Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest Padesatka

Yaw Ready for This?

Recommended Posts

I real flying life, I like to use my feet. I'm an avid, experienced tailwheel and aerobatic aviator and instructor (I mention this here for background, and not for entirely egotistical reasons). If the rudder and keel effectiveness of the planes I fly in real life were anything like what we have been settling for in the virtual world, it's probable that I would either have given it up, or killed myself by now. But the real world isn't like that, and I've been flying and learning for over 25 years now, and my appreciation for the rudder and for the yaw axis of flight continues to develop. This appreciation renders me more and more dissatisfied, with even the best simulations, as time goes on. Most of us are surely aware that the vertical axis has been woefully neglected by developers, ACES included. On many occasions, my frustration over this glaring flight-physics neglect has overcome my enthusiasm for all the things developers have done right- and I've often gone looking around for an alternative to FSX, that can respectfully acknowledge this primary axis of flight. It's been a mostly frustrating journey. There are some RC and combat sim examples, where the yaw axis is not nearly so disrespected. But among Microsoft's closest competitors, and even the more obscure and defunct flight sim programs all get weird when it comes to taking sides along the vertical axis.I don't see why the market should accept this. The solution could be the raising of a broad collective understanding of what we're so glaringly missing, and for popular demand for satisfaction to be assertively expressed to developers. Great strides have been made in realism and fidelity in terms of graphics and interface. Before these are further enhanced, and before we enthusiasts shell out our next round of dollars for the next must-have service/expansion pack or version, I personally feel that it's high time that something was finally done about the pitiful and shameful yaw behavior in FSX and its predecessors. What about you?I would like to participate in some serious discussion here about how real airplanes behave in yaw, and what each of our expectations are and should be, in terms of satisfying simulation of this dimension of flying. If sufficient interest can be generated in this matter, we might succeed in enlightening developers as to the importance of addressing this essential and fundamental issue. So let's kick this around; have some input... maybe even put our collective foot down. Accomplished pilots don't neglect yaw, and neither should good programmers. This has gone on long enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I real flying life, I like to use my feet. I'm an avid, experienced tailwheel and aerobatic aviator and instructor (I mention this here for background, and not for entirely egotistical reasons). If the rudder and keel effectiveness of the planes I fly in real life were anything like what we have been settling for in the virtual world, it's probable that I would either have given it up, or killed myself by now. But the real world isn't like that, and I've been flying and learning for over 25 years now, and my appreciation for the rudder and for the yaw axis of flight continues to develop. This appreciation renders me more and more dissatisfied, with even the best simulations, as time goes on. Most of us are surely aware that the vertical axis has been woefully neglected by developers, ACES included. On many occasions, my frustration over this glaring flight-physics neglect has overcome my enthusiasm for all the things developers have done right- and I've often gone looking around for an alternative to FSX, that can respectfully acknowledge this primary axis of flight. It's been a mostly frustrating journey. There are some RC and combat sim examples, where the yaw axis is not nearly so disrespected. But among Microsoft's closest competitors, and even the more obscure and defunct flight sim programs all get weird when it comes to taking sides along the vertical axis.I don't see why the market should accept this. The solution could be the raising of a broad collective understanding of what we're so glaringly missing, and for popular demand for satisfaction to be assertively expressed to developers. Great strides have been made in realism and fidelity in terms of graphics and interface. Before these are further enhanced, and before we enthusiasts shell out our next round of dollars for the next must-have service/expansion pack or version, I personally feel that it's high time that something was finally done about the pitiful and shameful yaw behavior in FSX and its predecessors. What about you?I would like to participate in some serious discussion here about how real airplanes behave in yaw, and what each of our expectations are and should be, in terms of satisfying simulation of this dimension of flying. If sufficient interest can be generated in this matter, we might succeed in enlightening developers as to the importance of addressing this essential and fundamental issue. So let's kick this around; have some input... maybe even put our collective foot down. Accomplished pilots don't neglect yaw, and neither should good programmers. This has gone on long enough.
I'd be happy to join the 'Friends of the Vertical Axis Society', however, this issue of flight dynamics has been beaten to death for many many years. The lead dev for FSX was I believe a real-world tail-dragger pilot, and well, the yaw issues still linger.I suppose MS could invest more resources into this kind of stuff, but I would imagine their marketing people tell them pretty graphics and giraffes are what moves boxes at Walmart, not the nuances of the Vertical Axis. And sales is what it's all about.You've tried X-Plane?Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've tried X-Plane?
Yes, I found slipping (at least with the planes in the demo version) in X-Plane as surreal (but in slightly different ways) as FSX. If the pitch or roll axis were as poorly simulated as yaw, I doubt if many people would put up with it for long. Yaw has so far been slipping through an unfortunate gaping crack in popular understanding of flight controls. I deal with this regularly as a flight instructor: Use of rudder is initially mysterious for most of my students when they first begin, although yanking and banking is immediately intuitive. I would not be a better (or more successful) instructor by dumbing-down my teaching of rudder technique, just because there is a relative lack of understanding among the uninitiated of what the rudder is for. Even when I've taught in Ercoupes, I have always wanted for my students to come away with a working knowledge of what goes on. I would never consider economizing on what I teach by giving bad and generalized information about a key axis of any aircraft's motion. There must be similar professional pride and principles among flight simulation developers, who like flight instructors have the enviable privilege of introducing trusting customers to wonderful new worlds.
I'd be happy to join the 'Friends of the Vertical Axis Society'..."
Great! A charter Member! I feel a little less alone with my yawing concern already.
however, this issue of flight dynamics has been beaten to death for many many years
Persisting with deplorable yaw dynamics is like using a dead skunk for third base in a high-end baseball (or "racy") simulation. Why should flight simulation enthusiasts accept this as a reasonable compromise? This isn't beating a dead animal; it's an appeal to the keepers of our arena to acknowledge what smells, clean it up, and replace it with what belongs, like a "3rd Base" that's comparable with the others.
