Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 4 votes

The Fokker Dr1 FM Revisited


  • Please log in to reply
197 replies to this topic

#41 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 03 April 2015 - 07:45

Does this mean that 777 is using real world data, but somehow the equation is wrong, so using accurate data results in inaccurate FM-s? Because they always keep saying this is the data they have, therefore the FM-s are correct. Looks like it is not the case, then?

 

Great work by the way, I can't wait to try your Dr1, and I really hope 777 will decide to review the RoF Dr1 accordingly.

 

It is a very logic approach, but it also highlights the tremendous difficulty in creating a routine that translates real world profile data into actual flight behaviour. You have to cut an awful lot of corners to do that, as you don't want to overload your system with calculating aerodynamics. 

 

For instance, XPlane was specifically programmed to be able to compute aerodynamics more acurate than other sims. But even they have to cut corners as any other sim, because also they cannot max system load with aerodynamic comutation. After all, there is still a world out there to display. Some say, their engine is superior, but looking at the final result, I'd say "it depends".

 

But if you are designing an airplane, you use a supercomputer to depict airflow alone to get it right. By limiting computing ressources, the computed result will diverge from the real thing. This is why it is absolutely required to follow up with fine-tuning your sim aircraft. In FSX there is a good example for that: use the stock Cessna 172, then compare it to A2A Accusim Cessna172. They share very little in their flight model except for respective speeds (to some degree).

 

After learning from you Chill, I'd be tempted to try to "heal" some of the Camel that is (as freeware) out for FSX... Going through the material presented here in this forum, I suspect the exaggerated aileron effectiveness and yaw stability as well as undermodelled adverse yaw (basically across most of the planeset) to be the largest deviation from the real flight characteristics of those planes.


  • 0

#42 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 April 2015 - 09:57

Does this mean that 777 is using real world data, but somehow the equation is wrong, so using accurate data results in inaccurate FM-s? Because they always keep saying this is the data they have, therefore the FM-s are correct. Looks like it is not the case, then?

 

Great work by the way, I can't wait to try your Dr1, and I really hope 777 will decide to review the RoF Dr1 accordingly.

 

Here is an example what they did with ROF (my educated guess)...they took the Goetingen 298 airfoil section lift, drag, and pitch coefficients and plugged it into a basic aerodynamic model.  Based solely on the numbers, the wings behave in an idea fashion where they can achieve maximum lift.  The reality is that the wings are attached to a fuselage and struts and wires...All of this reduces the CL from the ideal wind tunnel tested wing section. 

 

Another problem is that these flight sims don't simulate 3 wings, or 2 wings for that matter!  They simulate one wing, and depending on how I configure that wing with regard to aspect ratio, it affects the whole performance of the FM.  So there are gaps in what we can do with them.  To fill those gaps, we need some extra data and good accounts of how the planes fly.

 

So yeah, the short answer, accurate data can lead to inaccurate FMs.


  • 0

#43 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 April 2015 - 10:02

I think I am just about done with the FSX Dr1.  I have the bulk of it done and it gives a much more Dr1 feel to the plane than there is in ROF (though mine is not perfect either.)  I have 2 versions: one that flies like mine and one that has a rotary modeled.

 

I just need to finish tuning a couple of things and then I'll post it for people to enjoy and give me feedback so I can make adjustments.

 

One thing I want to do is make the Fuel mixture a higher emphasis item so that pilots have to monitor fuel settings more closely than in ROF.


  • 1

#44 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 03 April 2015 - 10:39

Happy Easter! :)


  • 0

#45 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 April 2015 - 14:58

So I think this FM may be perpetual WIP, but here it is with a rotary.

 

Max level speed 111mph

Climb to 1000m: 2.9 minutes

Max Speed 10,000 ft: 100mph

 

 

Known issues:

Stall behavior at high yaw angles is crazy

Ground Handling...I didn't even touch it yet

The mixture doesn't do anything except kill the engine

 

To install it, simple copy both files into any aircraft folder in your Flight Sim X\SimObjects\Airplanes directory

 

A google search for NeoQB Dr1 will give you the 3D model if you want to use it.  I do recommend you go into the extra 300 folder and copy the entire "Panel" folder into the Dr1 folder if you choose to use the NeoQB Dr1

 

 

If you fly it and find  something you don't like, let me know.

