Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 58

Thread: Flight gear 18.3.2 initial set up

  1. #1

    Default Flight gear 18.3.2 initial set up

    Hi everyone.
    It's been a while since I used Fight Gear, and as I recall I did not have any problems, but decided to try it again and I am running into some difficulties.
    When I install and Fly in the default mode I get a Left vie of the acft and it thinks it's Forward, see pic.
    System is Win 7 64 bit, with Saitek Cyborg X, and FG is 2018.3.2. It finds the JS but I cannot select a Forward cockpit view using the V key, or any other way?
    Another question is how to add the second controller like the Rudder pedals?
    Any ideas.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	FG-ViewProb.jpg 
Views:	534 
Size:	73.5 KB 
ID:	208027

  2. #2


    Hi everyone.
    I was able to find a solution to the Cyborg / FG start up problem, as described in my previous post. Very frustrating it it turns many people away from using this sim.
    It is a known problem but there was no fix included for some reason.
    My suggestion would be start with a Basic controller and have the sim come up at least to the level that shows up properly, rather than try to attempt something that does not work and turns people away after the first install.
    The file that needs to be modified is Cyborg-X.xml located in ...\FlightGear201832\data\Input\Joysticks\Saitek
    The solution is to add the 2 lines + that start with the <js... required, and you can delete the lines - that are Not showing your joystick / controller in Devices, in my case Cyborg-X.
    The second line enables the CH Pro pedals ...Input/Joysticks/CH/pro-pedals..
    I am somewhat disappointed in the direction, and the progress, that was made in the last 10 years spending too much time and resources on things like Smoke / Fog / Particles and other useless futures and not sufficient improvement on Scenery rendering resolution, Flight model...
    axis 6: (hat up-down) look u/d Trim Elevator Adj Propeller #


    + <js n="0" include="Input/Joysticks/Cyborg-X.xml"/>
    + <js n="1" include="Input/Joysticks/CH/pro-pedals-usb.xml"/>


    - <name>Saitek Cyborg X</name>
    <name>Cyborg X</name>
    - <name>F.L.Y 5</name>
    - <name>FLY 5</name>
    - <name>FLY5</name>
    - <name>Mad Catz Mad Catz F.L.Y.5 Stick</name>
    - <name>Saitek FLY5</name>
    - <name>Saitek F.L.Y. 5</name>
    - <name>Saitek FLY 5</name>

    <!-- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Axis Bindings ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -->

    Last edited by flytv1; 03-01-2019 at 01:21 PM.

  3. #3


    I can't comment much on the controller issue since (for various reasons) I mostly fly with the mouse. I guess it's always frustrating if what you're trying to do doesn't work on the initial try - I had the same issue with the FSX demo which instisted in starting in a 3d mode for which I'd need special goggles and I couldn't make it stop that...

    My own philosophy would largely agree with you - start simple, then enable things step by step, see whether something fails in every step. Needless to say, there's other opinions around and developers who try to make the first-time experience as easy as possible - which is bad if it does not work.

    But I'm glad you found a solution after all.

    I am somewhat disappointed in the direction, and the progress, that was made in the last 10 years spending too much time and resources on things like Smoke / Fog / Particles and other useless futures
    I'm very sure that since I first ran into FG, nobody has spent any time on smoke/particles - they're a native OpenSceneGraph feature integrated badly into the FG rendering pipeline.

    Generally if someone spends time on a feature, at least that person doesn't think it useless - lots of people think spaceflight useless, but it interests me and it's my time to spend - after all, I'm not getting paid, so my only reward is coding what I enjoy.

    and not sufficient improvement on Scenery rendering resolution, Flight model...
    Let's say I massively disagree here.

    JSBSim as flight dynamics engine is everything you might wish for as an aircraft maintainer - I was able to put in lots of NASA aerodynamics and got a faithful simulation back - even up to minor control issues in corner cases mentioned here and there in Shuttle manuals.

    That amount of data isn't used or available everywhere, and quality across individual aircraft varies according to ability and interest of the respective maintainers - but the tools for a high fidelity simulation are available.

    As for the terrain, again we have the tools to render details at < 10 cm resolution, we have the tools to generate whole cities from OpenStreetMap data - but as in the case of aircraft, that's not done everywhere in the world.

    Which means what you get to see and experience strongly depends on what plane and what location you pick - and I venture the guess the same is true for pretty much every other flightsim as well.

