Down the rabbit hole..

[WarHorse47]

The wife and I just came back from a 3 night vacation in Victoria, B.C. We stay at a hotel there that has a beautiful view of the harbor so I can photograph the seaplanes taking off and landing. During out stay we finally got around to taking a short scenic tour by Harbour Air - fantastic. It was my first flight in a seaplane, and my wife's first flight in a small aircraft.

So now that I'm home I did some searching for an FSX equivalent and ended up purchasing the Virtualcol Otter X. So far so good. Only problem is that the amphib version doesn't want to sit still for me to take off. Apparently the contact points have some issue so when I load the aircraft at Friday Harbor, the aircraft does it's yoyo dance all over the place.

I've tried to locate any discussions on fixes, but haven't had much luck so far. Any ideas on what adjustments are needed for the turbo Otter amphib??

Thanks in advance.

 

[Sundog]

My advice is wait for the new Otters being worked on. I think Just Flight and Milviz? I'm not sure, but someone here will corroborate or correct me.

 

[BendyFlyer]

Yes I did a patch of fixes for the turboprop and the piston Virtual Col Otter. That included airfiles and config files. A word of warning the file library for the VirtualCol otter can be a bit weird but if you have a look at the discussion thread you will see what was done. It is not completely perfect but the changes fixed up the wheeled version for me. I had no issues with the piston otter on floats so did not look at that, it worked fine for me in FSX. Hope this helps. Let me know if you have any problems. See if the piston otter on floats misbehaves for you, if it does not copy the contact points for the piston version into the turbine version and see what happens. Despite the long nose the contact points to represent placement and CofG should be ok for both. Contact points are really tricky for anything in FSX that sits on water.

The reason all PT6 conversions of piston aircraft have such long noses or engine nacelles is because of the light weight of the PT6 compared to a big radial so they always have to move it forward to fix up the balance and then add a bit more on the fin to overcome the lateral resistance to turning by all that nose.

The turboprop fix is in the library under : http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/102496-DHC3-Otter-Fixes-zip

 

[Dev One]

Crash sensitivity can also be adjusted to help in some cases as I found with Dave Moly's Walrus.
Good luck
Keith

 

[gavinc]

Otter Float settings

Hi,
I did adjust the contact points
Check this link
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforu...Col-Piston-Engine-Fixes/page2?highlight=otter

they are for the piston engine but will work just fine on the turbine (I use the same ones for both in my setup).

Once you get the Otter tuned in it isn't a bad package for the price, it just seemed to be released without the necessary testing to catch a whole bunch of niggling little issues (the float contact points being an example)

Gavin

 

[BendyFlyer]

Hi,
I did adjust the contact points
Check this link
http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforu...Col-Piston-Engine-Fixes/page2?highlight=otter

they are for the piston engine but will work just fine on the turbine (I use the same ones for both in my setup).

Once you get the Otter tuned in it isn't a bad package for the price, it just seemed to be released without the necessary testing to catch a whole bunch of niggling little issues (the float contact points being an example)

Gavin

Thanks for that Gavin. Helped me recall all the stuff everybody did to get this one to work ok. I would agree re the package, it is quite a decent rendition of the otter but sure had a lot of annoying things that were not fixed up before it hit the market, there was an update but that did not do much (some are basic model construction issues which cannot be fixed by an outsider). I think I got the piston engine and turbine performance right once they were properly adjusted via the air file and cfg file for that type of engine. The texture fix was for the power pedestal in the turbine so users had some idea what the levers were and where they should be. Some people still had trouble with it but it works fine for me and the Otter gets a regular run about from me probably more so than the Milviz Beaver. Rarely for me I was so taken by the Otter I even had a go at a repaint in Qantas colours as used in PNG (also in the SOH Library). I know AH is doing the Otter but my educated guess is that it will not be a turbine variety but you never know, lets hope they take care with it unlike some other more recent releases.

 

[WarHorse47]

Thanks for the responses. I'll give these changes a try.

Since my post I did some more flights and should clarify the issue. All the models load and fly from a hard surface starting from a cold and dark state. The problem was specific to loading the turbo amphib version from a water runway. Whenever I attempted to load the turbo amphib at Friday Harbor the aircraft starting doing flip flops all over the place. The radial amphib loads just fine when in the water.