 

 

Attached Files

  • Attached File  Dr1.zip   9.99KB   28 downloads

  • 0

#46 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 557

Posted 03 April 2015 - 16:29

Thanks good man.


  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#47 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 03 April 2015 - 16:46

Fantastic!! I'll give it a try!


  • 0

#48 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 03 April 2015 - 17:18

That's actually very interesting with what you've coem up. I just made some patterns with it plus tunting it a bit.

 

My first impression is that in all, it is a plane that encourages much less to stunt it. The RoF variant is an UFO, but even at crazy angles you can regain control. Here, as you say, once you cross a line, you better have plenty air beneath you. But "improving the ease to catch it again" is probably something that has to be worked on.

 

It is basically a plane that constantly likes to "walk away from where you want to go" and it has total disharmony of control, which takes again some time to get used to. The controlls however are all remarkably effective, so you can "pull it by the hair" where you want to go.

 

But I cannot stress that difference in feel: This Dr.I has become a plane that doesn't ask you to stunt too much. Much unlike the original RoF variant. It is a particular feeling that I get with when sitting on the controls of an aircraft. A Cessna or a Bravo (you can do aerobatics in the latter) gives you this feeling that you better be gentle with them. A Bücker Jungmann however... with the pull of two fingers you make it roll and it feels so right. Even when flying a Bücker level it radiates this absolute confidence in control. Your Dr.I is a plane that doesn't give you that confidence right away... once you know her very well, you can do awesome things with her. But those awesome things are basically making the most of its quirks. But you have to work on that relationship first.

 

I'll keep on trying... But I'm sure, if the RoF Dr.I was such from the start, there would have been some angry voices in this forum...

 

But keep it up, it's really cool getting things right... even if its a longer process.

 

:icon_e_salute:

 

Z


  • 0

#49 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 03 April 2015 - 17:51

That's actually very interesting with what you've coem up. I just made some patterns with it plus tunting it a bit.

 

My first impression is that in all, it is a plane that encourages much less to stunt it. The RoF variant is an UFO, but even at crazy angles you can regain control. Here, as you say, once you cross a line, you better have plenty air beneath you. But "improving the ease to catch it again" is probably something that has to be worked on.

 

It is basically a plane that constantly likes to "walk away from where you want to go" and it has total disharmony of control, which takes again some time to get used to. The controlls however are all remarkably effective, so you can "pull it by the hair" where you want to go.

 

But I cannot stress that difference in feel: This Dr.I has become a plane that doesn't ask you to stunt too much. Much unlike the original RoF variant. It is a particular feeling that I get with when sitting on the controls of an aircraft. A Cessna or a Bravo (you can do aerobatics in the latter) gives you this feeling that you better be gentle with them. A Bücker Jungmann however... with the pull of two fingers you make it roll and it feels so right. Even when flying a Bücker level it radiates this absolute confidence in control. Your Dr.I is a plane that doesn't give you that confidence right away... once you know her very well, you can do awesome things with her. But those awesome things are basically making the most of its quirks. But you have to work on that relationship first.

 

I'll keep on trying... But I'm sure, if the RoF Dr.I was such from the start, there would have been some angry voices in this forum...

 

But keep it up, it's really cool getting things right... even if its a longer process.

 

:icon_e_salute:

 

Z

 

I can tame her down pretty easily if you want to try one that is more docile.  The real plane is very much like this one though, minus the crazy yaw stall.  The trick is to always keep it coordinated.

 

I think the ROF model has many things wrong with it and I hesitate to call it flying a Dr1.  The one I have put here is much more representative of flying the real plane.


  • 0

#50 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 03 April 2015 - 20:39

I can tame her down pretty easily if you want to try one that is more docile.  The real plane is very much like this one though, minus the crazy yaw stall.  The trick is to always keep it coordinated.

 

I think the ROF model has many things wrong with it and I hesitate to call it flying a Dr1.  The one I have put here is much more representative of flying the real plane.

 

I'm fine with her beeing "wild". What struck me is the different feel of the aircraft than what we have in RoF. The RoF one is also "wild" in its own way, but it is in an encouraging way taking her to the limits. I don't mean to correlate what you "feel natural" to do with a plane with what you actually can do with it. It appears to me, that your Dr.I can actually do more than the RoF "variant". The controls are more effective in yours. It really is impressive how different those old planes are in handling than modern planes. I suspect the Camel in RoF to diverge even more from the "real" plane. 


