LAdamson, on 10 Jul 2013 - 4:37 PM, said:

Fine, then here goes. Keep in mind, I've already been kicked off the X-Plane forum, just a month ago for this. My statements are not a troll. They are just honest to goodness knowledge on the subject. Perhaps I brought it up too much before, but it was always in response to a flight dynamics subject. I don't personally attack either, I think I'm fairly civil, but I do seem to irratate a few. On the other hand, I've recently read pages and pages of postings on different forums, going back to the last four years. It's surprising just how many developers & other respondants have been the ones to force the irratations.

 

All this searching & reading I've done in the last month, is not to discredit X-Plane as a whole, by any means. I think it's an interesting simulator, and would prefer to see it become even more realistic. I'm not just an FSX user. I have XP 8&9, as well as payware for those, and the XP10 demo. Thanks to research, I've just become much more interested in reading real life pilot reports for a very large variety of aircraft. The internet certainly makes it easy! I might spend two hours every late evening reading pilot reports. But then I always have. I must of aquired tons of aviation magazines in the past. I'm a speed reader.

 

The subject, relates to a sentence that you brought up, in this thread. "You will stick for the main part, and where simulating real world flight models, torque, yaw, atmospheric effects upon your air-frame...all of this, will become more important than the investment within FSX as a whole."

 

And just a few days ago, this comment was made. "Try to fly with the Mitsubishi Mu-2 1.5 or the BAE Jetstream 32 and you will learn very quickly where the trimwheels are located."

 

Besides these two quotes, there are many more, that go along the same lines. A usual response is learn to use trim. Especially aileron trim.

So here's something to make you 'chew the cud'....

 

The heavy senses of torque roll, after rotation, that exist within X-Plane, especially with some very popular models..........DON'T EXIST in real life. I read a sim review, in which a twin turbo prop plane was discussed, that didn't exhibit torque roll, even though it's props turned the same way. The review went on to question it's other flight dynamics, since this one appeared to be missing. Do enough reading, and it's plain to see, that many X-Plane users just accept the phenomenon as real, and quickly start turning those trim knobs to compensate. Some find it more to do, and therefor more challenging than FSX. If I was to test fly a real airplane ( which I've done BTW), I'd be wondering what's wrong, if the wing was still trying to dip towards the runway, after the wheels have cleared the ground. This should only occur in high power, low airspeed situations...........such as you'd find with go-arounds in high powered WWII fighters. In a normal takeoff sequence, the lift provided by the wings, as well as other adjustments such as offset engine mounts, outweigh the effects of torque. Other than that, just some light aileron control with the wheel or stick, should handle any "heavy" wing, until trimmed out. It shouldn't be anything like the forces we see to trim pitch or yaw. I know, that we've seen video's, etc. in support of the torque phenomenon. However, it's the wrong assumption, and I'll challange anyone, to find proof otherwise. I've read countless pilot reports, and talked to many pilots who fly high powered turbine airplanes, as well as those WWII fighters. Unless it's an engine out situation, torque becomes a less consequence of other forces. Do enough reading, and the most you'll find about "torque" as in torque steer or roll, will have to do with flight simulation, and not the real thing. You'll find plenty of references, when it comes to pushing a wing & wheel down on the roll, but you won't see a pilot report about the need to quickly throw in aileron trim to harness the effects of the engine trying to twist the plane in flight. I know that myself, as I've piloted aircraft, in which the torque is very noticeable on the roll.

 

So there it is. Food for thought. And I've highly thought out this subject myself. It's for the betterment of X-Plane to solve the problem. Win the WED prize, if that's what it takes. Unfortunately, I'll now sit and wonder about getting the boot again. I wasn't happy about the situation last time. I had made a response to a comical portion of the thread, which looked like it was written for me. My wife and I, both got a chuckle. I had to add my own cellphone generated smiley, since there is no access to the built in ones. Then all **** broke loose. There was no smirky smile on my face. I just signed off my cell-phone that very moment (at the lake), with it having the only current password. I didn't know about being "off" this board, until getting a new password, a few weeks later. I hope this is taken for the improvement of the sim, and not considered as a troll. But then you never know. At 62, I just don't get a real kick, of being annoying. As someone who's been involved with the experimental aircraft side of things for decades, I just care about getting things right. IMO--- it's just not a good thing to continually harp on the XP versus FSX thing. You know me............I'll always find something wrong with XP if need be. Just like I did, when I highly favored Pro-Pilot over FS98. Back then MSFS "sucked".....

 

L.Adamson

Larry...that was dam* GOOD POST. THIS is the kind of posting that everybody should have no fear to create. You are giving your honest thoughts to a thread or subject. THIS IS WHAT I COME TO AVSIM FOR!!!!! Not to read posts that are so antiseptic, so parsed, for fear of moderator intervention, or as you say...given the boot by 3rd party,subjective oversight. There was not ONE THING that I would find offense with, for give me a break....this is a hobby, and if a reader is going to be so anal and jam the REPORT button every time they don't agree with the posters viewpoint or sentiment...then perhaps it would be time to move on.... I hope that time never comes.

