Vu,

 

no, my CoG tweaks were only for the default aircraft that come with 10.22

The Carenados are very good, and now, with this tweak, revealled by Dan Klaue ( the author of the Carenados for X-Plane ) and Brett Stumpter, they'll feel even better :-)

 

 

All that will probably be required will ne to clear the tweaks that they have to overcome the excessive torque effects now that we can use this new, more natural, tweak:

 

I will try to ellaborate more on this on a future post!

So what exactly would you like to see done at this point, ideally speaking?

 

Hey, Dan! Good to see you here.  :smile:  What does Plinky mean, anyhow?

 

Thanks for showing the community how to help compensate for a much debated topic and desired fix!

If they can fix this, I will buy XPlane 10. So far, the use of SB ( I only fly online ) and this have kept me from buying it.

 

 

Sent from my Apple communications device.

I guess now that's sorted that's going to cut JCom's posts by 50% and LAdamson's by 100%.

 

Perhaps you guys could start a debate on urban autogen and textures? Might find a hidden fix buried in the code there too!

I think this debate can't be closed as long as simmers are using joysticks with springs instead of a stick with cables were the strength is calculated depending on the airflow on the control surfaces.

Any chance someone could reproduce the instructions here? My IP address has been banned from X-Plane.org for some unknown reason.

Tony,

 

it's not complex. If you just want to edit the default aicraft, and they do not have a sasl plugin already, then simply unpack the "TorqueFix.zip" into the main folder of your aircraft - for instance, the default C172, or C400.

 

Then edit the "avionics.lua" with NOTEPAD and change the last 1.00 parameter to something less. Start at 0.50, try even lower values if you still find the roll due to torque too pronnounced.

Beware that this change can ask for an editing of the aircraft geometry section, trim tabs, where values for aileron and rudder trim tabs might have been set by default to overcome what will now be ironed out. Reduce any aileron trim tab settings:

 

 

 

In the above image I have reduced it to only 0.005, but even lower might be required...

 

Also give a look at the Engine Specifications and vertical stabilizer incidence, just in case these were also set. Adjust them and test. Repeat until your glad with the outcome.

 

Using more "sophisticated" lua code you can, as Dan explained so well today at the ".org" how to make this torque variations depend on AoA, Speed, etc....

 

Perfection is now the only limit :-)

 

 

I think this debate can't be closed as long as simmers are using joysticks with springs instead of a stick with cables were the strength is calculated depending on the airflow on the control surfaces.

 

True!  That's probably one of the next things we could ask Austin to implement / ajust in X-Plane 10 ( I take care from now on when I say implement, because I can never again say it is not already there after all, just hidden from the common user :-)

 

Just to give you a very positive example of how this is so well implemented in DCS World, if you place your P51d on the tarmac with a considerable wind component from ahead, and start moving the trim wheels for aileron, rudder or elevator, you'll actually see those control surfaces starting to move, as well as the controls in the cockpit. If the wind blows faint, the effect will not be visible until you gain speed and the trim tabs become effective!

@jcomm. Thank you very much for this, very much appreciated.  I want to change the Carenado C152 and C172 which are using SASL I believe, so I'll give this a go.

@jcomm. Thank you very much for this, very much appreciated. I want to change the Carenado C152 and C172 which are using SASL I believe, so I'll give this a go.

 

For those, which I do not own yet, I believe you'll find the file "avionics.lua" already in your aircraft root folder.

 

Simply edit it with NOTEPAD or NOTEPAD ++, and paste that line. It can be at the begining, although in my Carenados I prefered to paste it at the end of a section where a few "defineProperty" entries were listed.

 

Don't forget to:

 

1) backup your aircraft folder

2) Use Plane-Maker to also tweak eventual trim tab settings for aileron and rudder ( zero them, or at least reduce it substantialy ), and also possible engine cant or fin incidences...

 

 

and also possible engine cant or fin incidences...

 

Why would we remove engine cant? this is the real and natural fix for the torque issue in reality, and certainly does part of the job already.

 

 

Why would we remove engine cant? this is the real and natural fix for the torque issue in reality, and certainly does part of the job already.

 

True, but not all aircraft use it!  We should have acces to real aircraft data. On some aircraft we can keep it, but most probably will have to reduce the cant angle which used to be bigger than the real one.

 

On my Carenado F33 I left it, but reduced a bit.

True, but not all aircraft use it!  We should have acces to real aircraft data. On some aircraft we can keep it, but most probably will have to reduce the cant angle which used to be bigger than the real one.

 

On my Carenado F33 I left it, but reduced a bit.

And then you have to make sure of aircraft specs. For instance, I seen a website in which it was claimed that some specific Cessna high wings didn't have engine cant. While in fact, they do. Most singles, that I know of, do. I still don't know some actual specs for twins. Visually, the prop will look centered on the cowl, while the back of the engine is offset to one side.

I think this debate can't be closed as long as simmers are using joysticks with springs instead of a stick with cables were the strength is calculated depending on the airflow on the control surfaces.

That is another debate of mine for sure. I disagree with those who say that the length of the control stick makes a big difference in controllability. It's what we get use to. I flew a lot of R/C with those short little 2" sticks, in addition to the full size yokes & sticks. R/C included both helicopters & airplanes. Just as a Boeing 767 pilot friend of mine, had to get use to those short 2" R/C sticks, before he could make any successful R/C flight, it's the same for anyone else. You just learn to respond by what you see, and not the measured amount of actual control movement. Because I was use to those R/C sticks, it found it easier to adapt to the full size Pitts and other quick response airplanes, without over controlling.

For the time being, control phase-out can be used to somehow simulate control response at different speeds / g charges. I've sucessfuly used this on a few aircraft.

 

 

 

And then you have to make sure of aircraft specs. For instance, I seen a website in which it was claimed that some specific Cessna high wings didn't have engine cant. While in fact, they do. Most singles, that I know of, do. I still don't know some actual specs for twins. Visually, the prop will look centered on the cowl, while the back of the engine is offset to one side.

 

The correct procedure would be to design the aircraft as close as possible to RW specs, and then tweak the torque parameter to get the final expected results...

The problem with joysticks is not the length, nor the shape (stick or yoke), but the fact that the springs pull the controls to the middle of the axes. This is a hardware design issue and can't be corrected with software. But I think this is the main reason why some virtual pilots say they have to fight with their joystick against the torque, and why they think it doesn't exist in their real plane.