  • 0

#51 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 April 2015 - 00:47

Yeah, the ROF Dr1 has much more stability than mine.  However, the ROF Dr1 still departs controlled flight at high yaw angles.  Without being able to see all of the flight parameters, it is difficult to tune AOA and pitch/roll moments.  It takes a lot of trial and error.

 

If you don't yaw my Dr1 to the extreme limit, I feel that flying it is almost like the real thing.  When I fly my Dr1, I truly feel like the plane will do anything I want it to do, and I have tried to capture that (using as much real data as I can) in this FM.

 

Maybe we can try to work on a Camel together? and Try a MP FSX dogfight with the Dr1 and Camel


  • 0

#52 SYN_Bandy

SYN_Bandy
  • Posts: 2599
  • LocationWishing I was in the La Cloche

Posted 04 April 2015 - 10:27

...

Currently I am focused on getting an accurate yaw model.  The Dr1 is very unstable in yaw and can achieve some incredible sideslip angles and keep flying.  In the FM, as side slip increases, stall margin decreases which results in wild stall gyrations at the moment.  I am trying to solve those.

 

Currently, I have successfully modeled the wandering nose and adverse yaw found on the real aircraft.  If you fly strait and don't use the rudder, she just wont go where you want her to go.  It really is a rudder airplane now as you start and stop a turn takes a significant amount of rudder which approximates the real aircraft.

...

 

In case anyone wants to know.  Have posted this before, and explains how Voss managed to do what he did in his last battle...

http://www.airspacem...-knew-22968921/

 

Wing4.jpg

 

Wing2.jpg

 

 

And Zach mentioned supercomputer flight modeling.  A nifty example of what you can explore and discover about the old birds. 

This is some of the work being done at Smithsonian National Air & Space Museum.  Of course it only confirms what Jerome Hunsaker found via mathematics in 1917.

 

Still, I was very impressed with one of the original NeoQB promo videos showing the airflow dynamics modeled via the ping-pong balls.  Anyone remember that one?

I believe it is called Rise of Flight promo 8: airflow demo   https://www.youtube....h?v=o3tJlFsGRSE

 


  • 0

#53 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 04 April 2015 - 11:32

In case anyone wants to know.  Have posted this before, and explains how Voss managed to do what he did in his last battle...

 

 

 

 

And Zach mentioned supercomputer flight modeling.  A nifty example of what you can explore and discover about the old birds. 

This is from Smithsonian Air & Space mag and some of the work being done at National Air & Space Museum. 

Still, I was very impressed with one of the original NeoQB promo videos showing the airflow dynamics modeled via the ping-pong balls.  Anyone remember that one?

 

 

 

I do remember you posting these. The first one about the rudder shows nicely how a seemingly tiny flying rudder (without tailfin) delivers the same authority than a much larger rudder & fin combination. And Chills modelled FM is an impressive testament to that. His Dr.I yaws much more readily and in a "cleaner" way than the RoF variant, even though there we also can bank at outrageous angles. But Chills interpretation of the Dr.I gives even more the feeling of being in a gunner turret and you can turn it just using the pedals. This strong rudder authority surely helps fighting gyroscopic precession I'd suppose.

 

The aerodynamic computation you show below reiterates IMHO what Chill found: FSX (and probably RoF) models a monoplane. The same amount of wing as a monoplane gives more lift than the Triplane configuration, giving it this urge "to go upwards", hang on the prop, like there is always lift. This is a notable difference in the FM Chill modeled according to his experience. Even though (of you get used to the more "loose" controls and their disharmony) it is easier to fly clean and at least what is concerning level performance it its more capable, it lost some of the "Harrier-like" capability you have in RoF when it comes to the vertical plane. You get more aware of the limits of the plane. 

 

It becomes even clearer to me why Voss could give the 56th SE5a's such a hard time. Anything that is your forward FOV you can train your guns at with the pedals. Chills Dr.I is even better at that than the RoF one. And I must confess, the roll rate is VERY nice on this plane as well. In the time the opponents took individual hit & runs at him, he had time to turn at them (proving his excellent SA). But that can only last as long until he's hurt first time.

