Simworks Studios Updated PC-12 Today 4-18-2024

[sd_flyer 6,072]

11 minutes ago, Purr said:

Yes but this is also with yaw damper. Coordinated turns are a lot of work, which they should. To be in a stable flying platform. I understand the interconnect system, rudder trim, p factor, and have my controls in linear response profiles. If the real thing flies like this, then I think pc12s would be crashing all over the place. It’s almost like in trying to replicate realism it somehow has gotten unrealistic in feel. They also had issues with the Kodiak flight model and yaw as well….i don’t experience this with any other developers models on yaw.  Well, I’m disappointed because I’m not feeling confident this is going to become much better. I don’t think I’ll be buying another one of their products. I’ll try to practice more but it just feels not believable to be fighting the airplane.

Hmm that is very strange.  I haven't done much VFR flight maneuvers post patch. but did two hand flown instrument approaches  and didn't notice much problems. Did you try to delete existing SWS PC-12 installation? I had problems with SWS installer in the past, so now I manually delete pervious installations before each update

[bigifooti 156]

7 hours ago, Purr said:

Yes but this is also with yaw damper. Coordinated turns are a lot of work, which they should. To be in a stable flying platform. I understand the interconnect system, rudder trim, p factor, and have my controls in linear response profiles. If the real thing flies like this, then I think pc12s would be crashing all over the place. It’s almost like in trying to replicate realism it somehow has gotten unrealistic in feel. They also had issues with the Kodiak flight model and yaw as well….i don’t experience this with any other developers models on yaw.  Well, I’m disappointed because I’m not feeling confident this is going to become much better. I don’t think I’ll be buying another one of their products. I’ll try to practice more but it just feels not believable to be fighting the airplane.

with best intention but i can't relate to you experience. Are you sure the aircraft has been updated?

[outermarker 211]

It's definitely still slipping more than it should be, which they've acknowledged on their Discord.

[pinepix62 63]

Decided to give the PC12 another go and updated today and took it for a flight. Still flies like a pig. Requires way to much rudder input to center the ball and using the YD does not improve it by much.

I mapped an axis (using SPAD.next)  to the condition lever and it worked fine before I updated. Now moving the hardware condition lever still seems to work but the condition in the cockpit does not move at all. Any suggestions. I see the release notes mentions that it now uses a LOCK interface but I have no Idea what that means.

[xxd09 68]

Flying Carenado and Simworks PC 12 into Locher from Bolzano is a good test flight for these two products 

Carenado is currently the winner for me with the additional fact that the avionics and the in plane tablet works -cannot get Simworks version to do the designated effects

Simworks a work in progress?
xxd09

[pinepix62 63]

Figured out how to map the condition lever. 

Feels way to heavy and slow to respond to control inputs. Would like to replicate some Tradewind PC-12 landings posted on youtube at Saint Barts but at the moment it is pure luck if I get the PC-12 on the runway on a runway 10 approach.

Hoping for some further improvements...

[outermarker 211]

Don't hold your breath for significant changes to the flight model from here on out...

 

 

[ErichB 3,647]

For those who have it and also have experience with the TBM, how does it compare? 

[JYW 2,985]

1 hour ago, ErichB said:

For those who have it and also have experience with the TBM, how does it compare? 

There's just no comparison.   The TBM flies like a dream.   This PC-12 for me (after the update) feels like the problem has been improved by around 10% tops.   As someone else said, in my opinion, "it still flies like a pig", and with the exceptionally heavy feeling flight controls and slow, delayed responses on all flight controls, it feels more like flying a 747-8.

I'm out and I will never buy another SWS product again, due to the comment from them in the screenie above. It's one thing to have problems.   But to deny those problems... all is lost.

Over and above small piston singles, SWS just cannot configure a reasonable flight model. Period.   Dismissing the issues as being down to the complexities of flying the real PC-12 straight, level and in turns is just Grade A 'BS' or a head deeply buried in the sand.

SWS guy 1: "Darn it, we just cannot get this right, any idea what else to tweak in the CFGs?"

