Hello Dave, Carl, Sandra,

At first, thank you very much for your answers, even if I don't know so much about prgramming, that I can make all the changes you suggested.

For example, I don't know how to move the contact points for the main gear forward.

As Carl suggested, I made some change in the 'weight an balance'-section inbetween. This means, I put in the respective lines that I took from another plane, a SAAB J-29, which is surely not the professional way of working in this case. But there is no jumping anymore.

Obviously the contact points are still not in the correct place, but the entrys in the cfg-file are - for my opinion not in a way self-explaining, that I could move them without helt.

Would maybe someone so nice to put in the corrected lines in here so I can copy them? That would be great!

@Carl:
Das jetzt auf deutsch: Da ich zuhause keinen Internetanschluss habe, fällt es mit etwas schwerer als normal, Sachen zu kopieren und hier reinzustellen, sorry deswegen...
Ich habe (bzw hatte zu Beginn) die original heruntergeladene cfg der ursprünglichen Version.

Zu Deiner Frage wegen der Tu-124: Es ist die von SCS, genau die, die man auf der FXP-Seite herunterladen kann, klar ist das freeware und abgesehen von dem Gehopse eine der schönsten, die ich kenne, aber das ist bei der Truppe um Samborski ja nix neues...
Das Hopsen habe ich bei der 124 nur dann, wenn wenig Last an Bord ist! Vollgetankt lässt sie sich vollkommen problemlos handeln.
Deine Idee mit dem Schub klingt einleuchtend, es lohnt sich sicher, dieser Sache nachzugehen, allerdings reichen meine Kenntnisse dafür beim besten willen nicht aus.
Am seltsamsten finde ich, dass die 183 bei Dir offenbar mal hüpft und mal nicht, aber es gibt auch Leute, bei denen die 124 überhaupt keine Zicken macht...

viele Grüße erstmal, ich werde das hier auf jeden Fall weiterverfolgen

viele Grüße

Ulrich

Ulrich,

that was not me, I think it was rolfuwe who suggested a modification to the moments of inertia (Trägheitsmomente). I would not use this way to reduce bouncing. It will change the flight handling, too. Sandra had attached a corrected aircraft.cfg here with her corrections . I prefer this way to stop bouncing and it also makes the Ta-183 rotate correctly on take-off. So ganz zufällig auf den Simulator bezogen trat das Hopsen aber nicht auf. Ich habe doch ausführlich beschrieben das es nur auftrat, wenn der Rechner in die Knie ging (an der niedrigen Framrate, an zitterndem Mauszeiger und ausetzendem Sound zu erkennen).

Bringe doch mal deine Framerate so hoch wie möglich durch Wegschalten von Szenerie-Details, Schatten usw und schaue ob die TA-183 noch hopst. das wäre doch ein interessanter Gegenversuch.

Carl

P.S.
Wenn ich es aus der richtigen Datei herauskopiert habe sieht die Verschiebung von Sandra so aus
point.0 = 1.000, 11.850, 0.000, -7.750, 2200.000, 0.000, 1.000, 12.000, 0.500, 3.000, 0.950, 5.000, 5.000, 0.000, 0.000, 0.000
point.1 = 1.000, -1.110, -3.000, -6.550, 2200.000, 1.000, 1.300, 0.000, 0.450, 2.500, 0.750, 5.000, 5.000, 2.000, 0.000, 0.000
point.2 = 1.000, -1.110, 3.000, -6.550, 2200.000, 2.000, 1.300, 0.000, 0.450, 2.500, 0.750, 5.000, 5.000, 3.000, 0.000, 0.000

Now - i have removed the TA-183 completley and install the T-183 Basepack.

When the plane stand on the rwy with engine On, they stand still and I can see no jumping.

But when I give power for take off they begin to bouncing.

Rotate with Flaps (I think 5 Degrees) at 100 knts.

And when i want to land, oh by good it is horrible because the wrong contact Points of the gears.

Now here are two pictures you can see the Scape-Points and I think they are wrong, too - like the Gear Contact points.

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k2.../ta183_01a.jpg


http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k2...2/ta183_02.jpg


If anybody like to set the Scrape-Points illuminated - you make following change in your Aircraft.cfg:
( The other Lights are on Off - you must remove the // in front of light.0 and so on)

[LIGHTS]
//Types: 1=beacon, 2=strobe, 3=navigation, 4=cockpit, 5=landing
//light.0 = 3, -5.56, -16.45, -1.28, fx_navredm , //left nav
//light.1 = 3, -5.56, 16.45, -1.28, fx_navgrem , //right nav
//light.2 = 3, -12.32, 0.00, 3.53, fx_navwhih , //tail nav
//light.3 = 2, -2.56, -16.40, -1.28, fx_strobeh , //left strobe
//light.4 = 2, -2.56, 16.40, -1.28, fx_strobeh , //right strobe
//light.5 = 2, 5.00, 0.00, -4.50, fx_beaconb , //lower beacon
//light.6 = 1, 2.20, 0.00, -1.70, fx_beaconh , //upper beacon
//light.7 = 4, 6.00, 0.00, -1.25, fx_vclighth , //VC light
//light.8 = 5, 12.00, 0.00, -4.65, fx_landing , //landing light
//light.9 = 6, -6.62, 0.00, -2.60, fx_hustler_burner, //afterburner
light.10 = 3, -9.560, -16.300, -0.520, fx_navredm , //Scrap Points Light Left Wing?
light.11 = 3, -12.560, 16.300, 2.080, fx_navredm , //Scrap Points Light Right Wing?
light.12 = 3, -14.830, 0.000, 0.580, fx_navredm , //Scrap Points Light Backward Middle
light.13 = 3, -4.420, 0.000, -2.450, fx_navredm , //Scrap Points Light Front Middle

This is quite interesting....the only result I can think of is I did all the aircraft.cfg work and then later re-exported the model, which adjusted the center point and therefore the center of gravity and all the contact points...

Dave,

It is well known that the tail end of default aircraft in MSFS is cut off first in the screen in external side view when it is zoomed.
This is not the case in your Ta 183. The distance to the left and right screen ends is equal.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/4...172spotxu2.jpg

The visual model of every aircraft has a center which is defined in gmax resp.FSDS. This is the point were the virtual flight model is attached, let me say hooked , to the visible exterior model.

According to the FS2004 FSEdit SDK , typically, for aircraft shipped with Flight Simulator, this point is on the aircraft centerline, 1/4 wing chord aft of the leading edge.

See the following drawings from the FSEdit SDK FS2004
http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/6...rsdksidgx8.jpg
http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5...rsdktopzf6.jpg

I assume (I stress assume ) MS choosed this position as it corresponds to the approximate position of the Aerodynamic Center of a real aircraft. This Aerodynamic Center (Center of Lift) and its distance from the CoG play an important role in real world and simulated flight dynamics.

As "1/4 chord aft of the leading edge" is not positioned at half lenght (geometric center) of an aircraft , MS default aircraft and most addon aircraft are offset in side spot view on the screen.

You can center your aircraft optically in spot view by moving the Visual Model Origin aft but then you have to move CoG, payload, fuel tanks and contact points aft as well to a position that does not correspond you think they should be in the real aircraft, rep. the visual model.

You positioned the VisualCenter aft of the 1/4 chord line and even above the centerline in the Ta 183.



http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/7...contactcy1.jpg



As the flight dynamic model and the exterior model are completely independent from one another this shift of the Visual Model center from its 1/4 chord position does not have any effect on the flight behaviour or performance. The CoG were all forces and moments are acting on the aircraft will fly now as before but it could yield strange results in exterior view, as the flight model is literally pushing the visual model in front of itself . For example the visual aircraft could be still it the air when the virtual main gear already touches the ground smoking and screeching in a landing .

So I suggest as a trial move the visual Center to a point in the .mdl which corresponds to about 1/4 chord of the wing.


http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5154/acmtopbt3.jpg

Please do not modify the aircraft.cfg now let us see first what happens .

A preliminary remark: The GoG should be at a position close forward of the main wheel of the real aircaft and will surely not be in front of the leading edge. In real life it will be mostly in front of the Center of Lift of the whole aircaft (lift of wings, fuselage and tail combined) wich is aft of the Center of Lift of the Wing which lies at 25% MAC ( Mean Aerodynamic Chord.

I do not understand that fully but will open a thread in a special flightv dynamics forum to learn more about that.

In MS default aircraft the CoG sometimes is put before sometimes after the Visual Model Center.

As an example here is the configuration of the default FS9 Boeing 737.
Opposed to that example the CoG of the Cessna 172 or the Mooney is positioned in front of the Visual Center.

http://img524.imageshack.us/img524/9...b737topui3.jpg


On request I will supply a German version of this text.

Auf Wunsch liefere ich eine deutsche Version des Textes.

Carl

Hoi Carl,

thanks for that.

Better than you I can't response over that.

Resume is, that David load the Model in GMax and mark the whole Modell. Than he move the Pivot Point of the Whole Model forward to the Point where is the Blue Mark in this Picture.

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/5154/acmtopbt3.jpg

That will not yet cure the problem with bouncing and rotating at take off but will tidy up the gear configuration , tanks, engine position and bring them closer to the visual model.

You still have to move the main gear forward in the aircraft.cfg (as Sandra had done before) , closly forward of the CoG. It will still not be at the exact position of the visual wheel but reasonably close to it now.

I would not thoughtlessly move the CoG in relation to the Visual Center Point , which is the reference_datum as well in this .cfg. A realistic flight dynamic could be spoiled . That has to be done carefully.

Carl

Sounds like a consensus, then. Let me download Gmax and run through my backup discs and find the last model I worked on...

So, nun bin ich endlich mal dazu gekommen, mich mit der Ta-183 zu beschäftigen. Dazu erstmal ein herzliches Dankeschön an Dich, Sandra, mit der von Dir modifizierten cfg fliegt sich der Flieger schon mal hervorragend, und gelernt habe ich auch eine Menge - auch wenn es wohl noch ein weiter Weg zum ersten eigenen Design ist...
Insofern auch Danke an alle anderen!

@Sandra: Vielleicht hast Du ja mal Lust, Dir die MiG-29 vorzunehmen, ich kanns leider grad nicht genau sagen, wie der zipFile heißt, aber es ist die einzige, die ich bislang als freeware gefunden habe. (simviation)
Sie trippelt zwar nicht, aber nach dem, was ich jetzt hier gelernt habe, scheint sie ein ähnliches Problem mit den contact-points zu haben: sie rotiert nicht, und benimmt sich bei Landeversuchen sehr ähnlich wie die 183 zu Anfang. Fliegen tut sie ansonsten prima, besonders wenn man die Schubvektorsteuerung eingebaut hat, ist sie ein echts highlight, auch wenn diese im Außenmodell leider nicht animiert sind, aber wie sowas geht, davon habe ich noch nichtmal den Ansatz einer Ahnung...

viele Grüße

Ulrich

Danke Ulrich, gern geschehen.

Ist es diese MIG29 von Simviation:

Model, panel and textures by Eduardo Fadul

MIG29fulc.zip und das Parachute Update dazu: MiG29fix.zip


Wenn ja, dann schaue ich mal.