Posts by jcomm

    Nice update! Thx!

    Regarding the iddle thrust, if it now handles as described, for a considerable range of GW values, it is certainly more realistic!

    Regarding the 744 flight model update associated with throttle, I don't know what exactly it means, but I always found the 744 in AEFS2 a lot less sensible tha expected to thrust ajustments - the real thing exhibits very noticeable pitching moments due to thrust, which in good part accounts for the A/T being disengaged in the initial approach, unless it's fully automatic ( autoland )... I hope it didn't get even less pitching moments with the update ( ? )

    Well, currently I have nothing to wish for on te aircraft side. Eventually an agile Airbus longhaulr like the A330 would be great. Or the Boeing 777, which they are already working on. (767/787 are also great planes, love the sound on the 767

    People from other forums will surely know how important this is to you! 8);):thumbup:

    Of course Jeroen, that was what I meant to write, but missed - already edited :)

    Very few simmers care about that detail. I do, in every sim I use, and even my IL-2 Battle of Stalingrad/Moscow depict it perfectly ( including the correct Moon phase ) and DCS World does it too, although not so perfect in terms of Moon phase.

    But my IFR long used / preferred training sim, ELITE IFR, has been doing it in perfection since v7 ...

    The Q-400 in AEFS2 is actually IMH the most advanced default aircraft ever offered in any general civil flightsim I have used. The level of customization put, for instance but certainly not only, to the implementation of the Q-400 turbines is unique.

    People from other forums will know how important --> for me <-- the correct depiction of daylight and Moon according to date is :-). Well, even if AEFS2's Moon always shows the same phase when out of New Moon, it does get depicted with correct ephemeris and the daylight as a function of latitude - given that AEFS2 uses, by default, the PC date ( current ) is very good - tried it at various places on Earth just to check !

    Any Helicopter, and GAs, Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcrafts, ...

    Also the change to have glider being tugged by an aircraft.

    ULM would also be welcomed, and, of course ... WW2 airbirds :)

    I don't think I can get you ?

    You have a joystick, but are using buttons to control the ailerons and elevator, or are you saying you were unable to make the trim controls for pitch roll and yaw work ?

    Th Q-400 has noticeable torque effects at high power / AoA, requiring consistent use of rudder trim. Aileron trim should only be used in asymmetric thrust emmergencies, fuel imbalance, etc... So your main compensation / trimming should be done via rudder and elevator trim.

    Once set in the Controls menu, it's really easy to use in the Q-400.

    Can you be more explicit about your problem David ?

    AFAIK MSFS doesn't use a stabilizer trim system for planes that are supposed to have only elevator trim.

    It moves the CG and/or the aerodynamic center forward and backward.

    From the MSFS Aerodynamics Reference DOC -Source AVSIM ( by Yves Guillaume ), linked from:

    This was long confirmed to me by a good source, and by Ron Freimuth, with whom I had the honour to learn a lot about the MSFS internals....


    4.1 Elevator and Pitch Trim

    The main pitch control system in MSFS consists of an elevator and a stabilizer trim surface. The pitch trim concept is basically more the one of a moving horizontal stabilizer than that of an elevator with trim tabs. However, the additional lift and drag generated by the deflected stabilizer is not simulated in MSFS. Furthermore, the default autopilot only uses the stabilizer for trim and not the elevator. For consistency with the SDK the term Cm_detr is used although the elevator is not directly involved in trim.

    MS seems to have pitch controls designed for joysticks where the stick returns to a fixed center when hand force is released (such as most game sticks, e.g. Saitek X52). Zero hand force means zero elevator deflection in relation to stabilizer, so the stabilizer is the only trim surface.

    There are three components related to elevator and stabilizer trim: Stabilizer, elevator and an additional elevator effect due to stabilizer deflection.[...]


    P.S.: Sorry for the out-of-context message - this is an AEFS2 Forum... I know :-/

    @bbrz: it's MSFS that uses a stabilator-like modelling of pitch trim. In that simulator, when you trim in pitch, indeed the simulator assumes the whole HS moves, as if every aircraft was just like a typical airliner and most gliders, in terms of pitch trim.

