Jump to content

nbz

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About nbz

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

nbz's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

11

Reputation

  1. Will this work with my Saitek pedals? Aerosoft are clearly evil, they'll tease us with this one and then make us pay many monies for the left half!! This is true because I read it somewhere on the web. And if they won't include a weather radar this time I will neverevereverever buy from them again! Will this come only with the Aerosoft house livery, or will there be more? I want mine with an Aerofoot livery, OHH PLEEAAZEE But I must say, as always the modeling is just fantastic, very well done! I dare say that screenie looks almost as realistic as the Airbus X. Looking at that screenshot I swear I can almost smell it. Why did nobody ask yet!!! The release date, dammit
  2. As I said, I would have greatly preferred a real FS11 over Flight. I also agree with you that just having way less options and functions as FSX had is not required to make the software more accessible and easy to learn. I could bore everyone here to death by writing half a book about the ideas I have on that. Like, make the user interface itself very easy (and yes, limited) but optionally more complex. (Like switching Window's standard calculator between "standard" and "scientific"). Or think about how much easier for newbies FSX would be, if it incorporated the checklist feature from Flight. I'm not debating that Flight could, and should, have been something better. I'm simply looking at what it happens to be, and if there's anything in it that for me, adds to the hobby of simming. For me, that's the case, for many other not, and that' fine with me. But of course it won't replace FSX for me either. I like, for example, flying the Airbus X between european airports. Every european airport I have ever been to in real life (except 2), is represented in my FSX installation in Aerosoft quality. Between those airports, scenery consists of UTX + GEX. I guess that the sun will turn into a supernova before the same coverage plus a semi-complex jet, is available for Flight. It is my impression (from AVSIM, and from Flight multiplayer) that Flight is indeed getting a lot of new people interested in PC flying. Of course I have no clue about how many, and if they will stick around for longer. Come on.... you know it's even worse. They have not forgotten us, but deliberately left us out. That is a valid concern. A village in a deep valley, the sun is low and the valley deep in the shadows of mountains.... but the houses are brightly lit by the sun. This already annoyed me a lot before I ever saw Flight. Same with haze layers hitting terrain, with a Z-fighting hard edge. Once you see this done right, combined with more goodies (complex shadowing, glass glare), it's hard to accept the older engine's shortcomings. My personal solution is to not use Flight if I plan to use FSX the same day.
  3. I'm one of the currently 6 people who voted "Yes, at least once a week" and also Yes for DLC purchases. While I am dissappointed that we did not get an FS11 from MS just like everyone else, I was determined to see if Flight could still add something to my hobby of PC flying. It turns out that for me, it does ONE thing VERY well. And it is something that I didn't know I would value before Flight showed it to me. It is: just hopping in for a short multiplayer session, flying with random people. Usually, I will find people who agree to just go hopping from field to field. Some formation flying on the way, some chatting about random stuff. I also have a bunch of multiplayer "friends" that I meet if I see they're online. Flight, for me, is good to do some flying. FSX, for me, is good to do a proper flight. In FSX, I need ages to set everything up. Before each FSX session, I adjust controller profile, TrackIR profile (wearing a silly hat for TrackIR), in-game graphics profile. I make a flight plan, adjust fuel etc. By the time I am actually sitting in the cold and dark pit ready to start the flight, I could have done a short flight in Flight and landed on another nearby airfield. After posting this, I will only have about 2 hours time left in this day. I will jump into Flight, hope to meet a buddy and if not will fly with random people. On sunday, I will probably have a lot more time. It will be the Airbus X then. Or maybe something else in FSX because I had a very, very nice flight with the Bus just yesterday. I have not bought planes without cockpit. I got the P-51 for free for the beta, it's installed and I have not flown it even once. I will buy Alaska, but will also buy the Extended Airbus X and more FSX things in the future.
