15 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Rudder effectiveness varies in game.

For example the XCub and the Jabiru are both rated around 14 kts demonstrated in real life. 

However the XCub in game has the rudder authority to handle closer to 20 knots whereas the jabiru only seems good for a bit over 10 maybe 12  knots at best.

This of course makes the Jabiru the plane of choice when live weather throws wind at you as the light weight means it is tossed around like a rag doll and the slightly limited rudder authority really keeps you on your toes  😄

I’ve flown the Cub for years in several sims and I find that the one in MFS is the first to give the feeling of driving a truly light aircraft, to groundloop if I am sloppy and to give a satisfying three-points including the rollout. Perfect ? No, the takeoff is a little laterally unstable but in no way like in the video.

I wonder whether people complaining have a good set of rudder  pedals and whether they dont judge Asobo’s aircraft from expectations drawn from Its predecessors. The Cub and, blasphemy !, even the A2A Cub which is long in the tooth, were not parangons of flight modeling.

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

Its not fixed in 1.19.8.0.
 👍👍👍 I opened the topic on MSFS official Forum. If you want to see changes - please vote it! (click vote on the left top corner) 👍👍👍 
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/flight-model-serious-issue-from-the-beginning-not-solved-till-now-during-take-off-and-acceleration-physics-on-the-ground/450382
More votes = more chances to slove it finally.

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by YoYo

12 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

I’ve flown the Cub for years in several sims and I find that the one in MFS is the first to give the feeling of driving a truly light aircraft, to groundloop if I am sloppy and to give a truly satisfying three-points including the rollout. Perfect ? No, the takeoff is a little laterally unstable but in no way like in the video.

I wonder whether people complaining have a good set of rudder  pedals and whether they dont judge Asobo’s aircraft from expectations drawn from Its predecessors. The Cub and, blasphemy !, even the A2A Cub which is long in the tooth, were not parangons of flight modeling.

oh absolutely.  Some pedals (CH for example) have a strong centre detent that makes any finesse on take-off impossible.

I have been flying the XCub in Neofly a lot and it is actually quite good especially with close to a maximum load.  My ride of choice is still the c140 but a fully loaded 140 takes off like a pregnant hippo.  However a Cessna should not be able to handle a 90 degree 20 knot crosswind.

Loading up these little tail draggers makes a huge difference to how they behave. I suspect a lot of people fly them with no co-pilot/instructor, no passenger and no cargo - which is kind of doubling the effective HP of the things. 

Regardless though, there is actually a genuine issue with ground handling, especially if you use nose down or neutral trim on take-off.  Virtually everything needs nose up trim or it wheel barrows, that is not realistic.

 

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

29 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

I’ve flown the Cub for years in several sims and I find that the one in MFS is the first to give the feeling of driving a truly light aircraft, to groundloop if I am sloppy and to give a satisfying three-points including the rollout. Perfect ? No, the takeoff is a little laterally unstable but in no way like in the video.

I wonder whether people complaining have a good set of rudder  pedals and whether they dont judge Asobo’s aircraft from expectations drawn from Its predecessors. The Cub and, blasphemy !, even the A2A Cub which is long in the tooth, were not parangons of flight modeling.

No, it isnt true what you wrote. If you are the real pilot (or have any real experience) you know that rudder during take-off, it works gradually and not suddenly like its in MSFS (40kts), it also causes the plane to tilt in the wind direction, not to turn it. This means that in the wind you can fly completely sideways but still keep a straight line and be exactly in the center of the line. For example, it is present in P3D or DCS, here (in MSFS) its a joke. You have an example in the video and Piper Archer which is a much heavier plane. Its a serious issue of physic in MSFS on the ground with acceleration and rudder action. This is very easy to see when approaching too with the rudder deflected. AFTER touching the wheels, suddenly the plane drifts completely to the left or right side too hard. This shows that if the wheels are in use, a different physics comes into play, and there is no point in transforming it.

and btw. this is my setup (part), I have nothing to complain about to my rudder pedals and they are configured very correctly. 

http://yoyosims.pl/sites/default/files/Obrazki/wheel stand pro/mfg crosswind 2016 rudder pedals_27.jpg

 

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by YoYo

I have this issue 100 percent. In fact, it is prevalent in all airplanes. The CJ4 is brutal... I have flown that the most with the WT mod. With a 10 knot crosswind at a certain speed you find yourself suddenly swerving into the wind. As a pilot in the real world, this is not correct at all. Its almost like there is a friction issue... Hard to explain. Anytime I bring it up, nobody agrees and everyone tells me it is realistic. it aint. That and the fact that your airplane slows down in the clouds in sim. No go! But both of these items get no attention. 

This can't be right, as MSFS uses the best flight model with the highest resolution aka the 'surface element theory'. 

8 minutes ago, EvidencePlz said:

This can't be right, as MSFS uses the best flight model with the highest resolution aka the 'surface element theory'. 

👍

It's a known issue, and it's related to the (currently simplistic) way how MSFS handles the lateral forces of the wheels when touching the ground. They're either there or not, and they mentioned they're working on this. Don't remember when/where exactly, either in the Dev Q&A videos or somewhere in the forums by Jummivana or one of the Working Title guys. 

Also they're going to talk about upcoming improvements to the flight model later today in the Dev Q&A. Of course I don't know if the rudder issue on ground is going to be covered, at least they're working on it, targeting a release alongside with Reno Air Race ( https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/official-discussion-gamescom-announcements/445532/137 ).

