Turboprop logic - here we are again....

[Tom_L 522]

While there is a lot to like about the TBM in MSFS, it still suffers from the shortcomings of turboprop behaviour of the old days. Torque rises with altitude, ITT remains in lower ranges, Beta range doesn't seem to work. Does anybody know, if the SDK will allow for 3rd party developers to fix this or will our only hope be Majestic with the Q400 - provided their external simulation is possible in MSFS? Oh - and on a side note: the startup procedure is broken too: put the lever in taxi position prior to start in order to avoid a hot start.

[ckyliu 1,749]

As far as I can tell all the engine modelling is a wholesale port of the behaviour from FSX, so very broken indeed for turboprops and constant speed propellers. Hopefully Asobo will put this on their list to fix because otherwise it will compromise every addon aircraft that doesn't find a workaround.

[Dominique_K 10,133]

2 hours ago, Tom_L said:

While there is a lot to like about the TBM in MSFS, it still suffers from the shortcomings of turboprop behaviour of the old days. T 

All the returns from users, albeit admittedly still fragmentary, point indeed to the old flawed engine from FSX/P3D : torque vs rpm, NG and ITT vs altitude. From startup to landing. Not much yet about the interaction of these parameters and ambient temp. which is not an unimportant factor on tropical bush flying and on the sound management.

I'd love to see the opinion of @robert young or a proven turboprop pilot on the TBM or the Caravan engine management to optimize power. Is it that bad or are we getting returns from people who don't have a clue ?

2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

  Hopefully Asobo will put this on their list to fix because otherwise it will compromise every addon aircraft that doesn't find a workaround.

I am not sure that a fix is possible. We have been waiting 15 years for one. Neither the Aces nor the P3D team could deliver.

If the bad scenario was confirmed, why in the world did they have to bring three subpar turboprops instead of one but good one ? November 2019 Neuman at Golem.de:  We don't want to do this as a game. Our target group are people for whom flying is a hobby. They know a lot about it. Yes we do, Jorge. A little.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Dominique_K

[ErichB 3,638]

1 hour ago, ckyliu said:

As far as I can tell all the engine modelling is a wholesale port of the behaviour from FSX, so very broken indeed for turboprops and constant speed propellers. Hopefully Asobo will put this on their list to fix because otherwise it will compromise every addon aircraft that doesn't find a workaround.

I had wondered whether this issue had finally been fixed.  It was spoken and complained about ad nauseam  during FSX/P3D.  Disappointed that it isn't and hope they address it soon.  Haven't flown any TP yet

Edited August 24, 2020 by ErichB

[Valcor 9]

The logic is definitely still flawed.  At least from my perspective as a RW PC12 driver.

I just tried a test climb in the TBM out of south Florida up to FL240.  I used a keybind to set the power exactly.  As you climb in a turboprop, your engine limit, generally speaking, should transition from TRQ to ITT.  In the MSFS TBM, the ITT actually dropped as I climbed up to 240.  TRQ stays the same throughout the climb or even rises, which is incorrect.  And this is with extremely warm temperatures vs. ISA aloft where ITT should be even more of an issue.

The inertial separator also seems to have zero effect on ITT which it should.  On the PC12 it would add a good 20-30c to the ITT.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Valcor
a word

[maniamcool 75]

2 hours ago, ckyliu said:

As far as I can tell all the engine modelling is a wholesale port of the behaviour from FSX, so very broken indeed for turboprops and constant speed propellers. Hopefully Asobo will put this on their list to fix because otherwise it will compromise every addon aircraft that doesn't find a workaround.

If Asobo didn't feel it was necessary to fix something that was broken for decades, it's quite clear they won't do anything about it in the future.

Anyone hoping Asobo will do miracles to fix the flight model needs to face reality. 

[KenG 492]

There is no easy way to put this. The PT6 modeling is just plain garbage. That is my opinion as a 21 year King Air pilot and 15 year King Air instructor.

Not to mention that with "2000 surfaces" not a one of those was the propellers as the propeller aerodynamics is buggered as well. 

