The OZX Grumman Goose HD Redux Now Released!

[tpet]

cool example of how to use all the tricks to taxi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBiSKx5nywM

 

[warchild]

Just letting you know guys, the patch will include:

- Sound fix
- The Flight model for the 450hp version, somewhere it took a wrong turn, so Pam corrected it
- Corrected hatch bump map
- Something else hopefully which I cannot disclose yet

Still correcting it ( the flight model ). I've still got unanswered questions about the gauges that i want to know, and so will have to dive into their programming so that i can make the FM even more accurate than it is. I've met a couple gentlemen in here that have offered some very good knowledge to me. Both are CFI's and at least one is an ATP, and since i refuse to use microsoft pretend calculations for my models, the practical data these two gentlemen have given me is priceless in my eyes.
Stay tuned.. The goose as is is a great plane. i'm gonna make it greater. And NO, i am NOT changing station assignments ..

Pam

 

[warchild]

cool example of how to use all the tricks to taxi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBiSKx5nywM

TPet:
That ROX!!!. thank you.. i would have never thought of raising a flot to act as a rudder. Now the question is, can we do this in fsx ( or can we find a way?) ??

 

[Wingmate]

I don't know about the way they did it but you can operate the floats individually it works (somewhat) for me.

 

[warchild]

I don't know about the way they did it but you can operate the floats individually it works (somewhat) for me.

they do operate individually but the animations and visual model have almost nothing to do with the flight model which defines the contact points. the contact points, including the floats, are fixed to an immutable location instead of a part of the model and therein lies the beast.. I dont know if an include file could be programmed to change the floats contact point positions at will or not. it's outside the scope of my understanding ( so far )..

 

[Wingmate]

ok I noticed that it turned a bit more with only one float down but that could just be my joystick is out of calibration again.

 

[tpet]

No prob, just found it and thought it was cool. Thank you, for the time and effort put into all your projects.

 

[P-12C]

Although I'm proud of the Goose we shipped, I'm honored you felt inspired enough to enhance it with your work. Congrats on what you have accomplished.

The aircraft we used for source is owned by a gentleman that also owns a turbine Goose, and is an expert in all things Geese. We were connected to him by our good friends at Kenmore air. The blue and yellow default paint Goose is his livery. (Actually our main contact at Kenmore was conceived in that actual Goose when his father owned it. True story.) We modeled the retractable floats because that is how his aircraft is configured, that goes for the cockpit configuration, 3-bladed props, etc.

The owner provided us with a copy of his owners operation manual and answered our questions about it's systems. The retractible floats added 1000 pounds to the allowable gross weight which may account for some of the variability you have seen from Goose to Goose.

As mentioned by others, the props are constant speed. I wouldn't be surprised if on an original first generation Goose they had something else, but not anymore. We didn't do much research on the originals.

As for Aileron effectiveness, our aircraft test lead at the time put several hours on the aircraft flying a test regime including stability and oscillation tests. I think the default flight model roll rate was pretty close, but I doubt it was perfect.

One posters comments about joysticks affecting flight models is spot on. We (MS) have to design for the lowest common denominator, which means cheap joysticks. With joysticks you can yank and bank way faster than you can in a real aircraft (most aircraft) and very small joystick movements result in large inputs. It causes havoc for us everytime (or did anyway). This is also a problem when it comes to brakes. Unless you have a higher-end rig with analog brakes, using a joystick or a keyboard you get digital brakes which ramp up in brake pressure very quickly. As a result nose overs in taildraggers are exhaggerated. That said you have to be very careful applying brakes in a real Goose.

Lastly, of the aircraft I have had the good fortune to fly for real, the Goose is my second favorite to the P-51. I wish I could afford to buy one...

 

[warchild]

@Paul.
Thank you.. If the goose hadnt been one of the better aircraft in the fsx package, it's my opinion that it probably wouldnt have gotten chosen as a plane to ramp up by OzX. In truth, i didnt touch the aileron or elevator force's. I did however add in a whole lotta stuff that MS left out ( main wing, MAC, etc ) and therein lies the changes in flight characteristics. The work you guys did was awesome. no doubt there, but i also believe you were working inside of microsofts cacoon and not really able to take the plane as far as you would have liked. Just my personal opinion there.
Over the last year, it's been my sole intention to drive flight models out of the "game" mentality and into real world simulation. The goose is part of that. I also personally believe that with the goose, we have gotten so close to that that it's spawned this whole group of people who want to se it be real. Otherwise, it would just be ignored like so many other planes are. All of this nit picking that you see, is really a complement, not only to OzX myself and the JFTC team, but to microsoft as well. It means, we all did great, but it can be made better, and the folks that are posting in this thread right now; pilots, Flight instructors, you name it; are all just trying to help me make this the very best flying aircraft available to anyone anywhere. And such a deal on the price ..
I admit, i'm proud, i have an ego, but i try to leave it at the door. We all have the same goal here ( i think ) and it's simply on my shoulders to take what the others offer and apply it as best i can with what i have to work with. In the end, we should have a pretty good plane. What most people forget however, is that planes are not designed by pilots. They're designed by groups of people in closed rooms with slide rules, pencils and a drafting table. I'm really in no different position than they are. like them, i can only take pilot reports and make modifications based on those reports, but in the end. i think we'll have done ok..