  4. #4


    Hi Thorsten and everyone.
    I appreciate the effort of all the contributors that offer their time and effort, in particular when they do it for free. I've spent many thousands of hours doing the same over the years and I know the effort needed to create something.
    My intention is to point out some issues that can, and should have, been resolved, some were and reintroduced and that is the most annoying.
    When I mentioned the Flight model I specifically referred to the physical model, like the view from inside the cockpit to see the Top of cowl and the Right and Left wing tips, as you do in the real aircraft.
    That cannot be done in the 172. In the 182RG the instrument panel is not finished / partly done?
    When you start some acft the ATIS keeps going on and on regardless of what the Com frequency is set at...
    That said the Flight dynamics of the 172 is closer to the real life 172, in particular in the Low RPM range than the XP11.
    I am still prepared to support it given the time constraints I have, and I just started testing a Voice control app called Vocals that works with FG but it does not send the Alt+key to the app properly and I am trying to see if it can be fixed, it's open source.
    I started with voice recognition back in the mid 80s and spent a lot of time with the SpeechBuddy, for FS9 and FSX... about 15-20 years ago and have gone through my variations of set ups and controls from Motion platforms, to multi screens, to realistic hardware for radios.., Yokes.. and I am now back to Voice control Rudder pedals and Joystick. What is old is new again.
    If and when I get a Profile done for the Vocals, and if I can find a fix for Alt+key, I will post it here in case others want to use it.
    I tried the FGCom but I cannot get it to work as stand alone, it looks like it's deigned for multiplayer?

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C182RG-FG.jpg 
Views:	305 
Size:	168.0 KB 
ID:	208311

  5. #5


    When I mentioned the Flight model I specifically referred to the physical model, like the view from inside the cockpit to see the Top of cowl and the Right and Left wing tips, as you do in the real aircraft.
    That cannot be done in the 172.
    I'm sorry, I don't understand. Do you mean you can't see the wing tips in the C-172? Why not? You can adjust view position, view direction and field of view with mouse gestures to anything you like, or you can configure your own default views, I believe FGCamera offers a joystick-controlled camera motion,...

    Or did I grossly misunderstand that?

    In the 182RG the instrument panel is not finished / partly done?
    Surely not all aircraft are fully developed, but the 182S for me looks like that (it's one of those at the visual top end):

    (and incidentially, the shot also shows the amount of terrain detail and undergrowth we can render - that's the Atmospheric Light Scattering rendering framework in case you're wondering) - so if you'd set your eyes on a variant of the craft, you'd see something rather different.

    When you start some acft the ATIS keeps going on and on regardless of what the Com frequency is set at...
    This may be a stupid question, but what about other radio stacks and their com frequency? Usually 1 is tuned to tower and 2 to ATIS for the default setup. I have never experienced the problem that ATIS stays when I tune the radio off the ATIS frequency, nor have I seen any reports. New users occasionally ask how to shut it off, they get told what ATIS is and how radios are tuned, and the problem goes away.

    Point being, as developers we can't react to things we never see on our own systems and which are never reported.If it doesn't happen for us, we an interaction with lots of detailes passed back and forth, otherwise it's pretty much impossible to address issues.

  6. #6


    Hi Thorsten.
    I just looked at the 182 and just like the 172 has Right and Forward views problems.
    In your pic, in a real acft you will see the the top of the Cowl and if you look to the right you will see the wing tip.
    All these points, Top of cowl, Right and Left Wing tips are important when you try to demonstrate Straight and Level, landings... in real life flying.
    See pic below of the views that a pilot sees in real life.
    The ATIS problem was related to one acft in particular, Robin? but the C172 did stop when the freqs were changed.
    I just looked at creating a Profile for the Vocals speech control app and there are also control keys that work differently in different acft making it difficult to create a good Profile. I may post it later if I consider it sufficiently adequate to distribute.
    I will keep at it, it looks like LR development team are beyond the reach of Real World pilots, all the ones I know that tried to help have given up and there is no hope for improvement.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C152LRtxt16.jpg 
Views:	376 
Size:	180.3 KB 
ID:	208355

  7. #7


    In your pic, in a real acft you will see the the top of the Cowl and if you look to the right you will see the wing tip.
    Okay, I get your point.

    I'm fairly sure though that what you see in a real aircraft depends on how tall you are and how you adjust your seat though, and that you move your head a few cm around its average position to look into various directions outside.

    In my pic, the top of the cowl is indeed not visible, but I can go to a view where I see it in 0.5 seconds by moving the view just a tad up. Similarly, I can move the view just a bit to look at the wingtips. Views are not meant to be static entities in FG, so for me moving view to see something I want to look at is second nature during simulated flight (for instance one can't operate the Shuttle at all without moving the view, there's some panels which are impossible to reach without twisting and turning in real life).

    Now, whether the real aircraft is so that you can look at cowl top and wingtips from the very same head position / camera origin I simply don't know (I don't have access to a real Cessna) - if that is the case, the 3d model would be off.

    (As a side note, I've often noticed that in some fighter jets the default view offers very poor visibility during touchdown - there've been a few discussions about that as well, and generally the answer was that pilots must move their head a bit, once that's done, the problems go away).

    In any case, I'll forward a link to this discussion to the C-172 / 182 devel teams, they ought to have the aircraft-specific information which I do not and might have further insight.

