Flying on rails?

[Geofa 108]

I have posted over and over simple flight tests that the FAA requires for stability in rw aircraft that can not be passed in this sim. This is not subjective, but clearly demonstratable. Never being able to admit there is this easily demonstratable flaw and not trying to work towards a solution is unfathomable to me, but as greater numbers ( if they do) start to flock to this sim it needs to be improved/fixed. How about we work for a fix and leave subjective defense behind?

[fvapres 7]

There are many things that happen when flying in an aircraft, all taken in through multiple senses. Smell and feel in the seat and yoke are out due to the interaction with the computer, but when you go from 100% throttle firewalled with an aircraft trimmed well and stable, then drop the throttle to 50% and add a notch of flaps, when you're familiar with an aircraft, you can feel with your eyes how the aircraft reacts. The altimeter climbs, nose drops then climbs as the various parts of the aircraft react to the lift/thrust configuration changes. You know when it's right, it does all the things you look for. A yoke not tied to the actual ailerons or hydraulics in an aircraft but instead have a centering spring will always feel differently, but moving them to a position at a certain rate will yield a specific roll rate or pitch rate.

 

These are not things that can be numbered, only "felt" by observation and your knowledge of the real aircraft in those situations. Patterns are great as you've done countless numbers of them in varying circumstances, but there are things that are the same in each one of them. Those are what you look for the sim to do, and if it does what you're looking for, it's successful in recreating the feel of flight when the response is the same in sim as in real flight.

[Mountain Man 142]

I guess I can accept that reasoning, but when you get enough people / pilots telling you that something is amiss, are they all wrong?

 

I suppose it depends on what they think is wrong and why they think it's wrong.

[Muskoka 104]

I suppose it depends on what they think is wrong and why they think it's wrong.

 

They've already explained all the issues, with various real world examples. I don't know why were still talking about this, thought they would have moved onto "fixing" the issues by now. The "fixing" will be a benefit too all, this bickering is just a waste of time, every bodies time.

 

Address this issue, fix what's not right, put it to rest. Then move on to the next one. That's progress, moving forward, better for everyone involved.

 

Glen

[Geofa 108]

Wrong:

 

1) A Baron, Bonanza, most Piper and Cessna's do not need aileron/rudder trim to trim for level flight. In fact most of these aircraft do not have aileron/rudder trim controls.

 

2) Once trimmed an aircraft should not be immediately leaving a trimmed condition-banking 45 degrees within a couple seconds or in a climb 1000 fpm or above and never returning to the initial trimmed position is not right and is negative stability. Positive stability means an airplane will develop forces or moments which tend to restore it to its original position-this does not happen.

 

Fact:

 

1) This has nothing to do with control feel, and requirements are clearly stated in Far's part 23 as to what is required for aircraft performance. This is not subjective stuff but can be easily measured. I have repeatedly stated tests one can do-they literally take a minute or two.

 

2) We have been told that a well designed aircraft by a master Xplane guru should be perfectly flyable without the use of pitch stability augmentation and all the other stability items in that menu-yet it seems these must be utilized to make an xplane aircraft fly in a somewhat realistic way.

 

3) I have never mentioned "control feel" however what fvapres states above is completely correct. As proof, why would a simmer buy different fs aircraft if in some way the difference of handling of the aircraft were not simulated? It can be done, even with our primitive spring controlled controllers.

 

I can't remember but I joined xplane very early in either version 3 or 4 (maybe even 2). I and others including Larry have been asking these same questions since (just search the org). The addition of the stability sliders is welcome (though it seems looked as a "cheat" by some). After owning so many versions I'd like to see this issue addressed. The Carenado crew seems to have hit on something because they are closer-with the stability sliders all the way to the left.

 

Stability and trim are pretty much the basics of flying-period-all else comes from that.

