Stupid AP crap needs testing

Everything in connection with developing aircraft for FlightGear
Octal450
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:47 am

Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby Octal450 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:14 am

Well I'm sick of the stupid slow nasal logic...
I'm moving alot of logic to XML.

@JWOCKY was once again right!
Putting all my logic in nasal was a GIANT FUCKING WASTE OF TIME.

So over the next few days, I will be completely rewriting my AP's logic, but not pid-controllers.

I need people willing to test please!!!!
717
MD88
MD90
A340s
KC137R
Choose a model, doesn't matter which, I would appreciate it alot!

I'll post here when it's ready to be tested.

Thanks,
Josh

User avatar
LesterBoffo
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:58 am
Location: Beautiful sunny, KOTH

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby LesterBoffo » Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:29 am

You know, I keep telling all of you developers that if you set your planes up with proper fuselage aero damping, this AP thing could be easily handled by the default AP and you wouldn't have trouble with the plane fighting the default AP.

Octal450
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:47 am

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby Octal450 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:41 am

But the generic Ap does not offer any of the features mine does
automatic leveling
smart climb and descending with advanced Flight Level CHange (speed with pitch)
advanced throttle modes
advanced logic
easy to integrate to cockpits
and so on. :)

The issue was not he PID-controllers, those are largely done.
The issue was my logic, which was slow and horrible.

my new update is much better on frames (way less nasal and timers) and faster to make decisions :)

It's on git, I'm pushing to planes now.

Josh

User avatar
J Maverick 16
Posts: 757
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:16 pm
Location: Northern-Italy
Contact:

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby J Maverick 16 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:25 am

I give you the pie for it:

Image

Regards, Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier every day!

Scenery designer, basic livery maker, aircraft developer (current project: F-16).
Using Thrustmaster FCS Flight Pack.
Follow me also on Instagram & Twitter @j_maverick16, Google+ and YouTube.

Octal450
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:47 am

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby Octal450 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:39 pm

Thank you.
J-Mav will you help me test the AP in the KC?

User avatar
LesterBoffo
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:58 am
Location: Beautiful sunny, KOTH

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby LesterBoffo » Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:39 pm

it0uchpods wrote:But the generic Ap does not offer any of the features mine does
automatic leveling
smart climb and descending with advanced Flight Level CHange (speed with pitch)
advanced throttle modes
advanced logic
easy to integrate to cockpits
and so on. :)

The issue was not he PID-controllers, those are largely done.
The issue was my logic, which was slow and horrible.

my new update is much better on frames (way less nasal and timers) and faster to make decisions :)

It's on git, I'm pushing to planes now.

Josh


What I'm getting at is an "end all, be all AP solution" for all FG aircraft. There's a lot of FG FDM's ( both JSBsim and YAsim..) for commercial transport and passenger planes that, well frankly, suck. They largely have in common very poor physics representing the aero component of the fuselage. This would include both aero lift and drag in both Y and Z axis'.

This is a travesty. especially when you have to consider that an airliner's fuselage surface area will sometimes approach that of it's wing area. It effects the overall lift component of an aircraft. You ever wonder why an airliner needs to be blasting along at 30 knots over it's take-off rotational speed to get airborne, with minimum weight profiles?

User avatar
J Maverick 16
Posts: 757
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 3:16 pm
Location: Northern-Italy
Contact:

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby J Maverick 16 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:25 pm

it0uchpods wrote:Thank you.
J-Mav will you help me test the AP in the KC?

Yes, but not today since I've got a little time and too much things to do.
Regards, Mav
Breakin' the sound barrier every day!

Scenery designer, basic livery maker, aircraft developer (current project: F-16).
Using Thrustmaster FCS Flight Pack.
Follow me also on Instagram & Twitter @j_maverick16, Google+ and YouTube.

Octal450
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:47 am

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby Octal450 » Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:25 pm

The biggest problem with the Generic AP is the fact that it can put the trim from -1 to 1 in half a second if it wants to. It corrects to fast.
I find my airliners to have pretty nice FDMs, and some real pilots have said they are quite good. I didn't make them, but they are used in my planes. The generic AP could never fly them. It always corrected to fast. Airliners have to be trimmed frequently. So I made my own controllers for it with JWOCKY.

Also, the generic AP is not realistic at all. For example: It uses just the trim to fly the plane -- WRONG WRONG WRONG. Airliners use the Yoke, and then adjust the trim to center the yoke. I have simulated that in my AP, and it works very well. Elevators react quicker than trim anyways, so the AP is more precise that way.

Best,
Josh

User avatar
LesterBoffo
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 3:58 am
Location: Beautiful sunny, KOTH

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby LesterBoffo » Sun Aug 21, 2016 10:59 pm

I agree that the default AP has too quick a reaction time, but.. The forces on the aircraft's fuselage should be more than adequate to damp out a few phugoid cycles despite the trim over run. When at 33.000 feet and at level flight with the default AP off, see how many aircraft will damp their phugoid within a couple cycles when your joy stick is neutralized. The fuselage is a huge stability factor at 300+ knots. Both FG fdm's, if made at their very basest of coding do not have much if any fuselage damping.

Octal450
Posts: 2184
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2015 2:47 am

Re: Stupid AP crap needs testing

Postby Octal450 » Mon Aug 22, 2016 12:38 am

I still push my points on the surface to move, and the logic.


Return to “Aircraft Development”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 88 guests