eaglewing7 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 So in other words your modelling the old Sperry Autopilot, which had no altitude hold and no coupling for precision approaches. Rather all it really did was allow the pilot to set a heading, turn, climb and descend in poor weather in a more controlled manner...
Goran_M Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Posted June 23, 2011 So in other words your modelling the old Sperry Autopilot, which had no altitude hold and no coupling for precision approaches. Rather all it really did was allow the pilot to set a heading, turn, climb and descend in poor weather in a more controlled manner...Correct.
Ntr09 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 So in other words your modelling the old Sperry Autopilot, which had no altitude hold and no coupling for precision approaches. Rather all it really did was allow the pilot to set a heading, turn, climb and descend in poor weather in a more controlled manner...Correct.Sounds a lot like an Il-14 autopilot.
eaglewing7 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 The IL-14 autopilot is flawed, Felis knows that, and no matter the aircraft speed, centre of gravity, loading, or how much down pitch you give the autopilot, it always ends up climbing...Hopefully this autopilot behaves in a much more believable manner.
Ntr09 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 The IL-14 autopilot is flawed, Felis knows that, and no matter the aircraft speed, centre of gravity, loading, or how much down pitch you give the autopilot, it always ends up climbing...Hopefully this autopilot behaves in a much more believable manner.I was really referring to the way a real Il-14 autopilot worked. I didn't even mention the word "Felis". And I also don't have that climbing issue with its autopilot.
eaglewing7 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Of course, I over interpreted the post.Any real aircraft would have stellar autopilot.
steven winslow Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Typically, when an autopilot continues to climb after reaching a desired altitude it is because you are flying too fast. If you are within 10% of Vne, X-Plane is modeled to climb. That is x-plane autopilot functioning of pitch up to abate Vne exceedance. Try slowing down a bit and see if that resolves the climb problem.
eaglewing7 Posted June 23, 2011 Report Posted June 23, 2011 Typically, when an autopilot continues to climb after reaching a desired altitude it is because you are flying too fast. If you are within 10% of Vne, X-Plane is modeled to climb. That is x-plane autopilot functioning of pitch up to abate Vne exceedance. Try slowing down a bit and see if that resolves the climb problem.Tried that as well, with a reduced power cruise and props in a fine pitch, still climbing all the time. I even tried going through painmaker and got rid of the custom autopilot settings, the same behaviour continues. So then I installed a vertical speed mode set up in the cockpit, and even with a flat pitch setting and a zero climb rate set the aircraft still climbs... The IL-14 is one of the few aircraft that I've ever had real problems with, and it's also one that I would really like to get running perfectly.
Ntr09 Posted June 24, 2011 Report Posted June 24, 2011 Iv'e never had the first problem with its autopilot. Always works for me! In fact, I flew it for an hour today.
Goran_M Posted June 24, 2011 Author Report Posted June 24, 2011 GentlemenNot meaning to be rude, but if you have problems with the IL-14, could you please post them over at the appropriate x-plane.org forum.Let's keep this particular thread DC-3 related.Thanks
steven winslow Posted June 25, 2011 Report Posted June 25, 2011 Sorry Goran for the hijack. I didn't mean to contribute to the derailing of the thread. My post was not meant to be connected to a specific aircraft, simply, I was responding to the Vne abatement autopilot modeling issue in X-Plane. I just thought it would help end the hijack rather than prolong it. Again, my apologies.
Goran_M Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Posted June 25, 2011 S'ok Steven.Just trying to keep everything nicely organized for all the dev's and simmers in the x-plane world.
eaglewing7 Posted June 25, 2011 Report Posted June 25, 2011 Sorry about that as well, maybe just delete those posts to clean up the thread. I certainly have no objection to that.What I'm really looking forward to is a new reason to fly my DC-3 in FSE. While I enjoy using Heinz's model, it really isn't all that exciting to look at or use, especially when it comes to procedures...The same goes for your SAAB 340, I can't wait to fire up the one I own in FSE she's got a whole ten minutes on the hobbs, and is somewhere in the Middle East, but she is going to be one heck of a ride.
Goran_M Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Posted June 25, 2011 Sorry about that as well, maybe just delete those posts to clean up the thread. I certainly have no objection to that.What I'm really looking forward to is a new reason to fly my DC-3 in FSE. While I enjoy using Heinz's model, it really isn't all that exciting to look at or use, especially when it comes to procedures...The same goes for your SAAB 340, I can't wait to fire up the one I own in FSE she's got a whole ten minutes on the hobbs, and is somewhere in the Middle East, but she is going to be one heck of a ride.Re the Saab, I'll just say that people will probably be pleasantly surprised when it's done. After all, it's next in line for the Take Command! series.
tkyler Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 it's next in line for the Take Command! series.Better hurry! ;D
MaidenFan Posted June 26, 2011 Report Posted June 26, 2011 it's next in line for the Take Command! series.Better hurry! ;DWith the wait still continuing, you migt wonna throw something together. ;D ;D ;D Just messing with you, Goran!