The lead dev for FSX was I believe a real-world tail-dragger pilot, and well, the yaw issues still linger.
Then I suspect there was either a leadership or an airmanship handicap involved. Maybe the bean-counters had an axis to grind. Whatever the reason, As Real As It Got doesn't have to be forever.
I suppose MS could invest more resources into this kind of stuff, but I would imagine their marketing people tell them pretty graphics and giraffes are what moves boxes at Walmart, not the nuances of the Vertical Axis.
Flight sim fans are geeks. I don't hesitate to say this, because I count myself among them. We're fascinated with the details of aviation simulation. We number in the millions, and we increasingly compare notes and share experiences online. And even though I am uncomfortable shopping in a Wal-Mart, I bought FSX there- because that's where it was.
]And sales is what it's all about.
That's a good point. But personally, the magic of the MSFS story has been the real aviation soul at the core of this "game". But for the yaw behavior, there is a true passion for describing flight speaking through the code. It's been the mystique of realism that has driven the phenomenal sales of this product, both for the most casual and the truly air-minded buyers. I've been entertained and even awed by FSX... But I'll jump ship when any competitor addresses yawing flight and its interactions. And competitors are evolving- on might argue they're faster and leaner than Microsoft. I want Microsoft to know that I'll put my money where my mouth is, and encourage others to do the same. That too is just part of being "as real as it gets".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's a good point. But personally, the magic of the MSFS story has been the real aviation soul at the core of this "game". But for the yaw behavior, there is a true passion for describing flight speaking through the code. It's been the mystique of realism that has driven the phenomenal sales of this product, both for the most casual and the truly air-minded buyers. I've been entertained and even awed by FSX... But I'll jump ship when any competitor addresses yawing flight and its interactions. And competitors are evolving- on might argue they're faster and leaner than Microsoft. I want Microsoft to know that I'll put my money where my mouth is, and encourage others to do the same. That too is just part of being "as real as it gets".
Most Avsim members would agree with you, but I recall Microsoft did a study a while back that showed that a very significant percentage of Flightsim users don't even use the flaps. Now they didn't say what kind of plane most where using if memory serves correct, but you get the point.The best thing that could happen to the FS franchise is real competition. If you could convince the bean-counters that super accurate flight physics (which 99 percent of the user base would never notice) would generate more revenue that a pretty animated giraffe, then you might get your way.It would be great if you could demonstrate real Attitudes and Movements type exercises using flightsim that show real subtle nuances of how the plane behaves, but frankly it's not going to happen I think. Cheers,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you ever tried the RealAir Simulations SF260? RealAir has been quite a few steps up in the "yaw" department for years now. It's there specialty.Something that is interesting; is that prior MS simulations such as the Combat 1 & 2, and FS2000 had better "left drift" tendencies on the ground roll, than the newer versions have. There was a good feel of keeping your right foot on the rudder, with no wandering tendencies. However, these RealAirs are great when airborne, and the RealAir Spit is a shining example of putting in "left" rudder while on the takeoff roll and climbout. Note: It has a counter-clockwise prop-- from the cockpit view.I too, own and fly an airplane that is very sensitive to rudder (Van's RV6A). It requires a lot of right rudder on takeoff and climb; and gets quite "torqued" when full throttle is applied on the takeoff roll. Use to do aerobatics in a Pitt's S2B, and now share a hangar with a Pitt's M-12 Russian radial.P.S. --- I don't get thrilled with X-Plane either. It has pluses and minuses regarding flight dynamics, but is nothing special, and certainly no better than MSFS. L.Adamson --- FS9/FSX, X-Plane 8/9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an excellent review of the flight dynamics and compare of xplane/fs in this thread in the fs9 forum:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=239641We can only hope with each new incarnation that a few more "reality" issues will be added.For me one of the biggest annoyances is the lack of sound change with prop pitch changes. Also for me is a need for more realistic hardware controls. When the present hardware rudders feel spongy and have incorrect travel, and the yoke has no differing forces or correct travel-isn't that at least half of the "feel" of the fm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I probably don't belong in this conversation, but...oh well. I am not a pilot. Don't want to be. Can't afford it. Still smarting from my last upgrade just try to run FSX (You need a $300 video card to do what?) I don't have a yoke and peddals, just a joy stick. I don't know what the sales figures for FSX are. I can't imagine that they are all that high. I have no idea how easy or hard it is to program realistic flight dynamics. If realistic yaw is not in any sim, then it is probably not just an oversight. One can do a lot of great things with a computer, but I'm not sure that learning how to fly an airplane is one of them just yet. FSX is a $50 game. I have $500 music writing program that will create a wave file that sounds very mush like a real orchestra.Flight sim? I was lucky enough to spend a short time in a DC10 flight trainer. You know, the full cockpit mockup on hydraulics. Now that's a sim. Anything else might as well not exist. A $50 game has to appeal to a wide spectrum. As real as it gets may be a joke. But it is just a PC game. I like the fact that I can make my own airports and my own airline and fly all over the world. Is it realistic? Of course not. But it sure is fun.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For me one of the biggest annoyances is the lack of sound change with prop pitch changes.
The effect of constant speed props needs to be worked on also. Especially the "braking" ability on approaches. It's rather lame in MSFS and X-Plane.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is an excellent review of the flight dynamics and compare of xplane/fs in this thread in the fs9 forum:http://forums1.avsim.net/index.php?showtopic=239641We can only hope with each new incarnation that a few more "reality" issues will be added.For me one of the biggest annoyances is the lack of sound change with prop pitch changes. Also for me is a need for more realistic hardware controls. When the present hardware rudders feel spongy and have incorrect travel, and the yoke has no differing forces or correct travel-isn't that at least half of the "feel" of the fm?
