The sensitivity slider in FSX, if I understand it correctly, adds a delay to the input that is latter transfered to the control surfaces, not the movement range itself, am I right?

 

I'm asking this because the real C172 doesn't have any lag on the controls, you get what you order it to do immediately, so I think it's very realistic to have our controls at 100% sensitivity.

The sensitivity slider in FSX, if I understand it correctly, adds a delay to the input that is latter transfered to the control surfaces, not the movement range itself, am I right?

 

I'm asking this because the real C172 doesn't have any lag on the controls, you get what you order it to do immediately, so I think it's very realistic to have our controls at 100% sensitivity.

 

No. The sensitivity sliders alter the curve response. Low sensitivity means an exponential curve so the first third of movement provides less input, whereas high sensitivity gives greater input at the beginning and less at the end. Slider centred equates roughly to a linear progression. There is no lag at all in any sensitivity setting. The only lag or delay is if you set a null zone.

A fix is available in FSUIPC, too, by using the Slope function.

No. The sensitivity sliders alter the curve response. Low sensitivity means an exponential curve so the first third of movement provides less input, whereas high sensitivity gives greater input at the beginning and less at the end. Slider centred equates roughly to a linear progression. There is no lag at all in any sensitivity setting. The only lag or delay is if you set a null zone.

Wow!! So this changes everything!

 

I've been running my Thrustmaster Warthog with Sensitivy sliders at 100%, thinking it would be making it as neutral as possible, It's actually making it have a greater input at the beginning of the movement, and less at the end??

 

Actually, I have now switched to using FSUIPC for my Axis, and disabled FSX Controller, since Windows 8 was giving me problem. That, with the Slope at 0 should get me linear response, right?

Wow!! So this changes everything!

 

I've been running my Thrustmaster Warthog with Sensitivy sliders at 100%, thinking it would be making it as neutral as possible, It's actually making it have a greater input at the beginning of the movement, and less at the end??

 

Actually, I have now switched to using FSUIPC for my Axis, and disabled FSX Controller, since Windows 8 was giving me problem. That, with the Slope at 0 should get me linear response, right?

Hi Alec,

 

Your Warthog might be different. I was only discusssing FSX internal settings. These in turn can be altered by FSUIPC or a custom joystick setting. In fact the whole thing could become a conflicting mess, so the best thing is to keep things very simple and choose one source but leave the others neutral!

I've been running my Thrustmaster Warthog with Sensitivy sliders at 100%,

 

Actually, I have now switched to using FSUIPC for my Axis, a That, with the Slope at 0 should get me linear response, right?

 

In addition to Rob's comments, Alec, FSUIPC allows one to create a profile for each aircraft, or group of aircraft types, and, as the A10 and the C172 are very different aircraft, you may want to create a "Single-Piston" group/profile, and assign this C172 to it, giving it its own curves, slopes and limits - in particular - the Elevator Slope, which you would not necessarily want as "linear" - it should probably have a fairly flat response around neutral, with an increasing effect as the yoke is progrssively pulled back. You could then assign to it all of your aircraft of this category. Splendid product!

A fix is available in FSUIPC, too, by using the Slope function.

Does a positive (+) slope equal more or less sensitivity in the middle (centered) part of the control range?

 

Slim

Hi Alec,

 

Your Warthog might be different. I was only discusssing FSX internal settings. These in turn can be altered by FSUIPC or a custom joystick setting. In fact the whole thing could become a conflicting mess, so the best thing is to keep things very simple and choose one source but leave the others neutral!

 

When you develop a plane's feel, where do you have your sensitivities set?   I know you are a Real Air guy, but the question could also be answered by an A2A person too.  If I have my control axises, yoke and pedals, assigned in FSX and with default sensitivity settings (whatever FSX gives it, I left it unchanged), will that provide the correct airplane feel as the developer intended? 

re: torque and P factor, I primarily flew 152 & 172 for my ppl training.  I wasn't quite sure what my right foot was for.  Maybe there was an aileron/rudder interconnect or something. 

 

When I took Emergency Maneuvers Training in a Citabria I found out what the rudder was for.  I liken it to the difference in driving a Ford Van to a Miata.

 

Kudos to Rob and RealAir for the their Citabria/Decathlon/Scout package.

 

Slim

 If I have my control axises, yoke and pedals, assigned in FSX and with default sensitivity settings (whatever FSX gives it, I left it unchanged), will that provide the correct airplane feel as the developer intended? 

 

In the case of toe brakes, default FSX sensitivity is incorrect: http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=35896

In the case of toe brakes, default FSX sensitivity is incorrect: http://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=108&t=35896

 

True, and thanks for answering.  I should have mentioned that I have those at 100% (Concorde X requires that).  To be clear, I was talking the Ailerons, Elevator, and Rudder.  If I leave those at default sensitivity, will I typically be getting the same control feel that the you guys get when tuning the airplane for realism in the development shop?

In addition to Rob's comments, Alec, FSUIPC allows one to create a profile for each aircraft, or group of aircraft types, and, as the A10 and the C172 are very different aircraft, you may want to create a "Single-Piston" group/profile, and assign this C172 to it, giving it its own curves, slopes and limits - in particular - the Elevator Slope, which you would not necessarily want as "linear" - it should probably have a fairly flat response around neutral, with an increasing effect as the yoke is progrssively pulled back. You could then assign to it all of your aircraft of this category. Splendid product!

 

I have seen that box before! Never used it though.

 

It's a hard job for us simmers to tweak the controllers to our own likings, when we have no idea what the Flight Model Developer had in his mind. But I'll give it a try!

I have been thinking re: flight behavior, maybe A2A has it correct, and Cessna has it wrong?

 

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Does a positive (+) slope equal more or less sensitivity in the middle (centered) part of the control range?

 

Slim

Here you go Slim - a piece of the manual, w/pics.

Regarding the prop effects:

 

1) FSX never modeled the slipstream effects, to the level of calculating things like the asymmetric hit on different aircraft surfaces, thus, only p-factor and high alpha on yaw can be used to somehow tweak these effects.

 

2) Just as X-Plane, FSX tends to exaggerate the effects of torque on roll, with almost all of the default, and many add-on aircraft showing pronnounced bank where instead we should see / "feel" yaw

 

I suggest that, while A2A finds a better match for their C172 FDM, and a more "clean" code to whatever changed in the turn coordinator in as far as the ball physics go ( they're not right in default FSX, but this C172 has it even worse IMO ), we can play with the following tuning parameters:

 

- prop_on_roll

- p_factor_on_yaw

- high_alpha_on_yaw

- high_alpha_on_roll

They are by default set at 1.0 on most aircraft, but I don't know how they're set in the A2A C172 yet! I usually reduce substantially any roll effects, because torque effects on most prop aircraft are only a factor at low speed / high AoA, and increase the high_alpha_on_yaw and p_factor_on_yaw because, since FSX does not take into account spiraling slipstream effects, p-factor has to be used instead (not realistic, but the closer we can get...)

Start with prop_on_roll=0.2, p_factor_on_yaw=1.5, high_alpha_on_yaw=1.5...

P.S.: Thinking about it... this is probably silly of me to suggest, because OF COURSE A2A surely has weighted all of the possible combinations of such parameters, and if they left it as they are, that's most certainly because it is so far the best compromise... nonetheless, we can always experiment