Auto-rudder?

[xplanery 250]

Just installed X plane 10. Works fine, but when I add some turbulence my rudder goes crazy and moves from far right to far left all time. I guess that this is autorudder function, but I have added yaw axis from my pedals so it should not be on? Any idea whats the problem?

[greggerm 312]

With the X-Plane 10 demo, I have yet to figure out how to turn an auto-rudder function ON, nevermind off... In asking questions out here, I don't think that XP10 actually has an auto-rudder function like MSFS does. (Still saving up for a new set of pedals to replace my broken ones)There are some stability settings in the control calibration areas - perhaps your yaw/rudder axis is set to be very stable, and thus some sort of automatic compensation is taking place?-Greg

[Murmur 3,940]

Just installed X plane 10. Works fine, but when I add some turbulence my rudder goes crazy and moves from far right to far left all time. I guess that this is autorudder function, but I have added yaw axis from my pedals so it should not be on? Any idea whats the problem?

I think it's not the autorudder function, but it's the artificial stability the author added to the aircraft. If you go in the failure screens, search for artificial stability and then fail it, the rudder fluctuations should cease. Also, now the aircraft flight behaviour should be much different than before.Marco

[GoranM 3,762]

You could also turn off artificial stability in the aircraft through Planemaker. From memory, I think it's under the "Expert" tab in "Special Equipment".

[Alec 370]

I remember reading that the Carenado Bonanza, the one everybody loves, has artificial stability, and once you turned it off, it flies like any other X-Plane airplane. Is that true? That would seem to be like a shortcut for the developer to increase the stability without going through the right steps, or am I wrong?

[GoranM 3,762]

I remember reading that the Carenado Bonanza, the one everybody loves, has artificial stability, and once you turned it off, it flies like any other X-Plane airplane. Is that true? That would seem to be like a shortcut for the developer to increase the stability without going through the right steps, or am I wrong?

Correct.For developers who want to take short cuts, or who don't know what they're doing, they use artificial stability. It does the job, but (and some X Plane dev's will disagree with me) it's a hack that has no business in an add on unless it's in the real aircraft.

[Alec 370]

That's what I thought... That sucks, the only plane I bought for X-Plane is an illusion!!Hope next time I can get the real deal

[GoranM 3,762]

That's what I thought... That sucks, the only plane I bought for X-Plane is an illusion!!Hope next time I can get the real deal

There are plenty of add ons that dont use this "cheat". Unfortunately, I can't post them because it would be classed as advertising, but feel free to message me and I will give you a list if you want.

[LAdamson 240]

There are plenty of add ons that dont use this "cheat". Unfortunately, I can't post them because it would be classed as advertising, but feel free to message me and I will give you a list if you want.

Over the last few years, I've used artificial stability with numerous X-Plane aircraft. They were just too far from being anywhere close to realistic, without it.I don't feel it's a "cheat" in any way or any form. I've never felt that X-Plane emulates real aircraft, to the point that it doesn't need something artifical, in one form oranother. After all, the whole program is artificial. There is no real flowing air anywhere, except across the CPU's fan. When the day comes, that X-Plane can replicate all forces that a real airplane encounters, and models them perfectly, then I'll consider a "cheat" a cheat. If the Carenado Bonanza is using artificial stability, then good for it!L.Adamson

[GoranM 3,762]

Over the last few years, I've used artificial stability with numerous X-Plane aircraft. They were just too far from being anywhere close to realistic, without it.I don't feel it's a "cheat" in any way or any form. I've never felt that X-Plane emulates real aircraft, to the point that it doesn't need something artifical, in one form oranother.

Maybe that's because you shelled out money on the lower end of the quality spectrum.