 

What I like about your FM Chill is that it makes you turn the plane automatically in a way often seen in videos when they are flying real Dr.I's. That is this noticeable "pitch up" often visible when you initiate the turn with rudder and follow with the ailerons, probably due to the adverse yaw. It's really cool.

 

 

Regarding the Camel FM, I think that will take some time. I gave it a quick shot, but I guess I need to go over the books completely. That FSX Camel (much in contrast to the RoF one) flys more like a Piper Cub. If there is more than a single parameter that has to be corrected, it is just too hard to do try and error. Time permitting, I can still try. It's also fun. The main thing with the RoF Camel is probably excess yaw stability, followed by having too little adverse yaw as well as aileron effect in general.

 

Z


  • 0

#54 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 April 2015 - 15:05

Z

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=8p_owOgO2aw

 

Watch that video and then try the maneuvers you see in it with the FSX Dr1 and then try them with ROF Dr1 and see what you prefer.  I am biased in my opinion, so I would be interested in yours!


  • 0

#55 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 04 April 2015 - 15:19

...even though there we also can bank at outrageous angles...

What do you mean here? Should I change something?

 

 Even though (of you get used to the more "loose" controls and their disharmony) it is easier to fly clean (What do you mean by clean?) and at least what is concerning level performance it its more capable, it lost some of the "Harrier-like" capability you have in RoF when it comes to the vertical plane. You get more aware of the limits of the plane. (Do you think it is easier or more difficult to fly within the limits of the plane?)

 

It becomes even clearer to me why Voss could give the 56th SE5a's such a hard time. Anything that is your forward FOV you can train your guns at with the pedals. Chills Dr.I is even better at that than the RoF one. And I must confess, the roll rate is VERY nice on this plane as well. (It is too good in your opinion?)  In the time the opponents took individual hit & runs at him, he had time to turn at them (proving his excellent SA). But that can only last as long until he's hurt first time.

 

What I like about your FM Chill is that it makes you turn the plane automatically in a way often seen in videos when they are flying real Dr.I's. That is this noticeable "pitch up" often visible when you initiate the turn with rudder and follow with the ailerons, probably due to the adverse yaw. It's really cool.

 

 

Regarding the Camel FM, I think that will take some time. I gave it a quick shot, but I guess I need to go over the books completely. That FSX Camel (much in contrast to the RoF one) flys more like a Piper Cub. If there is more than a single parameter that has to be corrected, it is just too hard to do try and error. Time permitting, I can still try. It's also fun. The main thing with the RoF Camel is probably excess yaw stability, followed by having too little adverse yaw as well as aileron effect in general. (yes, there are MANY parameters to adjust for a FM.  Where did you get the Camel for FSX?  I would try to make a FM to go with a nice 3D model)

 

Z

 Also, notice the RPM  my "Oberursel" turns  versus the ROF Dr1.


  • 0

#56 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 04 April 2015 - 16:34

Hi Chill

 

1. No, what I can do is what I can see you doing with your plane in the videos you posted. Doing this with a plane.. just wow. Whait is outrageous is what your plane actually does. I just impressed.

 

2. Actually I find your plane easier to fly one you get the knack of it. It is easier to "just yaw", "just roll" or "just pitch" than what we have in RoF.

 

3. I can't really know if it's too good in rolling, all I can say is it is straightforward to reproduce your flying in your Dr., so it makes a lot of sense to me. Again, I'm just impressed about the Dr.I's ability to roll as such. This in contrast to what was common back then and what we read about a replica Camel that took 23 seconds and good nerves from the pilot for a full aileron roll.

 

4. You can download the Camel here: http://aussiex.org/f...pwith-f1-camel/

There is also a version 2 of it, containing more skins. I have that one, here: http://www.classicwi...with_camel.html

 

In all it is nice seeing your implementation and the one of RoF side by side, because, in principle it shows that 777 made a good job as far as you could go without having the actual plane at hand. In your implementation, I get the feeling back that I am actually flying an aircraft with 120 hp or so and puts things back into perspective as you clearly can feel how much you can ask for it. The really last thing I'd do with a plane with such an engine IRL is just point the nose up in the sky and "let it hang there" as the consequences would be pretty clearcut. In this sense your plane feels very realistic. To really hang a plane on the prop, you better have an Extra, Votec or a comparable plane. With 3 times the power for the same weight. The Bücker, yes... but not for extended periods.

