10.30 b6... the best news, at least for me...

[jcomm 5,939]

Reading along the long list that was posted for beta 6, my eyes concentrated over those fixes to the claculations for "plugin-added forces".

 

My guess is that these datarefs were added to x-plane 10 because Austin found that it was the best way to give aircraft devs the way to customize all of the detailed aerodynamic effects, specially for prop aircraft with the overdone torque effect.

 

I even guess, that this might well be requested by some major player comming to XP10 with new add-ons :ph34r:

 

While I didn't find at some of the more technical XP forums any mention to devs using this new datarefs, truth is someone is really trying to use it, because otherwise Austin wouldn't have fixed what was wrong with the previous beta ( it didn't account for situations where we're running at more than 1 flight model per frame - I personaly used to set it at 3, although I would prefer 4, but 4 affects my fps a lot....).

 

Well, for me, and very honestly, together with some lines from Austin's interview posted this weekend regarding weather effects changes, this are some of the more tempting advances comming to XP10 :-)

[ohsirus 241]

Haven't heard much feedback on the torque roll fix, I still find my planes rolling more than I think they should. 

[jcomm 5,939]

Haven't heard much feedback on the torque roll fix, I still find my planes rolling more than I think they should. 

 

I'm sure they still do, but this additional datarefs will allow talented aircraft designers to tweak those effects, because they'll be able to apply rolling moments at strategic points of the aircraft to overcome the roll due to torque, and add a bit more of yaw, like IRL.

[captain420 3,099]

Is this torque effect for prop planes realistic behaviour? I've never flown a real life aircraft so I can't say. But I always find that when going down the runway I have to apply a lot of left rudder to comepensate for the right hand pull.

 

It's quite annoying. Is there a way to fix this, and if this is a bug, I hope Laminar is well aware of this.

[jcomm 5,939]

Is this torque effect for prop planes realistic behaviour? I've never flown a real life aircraft so I can't say. But I always find that when going down the runway I have to apply a lot of left rudder to comepensate for the right hand pull.

 

It's quite annoying. Is there a way to fix this, and if this is a bug, I hope Laminar is well aware of this.

 

Very realistic, in as far as takeoff and application of rudder goes.

 

Not quite so realistic in as far as sideslip ( too tame IMO )  due to prop effects goes, as well as roll due solely to torque ( overdone ). 

Apparently XP10 over-models  the roll and under-models the sideslip ( and yes, the sideslip would also cause roll if not countered, specially in aircraft with higher dihedral )

 

That's why, I believe, this new 10.30 datarefs were added, but the aircraft designers will have to take care of that themselves, using lua scritps or other programming tools.

 

Just imagine PMDG's first add-on for XP10 was a DC6, or another powerful prop aircraft without counter rotating props.... I guess they would not accept the present state of the art, so, their programmers would most probably use this new datarefs, and even add the yaw/sideslip that is very faint in xp10 at high power / high AoA situations.

 

But again, yes, the need for right rudder ( even in the absence of x-wind from the left ), sometimes a good deal of it depending on the aircraft, during the takeoff run, is very realistic.

 

Not realistic is the aircraft (every type ) overdone tendency to weathervane, while taxiing. Even the mildest winds can make you use a good deal of rudder input, at taxi speeds, and this affects not only your C172, but also that huge 777, unless art stab is being used in plane maker ( and then you'll be able to see the rudder flapping like mad during taxi :huh:  ). Again, the new datarefs can help fixing this!

 

It appears to me that this should be the way to go, instead of editing the "prop" dataref that directly affects the torque, but is obsolete and will probably become unavailable for values other than -1 and 1, for expressing the CW / CCW rotation of a prop.

 

As a matter of fact that great Sbach 300 available from XPFR has long found a way around the limitations of X-Plane's FDM, using "puffs" to do it's job. I guess the author would welcome these new datarefs and use them in a future release ?