Would you mind sharing your FSUIPC sensitvity settings that you feeel are more accurate?

 

 

Would you mind sharing your FSUIPC sensitvity settings that you feeel are more accurate?

 

I don't fly the NGX except once in a blue moon.  My guess is that a slope setting of -4 or -5 based on what kevinh said?  Give it a try and see if the wheel movement in the VC is about the same. 

I've always argued for using 100% sensitivity in FSX, even when PMDG have recommended reduced sensitivity in the past. Reduced sensitivity in effect reduces the rate of response of the sim.

Hi to all,

I'd like to give my little contribute to this discussion,

Firstly I agree with Kevin:

I have never flown (until now) a B738 FFS Level D Simulator but I've been spending some hours in a B738 fixed base training every now and then (usually 6 times in a year, 2 hours per session, the last time was on last Saturday):

The big difference is given by a yoke feeling vs a joystick..you know: a joystick as a travel of few centrimetres from i.e. neutral position to full up position so if you've sometimes the sensation to make a too fast rotation during takeoff is due to your rapid backward movement not to control sensitivity, as Kevin has wrote, FS sensitivity regerds the "rate of response" of the control and you need to keep it at 100% to be realistic.(togheter with keeping a lower null zone if you can).on the other hand a yoke is heavier and has a longer travel so it easier to make "fine-tuning" correction there you've only to resist to the sensation i.e. to pull harder on takeoff and considering the a/c inertia etc (i.e. 7 seconds from the beginning to the rotation to a 15° nose up pitch).

Anyway the proprietor of that sim told me that its controls are more sensitive, especially on roll axis than a FFS Level D sim that I had tested  (and also more sensitive to the real bird according to a RW b738 pilot testing that sim). On the other hand also that fixed base simulator hasn't got a "force feedback" controls: i.e. when autopilot is engaged the yoke doesn't move. He told me that in the FFS Level D sim controls were heavier and less sensitive especially on roll. He told me that if you mistrim the pitch the yoke become very heavy...he experienced that  during a stall recovery manouver..you know: as stated into FCTM during that exercise you haven't to re-trim so for recovering he had to use a "great force to push forward the yoke because it was very heavy I could feel almost the airplane weight".

 

Best Regards

 

Andrea

Sorry folks,

I made a mistake: the correct is "than a FFS Level D sim that HE had tested" (unfortunately I've never tested it until now)

I do my apologizes

 

Best Regards

Andrea

I appreciated reading all the feedback you gave me guys and one of my problems being, I haven't ever flown a real aircraft, where apparently, fine movements of the controls of any aircraft are similar.

 

Maybe I did it the wrong way around eh?

I appreciated reading all the feedback you gave me guys and one of my problems being, I haven't ever flown a real aircraft, where apparently, fine movements of the controls of any aircraft are similar.

 

Maybe I did it the wrong way around eh?

 

If I understand you, no, I don't think you got it wrong.  I removed the null zone on my CH yoke for an airplane today and increased sensitivity in FSUIPC.  The result was excellent.  While I don't have any spring giving me similar pressure (like an aileron does), I could still see with my eyes that the airplane was tilted and a slight movement did straighten it.  I am looking for a better yoke that has a smaller "no spring zone" or "no pressure zone" when it's centered so that I can also get the pressure 'clue' that the aileron or elevator is deflecting the control surface.  But it's not essential...it's just one more clue.  Also, every airplane is different.  Whipping the yoke sideways for a steep turn on a Cessna 172 is going to have an immediate affect.  On a Boeing, not so much.

 

Gregg

Kevinh,

 

I have flown various commercial airplanes as a professional pilot, I've been to numerous initial and recurrent Simulator sessions. Believe me when I tell you that even a Levele D Simulator is different than the real airplane, not by much but different at the same time. Simulators are more sensitive. Be it Frascas to full blown Level D Simulators. It's a program that is programmed by engineers to Simulate flight and system malfunctions. The control input for example that you put on the yoke at rotation in the simulator is exaggerated compared to the real aircraft, at the same time, maintaining straight in level in the simulator is more of a chore than in the real airplane because of how sensitive to touch the simulator is. Steep turns are way more sensitive in the Simulator than in real life. Crosswind landings are also unrealistic even in a Level D simulator. Ground friction is also unrealistic compared to the real aircraft. Don't ask me why but it is. Now how ever the governing entity certifies the simulator is a different story all together. I don't know what goes into it but if you can fly the simulator you can fly the real airplane.

 

The NGX is the best 737NG simulator in the confines of FSX. It's amazing what PMDG has done with this airplane.

Kevinh,

 

I have flown various commercial airplanes as a professional pilot, I've been to numerous initial and recurrent Simulator sessions. Believe me when I tell you that even a Levele D Simulator is different than the real airplane, not by much but different at the same time. Simulators are more sensitive. Be it Frascas to full blown Level D Simulators. It's a program that is programmed by engineers to Simulate flight and system malfunctions. The control input for example that you put on the yoke at rotation in the simulator is exaggerated compared to the real aircraft, at the same time, maintaining straight in level in the simulator is more of a chore than in the real airplane because of how sensitive to touch the simulator is. Steep turns are way more sensitive in the Simulator than in real life. Crosswind landings are also unrealistic even in a Level D simulator. Ground friction is also unrealistic compared to the real aircraft. Don't ask me why but it is. Now how ever the governing entity certifies the simulator is a different story all together. I don't know what goes into it but if you can fly the simulator you can fly the real airplane.

 

The NGX is the best 737NG simulator in the confines of FSX. It's amazing what PMDG has done with this airplane.

