|
|
Post by phoenix on Apr 18, 2010 14:43:09 GMT
Hello!
Thanks for that great E-3A aircraft. It´s flying great on most parameters if you adjust gross weight to a standard one. Only problem I experienced on FSX is the stabilizer trim. It´s moving way too fast. Pushing the joystick button it´s going from top to bottom in about 2 seconds. That´s why it´s almost impossible for me to maintain an altitude. Just one shot of trim makes the difference between for and aft limit of the joystick. Is there any parameter I could tweak to have it smoother. On the real plane you have to press the trim button for at least 20 seconds to go from one maximum to the other. On a go around you have to trim forward quite a lot of time to overcome the pendulum effect of the upspooling engines.
In addition to that, the aircraft is perfect, but that flaw makes it unusable for me. Would be great if somebody could help me out there.
Thanks a lot in advance
Phoenix
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 18, 2010 21:17:05 GMT
I'm not aware of anyone else having reported a similar issue with these aircraft (that I can immediately recall) whilst using our own current aircraft base packs/FDE and panels .... those available from this website only !
However .... this's 1 of any number of areas where FS and realworld performances collide head on.
If you're depressing the keyboard command too aggresively or prolonging Trim input by excesssive mousing .... then FS will likely respond with either a runaway or overly sensitive Trim.
For most FS aircraft I find no more than a few brief taps of the keyboard Trim command is more than sufficient to manually set T/O Trim (it does vary between aircraft of course) .... and even less input during manual flight control. And during AP controlled climb, cruise, and descent, I find no more than a couple of brief mouse clicks over the Trim device is usually more than sufficient to result in a nice smooth response.
In FS I've also observed that manual Trim response often tends to be more sensitive than that during AP controlled flight .... depending upon how it's applied of course.
Sometimes .... a selected panel can also influence either manual or AP controlled Trim responses.
Precisely what panel are you currently using ?
Also .... open up the AIRCRAFT.CFG file for your C135 TYPE aircraft. Locate the AIRPLANE GEOMETRY section. Then locate the data line which reads ELEVATOR TRIM LIMIT .... don't change anything there, yet, but, do let me know precisely what value is currently recorded there at the moment !
Additionally .... we do have FDE edits for all our C135 TYPE and DC8 aircraft which I've been sitting on for some 16 months. These edits should address things like Trim response (less sensitive), and engine spooling response (proportionately different for each of the turbojet, fanjet, and turbofan examples). However .... I've not been able to get these released .... "YET" .... simply because I've become so busy, for more than this past year, through our taking on the B727's (aircraft/FDE/panel), CARAVELLE, and DC9 projects .... the latter 2 aircraft being my current priorities at this time.
I hope something here is of help.
In the meantime .... get back to me in relation to those 2 specific queries I've raised in relation to your panel choice, and current ETL value, and we'll see what we can advise.
Mark C
AKL/NZ
|
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Apr 19, 2010 16:30:56 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 19, 2010 23:58:44 GMT
I see you're using a selection of our E3C aircraft, and the TF-33 soundpack, and our standard B707 smoke effects .... which is all fine !  HOWEVER .... you should be using our "B707-320B 1970 PANEL" with these aircraft and not the B707-700 version which you appear to have selected. The engine gauges within the -320B 1970 panel are callibrated for JT3D/TF33 series fanjet engine performance .... wheras those in the -700 panel are callibrated for CFM56 turbfan engine performance. Here's a list of the recommended panel assigments for each of our C135 TYPE aircraft .... For ideal performance it's important mate the correct aircraft type panels with the correct aircraft type base packs. This is because the engine gauges within each panel are callibrated (as best FS will permit) according to the known performance of each engine type .... and which is also reflected in the accompanying FDE too of course. Mating the wrong panels with any aircraft type won't hurt anything .... BUT .... will result in inaccurate engine gauges readings. Comming back to your TRIM issue .... I recommend you edit the ELEVATOR TRIM LIMIT value for each of your C135 TYPE aircraft to read as follows .... elevator_trim_limit=12.481This should result in less sensitive TRIM response ! This particular ETL value is a standard which was applied to all our B707/720 aircraft during their last FDE update .... to address TRIM response. The same ETL edit will be featured among all our C135 TYPE aircraft when their FDE update is released .... and for the same reasons too. If after making this edit you feel that the TRIM response is still too sensitive .... then you could try reducing this ETL value to read "10.481" .... but .... I wouldn't be inclined to use a value less that this with these panels and FDE .... AND .... I most certainly don't recommend editing aything else within either the CFG or AIR files for any these B707/C!35 TYPE aicraft. As recommended above .... TRIM should alway be applied carefully .... and which is just an "FS THING" .... and something we've all just got to live with to some extent  See how you get along on the basis of this advice anyway !  Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Apr 20, 2010 19:09:59 GMT
Hey Marc!
