+- FsPassengers Forums (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum)
+-- Forum: FsPassengers (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: FsPassengers General (http://www.fspassengers.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: programers please read (/showthread.php?tid=112)
Pages:
1
2
Re: programers please read - jboweruk - 08-05-2005
I agree, we none of us started any good, it takes a lot of practice and experience to be able to haul the big iron across the sky safely, and
land no matter what the weather at the end. I for one still cannot get to grips with the helicopters, and nor can I fly 100% level without
Autopilot, but I really think that's partly to do with FS itself, as no matter how much I trim some planes they will not stay level. A real plane
has far more control over itself as it truly relies on air, so the trim wheel is truly analogue and can be set, like the throttle, to a fixed
position. Unfortuntely for us, trim and throttle, although they are said to be analogue, actually still use a digital means of control, An
analogue joystick/yoke still only sends a series of 1's and 0's to the computer. Maybe if in the next version MS program it so that instead
of an aircraft following "this is how it flies under this set of circumstances" so that the fde gives up when you do something it doesn't
know how to handle it gives up, and starts programming the air around a plane, and the control surfaces on the aircraft seperately we
just may have more realistic flight envelopes. And no more looping 747's
Re: programers please read - fruitfly - 08-05-2005
@ jboweruk - regarding you having difficulties with helicopters - here's a post from a RW heli pilot whose tips allowed me to rediscover
that aircraft.
BTW, if you don't want to change your realism settings that much because you would have to change them back every time you switch to
fixed wing, you can always do this: set realism to 99 instead of 100!!! That's only one click to the little left arrow under settings. Flying in a
fixed wing you won't feel the difference, and helicopters will become flyable. There's obviously a bug or something in that 1%.
And now for the post:
"Mark,
My answer is long but this stuff needs to be said. Hopefully others will benefit.
Here's what I am currently using.
General 85%
PFactor 85%
Torque 80%
Gyro effect 100%
Crash tolorance 100%
Auto coord un-check
Gyro Drift un-check
use indicated airspeed.
All controls set to 100% sensitive
rudder(anti-torque) 80% null
Keep in mind that adjustments to realism do not necessarily equate to realism. In other words just because a fellow has his set to full
100% doesn't mean the flying characteristics are more real then someone flying at 75%.
MS gives us these sliders and many others simply because no two computers and control systems will react the same. In addition, a
newer pilot can back them off much like an arcade game and have somewhat instant success. However, in the case of the helicopter, too
much is as bad as too little. Naturally since I fly real world, I had my sliders full 100%. No matter what I did the JetRanger was
uncontrollable. This is rediculous. The real JetRanger is one of the easiest helicopters to fly. That (and cost) is why there are so many, and
the Armed services use them as trainers.
With 100% realism on PFactor, and Torque, in a hover slight lateral cyclic input would cause immediate and rapid dynamic roll-over. Sorry,
but that doesn't happen in real life. Not with less than 1/8 inch cyclic displacement. I tried everything to fix this. I even flew the real thing at
work to see how much cyclic I would need to start a roll that much at a hover, and it took close to 3 inches of movement! . Granted, the stick
in most real-world helos is a lot longer, but the hand input on the control grip end should approximate the amount used in real flight. I used
the realism, sensitivity, and null sliders in combination to replicate the real control feel. Once I finally did that, you could HEAR me grinnin'
for miles. I could now finally do almost anything with the FS helos. Including autorotations to the ground the second day.
Is it cheating? One might ask. Fact is, I don't need to cheat. I want to fly a helicopter in FS as close to realistically as I can. It took those
adjustments to do so.
I did learn that realism between about 75-80% replicates a helo equipped with Auto Flight Control System (AFCS, not to be confused with
autopilot) or anti-torque Stability Augmentation System (SAS). Larger aircraft with twin engines are usually equipped as such, so set
realism accordingly. A Black Hawk for instance can be hovered almost hands off with some small nudging on the controls. Your FS Black
Hawk, AS365, or any of the VUSCG aircraft should be set up to replicate this. The MD NOTAR series is SAS equipped for the tail. I did a
wing over in the real thing to demontrate handling, using a vertical nose up-line using cyclic only and never had to input pedal pressure. At
a hover the NOTAR will pick up to 3 feet with only 2-3 degree yaw divergence (no wind). 'course all depends on rate of collective cyclic etc.
