X-Plane 11 Taildtagger & Stinson erratic absurd ground handling

[Janov 2,383]

I jumped in on the discussion in this thread (and even made the video) because I don´t like hyperbole claims to emphasize a point.

If someone writes "The ground handling in X-Plane is not fully realistic and should be improved" then I think that is a valid remark. The extent of the defficiency can be discussed.

If someone writes "The ground handling in X-Plane is totally broken and has nothing to do with reality" then I think that person uses exaggeration to either express his disappointment or to spur someone to do something about it. The statement is false, however (and the latter won´t work with Austin ;-))

We all have our favourite simulators and I (as a third-party developer for X-Plane) will naturally jump to defend my platform. I am ready to admit that there are lots of areas where it can be improved, but if someone starts to make statements about it that I think are just plain wrong, I will speak up to defend it.

We kept hearing claims of "aircraft in X-Plane can´t even be handled in the lightest crosswinds!". I made a video of how the C-172 can be handled at its max demonstrated crosswind component and people took a step back. Now we are discussing "if the aircraft in X-Plane handle correctly in crosswind" and THAT is a valid discussion.

Austin has continually worked to improve the flight model. Sometimes its a two step forward, one step back process. He gets BOMBARDED by input, often contradictory, with people making up all sorts of stuff ("I have 5000 hours in the Space Shuttle, and I tell you its not working right!"). He needs to have some sort of protocol to stay the course, and even though it may be frustrating for some (me included) its the "you prove its wrong and then I will fix it" stance.

Jan

 

 

[MarioDonick 752]

10 hours ago, olderndirt said:

It seems that what's working for some might also work for the others.

That's not necessarily the case.

For example, some users have ground handling problems with our Arrow III. We can NOT reproduce these problems at all on our PCs and Macs! The affected users have posted several PlaneMaker tweaks in our forums, but these only help partly. So what we did is to involve another dev with whom we cooperated for two other planes in the past and currently try to see what we can come up with for our plane, even though we can not even reproduce the issue.

[jcomm 5,939]

2 hours ago, MarioDonick said:

That's not necessarily the case.

For example, some users have ground handling problems with our Arrow III. We can NOT reproduce these problems at all on our PCs and Macs! The affected users have posted several PlaneMaker tweaks in our forums, but these only help partly. So what we did is to involve another dev with whom we cooperated for two other planes in the past and currently try to see what we can come up with for our plane, even though we can not even reproduce the issue.

And while I do not own any other product from VFlyteair, the AA-5 is the example of an add-on which has worked great across all updates XP11 suffered since it's release.

It behaves very consistently even under x-wind up to the demonstrated max component.

 

[Griphos 138]

Some of you are fussing about how people are complaining. Not sure that accomplishes anything at all. You might consider that the character of the complaint (and claiming something is broken is not inherently hyperbole) may be in direct proportion to the degree of the problem and its longevity and also the degree of deafness from Austin.  People didn’t start out this strident when the problems first appeared.  They have gotten more frustrated, however, as the problems were made significantly worse still recently.

And fussing about how others are fussing only makes sense if a different tone has some promise of making a difference.  We have very clear evidence that it does not.  Austin is perhaps the most stubborn software developer I’ve ever been aware of.  Particularly when it comes to aspects of flight about which he has no or little experience or knowledge.

If all I flew in XPlane or real life were C172s or tubes, I’d think people saying things are broken were exaggerating too. Try buying Pete's excellent SMS Beaver (a plane that handled quite well when many people first bought it, but which has gotten progressively worse as Austin has “fixed” things) and try to taxi it or take off, and then tell us whether you think something is broken. Austin isn’t listening to Pete either. 

I haven’t seen your C172 video, but I do fly the default C172 in XPlane a fair bit, and have several hundred hours in a C172 my father-in-law has owned since the 70’s. And the way the wind in XPlane pushes the plane around while taxiing in any significant wind, particularly the weathervaning tendency, is far from realistic.  It is likely the result of questionable modeling assumptions about friction rather than underlying problems with the wind modeling. But it definitely produces quite unrealistic behavior, which is, however, quite mild relative to the foolishness that results in the same situation in a tailplane in the sim. 