Thanks for those inputs. I just changed the panel to the one you suggested.
At the moment I´m experimenting with the 3 trim settings in the aircraft config.
I noticed that with the keyboard it´s a lot slower than with the joystick. Don´t know why, but if I do just short klicks on the keyboard, it´s working pretty good actually, seems like the joystick produces more than one input when pressing the button once.
I will take some hours experimenting with those settings and give you some feedback then.
Thanks for your effort!
Markus
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 20, 2010 21:46:35 GMT
On the basis of my above recommended ETL edit alone you should now be observing some difference/improvement .... in the form of a much less sensitive TRIM response to imput. HMMM .... it's possible  that you may have some minor joystick sensitivity issues to address within FS too. This will/may vary between devices .... of course. Except for the setting of manual TRIM prior to T/O (from memory I think I set about 4 to 5 units, depending on aircraft weight, but, I don't recall precisely .... it's been a while since I've flown an HJG B707/C135 TYPE aircraft), I seldom otherwise ever use keyboard commands to set the TRIM. I don't have TRIM assigned to my joystick .... just a personmal preference Once airborne, and cleaned up, I usually like to get the AP in early .... then TRIM the aircraft using the mouse and per the AP located TRIM knob/thumb wheel. In terms of TRIM sensitivity .... I generally like to see a mouse/TRIM response of roughly 1 click (input) equals approximately 100 FT plus or minus gain .... which, I feel, results in nice smooth FS TRIM response. But .... that's just my preference .... of course !     ;D Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by dnelson on Apr 24, 2010 0:54:26 GMT
I have the same problem with the KC-135R trim using both the b707-320bc_panel_adv_1970 and b707-700_panel. I tried the elevator trim limit change above with some improvement but with still excessive trim travel with a light tap on the Microsoft Sidewinder joystick button. I also tried [flight_tuning] elevator_trim_effectiveness = 0.5 //0.4 //0.3 with no improvement. I then substituted with the default 737 panel and the problem goes away.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 24, 2010 10:03:45 GMT
Guys .... I did say (above) .... that my recommended ETL edit should help .... which apparently it does ! I did also say (above) .... that "none" of our current C135 FDE have yet been updated despite their basically being ready and just awaiting testing. And that .... like the new DC8 FDE .... this (new C135 FDFE) won't become publicly available for a wee while yet due to other priorities which we're still working on trying to get released here at the moment. This all remains the case ! Whether or not this new C135 TYPE FDE will result in further major improvements to TRIM response remains to be seem .... it's just too early for me to say yet. I do "speculate" that it should bring the TRIM response of all C135 TYPE to about the same level as that of all our B707/720 series .... but .... only when used in conjunction with our own Panel series due to various aspects of Panel/FDE relationship. In the meantime .... there's not much more I can do here folks .... considering that some aspects of Panel/FDE relationship with our C135 TYPE aircraft will/should likely change, as "suggested", as a direct result of these forthcomming new modifications. Again .... I can't yet say to what extent though Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by dnelson on Apr 25, 2010 3:47:41 GMT
Mark,
All of you have done an excellent job with the 707's and so has George with the panels. The point I was trying to make is that there is nothing wrong with the aircraft. I suspect the gauge set v1.4 may be triggering the problem with the trim. You can use any panel and see the E-3 or KC-135R fly just fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 25, 2010 6:06:49 GMT
No problem "DNELSON" I've often had to reply hastily here recently (then edit later to clarify my own intent) .... so .... a degree of ambiguity may be evident within some of my first quick responses .... completely unavoidable at the moment ! What I was really trying to mean (above) is .... the relationship between the current panel gauges set and the new, yet to be released, FDE "may" differ from that of the current FDE and gauges set .... and which may implicate (further improve) TRIM response .... but .... I can't make that distinction for certain at this point of time We'll just have to wait until later on (testing) in order to see precisely what the story is here There's really nothing more much I can do .... until we reach this point Just as a matter of interest .... what happens if you use keyboard TRIM commands in preference to joystick assignments ?
By keyboard commands I mean the use "HOME" and "END" keys .... as applies to my own set up !
I'm curious to know if such keyboard commands result in, what you describe as being, "over-sentive" TRIM response in your caseMark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on Apr 30, 2010 20:18:22 GMT
Hello again!
So, I did some testing and what I can already say is that for me there is a huge difference between trimming via Joystick(also a Sidewinder FF2) and via Keyboard shortcuts.
I have another thought, but I am not sure about it. Is it possible that pressing the stick button once the aircraft trims as long as the trim.wav is being played? I renamed it now and I have the feeling that pressing the button just briefly works much better (might be placebo as well). If you keep holding the button it still trims through the whole range pretty fast.
dnelson, could you please confirm that. Just go to FSX/sound and rename the HJG_B707_trim.wav to something else and test the panel again. Is there any difference you can confirm?
Greetings from Germany
Markus
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Apr 30, 2010 21:05:33 GMT
Would I be correct to assume that it is "LESS" sensitive ? If so .... then that's precisely why I prefer using those "HOME" and "END" keys (in my case) to adjust TRIM during manual flight control. And during AP controlled flight I use only the AP located THUMB WHEEL .... per my Mouse. In fact I've never, ever, assigned any commands, at all, to my joystick controller. As already hinted above .... Panel selection "WILL" impose a difference too .... in that there will, likely, be differences in TRIM response when using the default MSFS panel (alias) compared with our own B707 TYPE panels .... and despite even using the same FDE. This is due to panel/FDE relationships. For the unsuspecting there's actually a lot more to all this than first meets the eye. Whether or not our new C135 TYPE FDE will impose any further difference too remains to be seen .... it's too early to say yet .... and for this reason (with such an FDE update comming) I don't, really, want to get "too" entrenched in this .... simply because our new FDE might "change" a number of things other than those parameters already hinted. Out of curiosity only .... "DNELSON" please feel free to respond to "MARKUS's" query anyway ! Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by phoenix on May 1, 2010 22:11:48 GMT
Yes, you are right, trimming via keyboard is far less sensitive.
Flying that way works out very well.
So far, thank you very much for your help, Mark.
That´s a great aircraft you have produced.
Greetings from Germany
Markus
|
|
|
|
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on May 2, 2010 0:33:29 GMT
That's precisely what I thought ! This method should be used during manual flight control. During AP controlled flight I recommend mousing the TRIM/THUMB WHEEL .... only .... and which should respond with equally less sensitivity too. I do believe such sensitivities can, sometimes, be overstated when assigned to Joystick and other control devices .... regardless how convenient such assignmentrs may be. Mark C AKL/NZ |
|
|
|
Post by gringo6 on Dec 15, 2010 2:15:41 GMT
Yeah, I had that problem too with the VC-137C. I don't know about the E-3A but look in the Aircraft.cfg file and see if it has a flight tuning sctiion.
If it does change the "elevator_trim_effectiveness" from 1.0 to something like 0.5 or 0.4.
If it lacks the flight tuning section you can add one from something like the default b-747 then make the change.
Even with this change I still have to use the keyboard to make changes because they are too course to use the joystick.
Try it. It works for me.
|
|
that you may have some minor joystick sensitivity issues to address within FS too. This will/may vary between devices .... of course.
;D