't interpolate or extrapolate on a real TC, you can of course just memorise these positions to make proper rate one turns in the duke using the VC version of the TC.

 

I'd still highly recommend the flightline gauges, which are not only realistic, but very nice to look at, and easy to read. If you decide to purchase them and would like my RXP ini-files (which configure the gauges for the duke, putting stuff like ASI white arcs, blue-line etc. in the right places) let me know and I'll send them to you, I also have a set of panels with different AI presentations (generic, KI256) and different nav fits (either HSI and RMI for the duke, or a stone-age DI and ADF for more basic aircraft), which I can send you, although you may have to do some editing on them because some of the gauges are not RXP (they are from other payware) so if you didn't have the acft they came from you'd have to find an alternative.

[CoolP 283]

Interesting post, Boris. So the external gauges showed proper indications?

 

I just wanted to add that the Legacy supports an ADF gauge which 'dips'. Nice detail that is. And there's the gyro drift from FSX itself, if enabled. But that one is strange and I wouldn't recommend using it. Seems like some glass gauges also seem to drift regardless of that setting.

 

On the Flightline gauges, how to you add them to a VC with a custom 3D setup? Isn't that the main hurdle nowadays? Just asking out of interest, I don't own those gauges. Only the GPS stuff.

 

you can of course just memorise these positions to make proper rate one turns in the duke using the VC version of the TC.

In theory, one could edit the texture and add artificial markers. By this, you could aim for those and therefore hit the standard rate spot. Or one could move the actual markers a bit. But that's part of the 3D model in the Duke if I'm correct.

[RudiJG1 172]

Boris, please check your PM; I'm taking you up on your offer, thanks!

[jcomm 5,970]

Very interesting!

 

As I told, I did program a TC myself once, but I do not even recall how I started :-(

 

Graphically it was a bigger gauge, and so it allowed for much easier reading...

 

I remember having tested it with a few aircraft that, notheless, still gave me errors of 15%....

 

I once was told that Project Magenta gauges also ensure a much better "performance" on this type of instruments...

[robert young 2,897]

First, Enrico wrote a very nice email and we are absolutely fine and dandy, so no problems there.

 

I think saying FSX is just a game is a bit harsh, and comparing it with Elite doesn't really account for the huge differences between each product, which are both excellent in their way. Elite is largely an instrument/procedural IFR simulator. Its chief purpose is to train and practice instrument flying. It does not need to generate sophisticated graphics relating to the outside environment, nor does it need to simulate what I suppose we might agree to be the "feel" of flying, and its associated visceral aspects such as sound, scenery, aircraft animations etc.

 

So neither products fully capture the whole experience of flying. For that you either need to actually go flying or at the very least hire a very very expensive full motion simulator.

 

Coming to comments about standard turns and yaw again, I did try to honestly explain the compromises necessary in order to balance total accuracy in terms of numbers, and another kind of accuracy that is related to feel and behaviour. After over a decade of developing for Flight Simulator, we are absolutely certain that our customers want the more realistic yaw behaviour and I think given the choice they would rather have the ability to side slip and spin than the ability to have a totally accurate by-the-numbers standard rate turn without added rudder.

 

You will find that even the best addon aircraft that work very well including a perfect standard turn, achieve this by having to compromise with a less flexible yaw. There are limited parameters in FSX that define how "loose" yaw is versus the requirement to have a "tighter" yaw that aids perfect by-the-numbers turning. Unfortunately the ability to perform a perfect standard rate turn can lead to such a stiff and inflexible yaw moment that the slightest attempt to side slip is defeated.

 

So it is a compromise. But all that is required to make the turn tighter to achieve standard rate is to apply more rudder than would normally be needed. Our customers, given the choice, would accept that for the sake of the "handling" advantages of a looser rudder/yaw reaction.

 

It can't be stated enough that everything about every simulator is a compromise. And that includes some full motion simulators costing millions. Some of those simulators are actually far from perfect either. Many of them are good within the procedures they are designed for. But that doesn't mean they are "games" either! So for the price I think FSX, despite its limitations, is a remarkably authentic simulation, at a cost that is a tiny fraction of other more sophisticated simulators, none of which lack flaws.

 

Regards,

 

Rob - RealAir

[Great Ozzie 101]

I think saying FSX is just a game is a bit harsh, and comparing it with Elite doesn't really account for the huge differences between each product

 

I don't think it is. I did not say it cannot be a valuable learning / training tool. In fact, I have said quite the opposite in AVSIM forums (I've been a vocal proponent) and if I was currently instructing, I would recommend to new students to consider using (I am sure I have said this too).

 

And I was not trying to make a comparison... that was not my point. I have spent hundreds of hours in ELITE practicing instrument procedures so I do understand its value and purpose.

 

So neither products fully capture the whole experience of flying.

 

I have quite literally had "tears brought to me eyes" when e.g. I first flew the "Sitka Approach" mission in FSX, because it so well captured the "feeling" of flying / landing in a C172 and an approach into an airport.

 

Many of them are good within the procedures they are designed for. But that doesn't mean they are "games" either!