 

 

What remains with your implementation is the difficult part, the stall behaviour at the limits of the envelope. So far "you fall off the cliff" at a certain pouint but I'm sure it is comparably benign to catch IRL. Ground handling, yes... but that's really the last thing. It is even questionable whether one wants this correctly implemented, as it then negates any try for crosswind take offs and landings. But airfields these days are not big squared patches of trimmed grass anymore and you just go in the direction the windsock tells you to go.

 

And yes, I saw that about the engine. I will practise a bit more to see what turns I can manage. It's a different feel and requires some practise first. But as said, I'm really impressed. :)


  • 0

#57 hq_Reflected

hq_Reflected
  • Posts: 4711

Posted 04 April 2015 - 19:32

Chili,

 

I gave the FSX Dr1 a try, and I'm really impressed with your work! Actually it's closer to the RoF Dr.1 than I expected. It's not drastically different. The most obvious difference to me was the instability in yaw. Your Dr.1 wants to depart straight flight ALL THE TIME. Which is nice and fits all the accounts I've read. The RoF Dr1 feels more like flying on "rails" compared to yours. None of them are easy to handle. Yours is a little easier, but also much more mischievous if you don't pay attention. It makes a lot of sense to me. I really hope 777 will have a look at your work and we'll benefit from it in RoF.

 

Thanks a lot for your efforts!  :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#58 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 05 April 2015 - 11:38

I really, really start to like your Dr.I Chill! One thing in addition to the difference in lift is also how the rudder is less effective at low speeds. This is a notable in looping the plane. I just compared with the RoF Dr.I. With yours, there is this mentined strong thendency that the plane makes a 90 degree yaw turn at the top of the loop, as it is also describes about the Camel and the Pup. The RoF Dr.I can be kept straight fairly easy with the rudder (almost same amount throughut the loop) whereas yours is much more challenging to loop straight. Entering a loop too slow makes it even impossible (at least to me, at this moment) to keep it straight and full rudder will provoke the plane to roll out of the loop as if you were flying an immelmann turn.

 

Your .air and .cfg files were a really nice easter egg :)

 

Z


  • 0

#59 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 05 April 2015 - 21:28

Thanks for the feedback.  I will work on the stalling behavior more and try to get a refined FM from ground handling through stall handling.  After that, I will try a Camel.


  • 0

#60 Der.Mo

Der.Mo
  • Posts: 1009

Posted 05 April 2015 - 22:32

Just to get it right, the Dr.I zip file is only for FSX and not for RoF, correct?
  • 0

#61 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 05 April 2015 - 23:31

Just to get it right, the Dr.I zip file is only for FSX and not for RoF, correct?

 

Correct :) 


  • 0

#62 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 06 April 2015 - 07:32

Z

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=8p_owOgO2aw

 

Watch that video and then try the maneuvers you see in it with the FSX Dr1 and then try them with ROF Dr1 and see what you prefer.  I am biased in my opinion, so I would be interested in yours!

 

That's an easy one. Your FM makes that easier. But in your FM I find the gyro a bit more difficult to get used to. It is really a huge improvement IMHO.


  • 0

#63 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 557

Posted 06 April 2015 - 12:22

There is Albatros D.III (Oeffag) made by Lucas, those plane could make nice trio :)
 

  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#64 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 06 April 2015 - 12:27

 

There is Albatros D.III (Oeffag) made by Lucas, those plane could make nice trio :)
 

 

 

A2A release great payware... I would guess it's good.


  • 0

#65 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 06 April 2015 - 16:43

I have been working on post stall behavior with rudder input (spins) and I think I have something believable, though I cant say whether or not it is accurate since I haven't spent a lot of time spinning the Dr1.  The little that I did spin mine, this seems reasonable but perhaps a little too easy to recover (not by much though).  Give this a try and let me know what you think.

Attached Files

  • Attached File  Dr1.zip   10.04KB   15 downloads

  • 0

#66 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 07 April 2015 - 20:59

I have been working on post stall behavior with rudder input (spins) and I think I have something believable, though I cant say whether or not it is accurate since I haven't spent a lot of time spinning the Dr1.  The little that I did spin mine, this seems reasonable but perhaps a little too easy to recover (not by much though).  Give this a try and let me know what you think.