  4. I agree with this line of thought. My definition of "it all works out" would be to have third party devs taking part, on terms they can agree to. It seems this requires a move / change on MS' part. I am therefore delighted that Mathijs is not ruling anything out, even if MS has proven to be an entity for Aerosoft that can not be planned with in the long term. Where do things go from here? My gut feeling is, that all speculation is futile, because even MS has no idea how flight will look like a year from now. They probably have no idea currently about the demand for add-ons a year from now, and if they would see it beneficial to open the thing up, and create acceptible (or even good) terms for 3PDs. On the beta forum which is still open, it has become obvious that MS is pondering whether to add ATC. They won't say yes and they won't say no, but are thinking about it. I guess they are "thinking about" a lot of things. Not having made any actual yes/no decisions on a lot of things. I personally believe, that the people who primarily like the game aspects like collecting "aerocaches" will not find these things interesting forever. While, on the other hand, the people who mainly are interested in aviation itself and the actual flying, are the ones who get hooked in the long term. If I am right (and boy can I be wrong at times), Flight will reflect this move to a more aviation-oriented audience.
  5. That is weird, for me it was the other way around. Saw stars as soon as I switched to night time, but it took several times setting different dates and time-of-day to find the moon. The stars seem to be a lot less bright than in FSX though, and don't seem to shine through clouds as easily as they do in FSX. And I also have no idea if moon phases resemble reality. That said, I will now stop "defending" Flight here. Like everybody else, I would have MUCH preferred a new iteration of the Flight SIMULATOR over Flight. Open platform, all the functions, you name it. My not-so-negative attitude regarding Flight roots in MS firing ACES. From that moment on, I did not expect *anything* from them anymore. I also have trouble understanding what sort of audience MS has in mind, for arcade the physics are too good, and for serious flying, too much is missing, and some stuff is uncalled for (floating yellow things scattered across the land). But I am trying to look at what it CAN do. Of course there is a lot it can NOT do, and that is why FSX will remain my primary sim for a long time. (And yes, I will keep buying add ons for it, looking forward to the advanced/extended Airbus X for example.) But some things are really nice, and I will miss them when flying FSX. Wind sound racting to flap settings, or when gear is extended, is one of these. If you ever do an Aerosoft Sim, I will order it before it's released.
  6. No, because that is just wrong. Just had a look, moon is there, stars are there and stars.dat contains 9096 entries. It won't replace what I have, but it may, over time, complement it. For sure not when I want to fly something like the Airbus X between detailed european airports, because it will probably never remotely come close to FSX for that. But for GA flying, it will be one of several sims for me to pick from. It's already the one looking best and running the smoothest. Of course, with a ridiculous land coverage, but that will change with time. For people focused on immersion rather than deep systems modeling, it is going to be an option.
  7. Let me respectfully disagree with a couple of things. First, I would assume that when Aerosoft has a new product in BETA testing, which is very late in the dev cycle, you probably would not have added such a complex feature as ATC, or Traffic, upon the request of Beta testers yourself? But my main point is, that I disagree that this "clearly is not intended for our customers". Considering that I am sitting close to about a 1 meter stretch of Aerosoft product boxes (some created by Aerosoft, some published by Aerosoft), I would say that I am definitely one of your customers. I have also downloaded Flight, and have already purchased content for it. I am not writing this to argue with you, or to claim that Flight is "better" than something else. I like Aerosoft, like your products, and admire the open nature of this forum and the deep insights we get into developments, even if that means you need some extra servers just to handle the when-will-it-be-released-posts ;-) But I would like to kindly suggest that you should not underestimate how Flight may very well take some of the users budget for paid add ons. I am not into flying very complex planes. The limited time I have for simming is, for me, better spent on enjoying a variety of different planes, and I don't want to spend an eternity to learn to fly each of them. Mathijs, you have never met me but you know exactly who I am: I am the guy you designed the Airbus X for. Having a PMDG plane on the shelf that I have never flown. If I want absolutely perfect physics and a damage model that isn't even funny anymore, I go and fly one of my RC planes. I am simming for the experience, not the perfect sequence of every checklist. I breathe in the atmosphere of an airport, and look out of the window a lot while in flight. While this puts me squarely in the middle of Snave's definition of a neanderthal, it does not change the fact that I have spent quite a lot of money in the