Edit: As I just saw in a different thread, the live Q&A has just been postponed, so it won't take place today.

Edited September 8, 20214 yr by pstrub

FYI.

Hard to tell me what its mean but this topic recived https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/bug-logged-flight-model-issue-during-take-off-and-acceleration-physics-on-the-ground/450382 status [BUG LOGGED]. 😇

One way to cheat this issue is to move the c.o.g. a little more forward, which works in real life too. It makes things more stable, more resistance to a change in the forward vector. In real life it also increases fuel consumption because the wings are forward of the c.o.g.

http://learntoflyblog.com/2015/01/08/cfi-brief-forward-vs-aft-cg/

I actually used to modify the station_load values by adding 2.0 to the second number in all planes that had this issue (in flight_model.cfg using notepad). This makes the default c.o.g. a bit more forward. (the first number is weight).

original

station_load.0 = 150, 0.5, 0, 1, TT:MENU.PAYLOAD.PILOT, 1

modified

station_load.0 = 150, 2.5, 0, 1, TT:MENU.PAYLOAD.PILOT, 1

Planes bought in the marketplace have hidden .cfg files, you can't easily adjust values. but  you can use the V  handlebar to change c.o.g. forward a little. But it resets on your next flight.

All of the above is not a good nor satisfying solution, it's just a hack that helps a little.

 

 

8 hours ago, Fielder said:

One way to cheat this issue is to move the c.o.g. a little more forward, which works in real life too. It makes things more stable, more resistance to a change in the forward vector. In real life it also increases fuel consumption because the wings are forward of the c.o.g.

http://learntoflyblog.com/2015/01/08/cfi-brief-forward-vs-aft-cg/

I actually used to modify the station_load values by adding 2.0 to the second number in all planes that had this issue (in flight_model.cfg using notepad). This makes the default c.o.g. a bit more forward. (the first number is weight).

original

station_load.0 = 150, 0.5, 0, 1, TT:MENU.PAYLOAD.PILOT, 1

modified

station_load.0 = 150, 2.5, 0, 1, TT:MENU.PAYLOAD.PILOT, 1

Planes bought in the marketplace have hidden .cfg files, you can't easily adjust values. but  you can use the V  handlebar to change c.o.g. forward a little. But it resets on your next flight.

All of the above is not a good nor satisfying solution, it's just a hack that helps a little.

 

 

Interesting, I’ll try it.

Yeah a quick check is using the slider in the handlebar or putting a slim or fat pilot depending where he is sitting.

The .cfg file mod just makes it permanent for the default. Some planes won't let you move the c.o.g. slider, I think the Corsair won't if I remember correctly.

Edited September 9, 20214 yr by Fielder

I've mentioned this before, but I think a big issue with taildraggers (and all aircraft really) is the lack of lateral ground friction on the wheels. You can put massive sideload on the main gear and nothing happens. Even slight side load when landing a taildragger will quickly point you toward the grass (well, unless you're landing on the grass... slippery grass is much more forgiving than pavement). Tricycle-geared planes are obviously more forgiving, but moderate side load will give the struts of a light aircraft a good workout and will also rotate you in the opposite direction (in a much more graceful way than a taildragger though!)

I never got my rating, but have about 8 hours in a Citabria and very quickly learned how unforgiving taildraggers are if you try to cheat a crosswind landing. I never did buy my instructor a $100 hamburger for saving me from a groundloop!

3 hours ago, Funky D said:

I've mentioned this before, but I think a big issue with taildraggers (and all aircraft really) is the lack of lateral ground friction on the wheels. You can put massive sideload on the main gear and nothing happens. Even slight side load when landing a taildragger will quickly point you toward the grass (well, unless you're landing on the grass... slippery grass is much more forgiving than pavement). Tricycle-geared planes are obviously more forgiving, but moderate side load will give the struts of a light aircraft a good workout and will also rotate you in the opposite direction (in a much more graceful way than a taildragger though!)

I never got my rating, but have about 8 hours in a Citabria and very quickly learned how unforgiving taildraggers are if you try to cheat a crosswind landing. I never did buy my instructor a $100 hamburger for saving me from a groundloop!

This is something another civil flight simulation platform I also use models acceptably, at least way better than MFS does at present.

There are a couple aircraft, like a Bf 109 ( various models represented in the same product I bought for that platform long ago ) that really make the virtual pilots understand the advantage of taxiing, taking off and landing on a grass strip as opposed to a paved runway... It's very plausibly modelled there. 

I believe different drag coefficients are used in MFS too, but so far they're still on the Legacy ground physics model, so, I guess we will have to give them some time to evolve towards a fully "Modern" physics model...

9 hours ago, jcomm said:

This is something another civil flight simulation platform I also use models acceptably, at least way better than MFS does at present.

There are a couple aircraft, like a Bf 109 ( various models represented in the same product I bought for that platform long ago ) that really make the virtual pilots understand the advantage of taxiing, taking off and landing on a grass strip as opposed to a paved runway... It's very plausibly modelled there. 

I believe different drag coefficients are used in MFS too, but so far they're still on the Legacy ground physics model, so, I guess we will have to give them some time to evolve towards a fully "Modern" physics model...

Are you referring to IL-2? Oh man learning to gracefully taxi and take off in the 109 took a lot of practice! Ground loops for days!