 

From Wiki: " The use of trim tabs significantly reduces pilots' workload during continuous maneuvers (e.g.: sustained climb to altitude after takeoff or descent prior to landing), allowing them to focus their attention on other tasks such as traffic avoidance or communication with air traffic control."

 

As it stands now Chuck Yeager ability would be required to fly and the subsequent accident rate would make no one want to fly.

 

Yes I and others have tried to make these points many, many times. It would be welcome to move to the fix level but I have to say it is frustrating when the problems are clearly stated many, many times over many many years and one is met with astonishment, subjective when it is anything but, and then crawling back under a rock.

[LAdamson 240]

I especially like the feeling of correcting yaw in some XP planes, although its a bit too sensative. FSX just doens't seem to feel right in any plane.

 

I agree that it is very subjective.

 

Yep, very subjective.

 

After numerous real life flights, involving mountainous terrain, I'd often come home & fire up the computer to re-create these flights. Since XP9 has some descent topigraphical terrain right out of the box, I'd use it, as well as FSX. For me, the RealAir Marchetti SF260 (FSX) always just seemed right, when going from my Van's RV6 to the desktop sim. It just "felt right"! With X-Plane, something seemed wrong, and I'd usually exit after five minutes. I do believe we now have the reason nailed, which is the subject of this thread.

 

L.Adamson

[Murmur 3,941]

I don't understand why this thread turned into the stability issue. That is already being discussed in another thread, and in the first post of this thread I even wrote (in capital letters) that I was _not_ referring to the other issues of X-Plane flight model (among them the stability issues) but _just_ to the specific things i mentioned when comparing the videos of RL, X-Plane, FSX.

[Geofa 108]

Are they not connected-the view out the window will be connected to what you are feeling in the cockpit? (however after making my nice comments at how xplane does this very well I confess to being suckered in by Mountains comments that dragged the other thread in-I apologize)

 

Despite my using videos to illustrate a point I am somewhat suspicious of them.

In almost all my videos my flying partner will try to make a 30 degree bank look like an 80 degree just for the fun of it, if you are holding the camera it is shaking all around due to the vibration of the aircraft that really might not be going on. In my kdkx landing which is one of my favorites-it looks like the trees on final are 1 ft. away-but they are further than that...

[LAdamson 240]

Which is still a subjective evaluation. The other problem, which has been discussed at length in the other thread, is that flying a desktop sim lacks many of the sensations you experience while flying a real plane, so you can't take as much advantage of your instincts. That is to say you fly a desktop sim differently than you fly a real airplane. This, I suspect, also has a dramatic impact on the "feel" of a particular plane.

I think this is getting into the territory of "feeling". What "feels right" in a desktop sim is highly subjective. Some people seem to want their planes to fly hands-off from coast to coast (O.K., slight exaggeration) while others don't mind having to make small adjustments throughout the flight to keep their plane straight and level. It seems the only real blanket solution is to learn Plane Maker and tweak an aircraft to one's personal taste.

 

My "feeling", is that you don't exactly know what you're trying to say. This has nothing to do with hands off, or making small adustments. It's more like flying a plane cross country that's seriously out of rig. We know the "feel", and don't like it. I once flew a Cessna 172, in which a bird strike took nearly the whole front windscreen out. I ferried it back to it's FBO after the windscreen was replaced. It just always wanted to bank to the right. It was constant aileron & rudder for the 215 miles. And I didn't like that either. The XP problem isn't near that bad, but it's still annoying, and our "pilot" brains are certainly filling in some of the gaps, that many of you don't have sensations of.

 

I don't understand why this thread turned into the stability issue. That is already being discussed in another thread, and in the first post of this thread I even wrote (in capital letters) that I was _not_ referring to the other issues of X-Plane flight model (among them the stability issues) but _just_ to the specific things i mentioned when comparing the videos of RL, X-Plane, FSX.

 

Yep...................and now I'm even getting the threads mixed up!!!