 

As a reader, and content supporter of this and any other AVSIM forum, I want to see more posts like this. You should be able to disagree with part, or anything that I stated as the O.P. That is what a forum is....discussion, and counterpoint. If there is none allowed, then as I see it, it is not a forum...it's the Berlin Wall.

 

Enjoyed the read, Larry, and since I'm not a real-world pilot, even though I have had some yoke-time inside a King Air (and BTW, there was no constant pressure for roll, AS YOU STATED!) It felt quite neutral as I banked right and left in sweeping 3 minute turns, and climbed or descended. That moment was a thrill-of-a-lifetime given to me by a pilot friend of mine. I must say, you did make me think back to that day, and again, you are right...there was no bank-right pressure to overcome for level flight. The turbines just purrrrrrrrred...and the King Air behaved superbly. The cud is chewed....and now I think you are most right. This tendency in XPlane might want to be looked at and tweaked by the developers.

 

Post Edit: Larry, I actually enjoy using any of my flight sims, and don't 'camp out' at one. My main thrust for my tongue-in-cheek 'warning' post, was that if you are using FSX and experience Flighttus-Interuptus...and have a 64 bit system and O.S., then try XPX,...and don't let your prior monetary investment be the reason NOT TO TRY IT...and for 99 percent of users, at 64 bit usage, they will no longer exhaust their available system RAM. If CTD using FSX was not such a fatal error with me...then I'd be using that at least with XPX as a 50/50 usage ratio. I feel badly for any FSX'er that won't even try XPX out with the needed time other than a cursory 'glance'....for I really feel they are NOT enjoying the full measure of this hobby that is out there. That is a personal opinion, and others will agree or disagree. Life in the happening, lol.

 

Cheers!

 

Mitch'er

Thankyou Mitch, and yes, anyone interested in flight simulation should give XP a try.

 

 

Guess what other sims have the same problem? FSX and FS9, MS FLIGHT (very criticized when a patch for the Maule was released and according to some made it unflyable because of the roll torque, FlightGear with even it's best FDM - JSBSim!!!

 

One thing though about FSX/FS9, if a model does over model torque/P-Factor in FSX or FS9, there is a realism setting with a sliding scale, to reduce their effect. XP doesn't have that!

One thing though about FSX/FS9, if a model does over model torque/P-Factor in FSX or FS9, there is a realism setting with a sliding scale, to reduce their effect. XP doesn't have that!

 

True, although you can do more or less the same using artificial stability... It gives you more work... and has some shortcomings such as your control surfaces moving and all of the consequences in terms of visuals and flight perfromance. Both are workarounds, but at least in FSX / FS9 the FDM takes care of those effects as dynamic pressure builds up anyway... Yes, it's better in all of the MSFS series I guess, specially in MS FLIGHT where even torque from the windmilling prop is simulated!

 

BTW: It's PERFECT in DCS :-))))  If only we could bring the DCS flight dynamics and systems modelling into X-Plane, or export Hmmm let me see... some of the weather effects from X-Plane to DCS World...

 

Well, it's monday anyway... DCS period beginning in my brain simulator :blink: ...  (is there a fix for this? Heeeeeeeeeeeelp!)

 

One thing though about FSX/FS9, if a model does over model torque/P-Factor in FSX or FS9, there is a realism setting with a sliding scale, to reduce their effect. XP doesn't have that!

From the org. today.......

 

 

 

I came from FSX too, I tried quite a few addon aircraft. I would say the best conventional aircraft for VFR&IFR

 

is the MU-2.

 

X-Plane has a feature (or bug) that causes planes to roll massively when changing power. On the J-32 and MU-2

 

you can set the props spinning in opposite direction to each other (set it in planemaker), this will give you

 

a stable and enjoyable flight.

Is this a bug on every twin engine plane or just those 2 planes?

It's a feature, called 'realism'.

Why making the planes unrealistic in planemaker? The MU-2 definitively has props spinning in the same direction in real life (the J-32, too? I don't know, but I suppose so). Thus it rolls (massively) in RL, too.

 

Coming from FSX, you have to learn flying from scratch in X-Plane (ok - I'm overstating a bit ).

As I said before, I'll challange anyone, to come up with proof, that this "torque roll" tugging... at your yoke or stick, exists. It doesn't, except for high power, low airspeed situations, in which dynamic forces (as Jcomm calls it) and effectiveness from ailerons & rudder are not yet high enough to counter the roll.

As a pilot in the real world and many hours in the Cessna 172, I have said all along from XP8 thru XP10 that it doesn't fly like the real plane at all.  But I will stick with XP10 because I feel it is the future due to hardware support of new pc's and such.  I fly both FSX and XP10.  I have a few CTD's in both but not often.  I get great frame rates in both as well with lots of add-ons and settings set pretty high.    Just to reiterate, in the new Cessna 172's I flew, in calm to low winds there was never a need to counteract rolling like it does in XPX.  

 

Rob