past for Aerosoft products, but with Flight, SOME of that budget may go into Flight from now on. For the sake of a nice discussion, I will now enter devil's advocate mode... Nothing speaks against using several products. Some have FSX and X-Plane, some have FSX and Rise Of Flight, etc.. I personally have FSX, X-Plane, and Flight. Nobody forces you to fly "challenges" or hunt "aerocaches". Free flight is still there. Obviously missing things we all see as essential, like a flight planner, ATC and so on, but you are not forced to go through a game-like sequence of fly-inverted-under-bridges crap. You say it's hard to add complex things like ATC later, but I would guess (and admit that I'm just guessing), that this thing was *designed* to be easily updateable. Modular. Since adding stuff is MS' only way to generate revenue on this, I would guess that this was one of the primary design goals. Despite all the missing things, and the world being dead in Flight, I find that nothing matches the immersion, the feeling of actually being there, as Flight does for me. Fly into one of the small dirt strips, with the sun low, so that the shadows of trees race across your plane, creating a fast flicker that is slightly disorienting for a second... that is just awesome. You are missing sound cones, I only realised that surround still works, brakes can be heard, and have you opened the canopy of the Icon with the engine idling behind you? I have not seen anybody seriously claim, let alone prove, that the physics have been "dumbed down" so far. But I can not remember the last time I could spin MS' default planes. I will still fly FSX a lot, in which I have almost all the German Airports, and every european airport I have ever been to in real life except 2 in stunning detail, and Flight will probably never get there. But for flying small GA singles, I see myself slowly moving over to Flight as more scenery gets added. On my machine, Flight puts out much, much more autogen than FSX, while running at least twice as fast AND putting shadows OF everything ONTO everything. Obviously, FSX would be a lot faster if I turned off all traffic (air+road), but the new engine seems to be a whole lot better. (And it's still a round-earth thing... in the Beta, the top-down view could still be zoomed out as far as in FSX.) Trying to get to some sort of a point, I would say that Flight may have little appeal to most of your customers, but for sure not all of them. And I feel that your very hard distinction between the GAME Flight, versus The True Simulators, may be in part related to the fact that flight for sure has no appeal AT ALL to an independent add-on producer and publisher like Aerosoft. From my little irrelevant layperson's chair, it looks like Flights product strategy (built-in store as the only channel to add things) seems to be very specifically designed to raise an ugly middle finger towards independent publishing as a whole. On some well-known Forum, Flight was bashed so hard the forum got closed. That same forum now has lots of participants that have already forked some cash over to MS for content. I'm one of them. To end this on a refreshing note, I bought X-Plane 10 just last week. Yes, the cool-metal-box-in-a-store edition. P.S.: It was this forum that informed me of the apparent necessity to create a teenager-on-crack avatar. I have until now managed to use Flight without doing so. _____ And for Snave: can I please get an exception from your neanderthal rule if I promise that I have zero game consoles, zero FPS shooters, and my only game that *does* shooting is Rise Of Flight, which I haven't used for ages?
  8. This may not be related to the specific problems of Joboy, but I will just post it in case it helps anybody. This will only apply for people with tweaked FSX installations. I used to have the same problem with the Airbus X as many have described... a tendency to crash so often, that I would usually end up on the desktop before having reached the departure runway. This was worse than even the worst freeware plane I ever used. I have no other complex planes, and when not using the Airbus X my setup crashes only very rarely. I saw only 2 possible reasons for this: 1) either the plane is ridiculously buggy... 2) or, there is a problem with my system / setup / FSX installation. I looked at the probabilities: For case 1) to be true, this product would have to be way out of line of everything else I ever purchased from this vendor. For case 2) to be true, well let's have a look: CPU way overclocked, FSX tweaked like hell and 2 non-standard processes running that somehow hook into Direct3D to do some more tweaking. Long story short: I stopped using the popular "external Frame Rate Limiter" that I used, and I stopped using the equally popular "ENBSeries" lighting mod. I've had NO crashes with the Airbus X since then. Probably, only one of those two processes were the cause for crashes, but I have not bothered testing which one, I went flying the Bus instead. Incidentally, I no longer use AirbusConnect but just the standard fuel menu of FSX. I have not tested this systematically, but this seems to even have stopped the crash-when-exiting-FSX. I would like to encourage people, who see this product crash extremely often, to look at their system and setup as the possible cause, EVEN IF everything looks like it is ONLY the Bus that crashes and everything else runs just fine.