Yes indeed and hope for a more realistic approach on those fields (old discussion though) and maybe we all see the benefits of MSFS ESP which is target at the aviation real life sector and not the desktop pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you ever tried the RealAir Simulations SF260? RealAir has been quite a few steps up in the "yaw" department for years now. It's there specialty.... and the RealAir Spit is a shining example of putting in "left" rudder while on the takeoff roll and climbout. Note: It has a counter-clockwise prop-- from the cockpit view.I too, own and fly an airplane that is very sensitive to rudder (Van's RV6A). It requires a lot of right rudder on takeoff and climb; and gets quite "torqued" when full throttle is applied on the takeoff roll. L.Adamson --- FS9/FSX, X-Plane 8/9
:( ... I fervently agree with all the sentiments expressed in the above posts, and being an old ex-RAF Chipmunk flyer with a "thing" for the venerable Spitfire (I own and regularly fly the RA and Shockwave versions) - a couple of years back I tried out the Plane Design version, based on an Avsim review.... and the reviewer and exchanged a number of pleasant emails afterwards; here were my thoughts at that time...
1). The engine torque on take-off is backward:2). When pulling positive g the ball moves in the wrong direction:3). The brakes are sufficiently savage that they would have required a factory refit:4). One can quite easily perform a perfect outside loop????? How do you do that in ANY Spitfire?5). The RR sounds really didn't alter very much as the power was increased toward full throttle:6). The effects of the rearward cg were excessive to the degree that I don't believe it would have got a flight certificate. This IS a Mk16, and had a number of years of development.and finally - my personal nit-pick #7). The degree of realistic detail of the cockpit interior was abysmal. It compares with that of "ok" freeware, and it would work in CFS3.7). The overall quality of the product was only equal or inferior to the RA Spit, and the RA Spit comes with an airfield c/w two flights of AI Spits. (Plus Rob and Sean's support), and given it's price. . . . .On the positive side - the exterior is splendid, the flying was a challenge - and the one thing that floored me was that adverse yaw drags the wing (with the down-going aileron) backward (as it should), - you can see it happen and it was most realistic. This is not detailed in any other sim aircraft I have ever flown, and I almost kept it because of this. The flight handling characteristics were very good, and one is able to sense when she begins to get loose. At this point - if you are below 3000 ft - you need to be aware of what can happen next. :-)
I returned the aircraft because of the intolerable flight dynamics and its rendition of the cockpit. Maybe developers - and MS - assume that we're all a bunch of illiterate teenagers with little knowledge of r/w aviation Well - we're not. This I also found evident after recently purchasing the Leonardo "Maddog"; it's forums are heavily populated with airline aircrew, so when a dependent system works when it shouldn't - there's an immediate series of posts pointing out the correct operation. This is most bodascious, because for most issues - the devs having done their homework, the problem is most often one of improper procedure - and is handled by a crew member! Yaw input and response is as important as aileron, elevator, flap, power, thrust, AoI, an/dihedral, airfoil, washout, washin and so on.. It is largely ignored in the erroneous marketing assumption that "as long as it looks like an aeroplane, and it flies" it will sell. Somewhat of an insult, wouldn't you say?I would be very happy to add my name to a 'Friends of the Vertical Axis Society' movement! :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The best thing that could happen to the FS franchise is real competition. If you could convince the bean-counters that super accurate flight physics (which 99 percent of the user base would never notice) would generate more revenue that a pretty animated giraffe, then you might get your way.
And that's the main problem hehe. I remember reading about that study too, apparently people who peruse the forums represent less than 5% or something of the total FS population. And we're the ones complaining about the technical issues within various FS versions. I doubt the next version will progress much in the aerodynamics department, because most users don't even bother with the flaps lol. To the OP, I agree with you, at least that I would vote for flight dynamics upgrades. However, I wonder how many users even own pedals? I don't - I use a MS FFB joystick with twist for "flight around the vertical axis" (Can I be a member too?)Sadly enough I would bet people buy FS because of the visual stuff, birds, clouds, scenery - and not because of the flight dynamics. I also own the RealAir Scout and SF260 - some a my favorite planes to fly, the SF260 is pretty much the only plane I can think of that performs a forward slip, fairly correctly too. Not that it matters but I'm a pilot and air traffic controller in the RW as well. FDE's, or lack thereof in FS versions have always bothered me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I probably don't belong in this conversation, but...oh well. I am not a pilot. Don't want to be. Can't afford it. Still smarting from my last upgrade just try to run FSX (You need a $300 video card to do what?) I don't have a yoke and peddals, just a joy stick. I don't know what the sales figures for FSX are. I can't imagine that they are all that high. I have no idea how easy or hard it is to program realistic flight dynamics. If realistic yaw is not in any sim, then it is probably not just an oversight. One can do a lot of great things with a computer, but I'm not sure that learning how to fly an airplane is one of them just yet. FSX is a $50 game. I have $500 music writing program that will create a wave file that sounds very mush like a real orchestra.Flight sim? I was lucky enough to spend a short time in a DC10 flight trainer. You know, the full cockpit mockup on hydraulics. Now that's a sim. Anything else might as well not exist. A $50 game has to appeal to a wide spectrum. As real as it gets may be a joke. But it is just a PC game. I like the fact that I can make my own airports and my own airline and fly all over the world. Is it realistic? Of course not. But it sure is fun.Bob
I agree with you.Im not a pilot. I grew up wanting to be a pilot but flight sim is the closest I have and will get.I get alot of enjoyment out of FS. I dont know what is not supposed to be there and what should be there.I just have fun. Its come a long way from flat green ground (didnt it start out as 'magenta'?) with only Chicago, New York, San Fran, and the other two ( i cant remember). I think it sgreat to have mountains and trees and clouds and sky and I love to see the birds and the AI traffic. It would be nice if the 'deluxe' version came with more realism as opposed to more aircraft and an SDK. Let everyone have the aircraft and the SDK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...it is just a PC game.
