16 hours ago, A320_SX ALX said:

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".

Might be an idea to prepare a tutorial/introduction video when SWS has a new product. Same as what Scott from A2A does, there he can explain on his own terms all the little nuances.  I think sometimes these Twitch/YouTube pilots also miss the experience/knowledge to understand these small fidelity items that some developer include in their models. And they have quite a big audience that basically see them struggling, which sets the(wrong) tone right away. 

 

45 minutes ago, bigifooti said:

Might be an idea to prepare a tutorial/introduction video when SWS has a new product. Same as what Scott from A2A does, there he can explain on his own terms all the little nuances.  I think sometimes these Twitch/YouTube pilots also miss the experience/knowledge to understand these small fidelity items that some developer include in their models. And they have quite a big audience that basically see them struggling, which sets the(wrong) tone right away. 

That is a good idea. The PC-12 is the most complex FM we have done yet and we didn't expect the users to have such issues. Part of it is our own bias though. We are so used to it that we couldn't see the forest for the trees.

37 minutes ago, A320_SX ALX said:

That is a good idea. The PC-12 is the most complex FM we have done yet and we didn't expect the users to have such issues. Part of it is our own bias though. We are so used to it that we couldn't see the forest for the trees.

That's honest insight and fully understandable! 😎 In my line of work I see the same, as some of the most brilliant engineers are unable to explain a solution because to them it's obvious. 

I think SWS (maybe yourself) had joined a Twotonemurphy stream, but that didn't include any flying. Might be as simple as coaching/talking him though a flight.

I really like the PC-12 and I am giving it another go. If I set turbulence to low it works much better and I managed some good landings. The one thing that is still does not make sense is the entire idea of the rudder / aileron interconnect. It should reduce the amount of rudder input required. I read somewhere that with YD on you should be able fly the PC-12 without any additional rudder input but I am struggling to center the ball. I like low level bush flying and island hopping so I hardly ever use the autopilot and fly without flight plans.

30 minutes ago, pinepix62 said:

I really like the PC-12 and I am giving it another go. If I set turbulence to low it works much better and I managed some good landings. The one thing that is still does not make sense is the entire idea of the rudder / aileron interconnect. It should reduce the amount of rudder input required. I read somewhere that with YD on you should be able fly the PC-12 without any additional rudder input but I am struggling to center the ball. I like low level bush flying and island hopping so I hardly ever use the autopilot and fly without flight plans.

You know you can disable the interconnect? There are video’s on YouTube that show how to do it. I have done it and I prefer to fly that way.

2 hours ago, JWvdH said:

You know you can disable the interconnect?

I tried that right in the beginning but it did not make much difference, maybe I should try it again.

On 24/4/2024 at 23:07, A320_SX ALX said:

Acorto la cita al jugo del post.

1) Volamos en el avión real y cronometramos su respuesta a las acciones del piloto, además de documentar sus tendencias. Es decir, en un PC-12 con pestañas Flettner, un giro de -45° a +45° tarda entre 4 y 4,5 segundos. Pedalear a fondo a 150 nudos le dará una guiñada hacia la derecha de unos 10 a 15 grados, dependiendo del ajuste de guiñada. Se moverá tranquilamente incluso si le das una patada en el cortafuegos. El ajuste del ascensor tarda 42 segundos de un extremo a otro. Podría seguir.

2) Repetimos lo que vimos en vuelo en el simulador real del PC-12 durante una semana en días de 16h, con dos instructores rotando y uno permanente encima nuestro. Coincidía con lo real.

3) Probamos nuestro FM con 3-5 pilotos actuales de PC-12 en nuestro equipo de pruebas y también lo compartimos con nuestros instructores que aún nos brindan comentarios. Intentamos sacar nuestro sesgo y experiencia limitada del modelo de vuelo y acercarlo lo más posible con las herramientas que tenemos.

La forma en que esperas que vuele el avión NO es cómo vuela realmente. El hecho de que no te guste no hace que tu opinión sea válida ni que el modelo de vuelo esté roto. Respeto que no te guste al 100%, pero no presentas ningún argumento para llamarlo "incorrecto" o "roto".

