Support overload. We are currently seeing 65% more demand for support then we normally see. We can only assume this is because more people are at home due to the corona crises. Our complete support staff is online and they are working flat out, but it will take some days before we can scale up resources. Please be patient.

Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

stumar

Taxi power

Recommended Posts

I´m not sure how the various values for the contactpoints are affecting ground friction, but the entries we have made do follow the SDK.

Changing some values might enhance ground friction behaviour, but probably mess up something else.

We do not plan to make further fixes to this issue, so basicly the avaialbe fixes are FSUIPC with the patchsim1friction=Yes entry, FSUIPC using LUA script or the "Frictionality software" not to forget A2A Accufeel, which also comes with some nice enhancements to ground behaviour.

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finn,

I have cross checked the 100 & 300 (only wheel). 100 is working perfectly fine with a little thrust its starts rotating whereas 300 is not respounding as 100. Howcome fsx friction is affecting 300 but not the 100. Please check at your end.

I am using FSUIPC and added [Auto] 1=Lua DynamicFriction, which has impoved little bit of friction but not satisfying.

I request you to please cross check 100 & 300.

Aditya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finn,

I have cross checked the 100 & 300 (only wheel). 100 is working perfectly fine with a little thrust its starts rotating whereas 300 is not respounding as 100. Howcome fsx friction is affecting 300 but not the 100. Please check at your end.

I am using FSUIPC and added [Auto] 1=Lua DynamicFriction, which has impoved little bit of friction but not satisfying.

I request you to please cross check 100 & 300.

Aditya

I am not getting why my query is Tagged as BEST ANSWER.

Aditya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not getting why my query is Tagged as BEST ANSWER.

Aditya

Thanks for asking. If it was, it is no longer. One of the othere moderators/assistant mods probably changed it based on your comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LUA's and dynamic friction aside, I wonder if RW Twin Otter pilots simply move the propellor lever back slightly to the feathered position to reduce thrust during ground taxi?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LUA's and dynamic friction aside, I wonder if RW Twin Otter pilots simply move the propellor lever back slightly to the feathered position to reduce thrust during ground taxi?

I really don´t think they would do that, cause an almost feathered prop will require too much torque.

Additionally in the real aircraft beta range means that propeller pitch is controlled directly by the power lever and thus kept in fine pitch.

The problem in FSX/P4D with turboprops are the general weird ground friction coulpled witha turboprop model that is almost impossible to make behave correctly in beta range.

The only developers who have fully custom developed those two parts are Majestic with their Dash7-Q400, but note that it´s a very different product with a very different pricetag.

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my side, i bought the FSPS frictionality software and it works very well with the TWotter. That's one of my favorite aircraft now.

Regards

Real Deraps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On my side, i bought the FSPS frictionality software and it works very well with the TWotter. That's one of my favorite aircraft now.

Regards

Real Deraps

Today I bought the FSPS Frictionality software too, but I have absolutely no idea which settings are realistic for the Twotter.

It would be really great, if You could share Your settings.

Regards

Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSPS Frictionality did it for me! You can tweak each and ANY aircraft and flight test it in real time and get actual friction performance tables and graphs reports for each. These can be matched to real aircraft performance tables.

Hey, for $12 whatcha got to loose. It's a problem solver indeed!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem in FSX/P4D with turboprops are the general weird ground friction coulpled witha turboprop model that is almost impossible to make behave correctly in beta range.

The only developers who have fully custom developed those two parts are Majestic with their Dash7-Q400, but note that it´s a very different product with a very different pricetag.

Finn

If the Twin Otter Extended were simulated to the level of the MJC Q400, the price tag won't matter. The Q400 isn't as popular as the Twin Otter yet it has done very well on sales due to its features.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caribpilot

With that statement I guess You know the sales numbers for both the Majestic Dash 8 Q-400 and the Twin Otter Extended.

But it also reveals that You don't know alot about how a FS addon project is planned and how to determine the target customer base.

The Dash 8 Q-400 is developed (and still under development) with also professional users as a base. They took the bold decision to run most, if not the entire flight model outside FSX, something not done to this extend until now, probably with the more professional customer base in mind.

The Aerosoft Twin Otter Extended was developed with the normal hobbyist flight simmer market in mind. Compared with other comparable turboprop addons I surely find we moved quite a step forward.

We have never claimed or promised that all aspects would be ultra accurate, so just because another developement group has managed to make a more accurate addon, doesn't mean we should be ashamed about what we have managed.