  9. Thank you, this seems to indicate that it indeed works not only on my own system! That is an amazing approach course that you flew on that screenshot. Almost looks like a schematic drawing on an approach chart! Yay, we now have FBW on the rudder too! That's very nice to hear, thank you. _____ I have not yet planned my weekend, but I hope to find the time to do some more work on that stuff. This will all be done inside the gauge, no more deleting of code. Most importantly to fix the bugs found so far: Gauge turns off (under certain conditions I have yet to figure out) when the AP is used. Not acceptable.Gauge leaves rudder trim messed up when turning FBW (SEC1) off. Not acceptable either.One more I found: slight yaw oscillations when flying high with AP on. This is likely the result of an interaction between my gauge and the AP. May be easy to fix, maybe hard, don't know yet. But I know that this has to go away. I also wish to figure out a better way to keep the AutoRudder from fighting the manual rudder inputs. I already have a promising idea for that, but have not tried it yet. In case I can not do a better job in this regard, I'm considering to implement some sort of "approach mode". This would probably work just like the AutoRudder gauge most of the time, but will turn into the simple gauge (without the "Auto") when, for example, the gear is down, flaps set at more than 2, radio altitude below 400 ft, and bank angle less than 10° - or such. I have also found a line of code that contains a superfluous division, that always results in zero! Now, the intended value that should be there actually IS zero, but why not just write "0" in the first place? It's rare in programming to do something really silly, which does NOT result in a bug! Thank you KAPTEJNLN and Chris_327 for your tests. I politely invite everyone who complained about the rudder on this forum to join in... :-)
  10. From what I gathered from PPRuNe, the way the Airbus deflection limiter works is actually a mess. Instead of translating a full rudder input into a small deflection at high speed, the rudder-input-to-deflection ratio stays the same, but an absolute limit is then set. This means that you may get only 10% rudder travel at some speed, but you get that when applying rudder to only 10% of pedal travel - the maximum rudder the system will deem good for that speed, 10%, is reached after only 10% of rudder travel, which makes it impossible to do fine inputs at high speed. I was reading that, looking for info on how that stuff works, because I wanted to code such a thing. Now I'm not a pilot and may have misunderstood most of everything said there, but I guess not. The ruder pedals were described as "on/off switches" at high speeds, leaving not much room for erring on the wrong side. IF I am right, that limiter system is silly - I decided to do a proper one that spreads all of the allowed travel at a certain speed over the entire range of the controller axis. The AutoRudder gauge still leaves the pedal function there, but you are right, it's the *small* corrections that are harder to do with that gauge, because the rudder overrides the auto-rudder only progressively (one third of pedal travel or more completely shuts off the autorudder) but when only small inputs are done, the autorudder will "fight" the manual input. I may cook up something a little less rude here. My tip for flying with the Autorudder gauge is to do *gentle* rudder inputs, slowly pressing the pedal down AND slowly letting it come back up. I don't *know* this stuff but I *guess* that in a real Airbus, you only have your feet on those pedals to be able to react to an engine failure or such immediately, not to constantly manually fly turns, while both other axis are controlled by an army of computers. I would prefer to fly approaches by crabbing, using only banking for directional control (if possible), as the AutoRudder is very responsive to banking and small turns can be made quickly without touching the rudder. Of course, a final rudder input has to be made for alignment with the runway, but this can usually wait until below 100 ft, where all this talk becomes irrelevant anyway as the normal rudder works splendidly there.
  11. I'm not sure if I am reading you correctly, I don't understand... ... is the problem that my gauge is OFF when you turn off SEC1? ... is the problem that my gauge is still ON when you turn off SEC1? ... is the problem that my gauge somehow messes up the SEC or FlyByWire or something else? What it is *supposed* to do, is to only be active (=providing an artificial rudder), if and only if 1.) you have FBW turned on 2.) you are more than 100 ft above ground As far as I know, the *Microsoft* FBW stuff is all hooked to that SEC1 switch. Aerosoft may have hooked way more functions to the other switches but what is of concern here is to solve that the rudder axis is dead once Microsofts FBW kicks in. In all other cases the rudder is perfectly fine ... at least according to me :-) However, thank you for the first bug found anyway - I just tested switching on and off SEC1 several times, and using the autopilot in both conditions, and found TWO bugs... pick yours: 1.) fiddling with the autopilot (MAYBE in combination with SEC1) can turn OFF my gauge. I guess this is what you mean. This MAY be due to Aerosoft fiddling with SEC1 themselves (and my gauge shutting off once that is no longer on), nothing wrong with that, I am *guessing* right now that I can fix that without touching any more original Bus X code. 2.) while the gauge returns the abused trim variable to zero when going below 100 ft, it FAILS to do the same when SEC1 is turned off, leaving you with a bogus rudder trim. This can then be manually trimmed in normal fashion, but should not happen in the first place.