It can be approached that way, although it can't long be appreciated in a similar frame of mind as is typical of interactions in popular gaming titles (like World of Warcraft for example). There are many arcade and combat games with aviation themes. Microsoft addresses differing markets too, with separate titles like Combat Flight Simulator that employ more crude, or arcade-like dynamics. That FSX and its antecedents are seen on the same retail shelves as shallower games (in terms of aviation simulation fidelity) does not mean that there is no difference.Of course FSX is largely a recreational simulation, and there's nothing wrong with that. In real life I'm involved in general aviation- flying that is for transportation, but also (for the majority of aircraft owners and pilots) is really for the sheer love of flying. That doesn't mean that we expect less of our airplanes in terms of flight behavior and controllability when we're flying for fun. I don't think many real-world pilots would persist in flying an airplane with yaw-control issues, provided the flights were strictly casual.
I grew up wanting to be a pilot but flight sim is the closest I have and will get.
That's a very unfortunate attitude that I wish you would reconsider. There are pilots everywhere who enjoy sharing the experience with people who show up at local airports with nothing more than a little bit of the world's most precious currency: Enthusiasm. That's really all it takes to get up there.If you showed up at my airport tomorrow, I would take you up (at no charge) as I often do after meeting persons interested. For those who want to get a feel for the flight controls, I have evolved a routine. First, I like to get the airplane trimmed out for hands-off flight- Rigged that way if necessary, too (I'm also an A&P). The first thing I like to make understood is the equilibrium of straight and level flight. Then we progressively explore how the airplane responds to our inputs on all 3 axes of flight. I'm always careful to emphasize rudder usage and coordination from the start, because it becomes vitally important for those who become aviators, and primacy is golden in flight instruction.On intro flights I introduce airplane yaw behavior like this: From straight and level medium-slow flight, and applying no other control pressures (and feet OFF the rudder pedals) we waggle the stick or yoke left and right. Left and right, watching how the airplane responds. To become more closely aware of the response, we look at a reference point on or near the horizon ahead, and relate it to a dot (or sometimes my finger) on the windshield. What a lot of folks don't expect to happen now transpires: Stick or yoke goes left, and the wings waggle accordingly left (OK) but the nose swings... right; the nose initially swings to the right, in the opposite direction as the controls were moved. At slower airspeeds the amount the nose swings the "wrong" way is often very surprising for those who haven't explored it. "Adverse" yaw is discovered. A very important aviating insight is gained, and part of the tremendous importance of those moveable "footrests" is revealed.On subsequent lessons, pilots-in-training soon learn to roll on a point with me. That is, we master the ability to enter a turn at low speed without wallowing into it. A very effective exercise, that I introduce as early as possible, is rocking the wings gently between moderate banks left and right while holding a windshield reference spot on a distant point that we are visually "locked in" on. This can potentially be easier to demonstrate using a PC simulator, with parallax and dominant-eye considerations (which I do address in real fligh training) eliminated. With this mastered we practice entering co-ordinated turns by applying just the right amount of rudder to cancel out adverse yaw, in a subtle two-step. I put tremendous emphasis on this early in training, because I know that such emphasis produces far superior pilots. Rolling on a point is one of the first things I do getting to know a new aircraft, because it is the fastest way to get a feel for how the lady likes to be handled. Because these skills and this understanding can be learned and taught visually in the airplane, they can also be learned and taught in a simulator that reproduces airplane yaw behavior. The simple exercises of rolling on a point in slow flight, and of banking in slow flight without rudder inputs (adverse yaw demonstration) are both very revealing of a virtual aircraft's yaw-axis flight dynamics. Even with highly-swept and delta wing planforms, where direct roll coupling with yaw is pronounced, there is an easily-perceptible difference in simulations between fidelity and cheap tricks in the yaw axis. Although we don't typically have the kinesthetic feel for keel effect, virtual inclinometers do speak volumes about the a flight model's keel-effect behavior, which is also a defining component of any airplane's aerodynamic personality.Coordinated flight, and yaw-axes consciousness is not an esoteric part of flying, be it real or virtual. In situations all good pilots stay prepared for- such as maneuvering through an engine-out emergency into a confined landing space at minimal speed- coordinated flying skills can be vital. Accomplished pilots also employ uncoordinated flight for all sorts of purposes. Many are routine- like steep descents, cross-wind landings, aerial photography, and aerobatics. For any pilot who has gotten in touch with all 3 axes of flight, the interactions between them, and with the dynamic lift/weight/thrust/drag equation there's just no going back: Aviating becomes the mental state of being fully aware of what is happening in terms of flight axes and accelerations at all times. For aviators whose nuerons are so configured through experience and training, corrupted yaw behavior of airplanes in the flight simulation environment results in an uncomfortable and crippling experience.Flight simulation software developers owe it to their customers to simulate aircraft yaw behaviors and interactions just as faithfully as motion about the other two axes. Flight simulation has evolved into an expression and communication of our understanding of flight. FSX has a great deal going for it, and tremendous potential still to come as hardware advances allow these realistic virtual cockpits and worlds to come to life. Real-world pilots present and future are using PC flight simulation, and especially FSX to enhance their understanding. Although the FAA does not allow us to log the time spent, I know that FSX can be a useful tool for enhancing all levels of training, and even in maintaining IFR proficiency. It's become so much more than just a game.
Yaw input and response is as important as aileron, elevator, flap, power, thrust, AoI, an/dihedral, airfoil, washout, washin and so on.. It is largely ignored in the erroneous marketing assumption that "as long as it looks like an aeroplane, and it flies" it will sell. Somewhat of an insult, wouldn't you say?
Indeed. And while the bar is being raised significantly by Aerosoft, RealAir, and other developers, their very best efforts may still fall short unless and until something changes in FS or ESP core.
Have you ever tried the RealAir Simulations SF260? RealAir has been quite a few steps up in the "yaw" department for years now.
