That's pretty funny. As I've said a couple of times, I land in those places fine with other aircraft. So, it's not the scenery, I don't think.
-
There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.
If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.
Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.
The Staff of SOH
-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
FR Super Cub problem taxiing on bush strips
- Thread starter griphos
- Start date
That's pretty funny. As I've said a couple of times, I land in those places fine with other aircraft. So, it's not the scenery, I don't think.
Okay, I have a little time to test. So, to make sure I'm understanding, Mike suggested changing the scrape points. Am I right in understanding that to mean basically replacing point.3 through point.10 with the values from some other plane?
Bernt suggested changing the shock absorber settings. I can't tell from the key in the .cfg which contact points I would change to do that and what I'd change it to in order to soften them.
I tried changing the impact damage threshold to 9000 (from 2500) but that made no difference.
Bernt suggested changing the shock absorber settings. I can't tell from the key in the .cfg which contact points I would change to do that and what I'd change it to in order to soften them.
I tried changing the impact damage threshold to 9000 (from 2500) but that made no difference.
Okay, I swapped point.3 through point.8 with the ones in the Carenado C185 Tundra (it only went to point.8) since that was also done by Bernt (I have his latest .cfg file for that aircraft). The result is that it handles much, much better! I flew to about five different strips there around the Salmon river and she did well at all of them. There was only one incident of crazy gymnastics crashing like I usually experience, and that was at the first strip, Mile Hi (ID97) when I first tried to turn around at the top of the strip. Not sure what happened there, and I was worried, but I landed there two more times and taxied around. I landed at four other strips and taxied around. I never got stuck once, nor did I ever tip over again. I even took off at several strips without staying on the runway to see how it would do "off airport." It did fine.
Here are the original settings in the Experimental version:
point.3=2, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.4=2, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.5=2, 5.4, 0.0, -2.45, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 6.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.6=2, -15.38, 0.0, -1.00, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 9.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.7 =4, 0.95, 2.75, -4.55, 4200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.3, 2.5, 0.90, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.8 =4, 0.95, -2.75, -4.55, 4200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.3, 2.5, 0.90, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.9 =4, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
point.10=4, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
I left point.9 and point.10 unchanged (since the C185 didn't have those). They are Max/Static Compression and Damping ratios.
Here's what I put in from the C185:
point.3 = 2, -4.60, -17.0, 3.28, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0 //LW
point.4 = 2, -4.60, 17.0, 3.28, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0 //RW
point.5 = 2, 1.2, 0.0, -2.2, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0 //tail
point.6 = 2, 1.2, 0.0, -2.2, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0 //Fslg
point.7 = 2, -18.75, 0.0, 6.45, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0 //Aux1
point.8 = 2, -14.12, 0.0, 0.01, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 0, 0 //Aux2
point.9 =4, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
point.10=4, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
You can see almost every value is different. I have no real idea what any of this means. I'm not sure if any of this would make the Super Cub unfaithful to RL. But it does seem to work. The plane sits correctly on the ground from outside view every time I checked.
I'll keep experimenting with it, but it's nice that perhaps the plane will now work for the purpose for which I bought it.
Here are the original settings in the Experimental version:
point.3=2, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.4=2, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.5=2, 5.4, 0.0, -2.45, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 6.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.6=2, -15.38, 0.0, -1.00, 2000, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 9.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.7 =4, 0.95, 2.75, -4.55, 4200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.3, 2.5, 0.90, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.8 =4, 0.95, -2.75, -4.55, 4200, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.3, 2.5, 0.90, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.9 =4, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
point.10=4, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
I left point.9 and point.10 unchanged (since the C185 didn't have those). They are Max/Static Compression and Damping ratios.
Here's what I put in from the C185:
point.3 = 2, -4.60, -17.0, 3.28, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 5, 0, 0 //LW
point.4 = 2, -4.60, 17.0, 3.28, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0 //RW
point.5 = 2, 1.2, 0.0, -2.2, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 9, 0, 0 //tail
point.6 = 2, 1.2, 0.0, -2.2, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 4, 0, 0 //Fslg
point.7 = 2, -18.75, 0.0, 6.45, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 7, 0, 0 //Aux1
point.8 = 2, -14.12, 0.0, 0.01, 1500, 0, 0.00, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 8, 0, 0 //Aux2
point.9 =4, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
point.10=4, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.00, 0.0, 0.0, 5, 0, 0
You can see almost every value is different. I have no real idea what any of this means. I'm not sure if any of this would make the Super Cub unfaithful to RL. But it does seem to work. The plane sits correctly on the ground from outside view every time I checked.
I'll keep experimenting with it, but it's nice that perhaps the plane will now work for the purpose for which I bought it.
