2 minutes ago, Paraffin said:

I wonder if that's the flight model or your control settings? Are you using a linear sensitivity setting or a curve?

I’ve not adjusted anything so the controls are as the sim comes out of the box.

As SAS443 says though, the correct initial application should be full aft stick to get the nose rising, and reduce back pressure to stop a tail strike. So, I’m thinking full aft is full aft regardless of sensitivity or curve amendments? 

1 minute ago, Slides said:

I'll trust the CEO of Asobo and other people who have looked at the SDK even more.

Sorry, but quoting a Tweet from the CEO does not trump a proven track record in the flight modelling business IMHO.  I'll add my voice to trusting Rob Young on this.. 

38 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Sorry, but quoting a Tweet from the CEO does not trump a proven track record in the flight modelling business IMHO.  I'll add my voice to trusting Rob Young on this.. 

It does when no proof is provided to counter the claims and others who have looked at the SDK have shown the same thing. Before we essentially call the CEO of Asobo a liar, let's do our homework.

Edited September 3, 20205 yr by Slides

1 hour ago, robert young said:

But continuing the subject, not personal attacks: You can tune the legacy and modern flight models to produce virtually the same behaviour. The multiple lift points do exist, but are currently expressed (as documented by the SDK) in debug mode and as reference.

Which, as stated in the SDK is by design.

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

FWIW, this was pointed out months ago in the Alpha testing. 

The more you look, the more issues you'll find that indicate this is still very much a work in progress. At least I hope it is, and Asobo isn't just leaving it up to 3rd party payware to fix things.

For example, the sim does not appear to model adverse yaw with one engine failure in a twin. Cut the fuel for one engine in an XP11 twin, and you'll need a strong rudder input to maintain heading. Especially if it's the "critical" engine. Doesn't happen in MSFS. You can maintain heading straight and level with one engine out, and no rudder input at all.

Now, that may not matter for people who use the sim mainly for sightseeing because you'll never get an engine failure unless you want it. For anyone practicing "what if" scenarios, and trying to learn about how things work in the real world, it matters.

 

I think a lot of the FMs are in an immature state. I've gotten the DR400 to yaw much less and have more vertical movement in turbulence. It also slips through turns without rudder input, all by changing a few values. Some of those values in the default FM are wrong, like too much wing area, pitch moi, ect. Fixing those things and playing around with a couple of other values really changes things.

2 hours ago, Slides said:

I know who he is. That doesn't mean he's right or infallible. 

The fact that he can be wrong or fallible doesn't belittle the fact that he is a knowledgeable person and a well respected member of the community. Besides, him might having been wrong or fallible doesn't give anyone the right to hold a discussion in such an uncivil and immature way, especially so to the person who was not at all known here a bit more than a month ago. Nor does it give the right to that person to hold anyone accountable. You and many others don't seem to notice that after MSFS has been released your belief in "1000 points of reference" has become a sort of sectarianism. Flight dynamics model is a matter of a sober view, not bigotry. So, please, stop showing your insecurity, breathe out and enjoy the sim you love that much, but stop attacking people on the matter of disagreement. People are not trying to defile a relic — they endeavour to discuss the merits and the shortcomings of a software product.

Edited September 3, 20205 yr by ilya1502

37 minutes ago, ilya1502 said:

The fact that he can be wrong or fallible doesn't belittle the fact that he is a knowledgeable person and a well respected member of the community. Besides, him might having been wrong or fallible doesn't give anyone the right to hold a discussion in such an uncivil and immature way, especially so to the person who was not at all known here a bit more than a month ago. Nor does it give the right to that person to hold anyone accountable. You and many others don't seem to notice that after MSFS has been released your belief in "1000 points of reference" has become a sort of sectarianism. Flight dynamics model is a matter of a sober view, not bigotry. So, please, stop showing your insecurity, breathe out and enjoy the sim you love that much, but stop attacking people on the matter of disagreement. People are not trying to defile a relic — they endeavour to discuss the merits and the shortcomings of a software product.

Thank you for taking the trouble to say this. Appreciated.

I’m not going to lock this topic because couple of people disagree on something.  Keep things civil please. One person needs to step back and calm down.

22 minutes ago, robert young said:

Thank you for taking the trouble to say this. Appreciated.

No worries.

19 minutes ago, Slides said:

@ilya1502 removed by moderator.

