my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Game Discussions (Title-specific)   » MS Combat Flight Simulator 2   » Wells FM 1.7 Brakes

   
Author Topic: Wells FM 1.7 Brakes
Nimits
Member
Member # 7442

posted 11-19-2000 12:24 PM     Profile for Nimits   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I have the 1.7 version, where the brake strength was reduced to allow a more realistic landing roll. Unfortunately, for the powerful planes like th Corsair or the Zero, the brakes are so weak that they are incapable of holding the plane still while it revs up, and take-offs are much more dificult. Could the brakes be made a little stronger in the next version?
Posts: 127 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
Yardstick
Member
Member # 124

posted 11-19-2000 01:04 PM     Profile for Yardstick   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Using analogue toe brakes on my CH Pro Pedals, I had no problems with ground handling using the stock FM. With Wells FM unfortunately the Ground handling is very tricky as it's very difficult to stear using the brakes.
Posts: 53 | From: | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Michael 2
Member
Member # 7313

posted 11-19-2000 02:12 PM     Profile for Michael 2   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Someone posted a link to an account of a Corsair pilot's first six carrier landings. In describing a take-off, he noted the brakes couldn't hold it on a steel deck at full throttle. Apparently the plane would simply start to slide down the deck.
Posts: 62 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wells
Member
Member # 7315

posted 11-19-2000 02:29 PM     Profile for Wells   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The brakes will not hold the F4u past 44" Hg. The ground roll for most of these planes is 1000-1300' at sea level on a dry surface. It should take about 15 seconds or so to stop rolling. On slippery surfaces, the landing roll is doubled. Make sure you are making close to full stall landings as the difference between touching down at 130 knts vs 90 knts is to double the landing roll again.
Posts: 83 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
SpinDry
Member
Member # 7379

posted 11-20-2000 07:42 AM     Profile for SpinDry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Try the parking brakes as opposed to holding the regular ones. With them set I can do a full-power run-up in the P-38 with no creep at all; the only time it gets frisky is if I go full flaps and it starts bouncing the nosewheel a little. I save the differential brakes for fine-tuning on takeoff or landing rollout, as they're lots easier to manage than rudder steering below flying speed IMHO.
Posts: 296 | From: Rome, NY, USA | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
Nimits
Member
Member # 7442

posted 11-20-2000 11:04 PM     Profile for Nimits   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I am talking about the parking brakes. Bit if its realisitic, oh well.
Posts: 127 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
TBird66
Member
Member # 4720

posted 11-21-2000 05:07 AM     Profile for TBird66   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Wells,
I have one question: With the default FM's, it wasn't possible to rev up the engine (brakes on) without pulling the stick to prevent the plane from "dropping on the nose". I think that was pretty realistic (imagine about 2800HP pulling the plane forward in case of the corsair).
Using your FM's, it's possible to do a full power run-up without even touching the stick (elevator), there isn't any tendency to lift the tail. I think it's even possible to push the stick forward.
So my question is:
What variable did you change (in the *.air-file?)?
I want to change it to default.

TBird


Posts: 350 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
SpinDry
Member
Member # 7379

posted 11-21-2000 06:50 AM     Profile for SpinDry   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Ah, well. Guess that's what I get for flying the wimpy P-38.
Posts: 296 | From: Rome, NY, USA | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wells
Member
Member # 7315

posted 11-21-2000 07:58 AM     Profile for Wells   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I changed braking strength in section 1101 (flight dynamics). Maybe the position of the main gear is too far forward...I will check that out.
Posts: 83 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
BadBooze
Member
Member # 7306

posted 11-21-2000 09:33 AM     Profile for BadBooze   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Yo Nimits ---

You can simplify your braking needs as I have done --- simply go to:
http://home.socal.rr.com/flighttest:/

and download the .AIR file editor there (AirEd). It is a good editor and will allow YOU to adjust your braking force as you prefer when you want to !!!!!

GOOD LUCK / HAVE FUN --- BB --- :-) ---



Posts: 141 | From: San Ramon, CA. USA | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wells
Member
Member # 7315

posted 11-21-2000 10:25 PM     Profile for Wells   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I tested out a few different things tonight and I have a solution!