 

Agreed, they are not. Part of the Simcom Baron training permitted an ICC signoff. And I felt perfectly comfortable with the idea of flying the Baron w/o a checkout (tho I would not have flown w/o one for several reasons ).

 

I have even heard if one was typed in a certain plane (depending on make/model) one could be typed in a similar plane solely in the Sim... i.e. never having stepped foot on the actual aircraft.

 

So for the price I thinik FSX, despite its limitations, is a remarkably authentic simulation

 

Yep... I have said this. Probably why I spend so many hours flying in FSX... terribly comparable to rw flying in so many respects.

 

-Rob O.

[Boris_The_Spider 0]

Interesting post, Boris. So the external gauges showed proper indications?

 

Quite so.

 

On the Flightline gauges, how to you add them to a VC with a custom 3D setup?

 

As far as I'm aware, you can't. I haven't tried, I use them in 2D panels.

[Skysurfer7 34]

What are you guys using when timing, the airplane's clock timer or a real timer? FYI There can be differences in the "FSX 1 min" vs. actual 1 min...just make sure they are the same...as overclocking & other stuff can cause time errors.

[Boris_The_Spider 0]

Coming to comments about standard turns and yaw again, I did try to honestly explain the compromises necessary in order to balance total accuracy in terms of numbers, and another kind of accuracy that is related to feel and behaviour. After over a decade of developing for Flight Simulator, we are absolutely certain that our customers want the more realistic yaw behaviour and I think given the choice they would rather have the ability to side slip and spin than the ability to have a totally accurate by-the-numbers standard rate turn without added rudder.

 

Not that the behaviour of the TC bothers me (I didn't even notice it until this thread) but this doesn't seem to explain it.

 

If the Duke somehow needs more rudder for a rate one turn, it doesn't explain why I get proper rate one turns out of it, using the RXP FLN TC.

 

If I put the ball in the middle on that instrument, and fly to the rate-one marks on that gauge, I can do timed turns accurately.

 

So the airplane is flying a rate-one turn (as verified by the heading and stopwatch) and the sim is reporting the turn correctly (because the RXP instrument reads correctly), the gauge (the TC in the VC) is just misreading.

 

What are you guys using when timing, the airplane's clock timer or a real timer? FYI There can be differences in the "FSX 1 min" vs. actual 1 min...just make sure they are the same...as overclocking & other stuff can cause time errors.

 

Just to clarify, I'm using a stopwatch - not the FSX clock.

[jcomm 5,970]

So the airplane is flying a rate-one turn (as verified by the heading and stopwatch) and the sim is reporting the turn correctly (because the RXP instrument reads correctly), the gauge (in the VC) is just misreading.

 

Sorry for insisting - are you sure that on those tests you do not have the YD on ? Sometimes even having it ON still requires rudder (slight) input on some aircraft. In a RealAir due to the above explanation by Rob, you should noticeably have to give rudder "towards the turn".

 

Because, there is an explanation based on some FM parameters and the variables used to implement the TC gauge...

 

Now, the RXP might have taken a completely different approach and programmed their own code independently of the variables I am talking about.

[Manny 1,293]

Is there a way to have two versions of the Duke... 1) As it is now with side slips and so on. 2) one for IFR Flying with proper Turn rate but not so good side slips etc?

 

 

Manny

[jcomm 5,970]

And... to find out even better why the RXP gauges may be working so correctly, fly a completely uncoordinated std rate turn and please post your findings (I do not have FSX installed, nor X-Plane10 any more after having completely adhered to the mighty DCS P-51 , and of course kept my ELITE v8 Premium... the only one that resists to my changes of mood...). You can either fly a slipping or a skidding turn... Take care not to stall / spin - start at a considerable altitude... Oh my God, I will feel really bad if something nasty happens to you or to your aircraft... take care!!!! :-)

[Boris_The_Spider 0]

Sorry for insisting - are you sure that on those tests you do not have the YD on ?

 

Absolutely sure. I just tested again, and with the yaw damper on the result is the same - the RXP gauge indicates correctly in a rate one turn (ball in the middle, wingtip on the rate one mark), but the VC gauge needs the wings over on the L/R marks, well past the rate one mark.

 

Sometimes even having it ON still requires rudder (slight) input on some aircraft. In a RealAir due to the above explanation by Rob, you should noticeably have to give rudder "towards the turn".

 

I tried that to see what would happen to the VC gauge - if I tried to add rudder to hasten the turn, if I added any appreciable amount of rudder, I ended up having to hold opposite aileron otherwise the wings on the TC (the RealAir one) bank over more, indicating a faster turn. The more rudder you add, the more opposite aileron you'll have to hold, to keep the instrument indicating rate one. But no matter how you manipulate the ailerons and rudder, if the instrument is indicating rate-one, you don't actually get a 2-minute turn, rather you get a 3 minute turn.

[Bert Pieke 7,586]

If indeed the instrument is off, the easiest would be to change the markings, I would think..

 

Edit the RAS_Beech_TC_1 and _1L.dds textures in the texture.gauges folder and see if that fixes things for you.

[LawnDartLeo 7]

Maybe I am missing some of the finer points here... but would this problem not be resolved by simply updating the VC art? Move the tics on the TC the appropriate amount and viola' problem solved more or less?