I checked the contact points between the two different models and they're identical, so why the difference? This is weird.

 

[BendyFlyer]

WarHorse, do you have FSX with SP2 or FSXA? Some models do not like FSXA. I had a similar problem with another amphibian from 2004, bounced about like a fish out of water and nothing I did would fix it. I have found that there is an issue with some models when you load them like this generally from a saved flight situation where you have placed them where you wanted them (on the water) ready to go next time. I am not sure what happens with FSX some times when you save flights because some are nicely recreated and others load with a host of unexpected problems.

I think it is an FSX issue not the model and unfortunately is a mix of terrain configuration and the way FSX deals with objects on the water (the placement is being interpreted by the FSX engine as a crash or some sort) and even an aircraft reload (CTL+R) will not fix it. The only solution I have found is to load it on land then use the map function to move the aircraft to where you want it, resetting the altitude and speed parameters to zero. This is not foolproof but for well coded models works, older port overs can still refuse to work, occasionally. See if that works for you.

In the meantime I will drag the Turbo Otter out of the hangar and have a look at what it does on my system.

 

[BendyFlyer]

Warhorse. Checked out the float turbine Otter (with all relevant mods made). No issues either on land or on the water in terms of jumping about etc. The model behaved itself and was stable all over on my system (FSXA). It may be the saved flight issue as I suggested, others may have some ideas but I would try the method above for getting it on the water if the problem persists.

It was a good reminder of what buggers Turbines are on floats compared to a piston they want to keep moving unless you select Beta Range (F2) and ground idle to keep it stationary.

 

[WarHorse47]

Thanks, BendyFlyer. I'll give that a shot next opportunity.

 

[falcon409]

Pam, I bought that airplane a long time ago and had problems from the get-go with it wanting take off even with the brakes set (Turbo version). I went to the developer who admitted that he had problems with the Turbo and had not been able to correct them (then why release it?). Anyway, he and I traded testing information for several weeks and while it got better, it never got fixed. His last statement to me was that he would release an update within the week with some final tweaks. That was at least a year ago, maybe longer. Nothing ever came of it and subsequent requests for help with it went unanswered. I deleted both versions.

I was only interested in the Turbo version so I never messed with the other version.

 

[WarHorse47]

Pam, I bought that airplane a long time ago and had problems from the get-go with it wanting take off even with the brakes set (Turbo version). I went to the developer who admitted that he had problems with the Turbo and had not been able to correct them (then why release it?). Anyway, he and I traded testing information for several weeks and while it got better, it never got fixed. His last statement to me was that he would release an update within the week with some final tweaks. That was at least a year ago, maybe longer. Nothing ever came of it and subsequent requests for help with it went unanswered. I deleted both versions.

I was only interested in the Turbo version so I never messed with the other version.

At the moment mine's in "the hangar" until I know more. That includes waiting for a response from Virtualcol on the issue.

I did a comparison of key sections of the aircraft.cfg on all six models. The contact points between the radial and turbo are identical, and the engine and prop parameters for all the turbos are identical. I found that unusual as I would assume the longer fuselage and floats for the turbo amphib would have unique pamaters for c.g., contact points, etc. Unfortunate as this one model has potential.

I can't count how many of the turbo otters I saw and photographed landing and taking off at Victoria during our mini-vacation.

 

[BendyFlyer]

Warhorse, I can relate to Falcon's Issues with the turbine variety. It works for some and not for others I do not know why except to come to the conclusion that there are so many variations in hardware-software setups across the board that it is amazing anything works sometimes, I bet there is not another user whose system is exactly the same as mine and this would be multiplied across the sim world, you only have to see the various forum threads over time or with every new release to see this problem.