PHP:
I'll surely try the scrape points and the impact damage threshold mods (even if I'm always testing without switching between views and it doesn't make things better) but, as for the orbx and other custom mesh and terrain discussion, I'd like to point out again that A2A's Cub rolls smoothly on any surface which, as a matter of fact, moves the question off the accuracy of the mesh design and on to other matters that might still be the contact points or even the FDE.
In my tests on a custom airstrip that I happened by chance to find as a candidate, I see that only the Extreme versions of Flight Replicas' Super Cub are able to overcome the bumps without flipping over (though still not as smoothly as the A2A's) but all the other Cubs (Standard and Classic, sorry I don't have Ultra version, is that so different from the Extreme?) just can't.
I'm trying to make a video of the comparison because that would be worth a thousand words.
Christian
dandog
Charter Member
Here are some shots took that make me believe it is a scenery issue. After loading each plane, I cycled through all the views, after which they would sink. I am sure that many of the aircraft will look familiar. I am not trying to be a PIA (plane in the a$$), but would like to see a remedy too. Again, that had better be a good shipment of heroin to get me to try to land at I99D.
I see what you're talking about, but I don't think the phenomenon of "sinking" has anything to do with the problem. I can change whether the wheels seem to "sink" by changing the radius of the wheels in the contact points. But that will affect what the wheels look like on "paved" surfaces as well (it makes the appear above the ground). I've never had any issue of being stuck or flipping follow from this graphical "sinking." I have those problems many times when there is no "sinking."
I believe (of course, I don't really know) that this is a simple matter of visual harmonizing. As discussed in posts in this thread in the high teens and low 20's, it appears that sometimes the drawing of the plane skin and the ground "skin" sometimes don't line up. This is more pronounced on rough strips or off field. Sometimes, the tailwheel is above the "ground" but is actually riding as it should on the actual mesh, just not the graphical "skin" of that mesh. Sometimes, the gear "sink" into the ground, but are actually rolling just fine on the actual mesh. I suspect that in all the cases you picture above, the planes were rolling just fine and not "stuck" in any way.
So, whatever is causing the bad handling isn't in the mesh, I don't think, since planes that do sink for me, as in your pictures above, still don't have any trouble rolling on that terrain and don't get stuck or flip over as the Super Cub not infrequently did before I changed the contact points today.
I believe (of course, I don't really know) that this is a simple matter of visual harmonizing. As discussed in posts in this thread in the high teens and low 20's, it appears that sometimes the drawing of the plane skin and the ground "skin" sometimes don't line up. This is more pronounced on rough strips or off field. Sometimes, the tailwheel is above the "ground" but is actually riding as it should on the actual mesh, just not the graphical "skin" of that mesh. Sometimes, the gear "sink" into the ground, but are actually rolling just fine on the actual mesh. I suspect that in all the cases you picture above, the planes were rolling just fine and not "stuck" in any way.
So, whatever is causing the bad handling isn't in the mesh, I don't think, since planes that do sink for me, as in your pictures above, still don't have any trouble rolling on that terrain and don't get stuck or flip over as the Super Cub not infrequently did before I changed the contact points today.
1. If you really left out the first 3 contact points all the changes you made can change nothing concerning the taxiing behaviour because you only exchanged the scrape points of the wings etc.
There's not a single change the concerns the wheels so this a pure placebo effect! Using contact points from different planes is a very bad idea.
At best you could try to use the static compression, compression and damping ratio from another plane but not even that is recommended.
2. Again, this is a placebo as changing the tire radius has no effect on the visual model concerning the way she sits on the ground
Here are the numbers for the standard super cub
point.0=1, -16.0, 0.0, -0.83, 2500, 0, 0.256, 60.0, 0.06, 2.5, 0.3, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.1=1, 0.9, -2.95, -4.55, 2500, 1, 0.70, 0.0, 0.09, 4.0, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.2=1, 0.9, 2.95, -4.55, 2500, 2, 0.70, 0.0, 0.09, 4.0, 0.2, 0.0, 0.0, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0
Change all the red values (damping ration) to 1.0 and let me know how that works (same goes for all Super Cub version without ruining anything)
No, I didn't leave out the first contact lines, of course. I simply did what was suggested by Mike, which I believe was to put in the contact points from another plane starting with contact.3. He is the one who suggested to use the values from another plane. I just listed the old values and the new values for the points I changed.
I'm not saying that changing the wheel radius affects the handling. It does affect whether the wheels appear above or below the terrain (or seem to "sink"). I know they don't for you, according to an earlier post, but it's not a placebo effect. It's not as if I can't tell the difference between whether the wheel sinks below or sits on top of the ground.