  12. Yes, for the "simple" gauge you are using, not the Auto-Rudder one, you can play around with rudder_trim_effectiveness as you see fit. A higher value will give you more authority. But the Auto-Rudder gauge has been balanced to work against that exact same value, so don't forget to set it back to 4.0 if you wish to use that one. It is probably possible to tune this gauge so that it has a very similar effect to the "real" rudder below 100ft. But I did not fine-tune it to such a degree, so yes, there will unfortunately be a sudden change in rudder effectiveness when passing 100ft. This is similar to the nose-drop bugfixes (the fixes for the "AP-off-nosedip" and the "100ft-nosedip") that were implemented by Aerosoft. These also work best if not much input is done on the stick at the moment they do their magic. EDIT: oops, didn't really answer the question: no, editing that line should have no effect on how the rudder works below 100ft. But, my rudder works by flying entirely through FSX's rudder *trim*, and at that very 100-ft-moment, there will be some trim "left over" if you used the rudder at that moment. My gauge gradually, but still rapidly, returns the trim to neutral at that point, in order to avoid extreme trim settings. This is a bit messy, but I had to do *something*. This effect will of course also be stronger if you increase rudder_trim_effectiveness. Another thing you may wish to tweak: both gauges have a deflection limiter - they will allow less rudder travel the faster you are flying. This is why you can kick the rudder hard at >300 knots without ripping the plane to shreds. Again, this can be changed ONLY inside the "simple" gauge, but should not be touched in the Auto-Rudder gauge (because the autorudder function uses the same limiter value - something I maybe should have done differently). To tweak this, change that "42" you can find in the gauge code. A larger value will give more rudder travel at high speed. I am absolutely delighted to hear of your improved experience in LOWI !! Guess what - back in the days before the Airbus X, flying that turn into LOWI with the default MS-Bus was the reason why I just HAD to come up with a way to seize control over the Rudder with FBW on. But after having done the first version of the gauge, I thought it was not good enough to have to do all the inputs myself (like you would do on a Piper Cub) on such a sophisticated FBW-plane. In LOWI, you get to fly a high bank angle at low speeds, and there it shows that the Bus does not coordinate turns, the nose pointing "out of" the circular path you fly. This is why I came up with that second "Auto-Rudder" version. You should be able to fly nicely into LOWI without ever touching the rudder, and be able to do a much narrower turn, with the nose pointing exactly where you are going. If it works, of course ;-) I suspect that this is caused by either the standard Microsoft Yaw Damper trying to "fight" my gauge, or some code in the 3d-model that I can't see and couldn't change. Maybe that animation takes the rudder trim value into account. I do not particularly care that much, as I am usually looking at the external model while on the ground (which, on an AES-enabled Airport, looks damn near photographic... awesome!) and stay inside the plane while flying. On the ground, my gauge will (or rather: should) do nothing.