SWS guy 2: "Not a clue"

SWS guy 1: "Ok, we'll just swear blind it's meant to fly this way. We'll blind them with pseudo-science"

Edited April 23 by JYW

[ErichB 3,647]

14 minutes ago, JYW said:

There's just no comparison.   The TBM flies like a dream.   This PC-12 for me (after the update) feels like the problem has been improved by around 10% tops.   As someone else said, in my opinion, "it still flies like a pig", and with the exceptionally heavy feeling flight controls and slow, delayed responses on all flight controls, it feels more like flying a 747-8.

I'm out and I will never buy another SWS product again, due to the comment from them in the screenie above. It's one thing to have problems.   But to deny those problems... all is lost.

Over and above small piston singles, SWS just cannot configure a reasonable flight model. Period.   Dismissing the issues as being down to the complexities of flying the real PC-12 straight, level and in turns is just Grade A 'BS' or a head deeply buried in the sand.

SWS guy 1: "Darn it, we just cannot get this right, any idea what else to tweak in the CFGs?"

SWS guy 2: "Not a clue"

SWS guy 1: "Ok, we'll just swear blind it's meant to fly this way. We'll blind them with pseudo-science"

I was kinda hoping for a glowing review.  But okay lol.  It's a pass for me then.  Thanks

 

[sd_flyer 6,072]

Here s another perspective from discord

A decade ago, I was a corporate pilot IRL.  Among other airplanes, I flew the Phenom 100 and the C510, both of which have an aileron-rudder interconnect.  From what I can tell, SWS is blending the aileron and rudder inputs proportionally to simulate this.  I can't speak to the PC-12 obviously, but in both of those other airplanes, the interconnect springs did not affect hand-flying appreciably, unless you were making large deflections on the yoke, such as a stiff crosswind landing.

The way I'd describe the feeling, is that if you were making large rudder and aileron inputs, you could feel the springs tugging one way or another, but you would account for this with *slight* control pressure, not with deflection.  I think that's a fundamental problem with the SWS model.  In MSFS, you must counter with *deflection* and not *pressure* because that is how a desktop joystick or yoke works...so basically you end up with counter-intuitive control inputs in the sim, for the sake of simulating a minor system

[bigifooti 156]

2 minutes ago, ErichB said:

I was kinda hoping for a glowing review.  But okay lol.  It's a pass for me then.  Thanks

 

I find this a damaging phenomena what is happening here often. Only the negative comments are read/believed, and I question the negative experiences often. There are I think 4 or 5 comments in this thread that are positive experiences on the improvements which are ignored. 

I'm the very opposite of JYW. I like the airplane very much, it looks beautiful, it sounds realistic, and it's rewarding/fun to fly. With that i mean that I'm actually managing an aircraft to fly. So for instance if you are constantly adjust the power setting on final, the airframe constantly needs to adjust for that torque up front at the nose. Hence it start swaying. I've been watching all the Youtube PC12 pilots and all of them basically stick to a power setting on approach.

The damaging bit is often that the negative experiences, which to me is often down to incorrectly flying or operating the aircraft, is blamed on a flawed FM. Which is shortly followed by saying SWS can't develop a airplane. This to me is unfair and damages without proper substations. I think SWS have delivered a wonderful product, IMO. 

I would recommended it to everyone, unless you don't like to go through a learning curve or expecting it to be a like for like of a TBM or a Cessna. 

 

[sd_flyer 6,072]

I personally do not have a slightest problem flying PC-12 after patch. I mostly fly instruments so I do not do steep turns, lazy eights, deep spirals and etc LOL So I can't comment on that aircraft behavior. I do not have any yaw problem anymore during approach to landing or take off I use yaw dumper most of the time and disconnect it right after desired approach speed is being established. 

I  love SWS PC-12 feel of control heaviness. And I'm pretty sure those who flew aircraft other than light GA IRL would agree with me!