Many people have articulated these problems clearly and well. Austin isn’t listening. And the attitude from some in this thread is that you won’t listen either because you don’t like our tone of voice!  This thread was started to express frustration. If you don’t like that, then don’t participate. But joining in to lecture others on the proper tone, and to insist there really isn’t a problem at all is not only not helpful, it smacks of smug self-righteousness, something which is even more unhelpful in any dialogue and which I call out when I see it. 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Griphos

[CarlosF 1,241]

@ some of you, come on, drop it and move on, we all get point, XP is not perfect and will never be, maybe in 100 years but not today. How can anybody assume that a $60 piece of software would ever simulate real world experience where mother nature plays a big part of that experience....total nonsense.

A real world pilot has already pointed out that even million dollar LD sims don't come close to simulate real world experience.

If you guys are not happy then instead of complaining why not start developing your own sim if you think you can do a better job than Austin and Co.,  that would be a positive way of contributing to this hobby.

A shout to a moderator...I think is is time to lock it.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by CarlosF

[Griphos 138]

Well, that was a completely useless post.  

Nobody is asking for perfect.  As you clearly know.  People are asking that the simulator they paid for and third party addons they pay for not be broken by Austin.  What's unreasonable about that?  

I'm a 'real world pilot.'  I'm not asking for perfect.  I'm asking for behavior that is controllable.  Tailwheel aircraft behavior for several of the best third party addons has been made pretty much uncontrollable.  What's wrong with talking about that?  

What makes it time to lock the post?  That you don't like it?  I get that some of you guys don't like the tone of those concerned with real problems in the sim that have been created since it was bought.  But what is your deal, really?  What in my arguments (my actual arguments, not the ridiculous paraphrases of it that keep being offered in place of my arguments since people don't seem to want to deal with those) do you take offense to?  What can you point to that isn't right?  

If this thread has gone south, I'm not the reason for it.  But those of you crying about other's legitimate complaints sure have some responsibility.  And your useless tirade is certainly the low point.  

If I buy a car and take it to the dealer for service and he breaks it, it's a bit ridiculous to tell me to just go design and build my own car if I'm not happy!

Edited March 12, 2018 by Griphos

[Murmur 3,941]

30 minutes ago, Griphos said:

 

Hi Griphos,

I understand your frustration and even agree with several of your points. I wonder though if 3rd party developers are nearly as much to blame as Austin. I try to explain.

You seem convinced that the problem lies in the ground friction model. I still have doubts about that. For example, I just tested the default C172, and at low speed it can achieve a max lateral g of about 0.7. That's about the value of a typical car with a high cg (SUV, etc.). So the tires in XP seem to grip quite well.

I am more inclined to think that the cause of this issue is the fact that XP overestimates the aerodynamic forces produced by surfaces like the vertical stabilizer.

Now, while Austin has certainly a direct responsibility for that, it is also true that XP allows aircraft designers a lot of freedom in tuning the forces produced by the various surfaces: modifying their area, airfoils, etc. A good aircraft designer should make sure that its creation behaves realistically under all the usual flight circumstances.

After all it's the same for other flight sims as well. Aircraft designers had to work around MSFS flight model limitations to have realistic stalls, spins, etc. And they can still not work around a lot of other limitations.

In other words, if my addon aircraft isn't realistic under a crosswind because the tire physics is not correct, then that's a very difficult thing to correct, and Austin is to blame 100% for it.

But if my addon aircraft isn't realistic under a crosswind because I, as a designer, put faith that XP flight model is 100% correct, and didn't even tune its aerodynamics to make sure that it would behave realistically under a crosswind, then I am as much responsible for the inaccuracy.

After all, from this thread we learned that there is more than one addon aircraft that has succesfully tackled this issue.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Murmur

[Griphos 138]

@MurmurYou make several good points.  I don't know whether it's the ground friction or not.  It was a guess.  Your suggestion that it may be a coded "overestimation" of the aerodynamic forces on solid surfaces, perhaps including the fuselage, makes as much if not even more sense.  I'm no developer, and have no real idea how the code works to attempt to model aerodynamic forces.  Given some of the sliding behavior and weathervaning, though, I wonder if it's a combination.   You said at low speed.  I wonder if friction falls off a bit too fast as speed gathers.  

Xplane does a better job of modeling aerodynamic forces, judging from the majority of aircraft behavior in the main part of the flight envelope than the other civilian sims, that's for sure, and I've said so numerous times.

