Posted Today, 08:10 PM

 

View PostTabs, on 06 December 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Accounting for both standard and tweaked versions would add considerable development time as we'd need separate code paths, airfiles, cfgs etc for whatever values for the friction people settled on using

 

This pretty much ends all hopes of PMDG doing this.

 

I think PMDG (TABS) are taking the right route.

 

Develop for "MICROSOFT's" FSX, and let others provide "optional" addons and addition.

 

FSUIPC is an optional addon. ( even if it is difficult to imagine FSX WITHOUT FSUIPC !!)

 

If an Aircraft developer produces an product that is dependent on another addon, (that they do not control), they are exposing themselves to massive issues, should that dependent addon Change, or cease to be available. Not to mention making support far more difficult ( = expensive)

 

Those who have an interest in enhancing their FSX with addons, are now able to modify PMDG's designed behavior of their PMDG plane, by many methods, should they so choose.

Modify cfg files, air files, textures etc. Modifying with FSUIPC is just one more "optional" tool.

 

However, like most items that user's modify, don't be surprised if you cannot get support from the aircraft developer, if you make such changes.

 

I can see the FS Community embracing such tools as FSUIPC, and those that want to, can enhance their Sim, to be whatever they are able achieve.

 

Isn't this what MSFS users have been doing for years, What has changed ?

 

=====

 

That being said, I do have a MAJOR fuel consumption issue with my Plane.

Fuel consumption is way off, since I did a slight "unofficial" modification.

I really need the original developer to fix it !!! ( and why not, I paid for it !!)

 

Sam,

 

Thanks for highlighting this tweak. I'll certainly be giving it a try. I find the excessive thrust needed in MSFS to get aircraft moving and keep them moving to be unrealistic, so it will be nice to have the chance to modify the friction and get an improvement.. There should be no need for PMDG to adjust their modelling to compensate. Rolling friction has little or no effect on takeoff time and distance. Thrust and drag forces predominate. There will be a small effect, but probably nothing noticeable unless you really look for it.

I find the rolling friction to be realistic in the NGX, since PMDG already worked on it during development. However, it's the side friction that's killing me. I would use the tweak for side friction only, and leave the rolling friction unmodified.

I think longitudinal fiction is too high, as seen in the amount of thrust needed to keep the aircraft rolling. I'm giving the mod a trial to see what the pros and cons are, but so far it seems a positive benefit overall. PMDG tuned the NGX subjectively with pilots but in my experience of this kind of exercise as long as your in the ball park, most pilots will generally say it feels OK. It all depends on the questions they are asked. It would be interesting to know how they'd react if shown the NGX with this mod in place without being given the unmodified version for comparison.

 

I made some comparative tests using the 737-800 version and at MTOW the mod makes a measurable difference to takeoff time and distance (5 seconds and 400 feet less to Vr). But for an RTO the overall time and distance from start to stop is virtually the same. At very light weights the takeoff time and distance difference is very much smaller (friction forces being proportional to weight). The most noticeable difference at light weight is that the aircraft will accelerate from rest at idle thrust with brakes released. Without the mod the sim needs a touch of thrust to get rolling.

...and as compared to real world data?

 

In the end, it makes very little difference. Taxi accounts for...what? 20min of the whole flight (unless you're going in and out of LGA - then you're screwed - and you're probably not rolling much anyway...sorry N90...).

Taxi is quite a short phase overall, but if it can be improved without compromising anything else then that's surely a good thing. If you allow for the fact that most of an airliner flight from initial climb to approach will probably be under autopilot control taxi accounts for a large proportion of manual handling. It's very different for GA and bush flying of course.

 

I recommend you try the mod, even if it's only out of curiosity. FSUIPC makes it very easy to add or remove.

The ultimate best part about this mod, is the crosswind landings, they have been improved dramatically. Now it is possible to crab to the runway, and then come out of the crab and stay on centre line without sliding off the runway, or drifting diagonally to the direction of the runway.

I've taxied a few jets. The most memorables were the DC-10, G-3 and the G5/550. The DC10 performed as 3 different types. There were the lite, medium and heavy weight characteristics. The type i flew was certified up to 590k pounds. If she was above 500k, we started the number 2 for taxi. The brakes worked very well(10 brakes). The DC10 could stop on a dime and most off runway incidents occured with rejects above V1. Everyone knows that aborts at V1 in the upper heavy range equated to brake fires. V1 on a standard day, flaps 15, CG 20% is 169kts at 590K. Engine 2 was never used for taxi though started above 500K. Even at lite weights, the jet would slow to a stop with idle thrust. Breakway thrust was 10% of your gross weight. So at 400k, you set 40% N1 on 1 and 3 and wait for it. With breakaway thrust set, it normally took 3 to 6 seconds, weight dependant, before the aircaft would move. Those cans were notorious for causing damage if above break away thrust in congested areas. The number 2 caused major issues with structures, hence the lack of use during taxi. In all ranges, you needed some engine thrust to keep her on taxi speed. 30ish was a good starting point. I used RCR readings for taxi speed. 6=icy, so around 6 kts. 12=wet, so 12 and 23 was dry and i didnt exceed it. The brakes would heat up on taxi even with out brake use so we kept the speed down. All turns were made between 6 to 8 kts. Any thing above 10 led to nose chatter as the nose wheel skipped along. Wet aprons aggrivated the situation. During sizable turns, one of the nose wheels lifts from the ground leaving the surface area of a loaf of bread for turning. The brakes were so effective that you could use only one side brakes to get a smooth stop when stopping at parking or the terminal.

