I have been testing the results of the torque fix in X-Plane 10. Installed a "thin" copy of XP10 latest beta on an external SSD disk, with minimal scenery and just FSGRW weather injcetor, and tested the default C172 and a few other, by opening them on Plane Maker and then saving.

 

Asked LES to reactivate my downloads for what I still consider to be the best prop aircraft ( together with the Fellis IL-14 ) for X-Plane 10 - the remarkable LES DC-3, LES Mitsubishi MU-2J, and LES Cessna Corvalis C400 which had long been expired because I haven't been using X-Plane 10 for quite a while... BTW, as usual their ticket-based support worked fast and effective and I had the links in a few hours, specially considering I opened the ticket on a Sunday - great support! 

 

I knew the authors of the three aircraft designed them pretty much based on RW data for the airfoils, and didn't use any hidden fixes to overcome the "torque bug", hopping for a fix from the developers in the future, and this way not risking weird effects when the internal engine got fixed.

 

I am satisfied with the results of a few flights, with all of the three aircraft.  Although my preferred ever add-on for X-Plane 10 is still the LES DC-3  ( something special about it, I think it just lacks the smell from the exhaust pipes :-) ) the Mu-2J is now so harmonious, and pretty much trim and forget, over a wide range of power settings, that I confess it risks getting an ex-aequo with the DC-3...

 

But of course the DC-3 is also feeling just right, even if it was already one of the few aircraft I had used during the torque bug Era without much problems.

 

Regarding the fix, I am satisfied with the outcome, testing with the three add-ons mentioned above, but still look forward for some sort of "increased" yawing moments due to prop effects. 

 

The "CTRL-M" ( repeat to cycle among the various outputs ), is the proof of concept of X-Plane, IMO. I know it doesn't show everything exhaustively, but it gives us a very good idea of what "forces" are affecting an aircraft model at a given time, for a given flight regime. It looks to me, but I can be wrong because I do not have an older version of the sim installed for comparison, that the propwash effect on the main wings, particularly in the sections directly behind the prop, also got some update, actually also contributing to overcome the torque ?

 

What can I say ?  Well - I can say that if I get back to X-Plane 10 my next add-on will finally be the SaaB 340.... :-)

Good to hear that the DC-3 is working nicely!

Does the torque fix also affect ground handling? I always thought that the LES DC-3 was awful while on the ground, just like many other taildraggers in XP10. The only exception being the SMS DHC-2 which (I think) has a plugin for better ground handling.

Die I get it right, you ran the MU-2 through Planemaker and it fixed the hard core torque effect? Did you change the trim settings before you saved it again? Thanks for your help.

The MU-2J automatically set's aileron trim and flaps when you start the aircraft with the engines running in X-Plane.

 

I believe you do not really have to open ( probably shouldn't even do it... ) in Plane-Maker before using it with te new beta, because I believe I got the same results before and after opening and saving with the new PM.

 

What happens now when you fly the aircraft is that you do not need to constantly play with the aileron trim at each power setting adjustment because, due to the update to the core torque calculation, the aircraft is a lot more harmonious to fly, and pretty much trim and forget...

Hm, I'm not convinced this is what everybody should do. Most payware aircraft involve a lot of custom code, plugins etc. to achieve the behaviour the developers wanted to (going the way of reverse engineering). Just opening and saving in latest planemaker 10.45b will probably have results that are different from what is expected or intended. And I'm afraid threads like this (I feel, I think, I guess...) will just add to the general confusion about torque bug/fix.

It might be better to ask the developers directly about what to do or not to do. If necessary they will provide updates for sure.

 

By the way: The MU-2 was not designed by LES but by x-scenery (aka Tom Kyler).

 

Best

Flo

Thx Flo for your thoughts, and yes, the MU-2J is not LES...

 

Regarding the way aircraft are implemented, the modules I bought and used are well known to me - have been around for a while, so, I know what I am talking about....

 

I do not own the SaaB, and the author did already answer saying this one, in particular, shouldn't be edited.