OH, btw. I've got a P-51 coming up in the near future.. PM me if you'd like to be in on it ..

 

[Henry]

One posters comments about joysticks affecting flight models is spot on. We (MS) have to design for the lowest common denominator,

Thanks i appreciate yall thinking of me
It is tough modeling for everyone
there are experts out here who can tell what they are talking about
some people like I have no clue
and we just want to have fun
I do like the new version and to be honest
have not had a problem with the FD's.
sometimes new aircraft with as real as it gets
Fd's i cannot fly so i do not
there is a need for both
H

 

[Brett_Henderson]

Pam.. you are correct.. the Goose (especially after what y'all have done to it), is a model that begs to made more realistic. This thread and the attention paid to it says as much..

As for the weight stuff. I wasn't suggesting that you change the stations. I trust your work and accuracy.. I've left them as is in my own, personal (very realistic.. too realistic for joysticks) version.. I was refering to the fact that syntax errors in the cfg file (all those erroneous "//" ) rendered most of them void.. and none of the descriptions show up... it's just generic "stations".. and the max/min weights used, left something like 40 pounds to add before the Fuel and Payload screen, warned you that you were over MGTW.

 

[wilycoyote4]

Thanks i appreciate yall thinking of me
It is tough modeling for everyone
there are experts out here who can tell what they are talking about
some people like I have no clue
and we just want to have fun
I do like the new version and to be honest
have not had a problem with the FD's.
sometimes new aircraft with as real as it gets
Fd's i cannot fly so i do not
there is a need for both
H

Wise words, IMVVVVHO, and the quote about joysticks is a treasure. I love the new Goose. I encourage further work as who knows where it may lead? Not I, not a chance since 99.9% of this tech talk is over my head but I do like reading it and thank the writers heartily for their discussion !!!!!!

 

[warchild]

Pam.. you are correct.. the Goose (especially after what y'all have done to it), is a model that begs to made more realistic. This thread and the attention paid to it says as much..

As for the weight stuff. I wasn't suggesting that you change the stations. I trust your work and accuracy.. I've left them as is in my own, personal (very realistic.. too realistic for joysticks) version.. I was refering to the fact that syntax errors in the cfg file (all those erroneous "//" ) rendered most of them void.. and none of the descriptions show up... it's just generic "stations".. and the max/min weights used, left something like 40 pounds to add before the Fuel and Payload screen, warned you that you were over MGTW.

Well, theres always room for me to learn things.. it's truethat i left the comments in on purpose. I probably could have made thwem all zero weight, but truth told, i'd watched the plane do enough backflips on the runway atthat point that all i wanted to do was make it stable and eliminate all but the most basic things till i got it stable.. Afterwards it just seemed like a prudent excersize to leave them commented out, but i didnt know the descriptions wouldnt show up.. There's others that were completely left out, like the pyrotechnics position, that i couldnt estimate a weight for.
I think my mistake here, is in adding weight for the weights that were already part of the equation, like the water tank and chain locker etc. I can work with it a bit and see if i can come up with something better..

 

[Brett_Henderson]

As for constant-speed props.. I've met 20,000 instructors who STILL have a problem grasping their function.

The mis-conceptions start in training, where pilots start thinking that the prop-control is a blade-pitch control. They start thinking (and eventually pass on) erroneous ideas like, "In level flight, you can trim the prop so that it can "bite" a little more air"... when in fact, a constant-speed prop is always biting as much air as it can.. THAT is what keeps it AT a selected RPM. The prop itself is the RPM governor. If you try to get it to "bite more air", all you're really doing is forcing it into a lower RPM.

Another misconception is that for takeoff, you select the finest pitch by pushing the control all the way in (forward). All you're doing is selecting the highest RPM. Sure, at the onset of a takeoff roll, that will be the finest pitch, but as airspeed increases, so does prop pitch. You can takeoff.. go into a steep climb, and then a steep dive, and the constant-speed prop will go from finest, to coarser, to finest and then coarest, pitches.. all without you ever touching the prop-control.

Airspeed and power (manifold pressure) determine the prop pitch. The prop-control decides the RPM in which it all happens.