Suit yourself. Although I must add that no claims made were extraordinary. It is obvious to any person with knowledge in flight dynamics modelling. The undertaking of Asobo to create a new FM is definitely commendable, but it's also obvious that it is (and the documentation of it, for that matter) far from being complete.

Edited September 3, 20205 yr by Ray Proudfoot
Removed hidden quote.

4 hours ago, SAS443 said:

I tried short field takeoff in the C172 using what I do IRL in the PA28 (exactly the same as you described above). In the real plane I really have my yoke as aft it can be

I've found that the Pipers with stabilators have a lot less pitch authority at low airspeeds than Cessnas, especially if you have a forward CG. All of the Pipers I've flown have had some sort of ballast in the baggage compartment to help move the CG back, and I still usually have to have the yoke all the way back during the flare to keep from making a three point landing.

 

3 hours ago, jon b said:

I seem to remember pulling prop wash induced wheelies in the 152 for fun

One of my instructors was also our clubs maintenance manager.  He would always like me to keep the nose wheel off the ground as long as possible during landing in an effort to reduce the number of shimmy damper replacements he had to do.  So I know even without propwash you can keep the nose up till you get pretty slow in a 172.  Ironically not getting the nose down is the thing I get nagged about most whenever I get a chance to use the 747,777,787 full motion sims. 

 

8 hours ago, Cyrex1984 said:

The aircraft didnt shake at all. Its so funny to see all people think Austin Meyers flightmodel cant be beaten.

I’m not an FM specialist but enough people I can see are praise Austin’s fm so it’s probably worth treating with respect.

Having said that, even though I don’t doubt Austin’s genuine genius, he’s not immune from gaps in his vision. The infamous ‘torque bug’ in his model tortured those in the know, including Austin, for a long time until someone looked at the numbers more closely and found one of the values erroneously being calculated twice (if memory serves).

’Even monkeys fall from trees’ as they say in Japan.

7 hours ago, roi1862 said:

With all the being said, which i do not disagree, maybe someone with more experience can explain how come non of the GA aircraft needs a rudder input to stay coordinated at any stage/speed/altitude/rate of turn ? 

I got rudder pedals and flying mostly the Cessna and the Cub, i do not need any rudder input, the ball is almost perfectly centered all the time. 

Yes i got the life-like settings and modern flight physics.

Check your settings and make sure that "rudder assist" is not enabled. There are several more options such as "take off assist" that may need to be disabled as well. BTW, "rudder assist" is not the same as "autorudder" (which may need to be disabled as well!

1 minute ago, n4gix said:

I got rudder pedals and flying mostly the Cessna and the Cub, i do not need any rudder input, the ball is almost perfectly centered all the time.

The necessary variables exist to implement adverse yaw but are not set to anything useful.

Hook

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

The necessary variables exist to implement adverse yaw but are not set to anything useful.

Hook

roi1862 said that. I was quoting his comment... 😏

Sorry, you're right.  I was quoting the pertinent part, forgot it wasn't you who said it and it would appear to be quoting you.  Mea culpa.
 

10 minutes ago, n4gix said:

Check your settings and make sure that "rudder assist" is not enabled. There are several more options such as "take off assist" that may need to be disabled as well. BTW, "rudder assist" is not the same as "autorudder" (which may need to be disabled as well!

As far as I know, there is no "auto rudder" setting.  It would have been very useful if they'd replaced all the rudder assists with a single auto rudder, I think.  The real problem is that adverse yaw is not implemented, even though the variables exist.

Hook

I think what's frustrating here is that Robert is obviously a trusted individual formerly in the industry. But the strange misinformation and misunderstanding being peddled really has no place. There is an objective truth here.

The objective truth is that while many config parameters are the same, the flight model is nothing like the tabular model of yore. Can you approximate the current model with the old one? Kinda sorta. But you won't get individual calculations per discrete flight surface sample, and it isn't going to be nearly as accurate.

For example, wing twist actually has an impact on the individual angle of attack per flight surface sample (of which there are I think 3x48 calculated at each physics tick per wing, just for the wing alone) which is what causes the difference between different ways a plane might stall. Is this accounted for in the single center force ESP model? Kinda but not really. And you're certainly doing funky table trickery to get different and/or correct stall behavior, and maybe even having to script spins.

This handwavium about "well the params are similar so the model is also" is just very wrong.

The reality is that the new flight model is a discretized integral flight model, similar to how blade element theory is also a discretized integral flight model. The actual discretization choices are different, but the ideas are very similar. The new model is as different from the old model as X-Plane's is from the old model.