I am starting to think that Asobo's pilots were the same guys who worked for Carenado in they are pilot's but not certified in the airplanes being developed. i.e. a motor glider pilot is used to comment on the accuracy of a business turboprop.

[roland 28]

I am disappointed as well and hope Flight 1 does their B200 for FS2020.  

[norman_99 209]

RW pilot with multiple 1000s of hours in C208s and B200s. In a nutshell, the turboprop simulation is the same poor model we have had for the last 15-20 years. Torque, ITT, Ng, RPM all responding incorrectly.

They don’t have to hit real work figures, leave that for the 3rd party devs, but these values should at least move in response to the correct inputs, and in the right direction. At the moment they don’t. After 20 years, I was really expecting better here.

The worst part is this severely hinders the ability of 3rd party devs to produce a realistic turboprop product. Unless they have the resources and skill to build a complete engine simulation external to MSFS 2020 (only 1 or 2 devs have this ability), they are stuck trying to fit their products into a broken system.

Edited August 24, 2020 by norman_99

[Chock 17,769]

Turboprop Logic. Sounds like Steely Dan album title. 🤣

[Eddrik84 10]

report the bad pt6 modeling to Asobo

[hangar 661]

1 hour ago, maniamcool said:

If Asobo didn't feel it was necessary to fix something that was broken for decades, it's quite clear they won't do anything about it in the future.

Anyone hoping Asobo will do miracles to fix the flight model needs to face reality. 

Couldn't agree more...cept it's more likely MS's decision to copy/paste and not Asobo's....but who knows.

There's alot of fsx copy/pasting going on from what ive seen thus far...not impressed tbh...MSFS in its current state is more of a scenery simulator than an aircraft simulator.

From what I see, the XP devs have taken the "simulation" aspect MUCH more seriously than MS has.

[Dominique_K 10,133]

1 hour ago, norman_99 said:

 

The worst part is this severely hinders the ability of 3rd party devs to produce a realistic turboprop product.

Absolutely and that puts into perpective Jorge Neuman’s declaration, that I found rather lame in any case, that they wanted to do simplistic default aircraft not to compete with 3rd Party Developer. The only solution will be yet again to use an external model like Majestic did in P3D if it is still possible. Crossing the fingers.  Or have some wizardry à la RealAir inside the sim which cannot solve all the problems.

On another level, this also puts into perspective the partnership they have with Daher or Cessna. Where is the beef ?

 

[sd_flyer 6,034]

5 hours ago, Tom_L said:

While there is a lot to like about the TBM in MSFS, it still suffers from the shortcomings of turboprop behaviour of the old days. Torque rises with altitude, ITT remains in lower ranges, Beta range doesn't seem to work. Does anybody know, if the SDK will allow for 3rd party developers to fix this or will our only hope be Majestic with the Q400 - provided their external simulation is possible in MSFS? Oh - and on a side note: the startup procedure is broken too: put the lever in taxi position prior to start in order to avoid a hot start.

Those things have been reported in alpha beta numerous times, but unfortunately has never been fixed. I'm not sure the odds if getting it fix eventually. Meanwhile, I hope 3rd party developer will mod it

[JRBarrett 3,049]

1 hour ago, norman_99 said:

The worst part is this severely hinders the ability of 3rd party devs to produce a realistic turboprop product. Unless they have the resources and skill to build a complete engine simulation external to MSFS 2020 (only 1 or 2 devs have this ability), they are stuck trying to fit their products into a broken system.

As you mentioned, some developers (i.e. Majestic) do have the ability to code a realistic emulation of how a turboprop actually functions. Rather than waiting for a third party to develop an add-on with an external engine model, perhaps the answer would be to license Majestic’s turboprop technology so that it could be incorporated into the core sim and available to all turboprop models.

Unfortunately, it may be that the model Majestic created is so specific to the PW150 engine of the Q-400, that it could not be made generic enough to work for a variety of other turboprop engines.

At the very least, perhaps Asobo could contract with Majestic to serve as expert consultants in the area of engine modeling. Probably nobody on the Asobo development staff has that kind of specific expertise, since it appears they have simply re-purposed the old FSX turboprop model.