I will make the changes you suggest. However, making the changes I made did indeed affect the handling. I haven't tested it for long, but I tried all the airports today before making the changes, and the plane exhibited the same problematic behavior as before. Almost uncontrollable on taxiing around these strips. I made the change to the impact damage threshold in point.0 as suggested, and tried again and there was no improvement, so I changed that back to the default 2500. Then I changed contact points .3-.8 with those from the C185 and flew the same five airstrips, and one of them for several landings and the behavior of the plane was very different. Pretty much what I experience from the C185 when I fly it into these airstrips. No trouble really in ground handling any more and no tipping over while taxiing or flipping and crashing, as used to happen most of the time. No getting stuck.
I don't know what to tell you. I didn't expect it to work. I've tried everything suggested in this thread and by pm before without any real improvement.
I'll test some more when I get a chance this weekend.
I'm not saying that changing the wheel radius affects the handling. It does affect whether the wheels appear above or below the terrain (or seem to "sink"). I know they don't for you, according to an earlier post, but it's not a placebo effect. It's not as if I can't tell the difference between whether the wheel sinks below or sits on top of the ground.
I will make the changes you suggest. However, making the changes I made did indeed affect the handling. I haven't tested it for long, but I tried all the airports today before making the changes, and the plane exhibited the same problematic behavior as before. Almost uncontrollable on taxiing around these strips. I made the change to the impact damage threshold in point.0 as suggested, and tried again and there was no improvement, so I changed that back to the default 2500. Then I changed contact points .3-.8 with those from the C185 and flew the same five airstrips, and one of them for several landings and the behavior of the plane was very different. Pretty much what I experience from the C185 when I fly it into these airstrips. No trouble really in ground handling any more and no tipping over while taxiing or flipping and crashing, as used to happen most of the time. No getting stuck.
I don't know what to tell you. I didn't expect it to work. I've tried everything suggested in this thread and by pm before without any real improvement.
I'll test some more when I get a chance this weekend.
1+3. As you didn't post the important changes (wheels!) I can't tell what's the difference....Changing the wing scrape points doesn't do anything.
2. Place the Super Cub on a 'real' runway and change the tire radius to 0.0ft and to 3.0ft....there is no difference in handling or the way she's sitting on the runway!
Look, I am not an idiot. I have said repeatedly that I don't think changing the wheel radius does anything to affect handling. It does affect visuals. I believe I have even tried it on regular runways but its been a while so I'll check again. FSX is a strange beast. We all have it modified far beyond its original condition with so many addons interacting with each other I sometimes think it's a wonder it works at all, and sometimes it doesn't.
As to what could have changed the behavior, I realize it is highly unlikely to be scrape points. It was not my idea to try changing those. Mike suggested it. According to your own notation in the C185, though, point.5 is a tail scrape point, not a wing scrape point. It makes sense to me that perhaps the tail scrape point COULD affect ground handling. I will change all the points back but that one as I have time later and try again. Point.6 is "fslg." I don't know what that is, but perhaps it is landing gear. If so, that could reasonably affect ground handling. I don't know what Aux1 one Aux2 would be (point.6 and point.8.)
I realize it is frustrating to diagnose and resolve problems remotely, when so many variables are possible and systems vary so much, but not every FSX user with a problem is a 70 year old senile old man (apologies to the senile old men users out there)! I am not, for instance. I'm actually quite savvy, while not being a software engineer. I am usually able to diagnose and resolve almost all my problems on my own. This one has stumped me until Mike suggested swapping these scrape points.
My testing is very limited so far. I don't want to claim the problem is resolved, and certainly not by virtue of such wholesale swapping of data points. But in that limited testing, there was significantly different behavior on the same strips.
As to what could have changed the behavior, I realize it is highly unlikely to be scrape points. It was not my idea to try changing those. Mike suggested it. According to your own notation in the C185, though, point.5 is a tail scrape point, not a wing scrape point. It makes sense to me that perhaps the tail scrape point COULD affect ground handling. I will change all the points back but that one as I have time later and try again. Point.6 is "fslg." I don't know what that is, but perhaps it is landing gear. If so, that could reasonably affect ground handling. I don't know what Aux1 one Aux2 would be (point.6 and point.8.)
I realize it is frustrating to diagnose and resolve problems remotely, when so many variables are possible and systems vary so much, but not every FSX user with a problem is a 70 year old senile old man (apologies to the senile old men users out there)! I am not, for instance. I'm actually quite savvy, while not being a software engineer. I am usually able to diagnose and resolve almost all my problems on my own. This one has stumped me until Mike suggested swapping these scrape points.
My testing is very limited so far. I don't want to claim the problem is resolved, and certainly not by virtue of such wholesale swapping of data points. But in that limited testing, there was significantly different behavior on the same strips.