Yes, and while it's refreshingly closer (the Moths too) it's still not there, and I doubt it's for lack of trying on the part of add-on developers. I would very much like to hear from those in the know about what the specific limitations are deep within FSX and legacy versions, that make yawing fidelity so difficult. We're enjoying so many advances in experientially-immersing flight simulation (I recently made the revelatory jump into head-tracking hardware). I too very much enjoy all the latest eye-candy, and I enjoy every FSX mission I can fly, from the most frivolous to the most rigidly checkride-serious challenge. Still the yaw axis remains a singularly glaring area of neglect in flight simulation. I suspect (and it's my hope) that the more customers understand what they're missing, the greater the demand and likelihood will become for a remedy. Microsoft may have ESP, but they're a market-driven corporation. So I welcome all possible discussion here about the yaw-axis aspects of flying airplanes in both real and virtual worlds, wherever such discussion can be raised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly agree with the initial comments and those that follow about the need for more realistic flight dynamics. And I am extremely happy that we have gotten some flight stability in the last two versions of the game that was sorely lacking previously.There are some misconceptions in the general audience, however, and perhaps there are other points to consider.1. The "bean counters", "suits", or marketing executives do not determine the content or the release schedule of Flight Simulator. The developers have those responsibilities, and while the head of the Microsoft Games Studio must often get upset at delays, it is the developers who make the decisions, particularly concerning the features included.2. Most users of FS, including most here at Avsim, are not pilots, will never be pilots, and therefore have little idea of how real airplanes handle. While many claim to want a realistic experience, by the very nature of their (our) ignorance, they do not know what that is.3. The flight model in FS is extremely difficult to manipulate, and creating highly realistic flight dynamics requires both a high level of knowledge in aerodynamics and also in the very complex FS flight model. The number of people who can create good flight models can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand.4. If the developers at ACES do not create better flight models, it is most likely not because they are incapable of doing so, or because they are too busy drawing seals and bushes and eagles. The developer(s) who handle flight dynamics are not the same as those in the Art Department, or in Weather, or in the core engine, or in Terrain, so their time is not taken up by other chores unrelated to flight models. The problem is most probably a lack of time and resources.The developers are busy now with another title, and when that is finished and all the Service Packs are released, they will pass on to Flight Simulator for which they will have perhaps a year and a half of development time allotted before release. This is simply not enough time for creating and fine tuning multiple flight models and inevitably they are far from perfect.However, it is interesting that the majority of users (who are not pilots, of course) believe that the flight models have been "dumbed down" and that FS aircraft are easier to fly than real airplanes, when the opposite is true. FS flight models are unstable and difficult to fly compared to the real thing, whether on the ground or in the air, whether comparing yaw, roll, trim, or any other aspect of flight.5. While I agree with the comments of the initial poster, it seems to me that he, and all others, would get a better idea of the difficulties of the task if he would attempt making a better flight model that does re-create those aspects of flight that he feels are lacking. He would probably learn that this requires deep knowledge of aerodynamics and infinite and tedious testing of different variables. Not an easy or fun task.Best regards.Luis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sirs,Excellent discussion. There are some sharp people on this forum. It makes good reading for the rest of us. :( Keep it up, maybe someday your suggetions will manifest in a better product for all.Bill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still the yaw axis remains a singularly glaring area of neglect in flight simulation. I suspect (and it's my hope) that the more customers understand what they're missing, the greater the demand and likelihood will become for a remedy. Microsoft may have ESP, but they're a market-driven corporation. So I welcome all possible discussion here about the yaw-axis aspects of flying airplanes in both real and virtual worlds, wherever such discussion can be raised.
Yes, I would agree that "yaw" is more than not, neglected in flight simulations. But I don't think of it as a priority compared to other needs. In fact, I believe I can safely say, that the majority of simmers do not have rudder pedals, and frankly, I don't like the use of twist grips. For the record, about the first thing I notice with every new plane, is how it tracks down the runway & climb after takeoff, when considering is it a single engine, etc. With the majority of singles, that "feel" of a force pulling to the left, which requires a near constant right rudder pedal force, is usually missing. It was done much better with the single engine fighters of Microsoft's Combat 1 & 2, as well as FS2000. I certainly wouldn't mind the "old feel" brought back. In my opinion the RealAir Spit does a rather well job though; and better than the SF260.When it comes to "yaw" in flight, it's all realitive to the aircraft, and differs widely. As an example, I own and fly a Van's RV6A. It's very spirited on takeoff; pushes you back into the seat as it quickly accelerates, and requires lot's of right rudder down the runway and initial climb. With the last third of throttle, you can even feel the torque (roll) effects to the left. However, for turns; it requires no or little rudder to remain coordinated. That's because it has short "low aspect" ratio wings, and "frize" ailerons that dip down into the lower airstream to counteract yaw. Yet it manuvers like a lively small fighter. It's "yaw" in turns is purely the opposite of the long high aspect ratio Diamond DA40's that I've flown. And where it's normal to lead with the aileron and keep coordinated with the rudder; the opposite was true in some very old ultra-lights that I flew. With those, you'd lead with rudder, and make up the difference with the roll axis, whether it was aileron or spoilers. Even typical Cessna high wings and Piper low wings react different in yaw.Although you touched lightly on the RealAir products which I suggested, I give them more credit than you do. The "slipping" ability is very good. Actually it's the best I've seen anywhere except for a few that use basically the same techniques. There is just a good stable "feel" as you slip, and a sense of forces against flight surfaces with no tendency to wander. The "rudder" also allows for some rather decent aerobatic manuvers such as hammerheads and knife edge, as well as tail slides. Not bad for a desktop sim! Now----------if we could just get the effect of G-forces! :( My point is this. If we fly the real airplane; then we are going to expect particular results when manipulating the control surfaces. It's the same as...........does the airplane pitch up with flap deployment, like a Cessna high wing; or pitch down, like my low wing RV. Most simmers wouldn't notice; and even the pitch up or down varies with real aircraft whether they're high or low wing. Once again, I admit, that the flap/pitch effects for a modeled airplane better be correct. I don't want a simulated RV pitching up, or a Cessna pitching down. However, as I've made the point; all planes do not act the same in turns, yaw wise; and all planes don't react the same with flap deployment. They vary greatly with required rudder down the runway and climb too! So.............unless you're flying the real McCoy, is it that nesessary to have simulated models duplicate the full size in extreme accuracy? Would I use a desktop sim to decide how I'm going to control the real one?..............no. Unless you're a pilot, you won't even get a sense of much of the "feel"..........as the pilot's brain can fill in some gaps. That is a fact! I think you need to fly the real plane, to realize what's required. If you don't, then it doesn't matter as much, as the "rules" vary widely.So...while "yaw" isn't as good as it could be; I think navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases for pre-practicing actual real life flights to un-known airports are of more importance. As I do fly in a mountain enviroment, I'm an actual fan of what some call "eye candy"... :( L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PadesatkaMy point about FSX being a game is this. I believe that in order for FSX to have the best of all worlds, it would have to be a much more expensive piece of software. Several hundred dollars at least. While that would make you, and others, happy, most of us would not bother. Graphics artists have high dollar programs, as do programers,and other vocations. Pilots, I would imagine, would jump on such software, and I think could better afford it than could I. I am a musician and, as I said ,I have high dollar music software. I also have a $50 program that is really not all close in performance.