|
|
Post by pivo11 on Jul 15, 2014 1:17:50 GMT -5
Thanks heaps, Glenn. I shall try them out this evening.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sandy on Jul 15, 2014 6:20:44 GMT -5
Nuts... I don't suppose you'd be willing to share the older version's .air file only?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 6:33:25 GMT -5
Uhh, sorry Sandy. I can get in a heap of trouble if I do that as it is proprietary. If it was something like a single texture file, that wouldn't be so bad, but this is a core piece. Sorry about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:51:54 GMT -5
You may find it "ponderous" compared to how it is now so be prepared for that, but the aircraft out of the box feels a closer to a Super Cub than a heavy single. This corrects that. It's more realistic, I doubt that this makes the 206 more realistic. Timed the video from an actual 206 aileron roll. It took 4sec to complete the roll which makes 90deg/sec ( a lot quicker than a Super Cub), plus the flaps were extended to approx 10deg which means the speed wasn't too high either during the maneuver. Due to the large span flaps the 206 aileron chord is a lot bigger than on most Cessnas, and hence she's very maneuverable. The longer arm for the elevator also results in greater effectiveness. I even reduced the roll rate on the 206 slightly below the RW values because I knew that there would be complaints.... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 9:59:26 GMT -5
You're forgetting one important parameter - The Super Cub's gross weight is less than the 206's empty weight. The 206 at gross weight is over twice the Super Cub's GW. That means inertia, and the 206 has a LOT of it. The numbers are nice, but I've flown both, and I can tell you from personal experience, there is no way in this world the 206 will out maneuver a Super Cub. The SC is very light on the controls, and the 206 is very typically Cessna (the bigger Cessnas at least) - stiff and heavy. If you go strictly by numbers, you'd think the Beaver and Otter would be way heavier in feel than any Cessna. They aren't. I could easily do steep turns in the Beaver and Otter using a finger and a thumb only on the yoke. The bigger Cessnas required my whole hand. Numbers are nice, but there are many, many parameters that are there which make up the true feel of the airplane.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 10:30:12 GMT -5
That's not the problem of the FDE, inertia etc. but the problem of the control force being applied which is zero in FSX.
I did increase inertia for the 206 a lot over the RW values to make her more stable, especially in turbulence.
The are a few FDE designers who greatly restrict the maneuverability of their planes to 'simulate' the heavy feel of the real plane but IMO that's certainly not the way to go.
Lightness of the controls has not much to do with maneuverability. If the roll and pitch rate of the 206 are higher than the Super Cubs than the 206 will win.
But I doubt that pilots usually use full scale control deflections at VA to demonstrate the maneuverability of a 206, Super Cub etc..
What I could try for the 207 is to reduce the control effectiveness at low stick/control deflection angles.
That would make the 207 feel more heavy and stable, but on the other hand if you apply full aileron/elevator, you still get the 'original' high maneuverability.
That would simulate the higher control forces somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Jul 15, 2014 10:34:06 GMT -5
How is that 207 coming along, Bernt? I am really looking forward to it!
BP;)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 10:59:09 GMT -5
That's not the problem of the FDE, inertia etc. but the problem of the control force being applied which is zero in FSX. I did increase inertia for the 206 a lot over the RW values to make her more stable, especially in turbulence. The are a few FDE designers who greatly restrict the maneuverability of their planes to 'simulate' the heavy feel of the real plane but IMO that's certainly not the way to go. Lightness of the controls has not much to do with maneuverability. If the roll and pitch rate of the 206 are higher than the Super Cubs than the 206 will win. But I doubt that pilots usually use full scale control deflections at VA to demonstrate the maneuverability of a 206, Super Cub etc.. What I could try for the 207 is to reduce the control effectiveness at low stick/control deflection angles. That would make the 207 feel more heavy and stable, but on the other hand if you apply full aileron/elevator, you still get the 'original' high maneuverability. That would simulate the higher control forces somewhat. Now that does sound like a good idea - at least to try and see what happens. That just might do the trick. I know the feel between the 185 and the 206 is very, very similar, and you really nailed the FDE's for the 185, so if you get something along those lines, it would be great! |
|
|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Jul 15, 2014 17:36:37 GMT -5
We have to get you an avatar. Would you like me to find one? LMAO!!!
Anon-e-moose
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 17:53:05 GMT -5
I kind of like the generic avatar; I feel younger just looking at it!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2014 20:52:35 GMT -5
How is that 207 coming along, Bernt? I am really looking forward to it! BP;) Presently I'm reading lots of pilot reports looking at countless videos to get an idea how the 207 should handle. |
|
|
|
Post by Bushpounder on Jul 15, 2014 20:54:44 GMT -5
Great!!! Thank you!
BP;)
|
|
|
|
Post by scottb on Jul 15, 2014 21:36:00 GMT -5
Glenn, I tried things out, I like the handling better so far. One thing I might tweak is to make the roll a little more responsive. I use a Saitek Cessna yoke, which has a full 180 degrees of travel. When I got it, I had to adjust my controls to account for the wider range of travel in the roll axis. It's interesting how things change with different control configurations. I have the Saitek Cessna yoke, and the Saitek combat rudder pedals. They are both working pretty well for me  . Thanks again Glenn for taking the time to share your tweaks! -Scott |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2014 19:17:24 GMT -5
Sounds good Scott. Yeah, every set of controls will affect how the aircraft handles. Consider my tweaks starting points only.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2014 1:12:09 GMT -5
Swapped out the new cfg for the old, but left the engine dynamics as it was for the new version. I also swapped the air file complete. Just as a heads up: If you use the old air file you have to use the engine part from the old cfg file as well !!! The old 206 engine dynamics (which are specified in the air file) are a lot different compared to the new one which means you can't combine an old airfile with a new cfg file (or the other way round) |
|
. Thanks again Glenn for taking the time to share your tweaks!