  8. #8


    Hi Thorsten.
    I've flown with people that were over 6.4 ft and close to 300 lbs that needed a seat belt extensions and still they were able to see the wing tips and the cowl. The Seats are adjustable in the Cessnas and most other acft.
    I am bringing these things / issues up to point out things that can be improved and are used in real life training / flying. Wing tips are used in may phases including the ability to fly ground reference maneuvers level flight, aerobatics.. Everything I post has some practical merit to real pilots and instructors and not something that would undermine or demean other people's efforts and accomplishments.
    I use the simulators as tool in staying current instructing, and have a Little fun also, but mostly I consider i,t and I use it, as a tool helpful to aviators.
    I will likely be posting a Profile for the free, Open source, Speech control application called Vocals later this weekend, but that is getting to be a challenge in using it with FG due to fact that there is no real standard in the key commands used by different acft where some create and use them acft specific, which is also something that should be standardized / applied to all acft and used to perform the same function.
    None the less I will post it and there may be some users that may be able to use it / play with it.

  9. #9


    WIth regard to the viewpoint issues, I've gotten a response from one of the devel team (Gilberto) - apparently they did (and do) think about the issue and even have a user-adjustible viewpoint that can be saved in the making.

    I got one of their reference pictures back - see below:

    Note that in the picture, the camera position is slightly above the eypoint of the two pilots, and yet the cowl is barely visible - so it's very unlikely that any of the two would actually see it in this situation.

    So it would appear it's not exactly a simple issue and the available references don't speak a clear and unanimous language - which is why it's entirely possible that there may or may not be issues with the viewpoint or even the 3d model.

    I quote the invitation by Gilberto

    f anyone finds reliable data or photographs showing what can be improved then please contact our project as those are always very helpful.

    Here is the issue tracker of the aircraft devel repository where such questions are discussed - otherwise you can simply write to [email protected] (if you're not a list member mails will be held for moderation, but anyone can write to the list) and the right people will see the message.

    With regard to key bindings:

    FG allows to override key bindings based on a hierarchy

    core application < aircraft definition < user definitions

    so you don't have to live with anything that's defined. Generally this makes sense and allows the widest set of applications for the sim.

    For instance the Shuttle has no need of mixture controls, but it has two different control sticks (the translational (THC) and the rotational hand controller RHC)), so I have need of a key to switch between the two modes since most people won't have two sticks ready to use. Which is why I'm happy to take the 'm' key for the job. Usually the person creating the aircraft knows best what tasks need to be done in a hurry and can't rely on finding clickspots in the cockpit, and assihn key bindings reasonably.

    But a 3-axis sim has different needs than a laptop user, and a person actually might have two physical sticks available, so the user can modify all to his needs.

    If I remember correctly, there's a general issue with alt+key bindings as they're caught and interpreted by the OS on Mac systems, so they tend to work only under Linux and Windows and are hence discouraged. But (especially for complex craft), real estate on the keyboard is in short supply - which is why bindings which are not useful for the craft at hand are quickly reassigned.

    The bad news is that unfortunately there's no standard for projects such as yours - the good news is that since ultimately the user-defined bindings are used, everyone can make this work in the end.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Up in the sky


    Hi flytv1,

    I am one of the devlopers of the Cessna 182S in FlightGear, and responsible author of the complete 3d-model, and the view-settings.

    When you use a search machine with following keywords "Cessna 182T + taxi"; "Cessna 182T + start", "Cessna 182S + taxi"; "Cessna 182S + start" you will get a bunch of mages showing the aircraft from the side with pilot position.
    You will notice that the eye level is exactly at the position of the upper side window frame. The wing itself is quite higher, the wingtip due to dihydral of the wings even more.
    Conclusion: No chance to see the wingtip!
    Examples of images:
    On the older C182 Models A-P, you sit lower, and can see the wingtips quite good.

    When you look at the images from above, then you will also notice that the glareshield is quite high. Especially the newer Cessna 182 are known for this, so unless you sit bend over, you are not able to see the nose, or any other parts of the cowling.

    To get a good landing, you have to flare a bit the aircraft before touchdown. According to many pilot reports and recommendations in pilot forums, the upper edge glareshield should just sit at the horizon when flaring.
    So I also checked, that this is correct in the flightsim.

    At the end there is another, maybe minor thing you have to consider: the turning center points in the sim of the virtual head doesn`t reflect the human anatomy, where the eyes sits above and in front of the center of the turning points.

    So, everything is correct and tuned according the real aircraft.

    Many happy landing

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-20-2017, 03:13 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-24-2009, 04:21 PM
  3. Gear up/Gear down assignments possible?
    By zfehr in forum FS2004
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-01-2003, 01:05 PM
  4. DF737 Gear Up Gear/Down & Thrust Reverser Sounds
    By Messenger in forum DreamFleet General Discussion Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-24-2002, 10:22 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-22-2002, 05:36 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts