"Genuine take off run and landing -  real rolling movement effect"

 

I have around 5 Carenado  Aircraft - twins and 1 single prop - and the sales blurb on the website

says that the aircraft has these "assets"

 

I have flown each of these Aircraft for hundreds of hours in real life and honestly never found them to 

behave in "S" bending like these Carenado aircraft do - even my Senaca with counter rotating props

throw me all over the runway. My hair has gone white with the terror

 

I notice that on "You Tube"  - expert reviews of these aircraft sometimes warn of this effect - and 

even cut out parts of takeoff and landing videos - when they start to snake.

 

It is useless to ask Carenado support - so I ask all of you Carenado users - do you have this problem

How have you solved it ?? - Is it possible to amend the confg file - and if so - How?

 

PS ---  my Thrustmaster  rudder pedals are calibrated to almost zero effect in P3D - but work perfectly well in XP11

at the same low curve settings

On 1/2/2020 at 6:42 AM, jaytee73 said:

1.I have around 5 Carenado  Aircraft - twins and 1 single prop - and the sales blurb on the website says that the aircraft has these "assets"

2. even my Senaca with counter rotating props throw me all over the runway. 

3. How have you solved it ?? - Is it possible to amend the confg file - and if so - How?

4. my Thrustmaster  rudder pedals are calibrated to almost zero effect in P3D

1. Which ones precisely?  The real rolling movement effect is simply the airframe shaking and it has nothing to do with the flight dynamics.

2. Which Seneca? II or V ?

3. Since you are experiencing this problem even one of the Senecas, that's a difficult one to solve since I don't know which aircraft you are talking about and I don't have these  problems.   

You can e.g. try and e.g. double the empty_weight_yaw_MOI, or the yaw_stability, but these changes will most likely noticeable affect the FDE in flight as well.

4. If the pedals have almost zero effect that's IMO the main problem.   

Make sure that the sensitivity sliders are all at their maximum. Reducing the setting below max  doesn't decrease the sensitivity of the flight controls, it only slows their movement down.

This leads to a delayed input which in turn leads to PIOs. A low framerate can also contribute to directional control problems. 

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by FDEdev

I have their Seneca II and Baron 58, in the absence of a crosswind, they are pretty darned stable during takeoff.  Their Navajo 310 is a real beast on the runway, even without any wind it swerves left and right and I'm dancing on the pedals trying to keep it between the edge lines.  Once off the ground, it becomes stable.  My controllers are CH Products Fighter Stick, Pro Pedals, and Throttle Quadrant.

8 hours ago, FDEdev said:

1. Which ones precisely?  The real rolling movement effect is simply the airframe shaking and it has nothing to do with the flight dynamics.

2. Which Seneca? II or V ?

3. Since you are experiencing this problem even one of the Senecas, that's a difficult one to solve since I don't know which aircraft you are talking about and I don't have these  problems.   

You can e.g. try and e.g. double the empty_weight_yaw_MOI, or the yaw_stability, but these changes will most likely noticeable affect the FDE in flight as well.

4. If the pedals have almost zero effect that's IMO the main problem.   

Make sure that the sensitivity sliders are all at their maximum. Reducing the setting below max  doesn't decrease the sensitivity of the flight controls, it only slows their movement down.

This leads to a delayed input which in turn leads to PIOs. A low framerate can also contribute to directional control problems. 

Thank you for taking the trouble to reply

I bow to your experience with the definition of RME - its just that each of the aircraft I have the most difficulty with - has it listed in the blurb

Actually - My PA 34 Seneca V is the least of my worries - the prime problem of difficult nose steering - and the take off "snake" -  accompanied by massive tyre squeals

The aircraft are - Aero Commander 690B turbo -- Aero Commander Shrike 500 -  PA31 T Cheyenne 11 - piper Arrow 3  - PA 46 500 TP Malibu Meridian - all in P3D

With my Twin commanche in XP and all others - I don't have as much trouble - probably because XP allows one to change the curve

I will do as you suggest and max the pedals and try them all out  - I had kept reducing the sensitivity because the maxing seemed illogical since the slightest touch

sent all the aircraft side ways ---- Frame rate could be a problem yes - usually around 25 - but I can do little about that with my mid range computer

Thanks again - I'll test it out !!

5 hours ago, stans said:

I have their Seneca II and Baron 58, in the absence of a crosswind, they are pretty darned stable during takeoff.  Their Navajo 310 is a real beast on the runway, even without any wind it swerves left and right and I'm dancing on the pedals trying to keep it between the edge lines.  