It turns out the propwash effect over the stabilizer was closer to cessna effectiveness than WW2 fighter, so that'll be changed in the next version. Also, I'm going to move the CG back to it's default position. I've only done the F4u so far, but the results are good...you need to hold the stick back while braking and you can lift the tail during engine runup.


Posts: 83 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
TBird66
Member
Member # 4720

posted 11-22-2000 10:12 AM     Profile for TBird66   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thx Wells for checking this issue, can't wait for testing the new FM. Can you already estimate when they will be finished?

Another question: I'm using a logitech wingman FF, and when I fly some planes with your FM1.7 (already changed some of them back to v1.6), I have to push the stick forward in level flight. I've already changed the empty_weight_CG_position to 0.0, 0, 0 and it's still there. I have to trim the nose down a lot to get rid of the force pushing my stick back. What do I have to change to get back the neutral level-flight handling (I don't want to go back to v1.6 or default-FM completely because I like the rest of the flight-characteristics using v1.7)

Thx in advance
TBird

P.S.: Could you enable stall-sound and shake (along with the lowered stall AoA) in your next FM-pack? Takes some time to do it myself and I think everybody here wants these things enabled.


Posts: 350 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Essel
Member
Member # 8011

posted 11-22-2000 04:04 PM     Profile for Essel   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Tbird,

This behavior (nose wanting to go up at full throttle) is actually what really happens. In a real aircraft, you end up using the trim quite a lot. I mean, it's not optionnal (unless you want an arm workout...). I very much like this behavior in the sim. It contributes a lot to the feeling of "being there"


Posts: 34 | From: Montreal, Quebec | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged
TBird66
Member
Member # 4720

posted 11-22-2000 11:01 PM     Profile for TBird66   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Essel,
for me it's the opposite: I hate this behaviour. I prefer flying an aircraft wich is trimmed "nose down". Nose up just doesn't feel right for me. Could be that's the way real aircraft fly, but I don't care about that .
Furthermore, I've found out why the a/c with Well's FM1.7 behave the way they do. There are some (imho) weird settings in section 1204 and 1205 of the *.air-files (espec. Wildcat and Hellcat). To meet my expectations of flight behaviour, I've changed them back to v1.6

Btw., has anybody got the default-*.air-files and could e-mail them to me (I've forgotten to backup them, shame on me!!)

Thx in advance
TBird
[email protected]


Posts: 350 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wells
Member
Member # 7315

posted 11-22-2000 11:12 PM     Profile for Wells   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
TBird66,

I'm finding that with the CG at 0,0,0, the planes won't start climbing till about 200 knts, which is just about right for cruising. BTW, what are you finding strange about 1204 and 1205? I should have 1.8 ready for tomorrow...I just finished test flying and everything seems ok. I'm not in favour of the audible stall warning as most of these planes didn't have one (who could hear over the engine anyway?). Some had a light and some had nothing but the feel through the stick, which BTW, I don't know how to do the FF stuff.

[This message has been edited by Wells (edited 11-22-2000).]


Posts: 83 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
TBird66
Member
Member # 4720

posted 11-23-2000 12:47 AM     Profile for TBird66   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Wells,
right now Im at work so I can only recall it as far as I remember:
Section 1024 (of the hellcat as an example)is about main wings settings. In v1.6 (which I think are the default settings, am I right?) the settings for wing incidence is 1, and the other (s**t, don't remember the word, it's the setting for the change of incidence at the wingtip) is 3. That means that the wing has an incidence of 1 at the root (according to the planes longitudinal axis, X?) at -2 at the wing tip. This is done at a/c to prevent them dropping over a wing when reaching the stall AoA (Wing stalls first at the root, a/c drops nose instead of performing a snap role were stall happens first at the wing-tip resulting in a big roll moment).
Your setting is 3 wing-root incidence and 0 ?????, means with your FM the plane has an incidence of +3 at root and wing-tip. If the aerodynamics are modelled correctly in CFS2, your FM results in tendency to snap role plus a far bigger lift of the main wing.

