starikki

I had a go at it, partially solved the problem. but yes you are right, we at least need deflection scaling by Q as well as Ma at least, may be PID gain scaling as well to make it even better. So far for the same control input behavior, say via BDA AI in air combat, there's PIO on high speed due to high Q, but lower max AOA achievable due to increased stability margin at higher Ma; With same AI input at low speed however, it would cause the aircraft to stall easily due to lower pitch damping and lower stability margin. We had a BDA AI air combat competition within a fan community, I have to limit the useful g limit a lot lower than the aircraft's actual limit to avoid low speed stall issue, would be great if we have more control scaling setting on each control surface. ============================================= Dear @ferram4 Could you please, if possible, at your convince, add a deflection scale setting for Q and Ma on each control surface? This would greatly increase the realism of the simulation on S&C side, and help people design more realistic aircraft. It will be four more input on the control surface setting panel (base Q, Q scale factor, base Ma, Ma scale factor), so that we can run many aircraft on the same competition with their own settings. Many thanks!

Is it possible to reduce the delay of the %AOA responce on control surfaces? and add options to scale deflection angle by Q for each control surface?

and while your addon has been of great help, I feel the current minimum size and increments to be too rough for finer engineering. I have absolutely no idea what this widowmaker is Yes the current minimum values are a bit to coarse for smallish aircraft/ surfaces. But its hard to satisfy both range and precision, unless we have two different wing part. ------------------------------------------------------- To Bac9, FAR don't seem to analyse flaps properly, I believe it's more of the FAR side of the problem? Thanks.

I used this before but it seems to creat more problem as it randomly changes the normal and fine angles sometimes. When you have multi axis rotation, angle display can be really messed up.

Can be solved with a trim tank - - - Updated - - - Tweaking W/S allow you to reach a certain optimum cruising wing angle of attack, then you can set wing root install angle so that fuselage has 0 deg angle of attack in cruise for smaller Cd. This way you can at quite a bit of L/D especially for large aircraft.

Root install angle and wing twist can increase cruise L/D quite a bit. Plus lower pitch angle at touch down. Fine tweaking pitch control surfaces angle allow aircraft naturally trimmed for cruise. Of course they are extremely useful. Edit: I realized that you can add the alignment guide module in .cfg file, although not working 100% perfectly.

More requests Is it possible to put the alignment guide indicator code used in B9 landing gears for the wing parts? That would be a great help when we are using the rotate tool for install angle and dihedral angle etc.

Having the same problem. If you touch down with 0% throttle, and then adding throttle, it would flame out too.

Is it possible to have a option to enable display of EAS in kt in IVA mode? would certainly make flight sim fans happy

For example from real life knowledge and experience I would always want my transport aircraft wing root chord at roughly 14% t/c, tip at 11%. If we have non-dimensional settings, no matter how I tweak the plan form geometries, my wing t/c is always on the desired values. But I guess we don't have such a need in the game yet as FAR don't really simulate the effect of t/c that much. Same goes root install angle and wing twists, if that can be done it would be awesome but not likely necessary for now, from both modding difficulty and simulation accuracy point of view.

Exactly same issue for me.

More suggestions: 1. Relative thickness option? this could reduce quite some work load on adjusting part thicknesses. using t/c is also more realistic. However due to the nature of editor, we might have to use base section as a baseline, maybe use base section width/0.6 as hypothetical total chord length or something? 2. Any chance for a slight higher max limit for trailing edge section width for control surfaces? Current trailing edges looks too chubby for large root chord wings. 2.1. I would personally get ride of the base section for control surfaces, just use the trailing section. This would make airfoils more realistic shape, and simplify the process. However I guess its quite some work on changing the code?

CKAN support soon?

There's a simple and useful theory called "thin airfoil theory" I'm pretty sure FAR is using this for simulation.

There will be Cd0 and Cdi term, thicker wing would have higher Cd0. Also a too thick or too thin wing would both stall earlier. Thin wings and sharp leading edges will bring a lot of benefits on supersonic region, we might be able to see this simulated in FAR, one day...