Don't know the Seneca II, the Baron 58 and the Arrow III since they have the old style FDEs. All the other mentioned aircraft have the new FDEs and I don't have any problems staying on the centerline, even with my twistgrip joystick. 

Just tested the Najavo and without any xwnd it requires only a few, very small, right rudder inputs. If you need to apply left rudder, you are over correcting.  

Concerning rudder control with pedals, as IRL it's way easier to apply small and precise corrections if you are using pedals where you can keep the heels on the floor.

 

 

 

Edited January 5, 20206 yr by FDEdev

Read now a few reviews about rudder pedals and it appears that most cheaper ones are rather imprecise, jerky, have little resistance, no defined center etc. and worst of all, most of them are mounted at a very shallow angle and you have to put your feet fully onto the pedals. Each of these point does make precise control really difficult.

The problem is that if you increase yaw stability to match such pedals, the aircraft will be directionally too stable in flight with lots of undesireable consequences. 

I did experiment now for quite some time and the best solution IMO seems to be to reduce the nosewheel steering angle to 1/2 or even 1/3 in the cfg file.

In case of the Navajo I reduced it from 30 to 10deg and she's is now way easier to keep on track, even with a 25kts crosswind.

The only drawback is the increased turning radius during taxiing, but with the use of differential brakes you can still perform very narrow turns. 

 

The steering angle is the 8th entry in the first line of the contact points section. E.g. the for AC 500S it looks like this.

point.0 = 1, 13.2,   0.0, -6.30, 2000, 0, 0.5, 30, 0.30, 1.6, 0.8, 2.5, 2.0, 0, 186, 186

Any feedback, if you try this change, would be great 🙂

 

 

 

 

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by FDEdev

4 hours ago, FDEdev said:

Read now a few reviews about rudder pedals and it appears that most cheaper ones are rather imprecise, jerky, have little resistance, no defined center etc. and worst of all, most of them are mounted at a very shallow angle and you have to put your feet fully onto the pedals. Each of these point does make precise control really difficult.

The problem is that if you increase yaw stability to match such pedals, the aircraft will be directionally too stable in flight with lots of undesireable consequences. 

I did experiment now for quite some time and the best solution IMO seems to be to reduce the nosewheel steering angle to 1/2 or even 1/3 in the cfg file.

In case of the Navajo I reduced it from 30 to 10deg and she's is now way easier to keep on track, even with a 25kts crosswind.

The only drawback is the increased turning radius during taxiing, but with the use of differential brakes you can still perform very narrow turns. 

 

The steering angle is the 8th entry in the first line of the contact points section. E.g. the for AC 500S it looks like this.

point.0 = 1, 13.2,   0.0, -6.30, 2000, 0, 0.5, 30, 0.30, 1.6, 0.8, 2.5, 2.0, 0, 186, 186

Any feedback, if you try this change, would be great 🙂

 

 

 

 

Yep! mine are the new thrustmasters - and cheap 😉

Yep! - I find using my T16000 twist grip Much better than the pedals - but I prefer to simulate where possible

So far in the short time I had - I taxied around with 2 different a/c in XP and PD - with full slide to the right

OK so far and on take off - but I will now go to the more powerful A/C

Interesting point on the nose wheel - are the figures you gave for the AC 500 ??

I.m no comp expert especially with cnfg changes - but I'll give it a go

46 minutes ago, jaytee73 said:

1. I find using my T16000 twist grip Much better than the pedals - but I prefer to simulate where possible

2. Interesting point on the nose wheel - are the figures you gave for the AC 500 ??

3. I.m no comp expert especially with cnfg changes - but I'll give it a go

1. I'm using the T16000M as well and IMO it's more realistic than using cheap pedals, especially when considering that most of us are using a (way too short) plastic joystick at the same time.

Many years ago I have used CH pedals but they have almost nothing to do with real aircraft rudder pedals and the 'precision' was really bad. The VKB Mk IV metal pedals are much more precise but the motion is too unrealistic and the travel too short IMO. 

I agree with the highest achievable realism, but IMO the T16000M aileron/elevator/rudder controls are realistically/well harmonized. 

Designing a high quality FDE for low quality pedals doesn't really work.

For the new sim I'm planning to buy controls which match each other concerning quality and force, which means a fixed metal yoke and fixed metal pedals. 

At least Thrustmaster TPR pedals or MFG crosswind quality

2. Yes

3. Suggest to backup the aircraft.cfg file before making any changes. Simply open the cfg file with e.g. wordpad and change the 30 to 10 or 15. Save the file, reload the aircraft and test.