  13. Hi, I am the guy who suggested a fix for the rudder a while ago. I have now hacked up two different gauges to adress The Rudder Issue and have brought them to a state where I would like some feedback to see if they work on other people's systems. (That means they work great for me.) The first gauge is "just" the function of a rudder: you kick the right pedal, the plane yaws to the right. The second gauge INCLUDES the manual function of the first gauge, but adds an auto-rudder function. Without such a thing, turns are not flown coordinated without manual rudder input. The second gauge, the Auto-Rudder one, is what I'm really aiming for. The first one is a fallback in case the second one does not work or its functionality isn't wanted. (Note: it may technically be called a gauge, but thankfully nothing will show up in that utterly fantastic virtual cockpit) Requirements: Airbus X V1.22you use a controller AXIS for the rudder (no keyboard input)you do NOT deactivate Fly By Wire when flying the Airbus X - the gauges do nothing with FBW offyou are willing to do either ALL of the following installation steps or NONE Known issues so far: the Autorudder gauge does not like long and hard stutters. (This would probably be very hard to fix.)the external rudder animation looks less than optimal. (This I can't fix at all. Just a side effect of how my gauge works.) Disclaimer: This is all meant in a friendly way, trying to be helpful rather than b*tching around. In the following instructions, a few lines of Aerosofts code get deleted, the reason is SIMPLY that these conflict with my gauge. Do not read anything into that, this is NOT a statement about Aerosoft, the Bus X, or whether I believe in life after death or aliens from outer space. Also, please note that I'm trying to adress a MICROSOFT bug here, not an Aerosoft bug. These gauges are currently ONLY for the Aerosoft A321 and will likely need adjustment to work with the A320! I have ONLY developed this on, and for, the IAE A321, so please test this ONLY with the IAE A321. If it works, I can then start working on a version for the A320 too. I am especially interested in the Auto-Rudder gauge. How does it cope with different framerates, fuel loads, use cases? Fly steep turns, try shutting down an engine in-flight and see if you can still land. I have not yet tried an auto-land myself. If you want to try this, at your own risk, here are the exact installation steps: 1.) In your SimObjects/Airplanes folder, open the folder "Aerosoft Airbus X A321 IAE". 2.) Create a backup copy of: aircraft.cfg Give that a good name, like "aircraft_beforeRudderMod.cfg" or such. 3.) Open aircraft.cfg, search the line rudder_trim_effectiveness = 1.0 this is in the section [FLIGHT_TUNING]. Change the value to: 4.0 I mean it! 4.) Open the folder "Panel". Open the folder "AB_Systems". Make backup copies of the following three files: AB_anims.xml ASCLS.xml RudderDisp.xml Give them a good name, like... AB_anims_beforeRudderMod.xml ASCLS_beforeRudderMod.xml RudderDisp_beforeRudderMod.xml ... or such. Open the three original files in your favourite text editor. Preferably one that displays line numbers. 5.) EDIT: AB_anims.xml LINES: 1044 - 1067 Delete all lines of code below the comment -- Rudder limiter -- and above the comment -- Downtrim limiter -- 6.) EDIT: ASCLS.xml LINE: 202 Remove this single line: (L:ASC_Ruddertrim, number) (> K:RUDDER_TRIM_SET) 7.) EDIT: RudderDisp.xml LINES: 146 - 178 Delete that entire last "Element" block 8.) Drop BOTH files attached to this post into the "AB_Systems" folder. 9.) Go back up to the Panel folder. Create a backup copy of panel.cfg Give it a good name... Open panel.cfg in an editor. Below all the "gauge" entries in the [Vcockpit01] section, place..... .....for the Rudder-only gauge (which is more likely to work): gauge44=AB_Systems!NBZ_FBWRudderA321,0,0,1,1 .....for the Auto-Rudder gauge (which is better *when* it works): gauge44=AB_Systems!NBZ_FBWAutoRudderA321,0,0,1,1 10.) Happy flight testing! NBZ_FBWRudderA321.xml NBZ_FBWAutoRudderA321.xml
  14. Good luck with assigning the rudder trim axis to a controller.... because as far as I'm aware, FSX simply does not have such an axis. Unlike the elevator, for which a trim axis exists. I am worried about stepping on Aerosofts feet, it's not like they aren't very busy working on improvements. They also don't need me to tell them anything new about FSX they didn't already know. I just had to post my idea, because the contrast was too big between the posts here complaining that FBW makes any rudder use impossible, and the nicely working rudder I hacked up for the default A321. Also, maybe the idea of flying through trim is so stupid, crazy or too-obvious-to-come-up-with, that some amateur like me just had to actually try it and do a proof-of-concept, because a professional FSX developer would have immediately dismissed the idea as BS...? I realize that in principle, Aerosoft welcomes community contributions.... as they have said when explaining that almost anyting in the Bus X is done using XML. But as much as I would like to share my (admittedly half-baked) solution, in this current pre-SP1 timeframe I would find it counter-productive to post my code when I already know it will solve 1 thing but break 3 other things. For my personal use, I can live with no multiple-keypress inputs and a messed-up rudder animation. This however cannot be expected from the "broad public".