All scrape points except 0, 1, and 2 just define the important edges of the model, like wingtips, tailcone, cowling. E.g. if you don't have a retractable gear, the tail scrape point doesn't have any ground contact during taxiing.
Concerning senility, believe me, this affects me already as well !!
mike_cyul
SOH-CM-2025
Some more ideas from Wozza:
Something else to try is commenting out the float points in the gear section, and comment out the gauge01=FR_SC!dip, 1,4,3,6 in the Panel.cfg vcockpit2 section, as it's possible the gear is being raised as there is pools of water or a water layer under the terrain which is causing the gear to go up and the floats contacting the ground.
It could also just be the terrain hitting the floats (main reason for getting stuck they may need to be raised a little)....if still no luck then try a test with crash detection switch off (in Options) it maybe a crash bubble issue.
Mike
Something else to try is commenting out the float points in the gear section, and comment out the gauge01=FR_SC!dip, 1,4,3,6 in the Panel.cfg vcockpit2 section, as it's possible the gear is being raised as there is pools of water or a water layer under the terrain which is causing the gear to go up and the floats contacting the ground.
It could also just be the terrain hitting the floats (main reason for getting stuck they may need to be raised a little)....if still no luck then try a test with crash detection switch off (in Options) it maybe a crash bubble issue.
Mike
Sorry to jump in here but if we are talking about the Tundra version, would someone check this crash point. Seems the crash point is lower than the tail wheel and that would be a problem.
point.0=1, -15.85, 0.0, -0.93, 1800, 0, 0.256, 180.0, 0.07, 2.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.1=1, 0.95, -2.95, -5.41, 3600, 1, 2.90, 0.0, 0.20, 2.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.2=1, 0.95, 2.95, -5.41, 3600, 2, 2.90, 0.0, 0.20, 2.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0
//scrape
point.3=2, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.4=2, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.5=2, 5.4, 0.0, -2.45, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 6.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.6=2, -15.38, 0.0, -1.00, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 9.0, 0.0, 0.0
The total suspension for the tail wheel is .175' (.07*2.5). Since .07 is very stiff, just sitting on the tarmac would place the wheel touch point at (-.93 + -.07) = -1.0.
The crash point would be at or very near the ground even though it is .47' in front of the tail wheel.
With rough terrain or bouncing, the crash point would likely be making contact.
Try changing the crash point statement to this:
point.6=2, -15.38, 0.0, -0.50, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 9.0, 0.0, 0.0
This gives you some room (about 6") to play.
Regarding the Floats points in the same cfg, the numbers of some are the same as the crash point locations.
This would cause serious drag.
EDIT: You might just try to comment out the crash points (type=2 points) on whatever version you are flying to see if this resolves your issue.
point.0=1, -15.85, 0.0, -0.93, 1800, 0, 0.256, 180.0, 0.07, 2.5, 0.5, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.1=1, 0.95, -2.95, -5.41, 3600, 1, 2.90, 0.0, 0.20, 2.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.2=1, 0.95, 2.95, -5.41, 3600, 2, 2.90, 0.0, 0.20, 2.5, 0.3, 0.1, 0.1, 3.0, 0.0, 0.0
//scrape
point.3=2, -1.0, 17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.4=2, -1.0, -17.0, 1.90, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.5=2, 5.4, 0.0, -2.45, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 6.0, 0.0, 0.0
point.6=2, -15.38, 0.0, -1.00, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 9.0, 0.0, 0.0
The total suspension for the tail wheel is .175' (.07*2.5). Since .07 is very stiff, just sitting on the tarmac would place the wheel touch point at (-.93 + -.07) = -1.0.
The crash point would be at or very near the ground even though it is .47' in front of the tail wheel.
With rough terrain or bouncing, the crash point would likely be making contact.
Try changing the crash point statement to this:
point.6=2, -15.38, 0.0, -0.50, 1600, 0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.000, 0.0, 0.0, 9.0, 0.0, 0.0
This gives you some room (about 6") to play.
Regarding the Floats points in the same cfg, the numbers of some are the same as the crash point locations.
This would cause serious drag.
EDIT: You might just try to comment out the crash points (type=2 points) on whatever version you are flying to see if this resolves your issue.
Well it seems as if this could well be the issue. I will test this out thoroughly. It would explain why changing the contact points I did with those from the C185 seemed to resolve the issue.
I ran out of time to do any more testing this weekend. I had several MP sessions I w responsible for, and the release of the Milviz Sabre and Orbx W Yellowstone distracted me a fair bit..
I ran out of time to do any more testing this weekend. I had several MP sessions I w responsible for, and the release of the Milviz Sabre and Orbx W Yellowstone distracted me a fair bit.
.