After all, the whole program is artificial. There is no real flowing air anywhere, except across the CPU's fan. When the day comes, that X-Plane can replicate all forces that a real airplane encounters, and models them perfectly, then I'll consider a "cheat" a cheat. If the Carenado Bonanza is using artificial stability, then good for it!L.Adamson

So you're saying X Plane does NOT replicate thrust, lift, drag and gravity?? Even FSX replicates those forces. Albeit in a more rudimentary way.And I think it's safe to say that everyone agrees with me when I say this, but not even a Level D sim can replicate all the forces on an aircraft perfectly.The artificial stabiliser is a cheat for people who don't know how to create a flight model properly without it. It does the job somewhat ok. But personally, I prefer to do things properly.And what's even funnier is I know exactly where they go wrong. But let's just keep that to myself. :(

[greggerm 312]

Well, I find this to be a TRAVESTY of epic proportions. Carenado should REMOVE THEMSELVES IMMEDIATELY from all X-Plane development and never look back, as they aren't worthy enough to develop functional airplanes without shortcuts and cheats.I, for one, am shocked (SHOCKED!) that such a fine and upstanding development group as Carenado would not at all know what they were doing and try to sell their wares to unsuspecting customers. And these customers were ever so duped into believing that they were flying good products! Even our own Geofa, who flies a Bonanza himself, was duped into thinking that the Carenado X-Plane version of his aircraft felt and flew closer to the real thing than anything that has come before it for a desktop simulator. Clearly he was wrong and his impressions of the product were grossly incorrect, considering Carenado used cheats and shortcuts to achieve what we now learn is nothing more than a hollow achievement.I'm calling the Better Business Bureau posthaste. They will rue the day they tried to sell us poorly written flight simulation add ons! After all, we're told that we cannot judge X-Plane by the aircraft that are included in the demo/box because they are poorly written, and now we learn that one of the premier examples of how great X-Plane can fly is also a poorly written piece of festering cheat-code. Umbrage! Outrage!!(exasperated sigh...)(Editing to add that this post contains a ridiculous heaping of sarcasm, and in no way am I actually calling out Carenado or peoples impressions of the product. I simply find it very interesting that even when you release a product that can be strongly argued to be one of the best representations of the real thing, you can get criticized for apparently not doing it correctly.)

Edited February 22, 2012 by greggerm

[jasonX 24]

An xplane developer does the flight models for Carenado. I'm fairly sure Geof is very well aware of everything. Also there are many ways to skin a cat. I know what you are saying is tongue in cheek but I for one consider it in poor taste. Everyone is fully entitled to their opinions on the best way to go about things. It's likely true there is a best way to get somewhere but some get there by a different route. The point being they still get there.There are too many here just waiting in the wings to pounce on anything they possibly can.

[wb5okj 26]

:( Keep ON stirring the pot.

[Geofa 108]

..uhhh Geof has not been in this discussion.However, I am going to state that the Carenado aircraft are the only Ga aircraft I've flown in xplane (and I have been around since version 1) that fly with stability that is required of all aircraft to be certified. If they did not exist I would not be flying xplane 10-now it is my sim of choice. I'd sure like more that fly like them though.As for a "cheat"-I would think most would do whatever is necessary to get the end result right. I call that smart.

[Alan_A 1,650]

I'm not sure I understand the argument that reappears from time to time that because X-Plane attempts to model airflow over a surface, it's inherently accurate and not to be tampered with.As Larry Adamson points out above, X-Plane doesn't move real air over real surfaces - it represents airflow and surfaces mathematically. A mathematical model involves assumptions, and assumptions can introduce errors.In Formula 1 racing - another pursuit I keep track of - there are constant problems with the modeling of airflow. Modeling results don't match wind tunnel results, and wind tunnel results don't translate to the track. Honda's 2008 wind tunnel was calibrated incorrectly - the outcome was a disaster and led directly to Honda's withdrawal from Formula 1. Virgin Racing designed its first car using only computer modeling, because they coudn't finance a wind tunnel. The car they produced was abysmal. So clearly, very skilled, very highly paid people in an intensely competitve meritocracy failed when they tried to generate accurate results using computer models of aerodynamics.Isn't it likely that there are similar errors - not only in the flight dynamics of particular X-Plane aircraft, but in the basic airflow modeling of X-Plane itself?And if that's so, why shouldn't an aircraft developer correct the errors? An adjustment that addresses a flaw in the airflow modeling might produce an aircraft that performs more accurately. The adjustment is only a "cheat" if you assume that the X-Plane airflow model is, to quote another computer, "foolproof and incapable of error."Am I missing something?