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I would agree that "yaw" is more than not, neglected in flight simulations. But I don't think of it as a priority compared to other needs. In fact, I believe I can safely say, that the majority of simmers do not have rudder pedals, and frankly, I don't like the use of twist grips. When it comes to "yaw" in flight, it's all realitive to the aircraft, and differs widely. The "rudder" also allows for some rather decent aerobatic manuvers such as hammerheads and knife edge, as well as tail slides. Not bad for a desktop sim! Now----------if we could just get the effect of G-forces! :( So...while "yaw" isn't as good as it could be; I think navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases for pre-practicing actual real life flights to un-known airports are of more importance. As I do fly in a mountain enviroment, I'm an actual fan of what some call "eye candy"... :( L.Adamson
Lots of good food, here, Larry, but I have to take a couple of small comments; we're talking about yaw, and the guys that have an impact on whether we have yaw (or not) are the aftermarket aircraft developers - at least of the aircraft you, I, and most folks in this discussion - fly. Microsoft's role has been one of creating a flexible environment with aircraft which will satisfy the average "street pilot", and for fifty bucks it does that pretty well. I don't fly those aircraft, so I don't care whether they yaw or not: for the purist there are our aftermarket devs. SibWings, RealAir, Eaglesoft, PMDG, Carenado, Shockwave/ASA don't get into navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases, so it has no impact on these developers. We can leave that to FlyTampa, UT, RC4, FSGenesis, HiFli, etc., The aircraft devs can - and most do, and here I'm saying the last six months - build pretty darned good flight models with some excellent degree of yaw/slip control exercised, and I believe I would be right in saying that the pioneering work of Rob and Sean is now more commonly being replicated into those newer FSX releases. I think also that those successful developers are paying far more attention to what is being said on forums like this, and they're finding out that it pays off. Just look at (and try!) Carenado's two recent offerings. In the early part of 2006 there was much teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing over the death of flight-simming, with developers going out of business because of FSX. I remember particularly George/FlyTampa saying many times this in a year-long post on their site. Well - FlyTampa isn't dead, and he's back in with a vengeance, and the sim is now far, far better than was FS9. We have better scenery, we have better graphics, we have better aircraft and we have better flight models.No - I think yaw control is alive and well. The devs know what we want, and they're beginning to build what we want.Now - along with your "G" forces - how do we get the smell of a well-used oxygen mask and a cockpit into the sim.... :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I own and fly a Van's RV6A... However, for turns; it requires no or little rudder to remain coordinated. That's because it has short "low aspect" ratio wings, and "frize" ailerons that dip down into the lower airstream to counteract yaw. Yet it manuvers like a lively small fighter. It's "yaw" in turns is purely the opposite of the long high aspect ratio Diamond DA40's that I've flown. And where it's normal to lead with the aileron and keep coordinated with the rudder...
You've got a wonderful bird. I'm a big fan of the Van's series- beautiful, fantastic performance, and the handling that is honest and conventional. RVs certainly do exhibit adverse yaw, that is most pronounced in slow flight- and it is no less pronounced than in comparable airplanes. I've gotten to know the RV-4 well, and I've only been in the 6 and 8 a few times (Flight Reviews and hops)- and I've seen how the personality carries through the entire series. Frise ailerons (also common on Cessnas and many other airplanes) are set up to cancel most adverse yaw at higher (cruising) speeds/lower AoAs. It's true that in a narrow cruising airspeed range, and with gentle aileron application, reasonably-coordinated turns can be made with feet on the floor (or no rudder control pressure applied). But in slower flight in your RV, it is not possible to remain coordinated without using proportional rudder. As I trust you're aware, approaching critical angle of attack a pilot's coordination (or lack of it) will dramatically alter where the airplane goes, and even thoroughly-honest RVs have presented nasty surprises for pilots whose stick and rudder skills were found deficient ...sometimes tragically. Reviewing slow-flight in your airplane (something all pilots should regularly do, and from a safe altitude of course) try this exercise: From level flight at 50 knots, wag the stick left and right, with nearly full deflection, and with a period of about one second... and watch which way the nose tracks in your RV-6A: It will slew opposite your aileron inputs. If you ever operate your RV on ice, or experience a steering challenge on the ground (I sometimes operate from frozen lakes) you can use adverse yaw to enhance (blanketed) rudder steering in situations of zero tire traction. Banking the RV-6 left and right in slow flight, (keeping your reference point straight ahead on the horizon) requires significant rudder inputs. In everyday flying a visceral awareness of the yaw axis makes you much safer in short-field and emergency situations. I don't like to teach "leading" any control in maneuvering, because I think it contributes to a too-mechanical mentality about applying control pressures. Even in gliders, I don't teach "leading" with rudder. I often spend considerable time un-teaching such notions with flight students I have inherited from other instructors. We have yaw strings and inclinometers to enhance seat-of-the-pants awareness of coordinated flight, and rudder applications in that regard can't be simplified to leading/not leading or using/not using the rudder. Mastering coordinated flight throughout the envelope, and maintaining that skill is a visceral exercise, and certainly not definable as "move-this-then-that", or "move-this-but-not-that". Bank your RV-6A in slow flight (keeping your reference point straight ahead on the horizon) back and forth from moderate banks, and you'll surely require significant rudder application, and be reminded of what I'm talking about here. If you've been checked out in all the recoveries from aerobatic "oops"es (safe spin and dive recoveries) then practice toward mastery of the Slow Roll- you'll soon find yourself putting in nearly full top rudder twice through the maneuver, to keep the nose/longitudinal axis on point where it belongs. The RV-6 is a rudder airplane, if you're enjoying it throughout its wide operating envelope. Even if you mostly use it like a Cessna, frequently revisiting slow-flight exercises is sure to enhance your enjoyment and safety.If we compare the flight behavior in the best FSX airplanes available today with your RV-6, we can find reasonable simulations of the results of pitch and power control inputs. But adverse yaw in response to aileron, and the entire world of slips, axial rolls and knife-edge are mostly if not entirely misrepresented in FS (in my experience).