To section 1025 (horizontal stabilizer): default (v1.6) setting for stabilizer-incidence is 1, your's is 4,5. I think the definition for the direction of stabilizer-incidence in CFS2 is in opposite to the incidence of the main wing, means when you increase the degrees to positive amounts the nose of the stabilizer goes down resulting a bigger (positive) pitch moment (nose up). I've checked this by changing the setting back to 1 and the "nose up" tendency was was gone. I don't know what the setting is in the real a/c, but from my experience in flying R/C-models (20 Years), I can say that when I set the horizontal stab to 4,5, the plane will be unflyable (means: start->nose up to a loop immediately->stall->crash).
The only thing that prevents the CFS2-a/c in such a way is the big moment of inertia (pitch) and the (bad) efficiency of the controls compared to a R/C-a/c.
Furthermore, your setting for the area of the horiz. stabilizer is 78 sqfeet (default: 24?). I've calculated the average chord-depth of the stabilizer out of these settings (note: the area-setting in CFS2 is only the stabilizer, not the combo of stab. and elevator, the area for the elevator is in an other section), and if these calculations are correct, the chord depth (default) are 0,66meters and yours is over 2meters. Both are imho not correct (just a feeling, I don't have the exact proportions of the a/c).
So, that's all i can remember now. Correct me if my thoughts are not correct.

TBird

P.S: after I took a deeper look into the *.air-files, I think it's amazing that you can tweak nearly all important parameters of an a/c. That's a great feature of CFS2!


Posts: 350 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wells
Member
Member # 7315

posted 11-23-2000 01:31 AM     Profile for Wells   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The Hellcat did have 3 degrees of incidence with NO washout. The wildcat had zero incidence and the Corsair, 2 degrees, again, with no washout. The stab incidence on the hellcat was 4.5 degrees positive (nose down), but in the air file, there is another variable in 1101 that is dependant on the so called stab incidence, so I will have to check that one out. Also, the Hellcat had 3 degrees negative on the thrust line, which I accounted for in 1.8 by moving the engine up an appropriate amount. Note that after jumping to waypoints in a mission that your trim gets reset (a bug, IMO), so I'm aiming for close to no trim at max cruise settings.
Posts: 83 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
TBird66
Member
Member # 4720

posted 11-23-2000 01:43 AM     Profile for TBird66   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thanks for the info, Wells!
As i said, I have no parameters of the real a/c, and if they are as you stated (for sure they are), I apologize for my "unprooven" statements .

Btw., do you have any info concerning the "nose drop (to mud )-issue" with enabled brakes? How did the real a/c behave?

TBird


Posts: 350 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wells
Member
Member # 7315

posted 11-23-2000 11:00 AM     Profile for Wells   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Both the Wildcat's tail would start jumping at 30" Hg and the Corsair's tail could not be held on the ground with flaps down above 44" Hg. That's the only data I have.
Posts: 83 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
TBird66
Member
Member # 4720

posted 11-23-2000 12:52 PM     Profile for TBird66   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Thx again Wells.
I've made a view tests with different settings for:
1004 Main Gear Pos.
1004 Center Gear Pos.
and
1101 Pitch Prop Effect on Elevator
At the end, the positions of the gear where at -500 with no noticable effect. The only parameter that seems to help is the Pitch Prop Effect. For a test i've set it to -2. Now, the a/c lifts the tail and drops over when pushing the stick. But the behaviour in flight: not acceptable, far too sensitive on elevator
So, I think I'll wait till your new FM's are released to see what you could do about it.

Btw., can you (or someone else) post a link where I can d/l the default FM's?

Thx in advance
TBird


Posts: 350 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wells
Member
Member # 7315

posted 11-23-2000 01:13 PM     Profile for Wells   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I don't think we're getting the propwash deflection off the ground, so I can't get the effect exactly right. Theoretical calculations for the F4u tell me that the propwash velocity over the tail is some 130 mph at full power (static thrust), so one should be able to lift the tail with full down elevator , even if the main gear is ~4 feet ahead of CG. I found that a value of -0.15 for the propwash/elevator effect is about right in flight. You need to play with the gear positions in the aircraft.cfg file. It overwrites the air file for those parameters.


Posts: 83 | From: | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged
TBird66
Member
Member # 4720

posted 11-23-2000 01:48 PM     Profile for TBird66   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I've already done that (->aircraft.cfg). Increased the value for
//1 Longitudinal Position
under [Contact_Points] to -40,0 (default: - 19,0)
Now i've got a lifted tail, but it's permanently lifted, even with engine shut down, looks pretty strange, but gives you a very good view forward when you start

TBird

[This message has been edited by TBird66 (edited 11-23-2000).]


Posts: 350 | From: Germany | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved