Posts by Mario Godoy

    I can't add any real life experience to this discussion, but I also always thought that the GA planes in Aerofly don't glide as I had expected compared to other Simulators (in this case the A2A C172 in P3D) and to reports from a friend of mine who was preparing for his PPL in a C172 at that time. I had him over for a few simulator flights in the A2A C172 and he told me that it handled pretty much the same as the real C172 he was taking lessons in. We even recreated a engine off emergency Landing test his flight instructor once made him do by using a scenery for his home airport and the weather metar from the time he was taking his lesson and he said it played out almost exactly the same than his real world experience on that day. I never had him try Aerofly which I didn't use much in this time, but when I compare the A2A C172 in P3D (which he deemed realistic) to the Aerofly one it just glides much better than the latter. Same for the Just Flight C152. I believe Kai when he says that there's not much he can do about it due to the way Aerofly handles flight dynamics. But IMHO maybe the Aerofly developers have to do something about how the simulator handles flight dynamics to take care of this problem (that is IF they acknowledge that there is a problem). On a side note, I think that is a general problem of simulators that calculate flight models on real physics simulations like Aerofly and Xplane instead of using cfg files to determine flight behavior like FSX / P3D. Although the latter one may be a little less realistic and make the plane fly like it's "on rails" from time to time, it gives the developer total control of how the plane reacts in a given situation. The physics based simulator may have a better "feeling" of flight, but a small mistake in the physics calculations can easily cause an aircraft to unexpectedly divert from its realistic world counterpart in certain flight situations like gliding, stall behaviors or whatever. I faintly remember a discussion a few years back about Xplane 10 (or was it 11 already?) when the xplane developers changed something about how the simulator handled prop wash effects which caused an Addon plane to behave totally different from the real thing in crosswind operations. The developer of the Addon aircraft (who happened to be a real life flight engineer) told the xplane developers that they got something wrong in their physics simulations which they refused to believe until he showed them real world videos of flight dynamic tests of the real aircraft and then they admitted they made a mistake. I think they assumed a laminar airflow somewhere when the real world airflow was turbulent.

    Bottom line, maybe their is a small miscalculation in the Aerofly physics model that influences the glide ratio of the small GA Aircraft in an unrealistic way. Of course this is nothing I could test myself and I may be wrong about it, I'd just like the developers to take this into consideration.


    Cheers, Fabian

    Good analisys Fabian!! Could be, I agree.


    Cheers Mario

    Okay.. I never tried to judge it on time/compare it to youtube videos. More than enough instructors have killed my nerves with emergancey landings already (what is actually a good thing).


    Are you sure you have the same altitude, distance and flying Vy? Only a little more speed and a plane like C172 or Pa28 drops from the sky like a piano.


    Kai

    Kai, I have done many many tests. I used to fly C172 in the past, it is absolutely checked.

    Currently I fly Boeing 787, but I remember how C172 flies.

    There are some payware C172 in x plane that they fly fantastic!!


    take a look at this test:



    Mario

    I always do that. Flare the airplane, set thrust lever to idle , then press an assigned button on my joystick to set reverse thrust, the problem is that this put the reverse in MAX REV, that´s why I tried to assign an axis in order to put idle reverse.


    Could in a future update give a solution to this?


    Thanks Jan

    Mario

    I understand that there is not a glide ratio parameter, as you say if you change something it affects another thing. However what I am telling is valid for the most of GA aircraft in AF2, it is a AF2 issue. Try to make a gear down power off 180 landing, if you check videos in youtube, they take around 1 minute (a little more) since idle power (around 900 ft AFE) until touch down (even using flaps!!) in AFS2 turbo arrow III you are on the ground around the 40 sec (flaps up sea level) that´s too much difference.


    Mario

    Hello, I just wanted to ask, when you assign a reverse axis, when you increase thrust there is some kind of conflict between these axes and the thrust suddenly jumps to idle. This issue have always being present since years that I ve used AF2. So, besides to ask if there is possible to fix this, it would be much better to add a button assignment that toggle between normal thrust and reverse thrust so that you use the same axis for normal thrust and reverse thrust, is possible to do that in a future update? Furthermore, I have a TQ3 throttle quadrant, so if there is any chance to some how divide the area from normal thrust and the reverse thrust would be perfect!8o



    Thank you for your help

    Greetings

    Mario

    And would you say that the gliding behavior of say the Aerofly C172 is realistic? I have absolutely no real life experience with this but I was always under the impression that GA aircraft, unlike fighter jets, as a rule are designed for benign behavior in emergency situations that gives the pilot a chance to resolve the problem before something bad happens. I thought that included things like relatively easy stall recovery and at least some basic gliding capabilities in case of a engine out failure. At least that was what my friend told me when he was practicing these procedures. In Aerofly I have the feeling that the GA planes like the C172 or the Just Flight C152 drop like a rock when I set the engine to idle or when cut the mixture in flight, but maybe that's just from my lack of real world experience. I also thought that the real world Piper PA28 that my friend's FI once landed with me on the right front seat had a landing flare that seemed to last forever, while in Aerofly I habe difficulties to get into a decent flare before hitting the ground, but of course that might also be the difference between a low wing and high wing aircraft.

    you are absolutely right. They drop like a rock. I flew C172 in real life, on a power off (idle) approach you have to use flaps in order to get down this bird and if you put it late, then you have a last chance doing side slip and many time you only chance is to go around because you wasn’t able to reach the first third of the runway. I am hoping so much the Aerofly team could correct this soon. If you can, try a payware c172 in x plane 11, do it! (REP C172 or Airfoillabs) I flew a pattern in vr and it was like flying the real cessna!!


    Besides Its very simple to make a comparison, grab a power off landing in hd in youtube and take a look at the vertical speed indicator, the cessna glide around 600 fpm, on turns increase to around 900.

    Since the head doesn't actually wobble on a real world landing, no. Its the aircraft that shakes, not the head, which a lot of people seem to confuse.

    The major difference is that if you would just rotate and shake the camera then the outside world would appear to be moving, which is not correct and which would lead to a lot of motion sickness for those that play with a virtual reality heatset. But if you shake the aircraft then the camera travels relatively smoothly, just like it does in the real world. So the aircraft should shake around the camera, not the camera should shake inside the aircraft.


    I'm pretty sure there is not going to be head wobble in Aerofly, instead we prefer to stay physically accurate and shake the aircraft, which is already happening to some extend but could of course be intensified. I can't give you an estimate when this is added or if at all.

    cool! The amount of shake will depend wether is a hard landing or a smooth touch down? :)

    This was already the case with the previous version of the beta but since that topic is closed I'll post it here: the wheel sounds of the Airbus are too soft or missing. I can't hear it if I have taken off and I specially can't hear it when I touch the ground. I seem to remember this was the case before. (Take note that I don't even know if it is realistic to hear this! ;) )

    is not real to hear the wheels touchdown from the cockpit :P. It is more like you feel vibrations.

    Haven’t had a chance to play much with Aerofly since the big update as I’ve been out on trips, but if what you describe in that you have troubles reaching 15 degree attitude for take-off “smoothly”, that sounds like they’ve NAILED it;-) Been a long time since I flew the 737 on the line, but that’s exactly how I remember it. You reach stagnation in rotation at around 8-10 degrees with an even backpressure, and it requires an extra “haul back” on the yoke to get it through to where you need it for rotation. I transitioned to A330 about a year ago, but spent the last 8 years before that on the 777 and it also exhibits some of the same characteristics in rotation - it would happily waffle along with the nose 10 degrees up during rotation, unless you made a concerted (that got turned into sub-conscious with “experience in type”) effort to bring the nose through stagnation in rotation.

    totally agree! I have never flown the boeing 737, but I know that happens. The problem here is different. Try to take off this aircraft, and just when you feel you need to apply more back pressure, pull it full back!! Nothing happens, the attitude does not change, and thats not real!!!


    Thank you for your reply :)

    Mario

    Hi, nice work on this update. I am very happy that the boeing 737 lands really good now. But, during take off, specifically on rotation, the attitude still stuck so you can not reach a 15 degree attitude smoothly. Please take note of that. The take off on the A320 is OK. Thank You!!


    Mario

    First Officer LATAM Boeing 787

    A. hard to judge this since I've made a lot of changes to the ap and fbw in my current development state, compared to the official release version that you have. I'll keep it in mind and will check this witch my current version though.


    B. Naaah, that is the ground effect of the tail surface that inhibts some of the rotation. This is something we have to address when we change the aerodynamical wings next time. And since the FBW is not in flight mode yet it doesn't really check if the pitch rate is correct, at least in the current public release. The FBW in my developer version is now strong enough to overpower this effect, so in the future the rotation should be a lot smoother. I've made the transition from ground to flight laws smoother already, just be a bit patient and wait for the next fly by wire update :)

    great! But the same happens with the boeing 737 during lift off, please be aware of that. Also I am still feeling that the boeing 737 touches down very fast during flare. Vapp of 140 knots. I have to say i don’t know the aircraft’s weight, may be the Vref is higher than I think, anyway a b737 shouldn’t approach faster than 150 knots and the pitch attitude i have to look for is a bit high for me.


    Thank you