Let me know if you have any further questions.

regards

Bernt 

 

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by FDEdev

Hello Folks.

I think what we are dealing with here is more than just an equipment issue in this type of aircraft,

In the real world aircraft of this type the nose wheel steering is not active until a fairly significant amount of rudder pedal deflection. This design prevents the nose wheel steering from being effective during the take off run and landing rollout when it is far too drastic an effect to maintain reliable control of the aircraft.

Unfortunately, as I understand it, the simulator is not capable of reproducing this behavior of separately applying rudder deflection and nose wheel steering. Thus, the nose wheel steering is effective as soon as rudder pedal pressure is applied and during the take off run the steering becomes far too effective and sensitive. Especially difficult to control consistently in a crosswind situation.

I haven't had a chance to test you're solution yet Bernt. But, I suspect this may be a very reasonable compromise to achieve an improved simulation of actual performance; especially during take off and landing when it is most important. As you stated taxiing can be effectively controlled with differential braking and in twins with differential power.

I will certainly report back later after some testing and thanks for the suggestion.

Jesse

 

1 hour ago, JesC said:

In the real world aircraft of this type the nose wheel steering is not active until a fairly significant amount of rudder pedal deflection. This design prevents the nose wheel steering from being effective during the take off run and landing rollout when it is far too drastic an effect to maintain reliable control of the aircraft.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Which aircraft exactly you are referring to? I know that the Rockwell Commander has a rather unusual nosewheel steering system which is being activated by pushing the brake pedals beyond a certain angle.

Tried to find a precise description for e.g. the Navajo and there it's a a fixed mechanical linkage between the pedals and the nosegear which provides the normal turning capability. When using differential brakes the linkage disengages at the maximum steering angle and the nosegear deflection angle can increase further. A spring loaded cam device will re-engage the steering linkage once the nosegear is back in the normal steering range. It's very similar for the Citation etc.

This one is a standard 'basic' NWS  https://www.lavionnaire.fr/VocableLandingGear.php  

One of the problems with FSX/P3D is that using the real steering angle very seldom results in the correct turning radius.   

Edited January 6, 20206 yr by FDEdev

34 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

That's interesting, I didn't know that. Which aircraft exactly you are referring to?

I think most, if not all Cessna, Piper and Beech (maybe Mooney?) aircraft work this way, Although the Commanders use a different system I think the effect is essentially the same.

I may not be explaining the workings of nose wheel steering very precisely, but effectively that is what is happening. This discussion may be a bit more helpful than my feeble attempts to describe it. https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/57057/cessna-172-steering-system-and-torque-link-purpose

I have begun some preliminary testing in the Navajo, Cheyenne and 421c and the change is working quite well even in stiff crosswind conditions. And for me the taxi behavior is actually more realistic.

Hope this is helping. I certainly like your suggestion thus far.

Jesse

Thinking about it, it's kind of embarrassing that I didn't exactly remember how the NWS on GA aircraft works!

I'd say that I didn't fully understand the serious sensitivy/controllability problem with less expensive pedals until now.

The fact that you are experiencing improved behavior, even with your top of the line rudder pedals, is very interesting.

I'm used to the fact that taxiing and keeping the centerline even on Level D sims is also noticeable more difficult than IRL. The first takeoff/landing during a prof check in a Level D sim after flying the real aircraft a few days before is always quite 'interesting' 😉   

Looks like the reduced steering angle might be a good compromise.

Since I'm planning to build a 'realistic' setup once MSFS is out, would you recommend your yoke and pedal combo? That's very close to what I'm planning to get.

7 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Since I'm planning to build a 'realistic' setup once MSFS is out, would you recommend your yoke and pedal combo? That's very close to what I'm planning to get.

I wouldn't fly without the VirtualFly products anymore.  For me they are essential to a realistic feel.The support has been phenomenal as well.

Best of luck with your build. And thanks once again for sharing your expertise.

Jesse

7 minutes ago, JesC said:

I wouldn't fly without the VirtualFly products anymore.  For me they are essential to a realistic feel.The support has been phenomenal as well.

Nice to know, definitely on my shortlist now 🙂

 

FWIW - I find my new TFRP pedals - yes, the cheaper TM ones, are a definite improvement on the proportional rocker switch on the throttle of my TM HOTAS X when controlling the AC11 Commander 114 and Skymaster (both Carenado's). However, I bet the ground handling of the real planes would be easier that the sim due to proper physical feedback among other things :)