Why adjusting control sensitivity is not the answer

[High_Alpha 42]

1 minute ago, cwburnett said:

Hopefully our trust 3PDs can get us a nice turboprop...

I’d love to see a Turbine Legend with a Garrett TPE-311s

[norman_99 209]

I’ve only flown the C208 and the B350, both show similar engine inaccuracies, though I find them more obvious in the King Air, simply due to its larger operating envelope. Maybe the TBM is better?

[n4gix 4,947]

3 hours ago, robert young said:

No SDK yet but of course I should and will. Too stuck into the cfg for now. Yes Brownian motion definitely exists, but perhaps not at the level this sim is demonstrating!

Robert, where the heck are the aircraft? I've searched high and low on my C drive where the sim was installed and I can't find any trace of 'em! 😵

[robert young 2,897]

Just now, n4gix said:

Robert, where the heck are the aircraft? I've searched high and low on my C drive where the sim was installed and I can't find any trace of 'em! 😵

Have you got half a year Bill? One of them might appear with luck by then :)

[n4gix 4,947]

Just now, robert young said:

Have you got half a year Bill? One of them might appear with luck by then :)

Well, the sim is running and all 30 of the default aircraft will load, so the darn files must be somewhere on the SSD C drive...

[robert young 2,897]

1 hour ago, norman_99 said:

Slightly off topic, but historically turboprop modelling has been extremely poorly implemented in the MSFS series, and I don’t see any changes here. 
 

Torque stays constant, and even rises slightly during a climb (it should reduce significantly), ITT seems more connected to torque than power lever position, etc.

Again, not looking to hit exact numbers, but just the the relationships between all the input and output parameters are modelled correctly, so that things such as torque at least move in the correct direction. It has traditionally bee so hard for third party dev to creat accurate turboprop models because the underlying simulation has been so inaccurate. Only a handful of devs with the resources and knowledge to develop a model from scratch outside of P3D have made significant improvements.

Apart from slight power lag, the Duke Turbine pretty accurately did rising ITT and lowering Torque in the climb, after which ITT falls off again above around 20k I think. We got a military pilot with a few thousand hours on those engines to confirm, and he was very fussy - and quite rightly so 😉

[cwburnett 1,809]

3 minutes ago, robert young said:

Apart from slight power lag, the Duke Turbine pretty accurately did rising ITT and lowering Torque in the climb, after which ITT falls off again above around 20k I think. We got a military pilot with a few thousand hours on those engines to confirm, and he was very fussy - and quite rightly so 😉

Yup, I read complaints about the lag from time to time, but I think it is pretty spot-on in almost every respect. And, hey, if lag is really a problem, the airplane is getting ahead of you! Catch up...

[robert young 2,897]

2 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

Yup, I read complaints about the lag from time to time, but I think it is pretty spot-on in almost every respect. And, hey, if lag is really a problem, the airplane is getting ahead of you! Catch up...

The lag could have been fixed, but unfortunately the power response is hard coded in P3d to be linked with the start up routine. So if you tweaked the power response to be better, the start up results in the props over-revving and the whole aircraft lurches forward like a bat out of hell.

[cwburnett 1,809]

20 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Well, the sim is running and all 30 of the default aircraft will load, so the darn files must be somewhere on the SSD C drive...

They are in the folder you pointed MSFS to when the 90GB download started. The content folder.

[robert young 2,897]

46 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Well, the sim is running and all 30 of the default aircraft will load, so the darn files must be somewhere on the SSD C drive...

Oh sorry Bill I thought it was a joke! On my (Steam) install most of the files are here:

User\Appdata\roaming\Microsoft Flight Simulator\Packages\Official\Steam so perhaps they are somewhere similar on yours

[n4gix 4,947]

32 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

They are in the folder you pointed MSFS to when the 90GB download started. The content folder.

I'll check again in the morning, but I didn't see anything earlier this afternoon remotely like 30 aircraft -- or even 1 for that matter!

[cwburnett 1,809]

23 minutes ago, n4gix said:

I'll check again in the morning, but I didn't see anything earlier this afternoon remotely like 30 aircraft -- or even 1 for that matter!

I created a folder on my E drive called MSFS and pointed the content there during the install. Now it looks like this:

[BaronKen 144]

1 hour ago, n4gix said:

I'll check again in the morning, but I didn't see anything earlier this afternoon remotely like 30 aircraft -- or even 1 for that matter!

C:\Users\*Name*\AppData\Local\Packages\Microsoft.FlightSimulator_8wekyb3d8bbwe\LocalCache\Packages\Official\OneStore

Here you go Bill...

[mikegrr 109]

Much of the Sim is hidden in c:/Windows/winapps. That folder normally inaccessible, but you can change the security settings to look inside.

[JRBarrett 3,078]

13 hours ago, cwburnett said:

The question is, though, is if we're going to start seeing Milviz and A2A and Aerosoft and PMDG and..and..and start putting models into this sim over the next six months, do we really care if the torque curve is off by 20% on the default 208? Will any of us still be flying that, or the Baron for that matter, in a few months? I won't be. Milviz is bringing the B55/E55 over as the first or second aircraft. They've already shared screenies of it. I assure you, I'll be using that model when it arrives and not the default.

I tend to agree. Since MSFS is a brand-new simulator, the only aircraft available to fly at the moment are the included defaults. Since all of those are as brand-new as the simulator itself, and have various issues, ranging from flight model problems to very limited (or inaccurate) systems emulations, new users are being hyper critical of every fault because there are currently no alternatives - as if the existing default aircraft are all we are ever going to have.

I have been flying P3D since version 4.0, (currently own Version 5), and in all that time, I have never flown a default aircraft even once. There is no need, because as a mature sim of long-standing there has long been a rich ecosystem of quality third-party content that has grown over the many years the sim has been in existence. In a few months, as more and more quality 3rd party aircraft become available for the MSFS platform, I’m confident the current angst will die down.