I don't want a simulated RV pitching up, or a Cessna pitching down [with flaps deployment].
Would you also like for torque effects to be eliminated? Auto-coordination? Then go to Realism Settings, and start sliding things left. I do understand that some virtual pilots don't want to be troubled with/have scant interest in realism. Microsoft understands this too, and that is why they have provided those realism sliders. As the state of the art advances, I hope that there will be degrees of realism available that will satisfy those who are interested in the personalities of particular airplanes through history. I also hope that as new enthusiasts advance in their skills, their curiosity will lead them to move those realism sliders to the right. I would like for the future of flight simulation to develop vivid expressions and preservations of how particular airplanes really are and were. I abhor the compartmentalization of aviation pursuits from hobbies to professional flying. Elitism and suggestions of divisions between aspects of aviation enjoyment discourage learning, growth, social networking, and are just bad for business all across the board. Varying degrees of interest are and can be addressed in flight sim software. It's certainly more customizable than the written word, where people miss out on so much because they sometimes make hasty assumptions that a discussion is entirely over their heads.
I think navigation, new up to date GPS sytems, and even terrain/ airport data-bases for pre-practicing actual real life flights to un-known airports are of more importance.
I'm appreciative of that. These aspects have been under vigorous development, and there's much to celebrate in those regards. I use FSX to practice approaches before shooting them in real weather and real airplanes. It's been very useful to me, and my students. But when will something as fundamental as how an airplane wags its tail get comparable attention?
in order for FSX to have the best of all worlds, it would have to be a much more expensive piece of software. Several hundred dollars at least.
FS has continually evolved incredible complexity, and remained profitable without a hefty retail price. In this thread we're talking about enhancing the simulation of a fundamental axis of aircraft motion to match the fidelity already provided in the other motions. Compared with the eye candy (and again I too love eye candy) this is not too much to ask, but rather a question of popular demand in priorities.
I am a musician and, as I said ,I have high dollar music software. I also have a $50 program that is really not all close in performance.
There is no high-dollar PC software that provides decent yaw-axis realism AFAIK. There isn't anything better for the PC platform for any price. Microsoft FS has been the vanguard of desktop flight simulation, and their product remains unsurpassed in terms of flight dynamics by the FAA-approved Flight Training Devices that I use as an instructor. That's why I recommend it to my flying students. For all the bloatware issues of do-everything software, the FS series has offered tremendous value for a wide spectrum of users. Microsoft remains the leading product so far, but (as I've already mentioned) I am keenly interested in any product that takes flight dynamics even more seriously.
...yaw control is alive and well. The devs know what we want, and they're beginning to build what we want.
It's so encouraging that there is progress. I still can't help wondering if there's some gap in the underlying Microsoft engine that presents difficulty for the best flight-dynamics developers. Do MSFS add-on developers deal with the parameters and interactions of yaw in the same way, and with the same flexibility as pitch and roll?
The aircraft devs can - and most do, and here I'm saying the last six months - build pretty darned good flight models with some excellent degree of yaw/slip control exercised, and I believe I would be right in saying that the pioneering work of Rob and Sean is now more commonly being replicated into those newer FSX releases.
That's good news. I would be very interested in the evaluation of flight dynamics here, especially the yaw behavior of specific virtual aircraft giving credit where it's due. This would help inform my own buying decisions. Good input and participation here could might also be useful even for developers. In my next post, I'll take a look at yaw behavior of Carenado's C-152. I own a Cessna 150, and I'll compare what Carenado has done with that. I also own a (real) Citabria, the 7KCAB model: Fuel-injected, Christen inverted oil system, and smoke (!). It's a versatile airplane that serves well (and can earn its keep) as an introductory tailwheel and aerobatics trainer and glider tug. And it's so much fun to fly just for the fun of it. I would welcome suggestions here of what add-on I should buy, that represents the state-of-the-art in simulating the Citabria.Flight simulation is a relatively new language of flying, and has come a long way in so many dimensions. Not everyone takes a deep interest in flight dynamics, and those who approach flight simulation more casually have no cause for considering improved flight dynamics pretentious. There's ample accommodation for everyone, all along the Realism Slider. It's my hope that the widest possible collaboration in ideas will help improve the experience for all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'm just an ignorant non-pilot, but what I remember from my few minutes in the DC 10 trainer was the way the plane felt in my hands. The resistance in the yoke. I don't have a force feedback setup, and I don't know how well they work. That "feel of the plane" seems important to me.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of us are surely aware that the vertical axis has been woefully neglected by developers
I disagree witch such blanket statements. There are quite a few examples of simulated aircraft under FS with quite satisfactory rudder response. But even if sometimes 'yaw' is not at the top of priority it should be understandable why - perhaps we should all recognize that these desktop simulators will never teach you aerobatics, this is not where their strength lies, the area where they can truly shine is as procedural IFR trainers. So whether it is a $60 FSX or a $300 Elite or a $50,000 Frasca simulator - you may not exactly get the best platform to learn fancy footwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are quite a few examples of simulated aircraft under FS with quite satisfactory rudder response.