Goran_M Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 it's next in line for the Take Command! series.Better hurry! ;DWell, I HOPE it will be. Anyway, something for the amphibious type...
eaglewing7 Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Holy cow! I thought you would only make the standard wheeled version, but Goran surprises us all again with an amphibious version. Have you considered making the wheel-ski version as well?Here's a picture of a Buffalo DC-3 with her skis on for the first time in a long time...http://www.airliners.net/photo/Buffalo-Airways/Douglas-C-47A-Skytrain/1668147/L/&sid=d61c4459f9052eb513eccfff3270892e
Kaphias Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Holy cow! I thought you would only make the standard wheeled version, but Goran surprises us all again with an amphibious version. Same! So much so that I didn't even bother to ask. Great to see you doing multiple versions of the plane, something I wish I saw more of.
Goran_M Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 We're thinking about ski's. We're still 50/50 about it because there are very few snow strips in the x plane world.They're easy enough to make, though.
Kesomir Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 I know this is a work in progress Goran, and maybe it's the angle but those floats looks a little too far away from the plane - plus the back wheels I guess are how they look when not under load?I may be completely wrong Goran, but my first impression was:Front wheel looks a little largeAngle of floats looks wrong (thus distance of float from fuse looks a little big) See from pics the float is closer at the back than the front of the plane.Floats from pics seem to hug the fuse more than in the model (this may be a shadow effect)Not picking at your work Goran, which I think is excellent - just want to see the best possible plane. As I say it's probably the angle and the fact it's not finished yet.
Goran_M Posted June 29, 2011 Author Report Posted June 29, 2011 I know this is a work in progress Goran, and maybe it's the angle but those floats looks a little too far away from the plane - plus the back wheels I guess are how they look when not under load?I may be completely wrong Goran, but my first impression was:Front wheel looks a little largeAngle of floats looks wrong (thus distance of float from fuse looks a little big) See from pics the float is closer at the back than the front of the plane.Floats from pics seem to hug the fuse more than in the model (this may be a shadow effect)Not picking at your work Goran, which I think is excellent - just want to see the best possible plane. As I say it's probably the angle and the fact it's not finished yet.We always welcome comments on what we make. Regardless if they are negative, positive or constructive criticisms.The photo I based the floats from is:It was the best one I could find that was as side on as possible.I did have 2 diagrams of the aircraft with the floats but for the life of me, can't find them on my computer. The diagrams were NOT identical to the photo. Diagrams rarely are...so I just did the best I could with what I found and combined both the diagrams and photos into the final model. I found a few photos with the DC-3 on floats and each one looked slightly different. Was it the angle? Possibly. I learned a long time ago, when modelling landing gear, model them fully extended or fully compressed. Easier to animate that way. I choose fully extended so I can add more detail and also because it's easier for Theo to bake and texture the entire gear assembly.As you can see in the photo I worked from, the entire aircraft looks almost perfectly level. This is the one I wanted to work from because when I model in 3D, I need to have everything aligned on each Global axis. The Global axis is simply the main X, Y and Z axis in whatever 3D app we use. Once the model is complete and textured, THEN I can tilt it to it's correct position and export it and let x plane do the rest. If I worked from a lot more photos, it would be impossible to model everything accurately because there are many factors that affect the appearance of the aircraft on the floats. Metal fatigue, company adjustments, customization, weight. Who knows what else.With the photos you provided, the aircraft looks as if it is under load. Because of this, the main wheels take most of the weight and the aircraft leans back slightly because there is not as much weight on the front wheels. If you look at the photo I provided, you can see a very slight tilt towards the back of the fuselage, but the floats still tend upwards towards the rear and if you look at the overall shape of the float, there is a very slight dip in the center. Compare the photo above to the Blender screenshots I just took and notice that same slight dip (minus the main wheels...I'll be having words with Theo as to where they are because these are UV mapped versions). If I had the main wheels in Blender while in the side view, you would be able to see they are at a higher level than the front wheels, therefore, the aircraft, while on the ground, would tilt towards the rear and with the correct animation, the load would lean the entire aircraft further back.I will scrutinize the front wheels a bit more and double check the size. Changing the thickness is very easy and in all honesty, if I didn't pick it up, Theo or Cameron would have. (Cameron is ruthless when it comes to final quality and he checks EVERYTHING.)Like I said, I really don't mind the picking of details, but I am almost 100% certain what you are pointing out would have been picked up somewhere down the production line. 1
Kesomir Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed explanation.
hobofat Posted June 29, 2011 Report Posted June 29, 2011 Thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed explanation.Find some more and get him to post more pictures!
Recommended Posts