Default Cessna 172 Flight Dynamics

[Guest Knikolaes]

I just downloaded a BEAUTIFUL repaint from AVSIM for the default Cessna 172. It makes me almost want to actually fly her -- if only I could get her to fly right.Has anyone out there started possibly tweaking the default 172 with better flight dynamics? Or know which CFG lines I'd have to edit to get her more stable? She flies nothing even remotely close to the 172 I fly in real life and I'd love to have the stability that Realair put into the FS2004 C172.

[Guest SkullxBones]

An easy way is to open the Aircraft.cfg file and look under the flight_tuning section. If, for instance, the elevators are too sensitive, try a 0.6 instead of the default 1.0.You can run in to problems editing this section. In the above example, you might find it responds smoother to lifting off, but find it's sluggish in a steep turn. Find a good compromise. Make a backup of the original before you do anything.

[nudata 10]

I used the AIR and CFG files from the RealAir 172 with the Microsoft default 172. Not being a pilot I cannot judge the result. If Microsoft did not fiddle the way the values are used, the older files should improve the reality. I would be very interested in your assessment of the result should you make the revision. Obviously you want to do this to a copy of the C172.Regards,Dick BoleyA PC, an LCD, speakers, CH yoke

[Guest Knikolaes]

Thank you both so much for your replies.Aye the reason I didn't start fiddling is I know that messing with certain items can mess up how data appears on gauges, such as messing with horsepower, etc. can jack up accurate readings on your tachometer.I know Realair, when they did their AIR and CFG files, I also thought they did a modified MDL file, so I did not know if just editing flight tuning would mess up the flight dynamics for the worse.I literally fly N9614H out of KPUB twice a week, so I am certain with some tweaking I could get the FSX 172 to behave with a lot more stability without losing realism. I just wanted to check first , though, with the flight dynamics gurus and experts out there to see if I missed an upload someone may have already done.Time to back up some files and start fiddling :-)

[LAdamson 240]

>I just downloaded a BEAUTIFUL repaint from AVSIM for the>default Cessna 172. It makes me almost want to actually fly>her -- if only I could get her to fly right.>>Has anyone out there started possibly tweaking the default 172>with better flight dynamics? Or know which CFG lines I'd have>to edit to get her more stable? She flies nothing even>remotely close to the 172 I fly in real life and I'd love to>have the stability that Realair put into the FS2004 C172.I consider the default 172's to still be rather sedate. In other words, not sensitive to desktop controls, and rather easy to fly.Not as good as some RealAir files were, and perhaps just a titch more reactive in "pitch"; yet I just don't agree on the "nothing remotely close" part of your assessment. Basically, it's just a plane that won't get ahead of you.Since I don't care too much about added flight dynamic possibilities such as slips and spins for the 172, as I use the RealAir SF260 for that; I just don't figure it's worth while in trying to portFS2004 files to FSX. In regards to the SF260, numerous programming changes were made to make the FSX version as flyable and better, than it was in FS2004.L.Adamson

[Geofa 108]

One thing to try also:The default Baron for instance is pretty good at numbers but just never "felt" right in the pitch department. I went into the air file and simply changed the elevator pitch trim to what "felt" right and the model now feels extremely much better. Might be worth a look for minor fs fm issues...http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[Guest Knikolaes]

>I consider the default 172's to still be rather sedate. In>other words, not sensitive to desktop controls, and rather>easy to fly.>Not as good as some RealAir files were, and perhaps just a>titch more reactive in "pitch"; yet I just don't agree on the>"nothing remotely close" part of your assessment. Basically,>it's just a plane that won't get ahead of you.>>Since I don't care too much about added flight dynamic>possibilities such as slips and spins for the 172, as I use>the RealAir SF260 for that; I just don't figure it's worth>while in trying to port>FS2004 files to FSX. In regards to the SF260, numerous>programming changes were made to make the FSX version as>flyable and better, than it was in FS2004.>>L.AdamsonNot going for slips, spins, etc.... but when you fly a real 172 a few times a week and then compare the handling to FSX and also to the mods that were made in FS2004 aftermarket, you'll definitely see a HUGE difference.I did get her fixed with only a few settings though. Toned down the flight tuning lines for elevator to 0.6, and then rudder/ailerons to 0.8.The issue wasn't with extra maneuvers such as slips and spins (the real 172 was designed NOT to spin anyway - she's built to be stable and actually prevent spinning) but with oversensativity in the flight controls. I shouldn't be able to just barely touch my CH Flight Yoke and send the plane on a 10 degree pitch difference. In the real aircraft, you handle the controls and the plane follows you, but you have to account for the fact that in real life the plane doesnt pitch wildly or even react instantly. It takes that short moment for the airflow change over the surface to actually deflect the plane in it's proper direction.I am still going to tweak more, but thanks to the tip above about flight tuning, she flies a LOT more like N9614H now :-) I don't expect FS to get it right on -- that's not possible unless you are in a Level-D full motion sim, but there are definitely ways to get it more realistic for those of us that use FS as a supplementary tool for IFR and cross country practice. :-)

[Guest Knikolaes]

Thanks for that, Geofa :-) Will look into those lines in the AIR file as well, though doesn't the CFG file override anything in the AIR file with the same function?