Please list some examples- I'm looking out for the best ones to buy.
So whether it is a $60 FSX or a $300 Elite or a $50,000 Frasca simulator - you may not exactly get the best platform to learn fancy footwork.
Actually, I've found that Elite and Frasca are worse than FSX in the yaw department. It's surprising but true that IFR-specific and FAA-approved flight training devices have inferior flight dynamics, but the FAA is not much concerned with dynamic fidelity in their specifications. Expensive FAA-approved software conforms with a philosophy that is heavy on procedures training (which is good) but hail-mary when it comes to flight physics. Teaching in the FRASCA, especially in multi-engine training, I've had to be careful to not instill poor and even dangerous techniques- FRASCA sims will allow pilots to get away with things that could be lethal IRL. So as soon as the (very productive) procedures-training aspect is accomplished, it's best to get out of a FRASCA and into an airplane ASAP. Now, if the FRASCA better simulated flight dynamics, the FRASCA would be a considerably more useful device (and without any need for motion). Flight dynamics matter, and as the technology advances that is enabling ever more realism at lower cost, I do not agree with the intellectual inertia that proclaims "that's good enough, stop complaining". In comparison with the other axes of flight in today's software, the yaw behavior we're getting so far just isn't up to the same standards.
"we should all recognize that these desktop simulators will never teach you aerobatics"
I'm reluctant to agree with any arbitrary limitation on what can be taught in virtual reality. Obviously it isn't reasonable to say that simulation teaches you all you need to know about instrument approaches, or axial aileron rolls. But it is unreasonable to say that simulation cannot significantly enhance aerobatic instruction. I could really use a simulator that satisfactorily represented all axes of flight. For instance, stepping through maneuvers in detail in a simulated environment would immensely facilitate my explanation of correct techniques, and exponentially decrease the time it takes for a student to "get it" in terms of gestalt maneuver visualization. Cockpits are noisy, distracting classrooms for introducing material in. Of course we ultimately need to strap on a real airplane if we want to apply our skills in that dimension. But there is a need for a fuller expression of flight dynamics, beginning with an equal respect for the airplane's motion around the vertical axis.I may seem a small voice in the wilderness to some people, but I am convinced that expanding the flight simulation dynamic envelope will also expand the flight simulation market. And while the difference may seem subtle to casual "players" of the "game", advanced yaw fidelity will give them more too (whether they appreciate it or not). Obviously I'm not in charge of the flight sim universe. But if I were, I'd provide a healthy serving of flight dynamics for everyone, and not just eye-candy junk-food, because I believe that we are what we take in. I don't command an army of programmers, but I do know that responsiveness to particularly constructive criticism offers benefits to all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Padesatka Well, I guess I'm not sure what you're after. You are really preaching to the chior. We all want a better sim. This forum is full of wish lists. Instead, you need to talk to programers to see just what can be done. No one here can help you.Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said:I don't want a simulated RV pitching up, or a Cessna pitching down [with flaps deployment].Your reply:

Would you also like for torque effects to be eliminated? Auto-coordination? Then go to Realism Settings, and start sliding things left. I do understand that some virtual pilots don't want to be troubled with/have scant interest in realism. Microsoft understands this too, and that is why they have provided those realism sliders. As the state of the art advances, I hope that there will be degrees of realism available that will satisfy those who are interested in the personalities of particular airplanes through history. I also hope that as new enthusiasts advance in their skills, their curiosity will lead them to move those realism sliders to the right. I would like for the future of flight simulation to develop vivid expressions and preservations of how particular airplanes really are and were. I abhor the compartmentalization of aviation pursuits from hobbies to professional flying. Elitism and suggestions of divisions between aspects of aviation enjoyment discourage learning, growth, social networking, and are just bad for business all across the board. Varying degrees of interest are and can be addressed in flight sim software. It's certainly more customizable than the written word, where people miss out on so much because they sometimes make hasty assumptions that a discussion is entirely over their heads.
I think you misunderstood. I don't want a simulated RV pitching up----because it should pitch down. And I want to see a simulated Cessna pitch up.And BTW ----- I certainly don't fly an RV like a Cessna, and have done many spin recoveries in a Pitt's. I'm putting a 2nd comm/audio panel in the RV at the moment. When possible, I'll see how close your observations regarding slow flight....are.P.S. ---- I'll use the term "lead", because sometimes it's just the way it is. If I automatically add in some rudder in the RV as I move the stick for aileron, I must just get the "wrong" result, due to the previous stated facts, regarding less adverse yaw. The same applies to pitch in a turn. Should I automatically apply some back pressure, such as I would in a typical Piper or Cessna................the RV will just usually climb. Therefor, I'll lead the turn with aileron, and only maybe use back pressure..............if required.L.Adamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Padesatka , My thanks for one of the most illuminating threads i have had the good fortune of reading.I would consider any beta testing team fortunate to include your experience and moreover capacity to explain in a concise manner the points in question.If you are interested in putting into practice some of the insights offered on getting our axis in gear , ( could not resist >> you started punning ) i am sure the companies i develop aircraft for would greatly benefit from you insights as well as wit.Please consider sending me a PM , many thanks and best regards C.Jodry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites