RealTrim

[LAdamson 240]

> I had flights,mostly over flat terrain, where you never>had to touch the yoke for many minutes, and still be well>within the specified altitude deviation. It is done all the>time, good pilots can fly, most of the GA the aircraft for>quite a while with just the rudder.>And all this time, I just thought I was a "bad pilot"....... But............I just don't fly over flat terrain! :D See pic:http://forums.avsim.net/user_files/140413.jpg

[Murmur 3,944]

Wow... is it Ultimate Terrain? :(

[Guest bobsk8]

>Hi, Bob.>I think you are confused as what this utility, does. While you>and Cindy are also confused about trim adjust, that is another>point that I don't want o get into right now. >What this utility tries to do is make up for the fact that>MSFS takes way toooo long to trim, because of the lousy flight>dynamics involved.>This utility can help with getting a more faster and more>accurate JS control adjustment / setting. See my message to>Cindy for more info. TVNo, I read your discourse about trim above, and I am afraid it is you that are confused. The bottom line is that the procedure I am describing to adjust trim in a real aicraft is taught by probably every active CFI in every flight school in the country. What this Real trim is advocating is changing the entire procedure for adjusting trim. Why not just flick on the autopilot then, let it adjust your trim which it does on may aircraft with controllable pitch, and then turn it back off once the trim is set. You don't learn how to trim an aircraft doing that , but it accomplishes the same thing that Real Trim does in most MSFS aircraft. Teaching someone to adjust trim by pushing the yoke one way or the other is also unrealistic. Incidentally, my flight instructor had me practice flying the plane with the rudder and trim control only in case of someday having to fly it with an elevator control problem. When I handfly fly the 767 and also the C-182RG, it takes me just a few seconds to properly trim the aircraft for any desired airspeed, or pitch angle. I don't know why it takes you a minute to trim , and if it took me a minute to trim an AC, then maybe I would think that Real Trim was some kind of advantage. Possibly you should look at the aircraft that you are flying , or the way your yoke and or trim sensivity is set up. What is really rather funny is you telling Cindy that if my instructions are followed in setting trim that it will take " all day" to trim the aircraft properly, and it is you apparently that can't get one trimmed out, unless you spend a minute at it... :-lol

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

Bob,I have to agree with Nils and Avcom on this. I don't know how you manage to trim an FS aircraft in a few seconds. It can take me between a few seconds and a couple of minutes - a highly inconsistent performance! I find the bigest problem that this module surmounts is that fact that many aircraft in FS have a cruise speed that requires a trim between to two trim points. The only way to get around that is to adjust power, this take ages to sort out when needed.As a real pilot with a reasonable amount of experience (commercial and instrument), when I sim I don't want to fidget, I want the sim to encourage me to think as if I were flying, I could call this Operational Realism rather than Technical Realism. In my view the FS trim system does not permit this because it makes me think about trimming which is where the realism starts to break down.

[brucek 38]

I think we all should just agree that FS9 just doesn't behave in pitch attitude trim at all, and even modules such as the one discussed here in this thread don't bring it back into reality. When I jump into the real thing after simming for a while, the one thing that momentarily sticks out to me is the pitch attitude trim being so different. Most of the rest is similar, but pitch attitude is so critical to stable and realistic manual (non-autopilot) flight.I don't understand flight models written in software code, but something about a software emulation of an aircarft has some major basic flaws. I find the same in the Fresca simulator that I use at our flight club to assist in keeping instrument current, so its more than just FS that has this trim issue and stability in the attitude pitch (although somehow Elite have found a way around this- at least for the C172).Bruce.

[Guest Adverse Yawn]

>>somehow Elite have found a way around thisI am sure that this is because ELITE is not a generic sim. Each aircraft is specifically coded to fly the numbers and only really with in the operational envelope.

[Guest Andrew1981]

>No, I read your discourse about trim above, and I am afraid it>is you that are confused. Didn't you ever thought that not all of us are real pilots or they want to be one? This tool is made simply for those that don

[LAdamson 240]

>I think we all should just agree that FS9 just doesn't behave>in pitch attitude trim at all,I suppose, I don't completely agree.. :( With the models I regularly sim fly, trimming for climb or descent is quick, and will hold a stabilized pitch and constant airspeed quite well.Straight and level is the trickier part, if I'm trying for hands off flight for any length of time. Then it becomes small throttle adjustments to compensate as in between trim adjustments, and so on. But in reality, I just don't care. I don't have the patience to watch a simulated horizon to maintain a +/- 100' specific altitude for any lenght of time. If that's what I want, I'll just hit the A/P button for maintaining altitude, while I do something else..... like reading my E-mail, coffee breaks, etc...And then there are those, who believe that a pitch axis auto-pilot is somehow cheating, or makes a pilot lax. To that, I say Bla,bla,bla! :( In the kitplane/experimental market, many of these airplanes fly, more like small "fighters" rather than large SUV's and dump trucks! :)Lighter on the controls, and altitude excursions are easier than your typical Cessna 172.And thanks to being in the experimental catagory, where we get great creations before the certified group does.....we have low cost, high tech solid state dual axis auto-pilots that only require a single touch of a button to maintain altitude within 20' or better, and a quick flick of a joystick mounted button to release it. So, since we have, the question is, "why not use them", and most of us do!And now back to the low and slow Cessna 172. Yes, the real one is easier to maintain level flight without an A/P than simulated ones are. But.............I just don't really care! :7 L.Adamson

[brucek 38]

"Horses for courses", Larry :).I like to practice manual instrument flight- and although ATC most likely doesn't really care of one wanders off by 100 feet from assigned altitude, I always like to aim for the /- 50 foot window that my CFII required of me while training. In fact, in my first lesson, we spent almost the whole time reviewing basic trim on the aircarft, as having it right is required to keep those tolerances.But I also know where you're coming from too. :)Bruce.Edited to hide my bad typing..... BK

[Geofa 108]

I agree-the trim/sensitive/twitchy pitch problem is one of the reasons I don't fly Fs much lately. I spend most of my time ocillating up and down trying to maintain +-50 ft. and usually at a certain point of the flight the trim gets so squirrly it is unusable. I have been told by 3rd party vendors not to use the wheel on the ch yoke-this helps some-depending on the aircraft.For me this is the most unrealistic part of FS right now-be it in the flight model or controls.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest bobsk8]

>I agree-the trim/sensitive/twitchy pitch problem is one of>the reasons I don't fly Fs much lately. I spend most of my>time ocillating up and down trying to maintain +-50 ft. and>usually at a certain point of the flight the trim gets so>squirrly it is unusable. >>I have been told by 3rd party vendors not to use the wheel on>the ch yoke-this helps some-depending on the aircraft.>>For me this is the most unrealistic part of FS right now-be it>in the flight model or controls.>>>http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpgThe wheel on the CH yoke is not a trim wheel, it is a centering wheel for the reistance range of the yoke when at it's mechanical center.

[Guest bobsk8]

>Bob,>>I have to agree with Nils and Avcom on this. I don't know how>you manage to trim an FS aircraft in a few seconds. It can>take me between a few seconds and a couple of minutes - a>highly inconsistent performance! I find the bigest problem>that this module surmounts is that fact that many aircraft in>FS have a cruise speed that requires a trim between to two>trim points. The only way to get around that is to adjust>power, this take ages to sort out when needed.>>As a real pilot with a reasonable amount of experience>(commercial and instrument), when I sim I don't want to>fidget, I want the sim to encourage me to think as if I were>flying, I could call this Operational Realism rather than>Technical Realism. In my view the FS trim system does not>permit this because it makes me think about trimming which is>where the realism starts to break down.>If your trim is between 2 trim settings, then your settings are to coarse and you need to readjust your trim sensitivity.

[LAdamson 240]

>If your trim is between 2 trim settings, then your settings>are to coarse and you need to readjust your trim sensitivity. This is kind of like the real Cirrus SR22. It's electric trim only, and they say "it's either just a little too much or just a bit too little", with a few owners finding the sweet spot. For us "experimental" people, we have the option of an ajustable speed controller to slow the trim motor down to suite preferences. As I remember, if you mouse the trim wheel on the Flight1 172, it's about a tenth of the sensivity of regular trim clicks.L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

Yes-that is why I mentioned it. Still not right imho-and maintaining an accurate ifr altitude by hand is very difficult due to oversensitivity in pitch/trim. http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Kingair315]

>"Horses for courses", Larry :).>>I like to practice manual instrument flight- and although ATC>most likely doesn't really care of one wanders off by 100 feet>from assigned altitude, I always like to aim for the /- 50>foot window that my CFII required of me while training.>>Bruce.>If you want more realistic ATC, you can have it with Radar Control V4.You can even set the window you want. Though it comes allowing 100 feet difference, thats better than the 200 the FS allows. You could even set it for +/- 50 if you wanted them to watch you like your CFII did. :-jumpy