And the idea that third party developers need to work with the limits to ensure their aircraft behave well is certainly correct and reasonable also.

I think the frustration comes when the third party devs do that.  Then Austin changes things rather radically, and the third party devs have to re-do everything.  That, by itself, is just the nature of the beast, I suppose.

The recent frustration has arisen when several of those third party devs are completely unable to change their modeling to overcome the problems introduced by new changes Austin has made, and from Austin refusing to listen to their issues and work with them on it.  There is, as I'm sure you know, a bit of an attitude to the effect that Austin knows what he is doing, and if others can't use what he has coded to make believably behaving aircraft, then that is their problem, not his.

Perhaps.

But when people who have a good understanding of both how Xplane works and how tailwheel aircraft work are unable to find a work around that will result in believable, let alone realistic behavior, then that suggests that the ratio of responsibility lies a bit more on Austin's side, doesn't it?  Which is a problem if he won't entertain that possibility himself.  

Other recent (or the same for all I know) changes have also broken several rotorcraft dynamics as well, such as VRS.  

I'm not those developers, and have no first hand experience.  But I do tend to accept their testimony that they are simply unable to accommodate recent changes that lead to radical and uncontrollable behavior, particularly since it is more than one of them.  And since they seem to have been able to do so in the past.  

Again, I wonder how many of the people who seem upset that some people are upset with tailwheel aircraft handling have any of the payware tailwheel aircraft themselves.  Or is this just knee-jerk fanboi defensiveness when people who do are reasonably frustrated that the aircraft they've bought for a sim they bought that used to work no longer work.  

I'm tempted to buy the 109 to see how it behaves.  Tempted.  None of the other tailwheel aircraft I have fly particularly well except the freeware DC-3.  It is a very large plane, with a large lever arm, which may compensate for underlying "overestimations" in forces acting on surfaces.  

I wonder if part of the problem may indeed be the underlying code, and it only shows up when short-coupled, narrow landing gear tailwheel aircraft are modeled.  As most of us know, the geometry is very different, and perhaps it is only when the geometry is different that the underlying problems begin to show.  After all, not only does Austin have no experience with such aircraft, but, except for the Stinson, which was made for a much earlier version, none is offered by Laminar.  

Edited March 12, 2018 by Griphos

[CarlosF 1,241]

1 hour ago, Griphos said:

it's a bit ridiculous to tell me to just go design and build my own car if I'm not happy

It's not ridiculous and it is precisely why you have XPlane as an alternative. If development is beyond you then go into plane maker and make the necessary changes to make it better, that is another way you can positively contribute instead of complaining.

Count to 10, breath deep and relax.

[Griphos 138]

It is indeed ridiculous.  If it were possible to just go into planemaker and make the necessary changes, don't you think I'd do so, or that the developers of the third party aircraft would do so?!  

We're complaining precisely because this is not possible, since many, many people have tried, with, so far, marginal results.

You're the one contributing nothing whatsoever to this conversation.  Why are you even in it?

What aircraft have you made, or fixed, in planemaker?  That you set yourself up as an expert on what the rest of us need to do?

I'm completely relaxed.  Even amused.  

Edited March 12, 2018 by Griphos

[CarlosF 1,241]

1 minute ago, Griphos said:

If it were possible to just go into planemaker and made the necessary changes don't you think I'd do so

It is indeed possible.

[Griphos 138]

Then do it.  And be the savior of the rest of us and put this issue to rest.  

I'm waiting....

....no?....

....that's what I thought...

Edited March 12, 2018 by Griphos

[CarlosF 1,241]

3 minutes ago, Griphos said:

Then do it.  And be the savior of the rest of us and put this issue to rest. 

I don't fly tail draggers.

Relax, you are running too lean man check that air/fuel ratio of yours.

[Griphos 138]

2 minutes ago, CarlosF said:

I don't fly tail draggers.

Then why are you even talking?

Again, I'm perfectly relaxed.  You make me laugh.  That's the only value your posts in this thread have.  

Edited March 12, 2018 by Griphos

[CarlosF 1,241]

6 minutes ago, Griphos said:

That's the only value your posts in this thread have.

Why, thank you, I wont mind if you give "likes" to my posts.