No es necesario que proporcione comentarios, datos o argumentos -por supuesto- y si ese es nuestro enfoque, estoy más que feliz de que perdamos a un cliente así. Si su idea de realismo es configurar el avión para que siga un rumbo GPS y "piloto automático", entonces no es para usted.

Existe la percepción de que un buen avión consiste en fabricar aviónica y igualar las cifras de POH. Esto termina con una serie de FM -algunos más pesados, otros más nerviosos- que coinciden con los números pero se sienten genéricos. Cuando uno se sale de control y tiene datos que lo respaldan, ¿tiene la culpa?

Disculpas por la perorata, pero tengo que responder a esos comentarios en algún momento. ahí termina para mí.

Es cierto que hay algunos problemas dentro del FM que intentaremos solucionar, la mayoría de los problemas que la gente informa se deben a errores del operador y a "suponer" cómo vuela el avión.

More developers like you are needed in this sim who care about what really matters in simulation for many of us, when possible I will buy your pc12.

On 4/24/2024 at 10:07 PM, A320_SX ALX said:

Granted there are some problems within the FM which we will attempt to fix

Then it is these aspects that you "attempted to fix" that are making it fly like a pig!

Look on this forum, look on Reddit, look across the internet... it is not just me that finds this model absolutely awful to control and fly.  And give it up with the whole "it's user error" gargabe.  I'm a licenced pilot.     Translating a living, flying, aerodynamic machine into moving pixels on a screen is an art as much as it is a science.  Just because you have some simulated numbers matching up, does not mean it's a good, convincing analogue.

I'm guessing you're the guy that has been telling hundreds of people on the SWS Discord that they are all wrong and stupid too?     Well perhaps, just perhaps, it's you that's got this wrong - in the fundamental design of how you will depict the PC-12's unique control achitecture.

It flies like a pig. 

Search AVSIM for the SWS PC-12 and users saying "I won't be buying SWS products any more" - directly as a result of their experience with the PC-12.  I said it and I can count at least 5 others who feel the same.    That cannot be the right outcome for SWS!    It is a simulation and as a simulation, the PC-12 is just distinctly odd, unnatural and unenjoyable, in yaw, at low speed.   The real PC-12 is none of those things.  The real PC-12 does not float it's way - almost sideways - to the runway - with no wind present, with a defective yaw damper and rudder pedals.   Stubborness rarely leads to positive outcomes.

Edited April 26, 20242 yr by JYW

22 hours ago, pinepix62 said:

I tried that right in the beginning but it did not make much difference, maybe I should try it again.

You'll have the same outcome - disabling the interconnect makes almost no difference, except I believe in the animations of the yoke and pedals moving together.   There is no discernible difference in the flying characteristics. Probably because the rudder and yaw damper are so ineffective in this model.

1 hour ago, JYW said:

¡Entonces son estos aspectos que "intentaste arreglar" los que lo hacen volar como un cerdo!

Mire este foro, mire Reddit, mire en Internet... No soy solo yo quien considera que este modelo es absolutamente horrible de controlar y volar. Y déjelo con toda la tontería de "es un error del usuario". Soy piloto con licencia. Traducir una máquina aerodinámica, voladora y viva en píxeles en movimiento en una pantalla es tanto un arte como una ciencia . El hecho de que tenga algunos números simulados coincidentes no significa que sea un análogo bueno y convincente.

¿Supongo que eres el tipo que le ha estado diciendo a cientos de personas en SWS Discord que todos están equivocados y que también son estúpidos? Bueno, tal vez, sólo tal vez, seas tú el que se equivoque en el diseño fundamental de cómo representarás la arquitectura de control única del PC-12.

Vuela como un cerdo. 