As for the Turbine Otter the changes I made to the turbine air file and engine/propeller data in the config file together with the texture changes to the power lever pedestal worked for me. The data is correct for the engine and propeller fitted a PT6. Gavin's changes as far as I can tell fixed the contact point issues. I found if you load the aircraft with an engine running configuration it will immediately start to move and accelerate but if you hit the park brake, then F2 to get it into beta range and bring the condition lever back to ground idle it will then sit there nicely without brakes on the ground and not move on the water. I have found that FSX takes general configuration parameters from the last flight and applies them to the flight/aircraft being loaded, this is a pain but it is what it is. I have not come across a suitable start or load configuration yet that works across the board. ColdnDark is fine for some, but is a killer for other models. I just use the FSX trike default as my start configuration and shut it down once loaded. For those models that I know have no issue being completely shut down on start I have saved ColdnDark for the models load that then take it to where I want to go if I need to. However as this is a simulation I accept that it is a matter of setting up the parameters and then go flying, the real simulators are no different there is a lot of fiddling to get it to the situation you want. I do not worry about this though there a some users I think expect an out of the box kick the tyres and fly outcome no matter what which in my humble opinion is unrealistic it is after all a simulator.

The other issue which IMHO is not really VirtualCol's fault is the behaviour of turboprops in FSX, this is not modelled well or correctly and I have the same issues with nearly all turboprops on the ground in FSX, that is unless you set ground idle and beta range they will not sit still and accelerate excessively on the ground (The P3 Orion or L-188 is the same in FSX). There have been many discussions on this issue on various forums over the years. For example I used to fly King Airs for real and you could taxy them smoothly and slowly with shifts back to beta range on the ground so you hardly ever needed to touch the brakes but they would gradually accelerate if you did not do this but not like in FSX.

On another note AH's Otter looks like it is nearly complete, like what I see but it looks like there is no turbine variety on offer.

 

[WarHorse47]

Nope. I refuse to give up and I refuse to give in. Got it fixed.

I did some analysis, comparisons and tinkering of the [contact_points] for the floats section and solved the bouncy-bouncy problem.

The damping ratio (point 11) was too low. Changing it from 0.30 and 0.20 to 0.65 solved the problem.

So, now its onto the next issue. After starting the aircraft it will not stay at the dock, and this is with 0 throttle and 0 prop. Interesting. At least I can take off now.

Guess I need to find those modified engine and prop specs.

 

[PhantomTweak]

...with shifts back to beta range on the ground so you hardly ever needed to touch the brakes...

That's how I taxi turboprops in FSX. Hit F1, set the prop condition as low a possible, then F1 to accelerate, F2 a few times to decelerate. Back and forth. After some practise, I got halfway decent at it

Pat☺

 

[napamule]

Floats

Quote: 'The damping ratio (point 11) was too low. Changing it from 0.30 and 0.20 to 0.65 solved the problem.'

That is the right idea. But there are a couple of things 'not right'. Here are contact points posted last year:
point.6=4, 6.119, 5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.30, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.7=4, 6.119, -5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.30, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0
point.8=4, -12.875, 5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.20, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.9=4, -12.875, -5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.20, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0


Below is what I recommend, and have experience with, that cures a lot of float problems. Notice floats have 'Wheel Radius' and 'Steer Angle' values. The type 5 cnt pts (water rudder) never did work good in FS9 or FSX. The solution is to remove them and give rear most floats 'Steer Angle' which is 'ON' all the time, yet does not interfere with anything. So you steer with the rudder (twist grip or keys). Works for me!
point.6=4, 6.119, 5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0
point.7=4, 6.119, -5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0
point.8=4, -12.875, 5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.5, 30.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0
point.9=4, -12.875, -5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.5, 30.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0

You MAY have to adjust the 'Vertical Position' (-6.900) due to changes to the compression. But it shouldn't be more than 0.50 difference anyway. Let me know if you find these work good, better, or worse. I don't have any payware so can't help to fix specific models. It could be the cnt pts are way off to start with. Hopefully not.
Chuck B
Napamule

 

[BendyFlyer]

That's how I taxi turboprops in FSX. Hit F1, set the prop condition as low a possible, then F1 to accelerate, F2 a few times to decelerate. Back and forth. After some practise, I got halfway decent at it

Pat☺

Exactly! that is how you manage a turboprop for real on the ground, low idle out of beta to get moving then back to beta to slow down again etc. When I first flew a turboprop after many years in pistons it took awhile to get used to this, that and the QFI bellowing about the cost of brake replacements and to use the props not my feet. It took a little while to finesse this in real life too!