 

Very interessting. Now it flies in a much more benign manner. It resembles more the original RoF Dr.i again, minus the sily pitch-up and the excessive prophang qualities. Although, for a 110ish hp aircraft, its vertical performance is still amazing. It is definitely something people could get used to. I still have to try and follow the maneuvers you're making with yours an compare that more closely. It is much easier now to perform straight loops. More like in RoF where a like 30% rudder deflection will put you though a straight loop. before you started with little rudder, then on top ended up with not enough rudder. the truth may be somewhere between there.

 

Compared to your first version it has gotten the kind of aircraft one's wife would allow one to take off with. ;)

 

Z


  • 0

#67 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 26 May 2015 - 15:12

Great work that you did Chill. I feel inclined to test it; even better if people come up with a Camel down the road, so we can duke it out.

 

And guys, I know nothing about FSX. Does anyone know if they have special packs? Do I need to buy mods or add ons? I am only interested on a basic kit to test the Dr.I. Any suggestions are appreciated.

 

Cheers and congrats on the work again Chill. Keep it up.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."

#68 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 26 May 2015 - 15:49

For anyone wanting to try this out, you can use an version of FSX.  I have two versions, the original and deluxe, and it works on both.  No special mod packs or anything. See post number 45 for downloading the NeoQB Dr1 if you want the Dr1 3d model to go with my air and cfg files.


  • 2

#69 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 557

Posted 26 May 2015 - 17:37

I would like to try it. I'm very curious how fact that you are actual pilot reflects the behavior of the aircraft FM compare do RoF FM.
I have opportunity to buy very cheaply Microsoft Flight Simulator X Steam Edition. Does this will work in this edition?

  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#70 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 26 May 2015 - 20:09

 

I would like to try it. I'm very curious how fact that you are actual pilot reflects the behavior of the aircraft FM compare do RoF FM.
I have opportunity to buy very cheaply Microsoft Flight Simulator X Steam Edition. Does this will work in this edition?

 

 

It works in all versions of FSX and it works in Prepar3D as well (all versions).

 

Give it a try. It is really revealing how nice the Dr.I actually flies according to Chills parameters. It is really nice plane to go and have some fun with.

 

Z


  • 0

#71 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 27 May 2015 - 16:13

For those of you who have tried it, I am going to get back to work on it to try to complete the whole FM, including ground handling.  I would appreciate any feedback you have for me on it.  When I am finished, I am going to submit it to 777 for their use.


  • 1

#72 Uwe_W.

Uwe_W.
  • Posts: 143
  • LocationFresno, CA

Posted 27 May 2015 - 18:30

Very interesting read, please let us know how 777 receives it.
  • 0

#73 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 27 May 2015 - 19:05

For FSX Dr1 fliers, I am currently working on more stall behavior because I am trying to use a parameter in FSX which accounts for prop wash influencing control authority.  I am having some difficult as it requires I redo the control surface authority (this would be the control effectiveness due to the airstream minus prop wash).  I think I am on the right track, but still need a few more sessions to get it all set.  I will put it to you to judge on Thursday.


  • 1

#74 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 27 May 2015 - 20:25

For FSX Dr1 fliers, I am currently working on more stall behavior because I am trying to use a parameter in FSX which accounts for prop wash influencing control authority.  I am having some difficult as it requires I redo the control surface authority (this would be the control effectiveness due to the airstream minus prop wash).  I think I am on the right track, but still need a few more sessions to get it all set.  I will put it to you to judge on Thursday.

 

I can't wait to try that one :) So far, I feel your implementations very instructive. The last version you published really gives an ide of how much fun this plane can be. This in contrast to the default 777 flight characteristics that picture an aircraft I truly wouldn't want to climb into in RL.

 

One thing that i really liked about your first, more unstable FM is the reduction of control authority in slow speed. Basically, when you land, the control is gone as well as when you loop the plane, it is very hard to keep it in the same plane. Even hard rudder defection won't keep it from ending the loop 90 degrees off your original course, something that is often also mentined with the Camel ot the Pup. In the second version, the airplane has more control authority at slow speeds (also when starting and landing).

 

Cheers,

Z

 

:icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#75 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 28 May 2015 - 16:15

Here is my v2.0.

 

I have tried to update the stall/spin effects to be more realistic, though I think there is still a little more to be done.

 

I have tried to incorporate propeller wash on the control surfaces.  This caused me a lot of difficulty in going back to rework the flight controls.  Looping takes a lot of rudder coordination in order to have a smooth loop.

 

I have tried to update ground handling.  Now you can add some power to blast the tail around, but don't hold the power too long or you will tip over.

 

Fly it, and please give me your impressions, especially compared to ROF Dr1 so I can try to give a good product 777/ROF community.

 

To install it, simple copy both files into any aircraft folder in your Flight Sim X\SimObjects\Airplanes directory (I recommend the extra 300 if you are not using the NeoQB Dr1)

 

A google search for NeoQB Dr1 will give you the 3D model if you want to use it.  I do recommend you go into the extra 300 folder and copy the entire "Panel" folder into the Dr1 folder if you choose to use the NeoQB Dr1

Attached Files


  • 2

#76 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 28 May 2015 - 16:36

Fantastic! Trying it right away... :icon_e_salute:


  • 0

#77 ZachariasX

ZachariasX
  • Posts: 794

Posted 28 May 2015 - 20:41

Just a first impression (in FSX):

 

I can reasonably taxi the plane now and I must say it flys rather pleasant. With full fuel load it doesen't really like to go in the vertical plane, although it still is a really good climber. Down to 30% fuel it starts to like loops. At full fuel load, you really need to push it to like 180 km/h and pull it back at like 4-5 g's and it will barely make it over the top, where you have <1g with full pulling back. Full rudder is required to keep it in the direction. at 30% fuel it loops much better.

 

Generally, what I truly like about the "feel" of flying it is:

 

- It gives the forgiving characteristics of a plane with lots of thick wing.

- It is a really good turner on the horizontal plane, especially at slow speeds

 

Where it differs from RoF Dr.I:

 

- Pitch-up is reduced to reasonable levels and elevator deflection at respective speeds resemble your plane, Chill.

- It is *way* less capable in the vertical plane and it is now a 800 kg plane with 110 hp, not a UFO.

- It is easier to fly and control, especially at slow speeds and more capable under these conditions I'd say.

- It is overall slower than the post patch Dr.I as it bleeds lots of speed in maneuvers and takes a while to build it up again. Top speed I haven't mesured yet in detail, but what strikes me is that in maneuvers it is noticeably slower. Diving after a SPAD.. pointless. In RoF, if both start at slower speed, he'll be in trouble (as he asked for just that).

 

 

In P3D there is the issue that the plane is now "stuck" to the runway, even at full throttle and rpm it barely creeps across the runway. This is seen with several FSX planes implanted in P3D.

 

 

Generally, I get the feeling that most planes in RoF are probably overmodeled regarding accelleration and retaining speed in maneuvering. This still after the 1034 patch. But for the game it is probably better as fights are more fun if planes can do more.

 

 

I'll make some more acurate comparisons when I have more time. But this just as a first impression.

 

Great work! :icon_e_smile:

 

Z


  • 0

#78 1PL-Husar

1PL-Husar
  • Posts: 557

Posted 31 May 2015 - 06:44

I have FSX SE and installed DR1, but i have problems with force feedback with MS FF2 joystick. Can't fly because joy is acting very strangely. Is there some soul who is using MSFF2 with FSX with success?


  • 0

34zg6jd.jpg


#79 Chill31

Chill31
  • Posts: 1891

Posted 31 May 2015 - 15:09

Husar, I didn't touch the FFB on it because I too find it to be extremely aggravating on ALL FSX aircraft.  I have a MS FF2 joystick as well and find the game much more enjoyable without FFB on...I will look into it though as there are a bunch of parameters to work with regarding FFB.  For the time being, I recommend you disable FFB.


  • 0

#80 SeaW0lf

SeaW0lf
  • Posts: 2409
  • LocationRio de Janeiro - Brazil

Posted 31 May 2015 - 18:40

I am kind of slammed right now, but soon or later I'll install FSX and try the Dr.I. looking forward to it.


  • 0
"There will be honor enough for us all."


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users