735
edits
Hardware Review: Saitek Pro Flight Cessna controls: Difference between revisions
Hardware Review: Saitek Pro Flight Cessna controls (view source)
Revision as of 12:13, 2 July 2012
, 2 July 2012Typos and thoughts on pedal price/performance
No edit summary |
(Typos and thoughts on pedal price/performance) |
||
| Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
For flying a GA aircraft like a 172, the Beaver or indeed a traditional airliner or business jet, it simply feels more natural than using a joystick. You become much more aware when your aircraft is out of trim, and trim with every power or attitude change rather than simply holding a bit of back or forward pressure. More realistic, and more fun. | For flying a GA aircraft like a 172, the Beaver or indeed a traditional airliner or business jet, it simply feels more natural than using a joystick. You become much more aware when your aircraft is out of trim, and trim with every power or attitude change rather than simply holding a bit of back or forward pressure. More realistic, and more fun. | ||
The buttons are quite sensitive, and placed so that ones left thumb lies across both the 4-way switch and the coolie hat. The intention is that | The buttons are quite sensitive, and placed so that ones left thumb lies across both the 4-way switch and the coolie hat. The intention is that one can manipulate both controls at once so it's easy to zoom in while adjusting the view direction at the same time. However, due to the sensitivity of the controls it is a bit too easy to change view when trying to adjust your view direction. Some care is required. | ||
==Quadrant== | ==Quadrant== | ||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
[[File:Saitek Pro Flight Cessna Quadrant.jpg|thumb|Throttle quadrant in use]] | [[File:Saitek Pro Flight Cessna Quadrant.jpg|thumb|Throttle quadrant in use]] | ||
The quadrant is sold with the yoke, and is the standard quadrant that Saitek provide with their Pro Flight Yoke System. It has three levers for throttle, | The quadrant is sold with the yoke, and is the standard quadrant that Saitek provide with their Pro Flight Yoke System. It has three levers for throttle, propeller and mixture, with differently shaped black, blue and red knobs. As well as having the normal axis of travel, all three levers can be pushed past the 0% mark for reverse thrust, propeller "beta", or mixture cut-off. At present the FG configuration files do not take advantage of this, but Saitek's approach of using a "button" signal when in the reverse/beta/cut-off position would make this straightforward without compromising the use of the quadrant for aircraft that don't support such operations. Nicely done, and I expect to use this in the future when I work out what the common beta controls are on FG aircraft! | ||
Underneath the quadrant are 6 buttons, arranged into three vertical pairs. These are well placed for flaps, gear and spoilers, and indeed that is how they are mapped in FG by default. | Underneath the quadrant are 6 buttons, arranged into three vertical pairs. These are well placed for flaps, gear and spoilers, and indeed that is how they are mapped in FG by default. | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
Flying with the quadrant is much better than using the throttle control on my joystick. The movement has a good level of damping, and it's very nice to have a straightforward indication of the current setting by feel or visually, as there are percentage markings on the quadrant itself. I now stop the engine of the 172 properly by pulling the mixture out, rather than switching off the mags. | Flying with the quadrant is much better than using the throttle control on my joystick. The movement has a good level of damping, and it's very nice to have a straightforward indication of the current setting by feel or visually, as there are percentage markings on the quadrant itself. I now stop the engine of the 172 properly by pulling the mixture out, rather than switching off the mags. | ||
The only fly in the ointment is that 0 throttle/prop/mixture is reported until about 15% on the lever, and full throttle/prop/mixture is | The only fly in the ointment is that 0 throttle/prop/mixture is reported until about 15% on the lever, and full throttle/prop/mixture is signaled from the 85% mark. This is a limitation on the signal being sent to FG, and is common on other joystick throttle controls as well. I suspect is to ensure that the throttle can still be set to 0 and 100% even if manufacturing tolerances are wide. This reduces the actual control travel of the levers, where you input will have an actual effect from about 85 degrees to 60 degrees. This is still a significantly better level of control than a simple joystick throttle, and the input is very noise-free, but is a slight disappointment given the quality of the yoke. | ||
The real 172 has push/pull vernier controls rather than a full quadrant. Saitek do sell a set of these as their "TPM" product. I do not know whether this would work with FG, but I suspect it would with an appropriate configuration file. If anyone would like me to write one, please send the hardware to the usual address... | The real 172 has push/pull vernier controls rather than a full quadrant. Saitek do sell a set of these as their "TPM" (Throttle, Propeller, Mixture) product. I do not know whether this would work with FG, but I suspect it would with an appropriate configuration file. If anyone would like me to write one, please send the hardware to the usual address... | ||
==Trim Wheel== | ==Trim Wheel== | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
The rudder pedals are big, widely spaced, and with a large knob in the middle to adjust the force required to move them from neutral. The pedals themselves are intended to mimic those of a 172, and have the characteristic "step" part way up the pedal. As with other rudder pedals, as well as providing rudder control by sliding forwards/backwards, each pedal has a toe brake, allowing differential braking. | The rudder pedals are big, widely spaced, and with a large knob in the middle to adjust the force required to move them from neutral. The pedals themselves are intended to mimic those of a 172, and have the characteristic "step" part way up the pedal. As with other rudder pedals, as well as providing rudder control by sliding forwards/backwards, each pedal has a toe brake, allowing differential braking. | ||