Busque en AVSIM el SWS PC-12 y los usuarios que digan "Ya no compraré productos SWS" , directamente como resultado de su experiencia con el PC-12. Lo dije y puedo contar al menos otros 5 que sienten lo mismo. ¡Ese no puede ser el resultado correcto para SWS! Es una simulación y como simulación, el PC-12 es claramente extraño, antinatural y desagradable, en guiñada, a baja velocidad. El verdadero PC-12 no es ninguna de esas cosas. El PC-12 real no flota en su camino, casi de lado, hacia la pista, sin viento, con un amortiguador de guiñada y pedales de timón defectuosos. La terquedad rara vez conduce a resultados positivos.

Have you ever driven a pc12 ?

10 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

Have you ever driven a pc12 ?

Fair Question.

-B

1 hour ago, JYW said:

You'll have the same outcome - disabling the interconnect makes almost no difference, except I believe in the animations of the yoke and pedals moving together.   There is no discernible difference in the flying characteristics. Probably because the rudder and yaw damper are so ineffective in this model.

The interconnect's effect is only present when the pedals or yoke are off-center. Apparently, pedals and yoke at zero means interconnect gain is at zero as well. Its gain is 100% at slow speeds and decreases as a function of dynamic pressure. Off the top of my head, it is about 6% in the 100-150 range and hardly there at higher speeds.

Regarding the rudder and yaw damper being ineffective:

• The rudder is ineffective like this in reality also. We have data points and verified it using the pilots. That's just how it is.
• The Yaw Damper in the PC-12 is limited in effectiveness because MSFS will disconnect the autopilot if the controls move past a certain threshold. Therefore, it as effective as it can get without artificially increasing the aircraft's stability.

I'd like to know what aircraft model has an effective, non-custom yaw damper because it has been non-functional since FS2002 -if not earlier. I'll take any plane from FS98 until today, please.

4 hours ago, JYW said:

  And give it up with the whole "it's user error" gargabe.  I'm a licenced pilot.    

Just give you perspective. I'm commercial rated pilot in both category single and multi engine airplanes, also a flight instructor. I have about 18 different types of airplanes in my logbook including YAKs, Beechcrafts, Pipers, Mooneys, Cessnas, Rockwell, North American and others. I personally do not find hard to fly SWS PC-12 at all! Yet I can't tell if FM right or wrong  based on my certificates or 20+  years of experience for a simple reason I have zero hours in PC-12!

  Of course I could spot obvious inconsistencies that would make me believe something is terribly wrong! At the same time  I would yield my expertise to those who fly actually PC-12 for at least 100 hours or more. So before we go further into your feeling and perceptions. How many hours do you have in actual PC-12? If you at the same ball park as me. Could you provide account other PC-12 pilots who tried SWS PC-12 in MSFS and can concur with your observation? 

 

4 hours ago, JYW said:

Then it is these aspects that you "attempted to fix" that are making it fly like a pig!

Look on this forum, look on Reddit, look across the internet... it is not just me that finds this model absolutely awful to control and fly.  And give it up with the whole "it's user error" gargabe.  I'm a licenced pilot.     Translating a living, flying, aerodynamic machine into moving pixels on a screen is an art as much as it is a science.  Just because you have some simulated numbers matching up, does not mean it's a good, convincing analogue.

I'm guessing you're the guy that has been telling hundreds of people on the SWS Discord that they are all wrong and stupid too?     Well perhaps, just perhaps, it's you that's got this wrong - in the fundamental design of how you will depict the PC-12's unique control achitecture.

It flies like a pig. 

Search AVSIM for the SWS PC-12 and users saying "I won't be buying SWS products any more" - directly as a result of their experience with the PC-12.  I said it and I can count at least 5 others who feel the same.    That cannot be the right outcome for SWS!    It is a simulation and as a simulation, the PC-12 is just distinctly odd, unnatural and unenjoyable, in yaw, at low speed.   The real PC-12 is none of those things.  The real PC-12 does not float it's way - almost sideways - to the runway - with no wind present, with a defective yaw damper and rudder pedals.   Stubborness rarely leads to positive outcomes.

Flow like water my friend

 

Bad memories from a time past.  Money NOT well spent either.

-B