 

[Brett_Henderson]

Well, theres always room for me to learn things.. it's truethat i left the comments in on purpose. I probably could have made thwem all zero weight, but truth told, i'd watched the plane do enough backflips on the runway atthat point that all i wanted to do was make it stable and eliminate all but the most basic things till i got it stable.. Afterwards it just seemed like a prudent excersize to leave them commented out, but i didnt know the descriptions wouldnt show up.. There's others that were completely left out, like the pyrotechnics position, that i couldnt estimate a weight for.
I think my mistake here, is in adding weight for the weights that were already part of the equation, like the water tank and chain locker etc. I can work with it a bit and see if i can come up with something better..

The modified text that I posted earlier works well. It shows all the stations you normally use for loading...and it uses all of your coordinates.. I didn't change any of them.. your work is odviously accurate, as I've loaded this thing every way from Sunday, and it always behaves accordingly (i.e.. too many people bags too far aft , or too far forward leaves the pilot with his hands full.. LOL.. but it seems quite realistic.

:ernae:

 

[warchild]

Thanks i appreciate yall thinking of me
It is tough modeling for everyone
there are experts out here who can tell what they are talking about
some people like I have no clue
and we just want to have fun
I do like the new version and to be honest
have not had a problem with the FD's.
sometimes new aircraft with as real as it gets
Fd's i cannot fly so i do not
there is a need for both
H

Henry.
i once tried to fly oneof those real as it gets airplanes. incredible systems detailing all around. I couldnt even start it, and i tried for months. perhaps if i read russian?? But that lesson stuck with me. I will make the handling of an aircraft as close to the blueprints as i possibly can, but no one should have to use what little free time they have pressing buttons and flipping switches. We're all in this to fly, bottom line, and i'll never make an aircraft so complex that it cant be enjoyed by everyone.
Pam

 

[warchild]

The modified text that I posted earlier works well. It shows all the stations you normally use for loading...and it uses all of your coordinates.. I didn't change any of them.. your work is odviously accurate, as I've loaded this thing every way from Sunday, and it always behaves accordingly (i.e.. too many people bags too far aft , or too far forward leaves the pilot with his hands full.. LOL.. but it seems quite realistic.

:ernae:

::Chuckles:: Now your makingme want to overload it just so i have a challenge ::lol::.. let me plug your numbers in and give it a shot..

 

[scotsman]

Simply ....whow

That work sets standards to a new level - can't stop taking screenshots.

Thank you
Mike

 

[Henry]

Henry.
i once tried to fly oneof those real as it gets airplanes. incredible systems detailing all around. I couldnt even start it, and i tried for months. perhaps if i read russian?? But that lesson stuck with me. I will make the handling of an aircraft as close to the blueprints as i possibly can, but no one should have to use what little free time they have pressing buttons and flipping switches. We're all in this to fly, bottom line, and i'll never make an aircraft so complex that it cant be enjoyed by everyone.
Pam

Pam as a tweaker of fd's myself
i know i joke a lot, i figure never get too serious,
i respect what you are doing
and appreciate it
yes thats exactly what you should be doing
just dont let everyone beat you down
your best is the best that anyone is asked of.
no one ever bitches about my fd's
maybe im just scary cos they are certainly
not the best
but i get no comments
so take it as a compliment
H

 

[piperarcherpilot]

The mis-conceptions start in training, where pilots start thinking that the prop-control is a blade-pitch control. They start thinking (and eventually pass on) erroneous ideas like, "In level flight, you can trim the prop so that it can "bite" a little more air"... when in fact, a constant-speed prop is always biting as much air as it can.. THAT is what keeps it AT a selected RPM. The prop itself is the RPM governor. If you try to get it to "bite more air", all you're really doing is forcing it into a lower RPM.

Another misconception is that for takeoff, you select the finest pitch by pushing the control all the way in (forward). All you're doing is selecting the highest RPM. Sure, at the onset of a takeoff roll, that will be the finest pitch, but as airspeed increases, so does prop pitch. You can takeoff.. go into a steep climb, and then a steep dive, and the constant-speed prop will go from finest, to coarser, to finest and then coarest, pitches.. all without you ever touching the prop-control.

This is all correct, and another good way of explaining it. The last paragraph develops more detail where I left off. I didnt want to 'overload' anyone with details - just the on-the-surface function.

Thanks Brett for expanding on what I was saying! Your last paragraph is a different 'visual' kind of way of explaining it, and I like it. Easiest way to remember it is "Prop control selects system RPM (engine+prop) and maintains selected RPM by automatically adjusting blade angle."

"In level flight, you can trim the prop so that it can "bite" a little more air"

I know, I've heard this too...and much worse from people who 'know' what they're doing. lol....