I own a set of CH Products Pro Pedals, which I've had for many years, and they provide an interesting comparison. The major difference between the designs is the size and weight of the pedals. The CH ones are smaller and lighter, and requiring less force to move from neutral, even when the Saiteks are on minimum tension. The room I do my virtual flying in is carpeted, and a side-effect of the increased force is that the Saitek pedals need to be braced against the wall to avoid the chassis slipping, | I own a set of CH Products Pro Pedals, which I've had for many years, and they provide an interesting comparison. The major difference between the designs is the size and weight of the pedals. The CH ones are smaller and lighter, and requiring less force to move from neutral, even when the Saiteks are on minimum tension. The room I do my virtual flying in is carpeted, and a side-effect of the increased force is that the Saitek pedals need to be braced against the wall to avoid the chassis slipping. The pedals have holes designed to take screws, so one could screw them straight into the floor, but I haven't even suggested that to my wife! | ||
Ergonomically, they are also different. The CH pedals are significantly narrower, with less space between your feet. This is a bit more realistic for the 172, as there's not a huge amount of space under the instrument panel. Where the Saitek pedals are noticeably better is in the angle your feet have to | Ergonomically, they are also different. The CH pedals are significantly narrower, with less space between your feet. This is a bit more realistic for the 172, as there's not a huge amount of space under the instrument panel. Where the Saitek pedals are noticeably better is in the angle your feet have to travel for the toe brakes. The CH pedals are flat and hold your entire foot, and the rotational travel for the toe brakes is quite large. This means you must sit significantly higher and closer to the pedals to be able to apply full brakes. When flying a fighter or an ultralight you feel that you are sitting up a bit too much when using the CH pedals. | ||
I've found that I've been using the Saitek pedals in preference to the CH. My simulator set-up is semi-permanent, and I don't move my kit around. If I had to put it away in a cupboard, the CH pedals would be a better choice, being smaller, lighter and a bit neater. | |||
==Summary== | ==Summary== | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
The full set of Cessna controls make for a very compelling simulation, and work well together providing a coherent whole. Despite being one of the maintainers of the FlightGear 172, I'd not done much virtual flying in it recently, with the exception of using it to take part in the MP ATC events at the "EDDF Triangle" on a Sunday evening. Having these controls encouraged me to fly the 172 more. I thoroughly enjoyed doing circuits at Reid Hillview (KRHV) and cross-country flights around the San Francisco Bay area. There's something just "right" about flying the 172 with a yoke, and using the trim wheel as you pull back the power to descend. When I get bored with the 172, there are a whole raft of GA and commercial aircraft for which the yoke is the correct control input. | The full set of Cessna controls make for a very compelling simulation, and work well together providing a coherent whole. Despite being one of the maintainers of the FlightGear 172, I'd not done much virtual flying in it recently, with the exception of using it to take part in the MP ATC events at the "EDDF Triangle" on a Sunday evening. Having these controls encouraged me to fly the 172 more. I thoroughly enjoyed doing circuits at Reid Hillview (KRHV) and cross-country flights around the San Francisco Bay area. There's something just "right" about flying the 172 with a yoke, and using the trim wheel as you pull back the power to descend. When I get bored with the 172, there are a whole raft of GA and commercial aircraft for which the yoke is the correct control input. | ||
A yoke setup like this obviously isn't for those flying fast jets or WWII fighters, or even the Piper Cub. I tried flying the P51d, well known for requiring a delicate touch on take-off | A yoke setup like this obviously isn't for those flying fast jets or WWII fighters, or even the Piper Cub. I tried flying the P51d-jsbsim using the yoke, which is well known for requiring a delicate, quick, touch on take-off. I struggled far more than normal as the yoke is simply slower to control than a stick. For that reason, I'll be keeping my joystick handy for those aircraft that need it. | ||
The kit also takes up a lot of space, and really has to be set up permanently. The yoke is sufficiently large that you can't simply reach around it to type, as you might with a joystick. Similarly, the quadrant and trim wheel will get in the way of trying to use your computer for other tasks, particularly if you have them set up to the right and are right handed. To set up the system properly at home I had to replace my computer table with a larger one that I had in the garage, and set up a separate monitor specifically for FG. I'm quite happy with the results, though negotiation of the permanence of this setup with my wife continues. I may yet have to go back to a joystick and pedals. For many people the space requirements will be a deal-breaker, and a high end joystick is much more spouse-friendly. | |||
The yoke does come with a quadrant, and discounting that from the price makes it comparable with my joystick. On that basis, the cost | There's no getting away from the fact that this stuff is expensive. Total price for the yoke, pedals and trim wheel is around $450. The Cessna yoke ($200) carries a premium over the Saitek Pro Flight Yoke, and the pedals are similar in price to the Pro Flight Combat Rudder Pedals ($200). If you are using a $50 joystick quite happily, this will seem excessive. However, a better comparison is with the equivalent CH products yoke, or high-end joysticks which are comparable in price and are designed to last a long time. A case in point: My first two joysticks cost around $50 each and only lasted a couple of years before there was too much play in the axes to allow accurate flying. I then bought a CH Products Fighterstick for around $150, which is still just as accurate 5 years later. The yoke does come with a quadrant, and discounting that from the price makes it comparable with my joystick. On that basis, the cost is more reasonable. | ||
The trim wheel is unique, and while it costs the same as a moderately priced joystick, it does offer a step up in simulation, and IMO is worth it for those flying GA aircraft and who have the space. You can justify it with the money you save flying FG rather than a commercial sim! | The pedals are a bit trickier to assess in value for money terms. I think they are definitely better than the CH Products equivalent, but the price differential is difficult to justify. As with the yoke, either set of pedals will last a lifetime. It comes down to whether you want to spend $120 or $200 on a one-off purchase. | ||
The trim wheel is unique, and while it costs the same as a moderately priced joystick ($50), it does offer a step up in simulation, and IMO is worth it for those flying GA aircraft and who have the space. You can justify it with the money you save flying FG rather than a commercial sim! | |||
[[Category:Hardware reviews|Saitek Pro Flight Cessna controls]] | [[Category:Hardware reviews|Saitek Pro Flight Cessna controls]] | ||