[Murmur 3,940]

>I shouldn't be able to just barely touch my CH Flight Yoke and send the>plane on a 10 degree pitch difference. In the real aircraft, you >handle the controls and the plane follows you, but you have to account >for the fact that in real life the plane doesnt pitch wildly or even >react instantly.You also have to take into account the fact that in this case you have no or minimal feedback/resistance (as opposed to RL).Marco

[Geofa 108]

Glad it is working for you.It is amazing how when you get the pitch taken care of how much better things feel.Here is what I jacked up on the Baron (I am using the goflight trim and this is what it took to get some reality there):[flight_tuning]elevator_trim_effectiveness = 9.00http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/1b5baf...b9f427f694g.jpgMy blog:http://geofageofa.spaces.live.com/

[LAdamson 240]

My life's experiences range from 2" long R/C joysticks, to the feel of a very maneuverable joystick in a Pitt's S2B. I suppose I just don't detect a radically touchy default 172 when using my Saitek X-52.:D However, I've seen others (non-pilot as well as pilot), who tend to over control and porpoise the first time out on my equipment.Generally, I feel that MSFS planes have that "short moment of airflow" change, you're speaking of, to a better degree than X-Plane. In fact, that's my main X-Plane gripe! I don't feel that it conveys the sense of mass, inertia, and dampening as well as MSFS. However, some MSFS aircraft, are indeed too touchy. I remember a default Mooney being that way. Just don't remember which sim version. L.Adamson

[Guest jshyluk]

Marco, you just said what I was going to say: There's two parts to the flight envelope equation, the physics of the aircraft in FSX and the user's controller system. Even most if not all high-end controllers would not be up to replicating what the real controller in the real aircraft would be like. After all, you are flying your desk. Desks generally have poor rotation rates and their pitch and yaw is dampened to the extreme. Blaming the airfile might not be the way to find out what feels "wrong". On the other hand, fiddling with the airfile is cheaper than buying a new controller. If your controller has the software for it, you might consider adjusting your sensitivities there (or in FSX, although I really do not enjoy playing with the joystick sliders in FSX). Jeff ShylukAssistant Managing EditorSenior Staff ReviewerAVSIM

[Illegitimi non carborundum 4]

MarcoOn simflight elcamino posted this link to modifications to the default FSX planes: http://www.metzgergva.de/default_e.htm.May be useful?Peter Hayes

[Guest Knikolaes]

>Marco>On simflight elcamino posted this link to modifications to the>default FSX planes: http://www.metzgergva.de/default_e.htm.>May be useful?>Peter HayesPeter,THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!That's PRECISELY what I was looking for.In response to the others:Folks I am not expecting my desk to fly. That was an odd comparison, but i did find it entertaining. I think the wrong impression of what i was looking for (until peter responded with EXACTLY what I was looking for) was given here.FS can NOT be used to practice maneuvers accurately such as spins, stalls, steep turns, etc. You CAN do these in the sim, but not accurately.As a student pilot, I use FS to practice navigation, and an important and integral part of navigation is numbers. If the aircraft does not perform to the mathematical numbers per the POH, or if it is so sensative it is bouncing in the air like a low-rider on acid, then you cannot accurately perform the needed math and flight to do a proper cross country.I wasn't trying to do in the sim the types of things that can ONLY be accomplished by what most of us refer to as "seat of your pants" flying (example being, a steep turn might be possible in the sim, but the only way to truly practice it is in the air when you can feel the G-Forces pulling on you and be able to scan all of your environment at once). All I wanted to do was stabalize the plane and have it perform more to the real world POH I have in order to "virtually practice" a cross country flight the night before I did it in real life. Advantages? Terrain awareness, geography, distances, and expected perfoemce of the aircraft at those altitudes based on the tempurature wave we've been having.Already with the performance tweaks accomplished in FS2004 I was able to do this as well and my confidence level on my actual cross-countries increased dramatically. My instructor even noticed this and even stopped by to observe my practice in the sim. He was impressed and even encourages me to keep up the extra effort. FS will never be an FAA approved flight simulator, nor should it, but it certainly can help keep the beeds of sweat from pouring when exploring unfamiliar territory.Thanks for the link, peter. You saved me a lot of tinkering :-)

[McCrash 3]

>>I consider the default 172's to still be rather sedate. In>>other words, not sensitive to desktop controls, and rather>>easy to fly.>>Not as good as some RealAir files were, and perhaps just a>>titch more reactive in "pitch"; yet I just don't agree on>the>>"nothing remotely close" part of your assessment. Basically,>>it's just a plane that won't get ahead of you.>>>>Since I don't care too much about added flight dynamic>>possibilities such as slips and spins for the 172, as I use>>the RealAir SF260 for that; I just don't figure it's worth>>while in trying to port>>FS2004 files to FSX. In regards to the SF260, numerous>>programming changes were made to make the FSX version as>>flyable and better, than it was in FS2004.>>>>L.Adamson>>Not going for slips, spins, etc.... but when you fly a real>172 a few times a week and then compare the handling to FSX>and also to the mods that were made in FS2004 aftermarket,>you'll definitely see a HUGE difference.>>I did get her fixed with only a few settings though. Toned>down the flight tuning lines for elevator to 0.6, and then>rudder/ailerons to 0.8.>>The issue wasn't with extra maneuvers such as slips and spins>(the real 172 was designed NOT to spin anyway - she's built to>be stable and actually prevent spinning) but with>oversensativity in the flight controls. I shouldn't be able>to just barely touch my CH Flight Yoke and send the plane on a>10 degree pitch difference. In the real aircraft, you handle>the controls and the plane follows you, but you have to>account for the fact that in real life the plane doesnt pitch>wildly or even react instantly. It takes that short moment>for the airflow change over the surface to actually deflect>the plane in it's proper direction.>>I am still going to tweak more, but thanks to the tip above>about flight tuning, she flies a LOT more like N9614H now :-) >I don't expect FS to get it right on -- that's not possible>unless you are in a Level-D full motion sim, but there are>definitely ways to get it more realistic for those of us that>use FS as a supplementary tool for IFR and cross country>practice. :-)When you finish tweaking please post the changed values. I would like to have them and some other vps most likely would too.Thanks.