    I'll check it in a couple of minutes, by displaying the controller reference axis in DCS, and will report back... Well, depending on PC slot available - wife on finals for Facebook....

    Ah! And just as a reference, this is the thread started by the main FDM developer at ED when they were still working on the Spitfire IX - worth reading, and starts exactly with the same remarks you've made Jan:…4&highlight=flap+pitching

    Further to these interesting suggestions / ideas we're sharing here, I'd say tha Yo-Yo gave the DCS user community the decision between implementing the effect of deflecting the flaps in the Spitfire: stick fixed or moving...

    For stick fixed, there should actually be a slight pitching up tendency, as it happens in IL-2 Battle of Staingrad, while in DCS as the flaps are lowered we can see the virtual stick moving fwd, and users with a FF joystick will see it also deflect fwd.

    The V-Pilot then has to pull the stick to counter the resulting pitching down moment.

    This appears to me as a better solution, even for non-FF joysticks, because it agrees with the Real World effect. All pilot notes for the Spitfire report the pitching down tendency, and a need to increase the force on the stick to avoid it. In IL-2, for instance, since there is no virtual stick deflection, the end result is actually a slight pitching up...

    Is the effect of downwash angle variation affecting control surfaces in the tail ( namely the elevator ), on non FBW aircraft, modeled in AEFS2 - or possible to be modeled ?

    This applies, for instance to aircraft where the effect of lowering the flaps changes the AoA of the tail dramatically, and can even exert a force in the elevator that the pilot has to counter, because otherwise the sitck will move in the cockpit - ahed, in the case of a Spitfire for instance, causing the pitching down ...

    I know AEFS2 calculates downwash variations, but, could or is this already modeled ?

    Very evident for instance in the way different sims model, for instance, the pitching moments due to flap deflection in a Spitfire...

    The real aircraft pitches down because the downwash in the HS and elevator causes a sudden decrease in their relative AoA, and hence a reduction in their lift and pitching moment, and the elevator actually moves fwd in the cockpit, the pilot having to pull it back to counter the pitch down...

    You can actually see it all correctly simulated for instance in DCS World, but not in IL2, or many of the models available for X-plane or MSFS and derivates...

    In AEFS2 I believe it can be realistic since the engine actually calculates downwash deflection on-the-fly...

    We have to get a Spitfire in AEFS2 :)

    I'm glad it's written in German... this way I don't even have to bother with reading any rubbish....

    AEFS2 is moving, in a very sound and promising way, in the right direction. Being based on a very small team has it disadvantages for us impatient users, but also the big advantage of not suffering from the same budget constraints of having a lot of developers behind it.

    People should really give the Q-400 a good try. Even those features that we could not test with the previous ME prop aircraft now highlight the quality of the flight dynamics possible with AEFS2. Fail an engine in the Q-400 and experiment that kind of emergency. Turn off the Yaw Damper ( which I believe is actually being modelled )...

    Promising and already more than worth the have!

    1) On all airliners, break away thrust is excessive. I believe even a 60t GW A320 would require just an initial thrust "help" and then keep going at ground idle, unless steep taxiways are used.

    This doesn't appear to affect the prop aircraft. I believe the Q-400 though, probably because it's thrust is actually also based on a turbine engine, suffers from the same problem ?

    2) All aircraft in AEFS2 are extremely sensible to even the slightest cross wind components, on ground, while taxiing or taking off / landing.

    I believe this is now more evident, probably because the developers have decreased the amount of drag effect on wind near ground that was, in the initial release, providing very "faint" winds

    on ground even when higher values were set in the "Conditions" menu ( ? ), but while it is good to be able to experience a 5, 6... 15 knot wind blowing while we're taxiing, I don't find it very

    realistic that my C172, or even my C90 or the Q-400, weathercock under a quarterly 6 knot ? Since some of the developers have real flight experience, they certainly have the required feedback,

    so, I wonder why the modelling in AEFS2 is still so sensible ? Would like to read any comments on this from the Dev team, and, I can't really avoid to compare the overdone effect with what we

    also get in X-plane 11...

    But the Moon is there, in the right place for the present date :)

    Only the phase is out -of - sync... Always full or new in AEFS2 :)