By the way, NOTAR tail-rotors in FS should be set to lower sensitivity because they don't respond as fast in yaw as an aircraft equipped with
a tail rotor.
Sorry this went so long. I hope I can give folks hope that flying helos in FS is very do-able when set up is correct. No one needs the
computer, controls and software to hinder progress. I am convinced if it hindered my progress, it will surely hinder others.::
CopterCJ"
Re: programers please read - DanSteph - 08-05-2005
As said Steve in this case you might get somes practice, perhaps you should reconsider the way
you land yet or inquiry for some tips.
The approach if your new to this is the most important part, if you make a good aproach,
stable with a constant rate of descent you have almost nothing to do than to flare a bit
and reduce power.
I cannot on my life even with a patch later allow people to crash while still having a company
with 100% reputation , alive pilot and a lot of money, this would like be declaring all the team
off the soccer world championship winner.
Sorry
Dan
Re: programers please read - Big Vern - 08-05-2005
You learn with FS all the time and the more you play the better you get. I am far better at landings than I used to be albeit with help from
the autopilot and autothrottle in the big jets, which should be available for most of the larger commercial airports which will be used for
the jetliner flights in FsP. The physics in MSFS can do odd things at times, on occasion a plane will just pitch nose up in the air at altitude
for no reason. Crashing on landing is usually because you are too heavy as already touched on in another thread. Proper calculation of
fuel load via FsP will be a helpful tool in avoiding this.
Re: programers please read - jboweruk - 08-05-2005
Thanks Fruitfly, I'll certainly try that. I thought when I got these new pedals I'd cracked it, but the minute real weather was factored in with a
full load the thing became uncontrollable again. I'll certainly try the 99% thing thanks.
Re: programers please read - pagir - 08-05-2005
Don't be too afraid of landing in FSP: You will be good at landing after a while using FSPassengers, simply because you have to.
I was soooo bad. And now I'm able to do kiss landing (less than 50 fps at landing) or at least nice landing really often!!!
So FSP is a good way to improve yourself!
Pagir
Re: programers please read - DanSteph - 08-05-2005
Notice if we want really to be realistic that Kiss landing aren't recommended at all
for airliner pilot.
I have discussion on that with some A340 and 737 pilots and they told me
that their company recommend a "firm" landing (I don't mean rough) and ask pilot to avoid
kiss if they can...
That's a detail anyway
Dan
Re: programers please read - jeffrey11190 - 08-05-2005
forget it lol i will work on landing
Re: programers please read - jeffrey11190 - 09-05-2005
woot! i just made a few prefect landings wooohooo
Re: programers please read - jeffrey11190 - 10-05-2005
yes i just made a very nice flight from boston to amman woohoo and no crashes
Re: programers please read - andyman - 12-05-2005
err,
Quote:And now I'm able to do kiss landing (less than 50 fps at landing)
I would hope you are moving less than 50 feet per second...
Re: programers please read - pagir - 12-05-2005
Quote:andyman a écrit:
err,
Quote:And now I'm able to do kiss landing (less than 50 fps at landing)
I would hope you are moving less than 50 feet per second...
In fact, I digged a crater at impact
50 fpm, of course...
Pagir
Re: programers please read - Deacon - 13-05-2005
Hmm....I assume that's 50 fps sink rate, which..if true...is 3000 feet per minute. Just to give you a rough comparison, a jet landing aboard an
aircraft carrier using a 4 degree glideslope, or thereabouts, and about 105 KTS closure rate to the ship (135 KTS minus 30 KTS of wind coming over the
deck), plunks into the wires around 12 ft/sec sin rate, or 720 ft.min.
I can assure you, this is NOT a KISS landing. Something more like 1 foot/sec sink rate might be closer. Of course, if you're talking about KISS in the
"Keep It Simple Stupid" sense, then ANY landing that results in no loss of life is a good one!!
