Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Alan King
Curtis L. Olson wrote: Alan King writes: The FAA defines tolerances that a sim builder needs to meet in order to be certified. Control forces are something they definitely pay attention to. Rudder force for some manuever might need to be within 5 lbs of the real thing for instance. But if it ta

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Alan King
Matthew Law wrote: On 14:52 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote: Also I'm assuming the yoke on most planes has a bit more throw than +-2", but that's about the limit of what's practical with my current hardware so it'll probably do ok. I could get 6" travel or so max, just gets a bit more troub

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Alan King writes: >Yes it is. But the control feedback in the simulator EXACTLY > matching real life is not critical. For that matter a Cessna rudder > probably doesn't exactly match a P-51 rudder either, but I have no > doubts that learning rudder on said Cessna prepares you for 80 or 90

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Alan King
David Megginson wrote: Alan King wrote: It depends on what you're doing. Control feedback is pretty critical for basic stick-and-rudder flying (that's one of the reasons that flying a plane in FlightGear is so much harder than in real life). For pure recreation, or for instrument training, it

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Matthew Law
On 14:52 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote: > Also I'm assuming the yoke on most planes has a bit more throw than > +-2", but that's about the limit of what's practical with my current > hardware so it'll probably do ok. I could get 6" travel or so max, just > gets a bit more trouble to do. I

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread David Megginson
Alan King wrote: Just a spring return to give some general feedback is all I'm planning for now. Main use on a simulator is simply to seperate the controls to the correct actions, don't see much point in going beyond that short of doing a full cockpit simulation of a particular type, which i

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Alan King
David Megginson wrote: Matthew Law wrote: That sounds about right for a 152. Maybe David can tell you how much throw is > available on his aircraft? This is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure. I think of the rudder pedals in terms of pressure rather than movement -- to get that in a s

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread David Megginson
Matthew Law wrote: That sounds about right for a 152. Maybe David can tell you how much throw is > available on his aircraft? This is going to sound stupid, but I'm not sure. I think of the rudder pedals in terms of pressure rather than movement -- to get that in a simulator cockpit, you'll

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Matthew Law
On 12:42 Thu 18 Dec , Alan King wrote: > Rudder pedals. Been a while since I was at the controls in a Cessna > etc, how much control throw is normal? With a one foot seperation > between the pedals 4" seems like a lot, maybe too much. Currently have > 2" in and 2" out for the 4" total,

Re: [Flightgear-devel] Re: Cockpit Hardware Building

2003-12-18 Thread Curtis L. Olson
Alan King writes: >Rudder pedals. Been a while since I was at the controls in a Cessna > etc, how much control throw is normal? With a one foot seperation > between the pedals 4" seems like a lot, maybe too much. Currently have > 2" in and 2" out for the 4" total, but can easily shorten i