I'm one of those engineers that designs full flight simulators and I can tell you categorically that no exaggeration of control effects is designed in. Every effort is made to exactly reproduce the way the aircraft flight controls work.

 

Of course the FFS does not fly exactly like the real aircraft, but it should not be more sensitive. I would argue that with the limited motion available it will feel less sensitive.

 

If you say the FFS is more sensitive than the aircraft then you will have to define what you mean by sensitivity. I'm talking about the amount of response you get for a given control input. As there are QTG tests for this in pitch, roll and yaw I would say that means the FFS necessarily must be close in sensitivity to the real aircraft. If it isn't it won't pass those tests.

Hi Kevin,

 

It's hard to describe. In some cases, like for instance at rotation, I've noticed (as well as my peers) that most simulators I (we) have trained in require more force to rotate and become airborne. The same with flaring during landing, the sim feels mechanical compared to the real acft. I find that the control pressure is exaggerated. I believe the real acft is easier to fly than the sim. Simulators are great for training, procedures and are inexpensive compared to training in the acft. I have also noticed that in straight and level flight the sim is more sensitive to control inputs in the way that you can find yourself over controlling or over correcting. We brief this before training.

Also keep in mind what a Level D Sim means: that the FAA has approved it for a line pilot to do all of his or her training in to get a type rating without having to fly the real aircraft as part of their training.

 

So, the engineers will do all they can to make the simulator feel and fly like the real aircraft...and the FAA will test that out and then certify it as such.

Hi Kevin,

 

It's hard to describe. In some cases, like for instance at rotation, I've noticed (as well as my peers) that most simulators I (we) have trained in require more force to rotate and become airborne. The same with flaring during landing, the sim feels mechanical compared to the real acft. I find that the control pressure is exaggerated. I believe the real acft is easier to fly than the sim. Simulators are great for training, procedures and are inexpensive compared to training in the acft. I have also noticed that in straight and level flight the sim is more sensitive to control inputs in the way that you can find yourself over controlling or over correcting. We brief this before training.

Well I can assure you it is not deliberate. What would be the point of spending $200K or more on a control loading system and not using it accurately? Rotation forces are affected by ground effect, same for flare, and that is a complex area to model accurately. It relies entirely on the data provided by the manufacturer. We don't make anything up. The ground effects data we get is a combination of aerodynamic theory, data derived from CFM analysis and aircraft flight test measurements (with interpolation between measured points). The result is never going to be 100% accurate. But it should be close enough to train the manoeuvre.

 

I've often heard pilots complain the sim is less stable than the aircraft, and maybe that's what you mean be being more sensitive. No one really knows why this is, especially when you can show that the sim response is exactly the same as the flight test recording. It may well be to do with motion cues that aren't present in the sim. It could be to do with the frame rate being used. Breakout forces (the initial load when you move the control from neutral position) may not be high enough. Motion certainly has an effect too. In a fixed base sim maintaining level flight is much harder. On motion you feel vertical deviation through g forces as soon as you move the column.

 

I hope you don't brief that simulator control forces are exaggerated though.

"...when you can show that the sim response is exactly the same as the flight test recording..."

 

Exactly...of the many, many things that a flight test aircraft is for, one is to determine and record the flight control forces so these can be transferred (exactly as they are) into the simulator software, so the training environment (the sim) replicates these forces exactly.

 

Boeing is making advances in this area by integrating their flight simulation software into the actual aircraft systems software. An actual 747-8 flight test aircraft turns into a "full flight Level D" simulator while sitting on the ramp as test pilots "fly" it. All of this effort will only make the real Level D simulators that follow even more accurate.

 

Here is a YouTube link showing this in action in the 747-8: 

The reality still remains that FSX etc doesn't model a full-motion simulator or even an aircraft well.

The reality still remains that FSX etc doesn't model a full-motion simulator or even an aircraft well.

Indeed which is why FSX will never be able to be used for manoeuvre training. Nor could XPlane for that matter (whatever Laminar Research tries to hint at). You can get training credits on an FSX or XPlane based device, but that wouldn't include takeoffs, landings, etc. Just procedure training.

 

A desktop sim will always be the hardest to fly, which is why I don't think people should not make it any harder than it already is in the pursuit of realism.

Boeing is making advances in this area by integrating their flight simulation software into the actual aircraft systems software. An actual 747-8 flight test aircraft turns into a "full flight Level D" simulator while sitting on the ramp as test pilots "fly" it. All of this effort will only make the real Level D simulators that follow even more accurate.

Interesting video. Iron Bird style simulations aren't new. Stimulating a whole aircraft like that is a bit different. However you can fool any aircraft with fully powered controls that it's flying by applying appropriate pressures to the pitot-static system. I suspect that's basically what they are doing.

 

That isn't going to improve the fidelity of Level D sims though. It's running the simulation of the 747-8 that Boeing had before first flight, but connected to real systems. It's purely to test the systems of the prototype aircraft. It couldn't be used to gather additional simulator data, which is the only way to improve simulator fidelity.

 

You can go even further by making a flying testbed with a FBW control system. Then making the aircraft respond as if it had completely different aero coefficients and stability derivatives to simulate an entirely different aircraft actually in flight.

 

 

 

Indeed which is why FSX will never be able to be used for manoeuvre training. Nor could XPlane for that matter (whatever Laminar Research tries to hint at). You can get training credits on an FSX or XPlane based device, but that wouldn't include takeoffs, landings, etc. Just procedure training.

 

As the FAA states:
 

11-487    OVERVIEW. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) categorizes the ATD into two categories: basic and advanced. ... ATDs may not be used for aircraft type specific training.

 

http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=8900.1,Vol.11,Ch10,Sec1