 

I once aborted a touch n go at 420k on a 7100ft runway after flaps, trim and 100% N1(touch n go N1) were set. I set pwr to the 12 O clock position after the mains touched and stood on the brakes at 135kts after the start of the abort. The plane snapped to a stop with about 2500ft remaining. We turned off at the end and the engineer filed takeoff data and off we went to fininsh the proficiency flight. Brake cooling time was less than 30 minutes and was complete by the time we were set to go again. The cause of the abort was due to a huge flock of crows rising from the departure end towards our direction. On touch n go's, ive noticed that i loose about 10 to 15 knots from the time the mains touch until throttles are re-established to takeoff power on most jets i've flown. I've allways thought FSX lacked in this area. Touch n goes have allways taken longer in FSX. Once the mains and nose are down, i reset flaps and check trim in the green and state stand them up(12:00 position). Once flaps make it to position, i state "set takeoff power" and call "TOGA"-"rotate" at approach speed.

 

The G-3 did'nt require much power to get going. You come out of the stops(ground idle detent) about a inch and a half and dropped back into the stops. In idle, she would slowly lose speed. You could get up to your taxi speed, return to the stops and she would coast for a good distance before having re-apply power. During turns, you had to lead the power to carry speed through the turn or else you would stall out(embarrassing). I know most FSX guys believe that alot of aircraft will taxi with idle power, but from my experiance not entirely true. It's hard to tell from the inside of an airliner because the thrust change is small. If done right, passengers never notice the power change unless coming from a stop. After gaining experience, you learn to lead speed changes or find set power settings for taxi. In that scenario you dont notice the changes due to slight nudges of the throttles. As all know, taxi is done using the least amount of brakes possible.

 

The G5/550 is a different animal. Its so quiet that you can get fast with out knowing. In the other aircraft, i was accustomed to engine whine for power settings. Easy to set power settings, while discussing stocks/company gossip, by listening to the whine. My first flight in the 5, i set too much power on break away and shot up to 30 kts in seconds. At all weights, they will accel on you. The brakes are too sensitive and become very grabby once they warm up. The hardest thing to do in the 5 series is to brake smoothly or release brakes smoothly when power is set prior to brake release. In the 5, we use idle thrust to speed up, one thrust reverser at idle to maintain speed and two reversers to slow down. For turns you use both reversers as you approach the turn and close them as you roll into the turn. Skilled guys only use brakes for the final moment in a stop and to hold position.

 

Just my view from what i've flown. I will give the file a test to compare. My biggest complaint about friction in FSX is crosswind landings and takeoffs. I find real life crosswinds easier than in FSX.

Very good! Just getting the Lateral Friction right in FSX is good enough for me!

Then the "almost" Optimum solution for all is a FSUIPC where, in the FREE Version can enable/disable the Longitudinal & latitudinal "corrections" independently.

 

The OPTIMUM solution is to support Peter Dowson, and purchase the REGISTERED version, and be able to change whatever you want, to whatever you like, on a plane by plane basis.

So is there much i have to do to add the mod? I installed the K version of fsuipc and added Patchsimdll=1 to the general section. I did'nt notice anything much different.

So is there much i have to do to add the mod? I installed the K version of fsuipc and added Patchsimdll=1 to the general section. I did'nt notice anything much different.

 

Hi Rick,

 

I believe the syntax above is incorrect. It should be "patchsim1friction=Yes". See Pete's post here:

Ron Attwood, on 06 December 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

I have absolutely no doubt he has done a good job, but where do I mess with it? (or probably, mess it up)

I've inserted the Patchsimdll=1 into the ini file, I think I'd best leave it at that. I only fly light aircraft so will that do me?

 

It won't do anything, actually. You have it wrong. It's "patchsim1friction=Yes"

 

Can someone please post a install this tutorial for dummy's? I downloaded Pete's latest FSUIPC version (the K one) but I don't know what to do with the .dll file inside the zip. Also I can't open the .dll file to insert PatchSIM1friction=Yes into it.

 

Please help

 

Thanks

 

Angelo Corredino

Can someone please post a install this tutorial for dummy's? I downloaded Pete's latest FSUIPC version (the K one) but I don't know what to do with the .dll file inside the zip. Also I can't open the .dll file to insert PatchSIM1friction=Yes into it.

 

Please help

 

Thanks

 

Angelo Corredino

 

I haven't applied this fix through FSUIPC, but you can open any DLL file with the default notepad. It's just text/code in the file.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

I haven't applied this fix through FSUIPC, but you can open any DLL file with the default notepad. It's just text/code in the file.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone...typing errors imminent

 

Not exactly, DLL's are binary code!