[CVEP 13]

Maybe we can say that both sims have good enough flight modeling for a simulator. And it's just a matter of what payware developers do with the platform. For me I really like the way the tires touch the runway in XP when landing, it looks much more detailed, however I don't know if enough ground effect is modeled.

[jcomm 5,928]

I am able to properly trim the default Baron and C90 for initial climb, cruise and descent and it stays trimmed and stable. My problem is that I am using the wrong trim (aileron instead of rudder), most of the time. Other than this, and just as I once was told by Austin - use the aileron trim...

 

Regarding pitch stability I also find that the default Baron and C90 exhibit positive stability. Curiously I was surprised by the "strange" behaviour of the p51d in DCS World, and I was not the only one... Reading a few books and technical documents ended up showing that the p51 can show, depending on various factor, positive or neutral pitch stability (but certainly not negative stability) in pitch. For instance, the aircraft is designed to react like having neutral stability for positive pitching inputs/perturbations, and positive stability for negative pitch inputs/perturbations. When "tail heavy", with a loaded fuselage fuel tank, it can also show neutral stabiltiy for pitch down inputs...

 

I believe that a well-designed p51d for x-plane (never tried the only commercial product available) could be made to exhibit this same characteristics. In fact, a friend who is involved in aeronautical sciences, and also a DCS user, has spent some time investigating Plane Maker, downloaded a few good aircraft and found out that X-Plane10 has a rather powerful and detailled flight dynamics model. His initial evaluation, just as it happens to many newcommers, was somehow disappointing, but after going deeper and trying his own "tweaks", and using some good add-ons, his oppinion changed considerably...

 

Mostly like Goran, and Tom sometimes write - using corrects RoGs and good aero data (airfoils, etc...) we should be able to nail a model down to very close to real flight performnace....

[Alec 370]

Nice to hear your friend liked X-Plane after learning how to use it!

 

Waiting for that addon to get X-Plane back on this PC! MortenM's Piper is where I have put all my coins!

[Muskoka 104]

we should be able to nail a model down to very close to real flight performnace....

 

Then let's do it. There still seems to be quite a few around here that are having issues, and they're real world pilot's with legitimate concerns. The tools are available, great, tell them / us what needs to be done, and hopefully with screen shots, because, as we all know, Plane Maker is "not" a tool for the average user, they / we will need "precise" help and guidance.

 

Tom, (again Thanks) has already helped in some areas, it appears there needs to be some more?

 

Plane Maker is great for those interested in learning how to use it. Most existing and new users haven't got a clue what their doing in there, let alone what everything means. And to be quite honest, could care less. They just know they have some issues, and if they can fix it themselves, great, but their going to need to be led by a helping hand. They don't have the time, patience, experience or most important the aeronautical knowledge to make the necessary adjustments. I don't think it's fair to ask them to acquire it either, that's not what the majority of users purchased the program for, a huge learning curve, just to make the aircraft fly to their liking.

 

So, if Goef, Larry, anyone for that matter are having a certain issue, instead of arguing it's existence, show them what they might be able to do in Plane Maker to make their Xplane experience a little more enjoyable. To just sit and argue whether their issues even exist, is just ridiculous, and doesn’t serve anyone, other than perhaps the ego's of the ones arguing the existence of the issue in the first place.

 

Glen

[jcomm 5,928]

So, if Goef, Larry, anyone for that matter are having a certain issue, instead of arguing it's existence, show them what they might be able to do in Plane Maker to make their Xplane experience a little more enjoyable.

 

That's exactly what I dream being able to do with my own complaints... :-)

 

I'll try to get more from the rather busy DCS user....

[Geofa 108]

Jcomm-I can get these aircraft to a somewhat positive stable trimable state by sliding the stability sliders full right ( though still needs rudder/aileron trim which is not right) but we have been told over and over that that is a "cheat" and a well modeled xplane does not need these. Oddly the Carenado's aircraft fly best with the sliders all the way to the left.