We are simply talking about two different products and apart from the Majestic Dash 8, the Twin Otter is not more unrealistic in it's taxi behaviour than any other turboprop addon I know for FSX.

Talking about the pricetag.....

The Majestic costs 50.- euro where You get a single model.

The Twin Otter costs 35,- euro wher You get 11 different models.

Adding 12,- euro will give You the option to get more accurate taxi behaviour. Combined that will bring the cost to an almost equal level as the Dash 8.

The Dash 8 will give You a more accurate aircraft, while the Twin Otter will give You a somewhat less accurate (though it's hard to compare them), but with greater model diversity.

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Finn, do You use FSPS frictionality too, and could You tell us your realistic settings for Your great Twin Otter? This would probably solve my (and not only my) remaining issue with the Twotter.

Big THX in advance & best regards

Hans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Finn, do You use FSPS frictionality too, and could You tell us your realistic settings for Your great Twin Otter? This would probably solve my (and not only my) remaining issue with the Twotter.

Big THX in advance & best regards

Hans

No I don´t use FSPS Frictionality, but uses A2A's Accufeel V2, which also tweaks ground behaviour.

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caribpilot

With that statement I guess You know the sales numbers for both the Majestic Dash 8 Q-400 and the Twin Otter Extended.

But it also reveals that You don't know alot about how a FS addon project is planned and how to determine the target customer base.

The Dash 8 Q-400 is developed (and still under development) with also professional users as a base. They took the bold decision to run most, if not the entire flight model outside FSX, something not done to this extend until now, probably with the more professional customer base in mind.

The Aerosoft Twin Otter Extended was developed with the normal hobbyist flight simmer market in mind. Compared with other comparable turboprop addons I surely find we moved quite a step forward.

We have never claimed or promised that all aspects would be ultra accurate, so just because another developement group has managed to make a more accurate addon, doesn't mean we should be ashamed about what we have managed.

We are simply talking about two different products and apart from the Majestic Dash 8, the Twin Otter is not more unrealistic in it's taxi behaviour than any other turboprop addon I know for FSX.

Talking about the pricetag.....

The Majestic costs 50.- euro where You get a single model.

The Twin Otter costs 35,- euro wher You get 11 different models.

Adding 12,- euro will give You the option to get more accurate taxi behaviour. Combined that will bring the cost to an almost equal level as the Dash 8.

The Dash 8 will give You a more accurate aircraft, while the Twin Otter will give You a somewhat less accurate (though it's hard to compare them), but with greater model diversity.

Finn

Hi Finn

No, I wasn't comparing the sales of the MJCQ400 and the Twin Otter Extended. To clarify the later part of my post, what I meant was that the real world popularity of an aircraft can sometimes affect the sales of its simulated counterpart. The Twin Otter is alot more popular than the Q400 and should mean (in theory) that the Twin Otter would general more sales due to the interest/popularity. The MJCQ400 drew alot of attention due to some of its unique features and I was basically saying that for some, if an aircraft has the right features, that it itself may boost peak their interest.

On the other hand, I fully understand the approach taken with the Twin Otter Extended. It is a very balanced product and definately one to be proud of. The provision of various models and a good representation of the systems of the aircraft will appeal to the average and avid user.

The Taxi power issue seemed like an issue that could be solved since others have done so, but I guess what isn't clear, is the level of work required to get around FSX limitations. To persons who do not develop products of this nature, understanding the technical aspects of an aircraft development may be difficult. Perhaps you can shed some light on this if you wish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Getting around various FSX limitations are most often very hard and You should always weight if it makes sense to put the required resources into fixing it - ie.

The Taxi behaviour of the Twin Otter is not any different than other comparable addons. Fixing it would require to move the engine and part of the flight model calculations outside FSX, which takes a lot of effort and the development time and thus price might not rectify the outcome.

We often see how customers expect that just because one developer adds a certain degree of realism, then this level of realism is expected on other developers work.

The Twin Otter should rather be compared with titles like the Flight1 King Air B200 and various Carenado turboprops, though with added features like engine failures, icing etc..

Finn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe AccuFeel tweaks sound behaviour and vibrations, bumps etc..

FSPS Frictionality actually tweaks the "feel", whether the play in pedals, yoke, tires is loose or tight against the surface in various runway conditions etc...Confusing by names!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Accu-feel V2 also tweaks ground behaviour:

"Ground physics for both on and off pavement for both tricycle and tail dragger airframes bucks your airplane around, making just taxiing a quality experience"

But though it tweaks some of those setting "Frictionality" probably focuses more on actual ground friction.

Finn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...