 I used o fly Money with "positive control" system where you can't go pass 15-30 degrees of bank without pressing and hold disconnect button. That was awkward as hell especially when you have to do VFR maneuvers! Because of that controls very super stiff - nothing like PA28R ! But nothing like to have awkwardly heavy controls and experience inflight fire in the same airplane later on. It was story to tell LOL

 How about Mooney with Johnston bar (a manual gear retraction system)? You little late to party after to bring gear up (right after the take off) and good luck fighting airflow while retracting gear LOL  It was very physically demanding passed certain airspeed. I had an occasion when I had to slow down airplane in climb just to bring gear up. Not a good thing to do single pilot IFR in IMC!

So the bottom line, to me pitch, power, trim this all you need to know about flying PC-12. Small deflection, standard rate of turn and everything smooth like butter. Works for me like charm. 

[regis9 4,031]

32 minutes ago, bigifooti said:

I find this a damaging phenomena what is happening here often. Only the negative comments are read/believed, and I question the negative experiences often. There are I think 4 or 5 comments in this thread that are positive experiences on the improvements which are ignored. 

I'm the very opposite of JYW. I like the airplane very much, it looks beautiful, it sounds realistic, and it's rewarding/fun to fly. With that i mean that I'm actually managing an aircraft to fly. So for instance if you are constantly adjust the power setting on final, the airframe constantly needs to adjust for that torque up front at the nose. Hence it start swaying. I've been watching all the Youtube PC12 pilots and all of them basically stick to a power setting on approach.

The damaging bit is often that the negative experiences, which to me is often down to incorrectly flying or operating the aircraft, is blamed on a flawed FM. Which is shortly followed by saying SWS can't develop a airplane. This to me is unfair and damages without proper substations. I think SWS have delivered a wonderful product, IMO. 

I would recommended it to everyone, unless you don't like to go through a learning curve or expecting it to be a like for like of a TBM or a Cessna. 

I'm glad to see this post as I was about to post something similar.  Yes the flight model feels heavier than I would expect for an aircraft of that size (but I'm just a sim pilot, what do I know?), and and there is a noted issue where there is a bit too much slip, but that doesn't mean this addon is really poor or not worth picking up IMHO.  

It's a well modelled, interesting aircraft to fly and overall quite enjoyable for me.  The sounds are great.  I have enough aircraft that anything that I don't much care for collects dust in the back of my virtual hangar and that is not the case with this one.

 

[A320_SX ALX 146]

On 4/23/2024 at 3:10 PM, JYW said:

As someone else said, in my opinion, "it still flies like a pig", and with the exceptionally heavy feeling flight controls and slow, delayed responses on all flight controls, it feels more like flying a 747-8.

I'm shortening the quote to the juice of the post.

1) We flew in the real plane and timed its response to pilot inputs, as well as documented its tendencies. I.e. in a PC-12 with flettner tabs, a roll from -45° to +45° takes ~4-4.5 seconds. Full pedal at 150kts will give you a right yaw of about 10-15 degrees, depending on yaw trim. It will yaw leisurely even if you kick it in the firewall. The elevator trim takes 42 seconds end-to-end. I could go on.

2) We repeated what we saw in flight in the actual PC-12 simulator over a week in 16h days, with two instructors rotating and a permanent one on top of us. It matched the real thing.

3) We tested our FM with 3-5 current PC-12 pilots in our testing team and also shared it with our instructors who still give us feedback. We tried to work our bias and limited experience out of the flight model and bring it as close as we can with the tools we've got.

How you expect the plane to fly is NOT how it really flies. The fact you don't like it does not make your opinion valid or the flight model broken. I respect that you don't like it 100%, but you present no argument for calling call it "wrong" or "broken".

You don't have to provide feedback, data or arguments -of course- and if that is one's approach I am more than happy for us to lose such a customer. If your idea of realism is setting up the plane to fly a GPS course and "autopilot" it then it is not for you.

There is a perception that good plane is about making the avionics and matching the POH figures. This ends up with a series of FMs -some heavier, others twitchier- that match the numbers but feel generic. When one gets out of line and has data to support it, then is it to blame?

Apologies for the rant, but I have to respond to such comments at some point. it ends there for me.

Granted there are some problems within the FM which we will attempt to fix, most of the issues people report are due to operator error and "assuming" how the plane flies.

Edited April 24 by A320_SX ALX