  15. DISCLAIMER: This post is done in a friendly, helpful mood, just IN CASE it is useful for anybody. I am NOT saying that Aerosoft should "fix" anything (especially not on an aircraft that I do not yet own, since I'm waiting for the boxed version of the Airbus X) or trying to tell them what to do, I am also NOT saying that Aerosoft could not come up with a much, much better solution, IF they actually believe the rudder needs "fixing" at all. But there just seems to be a concensus among users here that there will either be NO rudder forever, or a completely custom-written FBW system would be needed in order to get around the rudder issue of Microsofts default FBW - and this may just turn out to be wrong. I do not want to be a troublemaker, Aerosoft is doing a splendid job at providing improvements very fast, and the last thing they need is lots of customers who MESS UP Aerosofts plane by hacking it and then complain that the plane is "broken". For this reason I will, for now, just share the idea, and not post actual code, because that would "break" some things. ---------- I have written an XML gauge for the default Microsoft A321 that provides a nicely working, precise rudder while the Fly By Wire is active. It can even gradually reduce deflection as airspeed increases. Since Aerosoft uses the default FBW for the Airbus X, the rudder is "defunct" for the same reason it does not work on the Microsoft Bus. Therefore my gauge should (in theory) also work with the Airbus X. The gauge is unfortunately not suitable as a general solution for the broad public, because it has several technical drawbacks (read: it is a hack that "breaks some things"). The biggest issue is that it produces a firework of key-press events. This is usually regarded as a big no-no, because it destroys multiple-keypress user inputs such as "Select Engine 2" or "Open Door 3". However I just want to share the idea behind this, as I said just IN CASE that others might find it useful and can turn this into a more practical solution. (And I do not care if these "others" are Aerosoft, random flightsimmers, or the easter bunny.) The FBW enforces the yaw damper ON above 100 ft, and this leaves us without any control over the rudder axis. But what we have left is the rudder TRIM position, which is not affected by the yaw damper, the FBW, or the autopilot. Since this produces basically the same aerodynamic force as the rudder in FS, we can abuse it to mimic the force that SHOULD be exerted by the rudder but isn't. Since we can still read the rudder axis input from the pilot, we just have to map the pilot's input to the rudder trim. The obvious drawbacks: 1) A silly rudder animation on the external model (I don't really care, as I am in the VC while flying) 2) An ECAMS page that probably shows nonsensical control surface deflections (no problem on the Microsoft Bus as the ECAMS control surface page actually shows the pedal input instead of actual surface movements! So it was already showing nonsense without my gauge) 3) The purists will scream that rudder pedals do not in reality control trim. (I don't care AT ALL as long as the resulting forces give me a working rudder) So in order to professionally incorporate this solution into an aircraft, I guess the external model, the ECAMS, and probably more stuff would need to be made aware of this. The part I found the most difficult to solve was that FS does not have a command to set the absolute position of the rudder trim (PLEASE somebody correct me on this if I'm wrong!). For the elevator trim we have ELEVATOR_TRIM_SET and AXIS_ELEV_TRIM_SET, but we are out of luck regarding the rudder trim. We only have RUDDER_TRIM_LEFT and RUDDER_TRIM_RIGHT. (Sidenote: there is an occurence of the string "RUDDER_TRIM_SET" in controls.dll, but it doesn't seem to work and was probably left out of the SDK for a reason...?) However this will not restrain a determined flightsimmer, and therefore my gauge can RAPIDLY and PRECISELY set the rudder trim corresponding to the rudder axis input. And the yaw damper does not seem to be "fighting" against pilot inputs! It smells like a rudder... It flies like a rudder... It feels like a rudder... just too damn good not to share the idea here. As mentioned above, this of course generates lots of keypress events that prevent multiple-keypress user inputs. So to me the BIG question goes to people with knowledge of SimConnect (as I have none): Can a SimConnect application submit key events, or otherwise set the rudder trim, WITHOUT breaking user inputs and still allowing multiple-keypress user inputs? IF that is the case, I think we may have all ingredients required for a working rudder with FBW active: - use SimConnect to set rudder trim according to rudder input axis - make external model aware that while yaw damper is ON, rudder animation is based on rudder TRIM not rudder AXIS - modify ECAMS to display rudder trim as surface movement when yaw damper is ON Happy flying everybody!
×
×
  • Create New...