Off topic but that power v speed on the ground in FSX (and the others) is difficult with all models really, you do not get that sense of inertia and weight speeding up and slowing down to give you some cues. I find it quite distracting that you can think your crawling along (which you are) then switch to outside view and you look like your racing along. Given that is a basic mathematical relationship F=M x A not sure why this is not better model in the FSX simulation engine. Same with rolling moments on the ground! Ah well they all fly good once the wheels are up.

 

[WarHorse47]

Quote: 'The damping ratio (point 11) was too low. Changing it from 0.30 and 0.20 to 0.65 solved the problem.'

That is the right idea. But there are a couple of things 'not right'. Here are contact points posted last year:
point.6=4, 6.119, 5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.30, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.7=4, 6.119, -5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.30, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0
point.8=4, -12.875, 5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.20, 0.0, 0.0, 3, 0, 0
point.9=4, -12.875, -5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.35, 2.5, 0.20, 0.0, 0.0, 2, 0, 0


Below is what I recommend, and have experience with, that cures a lot of float problems. Notice floats have 'Wheel Radius' and 'Steer Angle' values. The type 5 cnt pts (water rudder) never did work good in FS9 or FSX. The solution is to remove them and give rear most floats 'Steer Angle' which is 'ON' all the time, yet does not interfere with anything. So you steer with the rudder (twist grip or keys). Works for me!
point.6=4, 6.119, 5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0
point.7=4, 6.119, -5.689, -6.900, 2200, 0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0
point.8=4, -12.875, 5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.5, 30.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0
point.9=4, -12.875, -5.689, -6.600, 2200, 0, 0.5, 30.0, 0.10, 4.5, 1.00, 0.0, 0.0, 4, 0, 0

You MAY have to adjust the 'Vertical Position' (-6.900) due to changes to the compression. But it shouldn't be more than 0.50 difference anyway. Let me know if you find these work good, better, or worse. I don't have any payware so can't help to fix specific models. It could be the cnt pts are way off to start with. Hopefully not.
Chuck B
Napamule

Ahhh, thanks. I'll give these tweaks a try later today. Wonder why the issue is with the turbo model and not the radial model as the stock entries are identical.

To add to the confusion I did get a response from Virtualcol this morning. They asked if I had applied the patch from their website. Actually, the product as purchased from PCAviator contained the patch to version 1.21. I compared that to one I downloaded from the Virtualcol site and they were identical except for the date. Anyways, my previous tweaks enabled me to finally start and take off from the marina.

BTW - while I'm adding mods to this thing, does anyone have suggestions on swapping out the lights for Shockwave lights. I've already swapped out that nasty rotating beacon (which isn't modeled) so its doesn't flash inside the fuselage. Just wondering what anyone else has done. Thanks in advance.

 

[Bjoern]

I think much of the despised turboprop behaviour in FSX is caused by the autostart routine, which duly pushes the prop and mixture levers all the way forward (as it would for pistons). In a real aircraft, this would (presumably) cause a hot start and overtorque condition, melting the turbine and wrecking the prop shaft.

 

[BendyFlyer]

I think much of the despised turboprop behaviour in FSX is caused by the autostart routine, which duly pushes the prop and mixture levers all the way forward (as it would for pistons). In a real aircraft, this would (presumably) cause a hot start and overtorque condition, melting the turbine and wrecking the prop shaft.

Yep basically correct Bjoern. Turboprops are started in Beta (effectively neutral prop) the start is engaged which spins up the turbine when N1 of about 12-15% is achieved then the condition lever is introduced to add fuel and hence a light up and it should be off. In real life this is monitored very closely for the ITT not to exceed redline or a hot start because bad things can happen very quickly. Most engines (but not all) will tolerate a small redline over temp but you have to immediately shut it down wait and spin the turbine using the starter to cool it down again. A serious over temp is well a lot of paperwork and please explains. Over torques by comparison are a mandatory reporting and engineering inspection and possible pull down of the engine, in other words a serious no no. Until they computerised the engine control units a lot of these went unreported, then the digital box (ECU) came along and a lot of rear end kicking would ensue when the engineers pulled the data every now and then and saw how many over torques were happening in reality but not reported.