 

Regarding the MU-2J, on a thread at the X-Pilot forum, Tom was glad to find out it worked ok in the new beta... He didn't recommend not to save it or not...

 

Also, AFAIK, Goran hasn't said anything similar regarding the dc-3....

 

I just didn't find any difference between using the either the MU-2J or the dc-3 with or without saving in plane maker, which actually was not a surprise...

 

Regarding the torque bug / fix, I don't think there is anything that special about it specially after Murmur found torque was being added twice in X-Plane's FDM... 

 

I still look forward for a future update regarding yaw due to prop effects though...

This is what I had read from Ben's blog:

 

 

In order to get the new correct physics, you must resave your aircraft in Plane-Maker 10.45 beta 1.

We have heard of authors doing a number of things to lower the effects of prop torque in old versions of X-Plane, including having plugins apply a counter-torque and tweaking the physics parameters of the aircraft itself. Because we cannot know if an aircraft has such work-arounds applied, the prop torque fix is applied only to aircraft resaved in 10.45 beta 1 or newer. This way the fix takes affect when an aircraft author can remove work-arounds.

 

From what I gather, not only must the aircraft be resaved in 10.45, but the reason why this was done was to allow aircraft devs to remove any special tweaks they might have applied.  So to me, it sounds like if you take a 3rd party aircraft that has had special things done to it to counter the existing bug, and resave it yourself in 10.45 Planemaker, you're still not going to get the proper result - you'll get the official fix applied in addition to whatever means the dev used to counter the original bug, which could in effect be overkill, or result in other issues.

This is what I had read from Ben's blog:

 

 

From what I gather, not only must the aircraft be resaved in 10.45, but the reason why this was done was to allow aircraft devs to remove any special tweaks they might have applied.  So to me, it sounds like if you take a 3rd party aircraft that has had special things done to it to counter the existing bug, and resave it yourself in 10.45 Planemaker, you're still not going to get the proper result - you'll get the official fix applied in addition to whatever means the dev used to counter the original bug, which could in effect be overkill, or result in other issues.

 

Exactly. That would happen for instance if we save any Carenado or the LES SaaB, and shouldn't be done that way - instead one should wait for the devs update.

 

But! The aircraft I played with are using the default flight dynamics model only, with no plugins tweaking the flight dynamics, no "puffers" no nothing...

My understanding is that Xplane 0.45 uses the "uncorrected" default flight dynamics for any .acf earlier than Planemaker 0.45.  That would be the case for all aircraft (those with and without plugin tweaking is irrelevant) and makes sense to be fully backwards compatible with all aircraft.  Xplane 0.45 will use the "corrected" default flight dynamics only for those .acf saved with Planemaker 0.45 or greater.

 

Thus, I would think the dc-3 needs to be saved with Planemaker 0.45 to instruct Xplane 0.45 to use the "corrected" default flight dynamics.  Otherwise Xplane 0.45 is designed to use the "uncorrected" default flight dynamics for the dc-3 .acf

My understanding is that Xplane 0.45 uses the "uncorrected" default flight dynamics for any .acf earlier than Planemaker 0.45.  That would be the case for all aircraft (those with and without plugin tweaking is irrelevant) and makes sense to be fully backwards compatible with all aircraft.  Xplane 0.45 will use the "corrected" default flight dynamics only for those .acf saved with Planemaker 0.45 or greater.

 

Thus, I would think the dc-3 needs to be saved with Planemaker 0.45 to instruct Xplane 0.45 to use the "corrected" default flight dynamics.  Otherwise Xplane 0.45 is designed to use the "uncorrected" default flight dynamics for the dc-3 .acf

 

Well thought! 

 

And ... my apologies to FloB... You are probably because as I put it before in this thread, it can be misleading....

Ok,

 

just received confirmation, from Austin, that indeed the application of the torque fix requires saving the aircraft in Plane Maker so that a new format ACF is created that enables the torque fix.

 

So.... I was wrong in assuming that any aircraft without specific scripting / plugins for customized flight dynamics would behave different when used in X-Plane 10.45b1.  They will only behave differently once saved through Plane Maker.