Post by Klaus Hullermann on Oct 19, 2020 19:38:34 GMT
Nice screenshots. Too bad that I never got the autopilot to work on my FS9 (I'm using the v1.26 of the Tinmouse with a modified panel: "tmii_sp177_v2_1.zip" from flightsim.com).
If the autopilot would work on my system properly, then I would use the original autopilot-layout (like the one in your screenshot) instead the later Sperry 177-layout (similar layout as in the -300/-400/-500 series of the 737).
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 19, 2020 22:25:24 GMT
Too bad that I never got the autopilot to work on my FS9
The AP on mine (and I think mine's the same version as Klaus's) basically works OK .... BUT .... it's also one designed to enable degree of vertical response, per control input, without actually disengaging the AP (or at least that's the case with the version I have .... featuring the SPERRY 77 AP) .... and which was quite useful in regard to being able to physically manipulate the ROC/ROD, per control input, given a specific ROC/ROD value can't be entered into this older AP version.
The only issue/s I've had with this particular AP version are ....
1. During AP controlled climb, cruise, descent, and even during ILS/GS coupled approaches to landing too, the AP vertical mode was "occasionally" (not always though) prone to "slipping/just letting go", but, without the AP actually disengaging .... and which would then result in an uncommanded and progressively deteriorating ROD. Disengaging and re-engaging the AP again .... then resetting it accordingly (per trim adjustment) .... didn't resolve this problem either and the uncommanded ROD would repeat/continue upon the AP being re-engaged .... forcing one to then have to disengage it once again and fly the simulation "manually". I later read a TM related article which acknowledged existence of this particular issue .... and which also stated this same issue could only be completely resolved per options/settings available within "any fully registered and licensed version" of FSUIPC.
2. During AP controlled flight .... and with the HDG mode "disengaged" .... the simulation was inclined to flick left or right and into an abrupt wings level situation during any manually controlled roll out from a previously established bank.
3. During AP controlled flight .... when the FD switch was set to its "VOR/LOC" setting, and the AP rotary switch set to its "VOR/LOC" mode also .... the simulation was inclined to jolt/flick slightly if the AP rotary switch is reset to "MAN" mode. To avoid/limit potential for this .... I found the FD switch first needed be set to either its "HDG" or "OFF" settings first .... and then the AP rotary switch set to "MAN" mode. We experienced precisely the same AP behavioral issue with the B727 panels we currently offer .... "prior to their modification" and re-release by us here at HJG .... but .... we were able to "completely resolve" this particular issue.
4. Flying the same panel .... but equipped with the later SPERRY 177 AP .... the sound of the Trim Wheel would activate immediately upon the AP being engaged and it simply wouldn't stop.
These are the only issues I've experienced with this particular B737-200 panel.
A little while back I was thinking about modifying this same panel .... to the same standard as the B727 panels we offer (by the same author incidentally) .... and in doing so fixing each of the above issues too .... then re-releasing the "fixed and updated" panel "outside HJG". I spoke with Richard PROBST about this a little while back. He had no objections .... and even stated that his release of his B737-200 panel, used by TM, was intended to remain "a community project" .... ESSENTIALLY MEANING" .... anyone could update it, as they pleased, but, no individual party could claim exclusive ownership of it/whatever was re-released (stated also within TM documentation I have). Whatever was re-released therefore had to remain/be made "freely available and for the benefit of the entire FS community". Knowing what I know we can achieve .... and for the benefit of everyone else too .... I'm still thinking along these lines, but at this time, aren't committing myself to doing anything at all.
We'll just have to "wait'n'see.
HJG has "NO PLANS", at all, in this regard (and I want to be quite clear about this), and at this point of time.
As the poeple of TINMOUSE stated their simulation is a "work in progress" one can find in different downloads differnt reactions. Even then sometimes all seems fine and the next day there are different reactions.
Post by Klaus Hullermann on Oct 20, 2020 6:09:36 GMT
Hi Walter and Mark,
I have the same obervation about AP-controlled flight as Mark (I downloaded my Tinmouse from flightsim.com). Because of these observations I also downloaded the package (again from flightsim.com) mentioned by me above to have a Tinmouse with a functioning autopilot.
The Tinmouse 737-200 Adv is imho the best freeware jurassic 737 you can get. Perhaps one day HJG has one too. Then we would have a great Boeing-flightline of the 60s/70s from shorthaul to longhaul.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 20, 2020 6:43:58 GMT
The B737-200 AP issues I mentioned are "precisely the same" as we encountered with the B727 AP .... and which we "successfully resolved" back around 2007/8.
Therefore, and by implication, we know precisely what to do/how to resolve the current B737-200 AP issues (by virtue of the fact we've already resolved the programming errors that caused the very same issues in another panel) .... and we could "in theory" even add a number of additional features too that'd potentially make this B737-200 panel even more superior.
Whether we do so .... or not .... is an entirely different matter though.
If we did do so .... THEN .... the result/s would have to be released back to the community .... "as a community project and not as an HJG one".
It's not uncommon for HJG developers to assist other groups and individuals should we consider it appropriate to do so .... given we've done a bit of that in the past albeit that most aren't aware of this fact.
BUT ONCE AGAIN I REPEAT/STRESS .... at the moment HJG has "no such plans" (whatsoever) to do anything along these lines .... therefore despite what we know we could (possibly) do to not only resolve, but also improve, this panel all this talk's just "pie in the sky" .... so to speak
Seems with the gauges vers. 1.26 cited above the AP problems are more a question of tuning than of general no function. BUT: The AP flown to the heading comanded by the HSI knob banks too steeply while flaps are out (25 deg of bank). In other good simulations the AP reduces the permitted bank while turning with flaps. This is also demanded by flightmanuals of the real birds (e.g. 10 - 15 deg on ILS). This explains also the loosing pitch control while turning. You better selct only flap 5 at 180 kts and from farther out make the turn in steps. So the AP catches the LOC very wqell without loosing altitude or control.
The default climb on AP is 2500 fp/m which seems too high after takeoff so I changed it in the aircraft.cfg to 1000 fpm. As I dont use finetuning by FSUIPC I am cheating with an auototrim gauge.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 20, 2020 17:57:39 GMT
I've always felt the TM B737 model looks more in proportion to a -100 than a -200.
Those default AP settings you mention (default ROC and bank angle) are very easy to adjust within the CFG .... BUT .... the issues I've described above are "more serious" and essentially gauge/s related (they can't be corrected per FDE editing alone) and need adjustment/s to correct the programming errors which are causing the cited AP behavioral issues.
The only B737-200 FDE I've edited .... and "did" improve considerably .... was that for the VL version (with which I use this dame panel .... and which incidentally "is not" causative of the issues I described above since it wouldn't matter which simulation this panel was used with because the current AP behavioral issues would still remain evident), but to date, I've not released any of these reworks.
I also knocked out B737-100/-200 type P&W JT8D-7 .... and JT8D-9/-15/-17 sound packs too (there "is" a distinct tonal difference between both engine groups and which is only evident within the high power regime), but again, neither have been released to date.
P.S.: With the PT joystick interface installed the feeling is much better, as one can adjhust the reactions of the flightcontrols. AND: The trim is much more user-friendly, so one does not need the autotrim.
Post by aerofoto - HJG Admin on Oct 22, 2020 4:10:52 GMT
Just looked at my own version numbers.
Seems I started with V1.25 then moved to V1.26 .... and later V1.30 and V1.31 too.
The latter 2 versions may have been "update" files only rather than full product re-releases .... I can't remember given I downloaded everything so long ago (around 2012) and haven't used it much due to the AP problems I continued experiencing as related above .... MEANING/SUGGESTING .... "none" of the successive version releases resolved these AP issues. So far as I'm aware .... these particular AP issues remain unresolved (wihin the raw TM product) as I recall reference being made to these (as "known issues") within the TM forum at AVSIM .... as well as reference also being made there to the effect that the only known and sure cure for these issues was per "a fully licensed version" of FSUIPC .... within which certain AP related functions can be adjusted.
Just a couple of additional comments in relation to some of Walters earlier observations .... primarily in regard to "altitude loss/gain during banked manoeuvers ....
selct only flap 5 at 180 kts and from farther out make the turn in steps. So the AP catches the LOC very well without loosing altitude or control.
That shouldn't happen .... of course .... BUT .... FS being what "FS" is sometimes these sorts of issues can arise and become "extremely difficult" to resolve with perfection
AP's, in the RW, usually restrict bank angle to around 15*, but in FS, setting MAX BANK = 15 .... whilst this reduces bank angle and can also have the positive effect of limiting tendency for "some simulations" to rise and fall too much during AP controlled banked manoeuvers (momentarily loosing a wee bit of altitude during any turn, then momentarily gaining a wee bit of altitude again when rolling out of any turn, before eventually settling into the commanded AP controlled level flight after completing any turn) .... restricting the bank angle as such, in FS, also results in the arc for any AP controlled turn being increased accordingly too, and which can then present minor issues in regard to efficiency of the like of both VOR/LOC and ILS/GS intercepts.
For this reason I generally set the MAX BANK angle to "20*".
Any value greater than the above setting, whilst having the effect of reducing turning arc, can also potentially increase tendency for momentary altitude loss and gain during AP controlled turns (due to the increased bank angle) .... prior to reacquiring commanded AP controlled level flight.
Loosing altitude during banked manouvers and with flaps extended though can be more symptomatic of either of the following ....
- Too much flap extended prior to any bank manoeuver.
- The bank manoeuver being flown with excessive airspeed and flap deployment.
- The FLAP data (and/or other lift related scalers) within the FDE possibly being edited with too greater lift values.
.... either of which can result in quite dramatic altitude loss and gain observations during AP controlled bank manoeuvers .... if not promptly checked/controlled.
With some simulations the extent of such altitude loss and gain during AP controlled bank manoeuvers can be greatly minimized ... by "gently" tapping keyboard command TRIM UP during the fall, and TRIM DOWN during the rise (without actually disengaging the AP) .... and as many times as may be necessary in order to try'n maintain relatively level flight (there's an art to this though that's dependent on one timing the tapping of either trim response in order to successfully control these oscillations) .... although this action may not work in regard to every simulation considering other variables that might be compiled into a particular FDE.
Another thing too ....
I generally don't set more than the LE slats (or 1 increment of flaps in the case of slatless aircraft types) during the downwind legue of any FS approach to landing (and the same also in regard to the base legue too), but, "only if necessary" .... normally to avoid the AI indicated nose/pitch attitude exceeding +2* during airspeed reduction. This can also aid reducing severity of any rise/fall oscillations during AP controlled banked manoeuvers too .... "with some simulations only" though .... and provided these manoeuvers are also flown at sensible airspeed.
In a lot of cases the result is actually dependent upon one's applied "flying technique/s" .... in as much as its also dictated by FDE values too.
This's just a little of what both Mike, and I, have learned over the years and try to apply to HJG simulations .... both within our FDE editing and also in regard to our recommend basic flying guides too.
It must be remembered too that the way simulations fly in FS isn't necessarily the way aircraft actually fly (or should be flown) in the RW. In FS compromises are necessary in order to be able to get any seemingly realistic result, but, true fidelity is impractical due to the host program/FS not being composed of all of the necessary parameters that dictate the physics of flight .... and that's about as "Real As It Gets" or can be made at least.
This is why we need the hjg737-100/200
It's all "a whole lot more complex" than just mere suggestion and desire Alex