Delta558

If it's ever required, I have access to XM655 and have both pics and vids of the control column (including full deflection). It's slightly heavier in feel than the Fulcrum 😉

UK based. Had an email from the delivery company on Friday saying it was out for delivery, so just the weekend as notice!

Mine has arrived, very securely packed. Now to finish the build of the computer room before I get it up and running!

10, and yes of course I will update.

Yeah, you're not alone - my order was the 8th March, just got to patiently wait and I am sure it will be worth it!

That's a shame, because your experience appears to be very much in the minority. If you decide to give it another go ever, get in touch on the JF forum and we'll do our best to get you up and running.

You do realise that 1000fpm is outside the limits for this aircraft, so what you're probably seeing is the speed bleeding off, the nose dropping, speed building up again etc? Before writing this, I just took it up to check it against the ODM data - max AUW, 10 degrees, 6000ft clean and I sat trimmed at 90kts with a constant 500fpm roc.

I am a 3rd party dev, I work for a couple of companies but my views are entirely my own and I cannot say that they represent any company. They are based on 15 years of working on flight dynamics for simulators and, whilst my views may often appear quite negative with regard to MSFS, I actually like a lot of aspects of it including the interaction with the environment. I strongly disagree, though, that it is a massive step forwards aerodynamically at this point in time. There is a lot of promise, but to go back to that paragraph you reference I am finding that no matter how closely I follow that tutorial or use my experience to build on it, the results are (to me) nowhere near where they should be.

Whilst waiting for Robert's response, which will likely be much more concise and clear than my own, I'd just like to take this one question and try to give you some idea why it is underwhelming from a dev's perspective. I have used that exact procedure - note early in the document it states that "The new flight model for Microsoft Flight Simulator relies on the shape of the aircraft to predict its aerodynamic behavior and we have almost entirely dropped the use of tables of data. Because of this, the correct definition of the aircraft's dimension data is of particularly importance." To give one (of several) places where this dimensional data input falls down, we go to define the shape of the fuselage and have https://ibb.co/qy6kBpX which is basically a cylinder. None of the aircraft that I have developed have a basic cylindrical fuselage - there are flat sides, wider/taller and narrower tapered sections. Put simply, it is too simplistic! No allowance is made for 'out of the ordinary' shapes - biplanes, delta wings, even swept wings have caused serious problems. Earlier discussion about the available parameters which we could use to make up for deficiencies comes into play here - there are not nearly enough to make up for the lack of accuracy and, on occasion, create the 'scripted' behaviour which can be better than not having that behaviour at all when it is noted by both current pilots and operating manuals. I have been fortunate in that the aircraft I have been working on are nearly all ones I worked on in either P3D or X-Plane, so I know their manuals well and have contact with current or as recently current as possible pilots who test for me. In every one of these projects, whilst I have seen a much better interaction with the environment I have been noting multiple instances of basic aerodynamic behaviours which are simply not present or (even worse) wrong in MSFS, despite having been present in the other sims. That in itself, and our inability to do anything to correct it because the "tables of data" that are referred to would be really very useful to either correct or create these situations, give what is a very underwhelming result for me as a developer.

The simple thing to ask for is for all the parameters that were available in FSX to be restored in their entirity. Otherwise, we still have a piecemeal mish-mash that might work for some aircraft but not for others. The problem with asking for items to be put on a wishlist and voted for when they are as specific as this is that, understandably, the vast majority of people will not vote for it because they will not see that they would ever 'use' it, despite the fact that it directly affects the ability of others to bring them the 3rd party addons they may want. People will vote for the things they see - weather, ATC, ground textures, birds etc. They see 3rd party aircraft being produced but do not see the struggle that is going on behind the scenes with this one specific area of addon creation. It's likely you'd get about twenty votes for this topic, almost all of them being 3rd party devs. This is a fundamental base for a flight simulation. It should not be at the mercy of the general public to try and get it to the top of some list, it should be looked at simply because you have respected Flight Dynamics Engineers such as Robert (amongst others) saying "Here's a problem . . . "

I think Robert has hit many nails on the head in the course of this thread, but the latest post sums up a lot of what I find - 1) many, many months of work, I estimate three times as long based on the aircraft I have created so far. Partly down to the confusion and incompleteness of the SDK, partly down to . . . 2) . . . the removal of a large proportion of the tools available to us in FSX. It would have been much easier and clearer had they maintained the FSX parameters in their entirity to allow us to adjust for any weaknesses in the core FM. There seemed to be a move towards 'one size fits all' with the core flight model having overall control of how an aircraft flies and the removal of the ability to carefully adjust from the developer. Once we move away from straightforward shapes, however, weaknesses have become apparent and rather than having a surgeon's scalpel to gently nudge things in the right direction without affecting other areas of the flight model, we now have to use a sledgehammer.

I'll be careful how I word this because I am contracted to them (but not 'part of the company', so I am unable to do anything about the current situation). It has been Christmas Day, it's now the very early hours of Boxing Day. Just Flight staff have young families, and if you have seen the support given throughout the year for their own products, you might not be so flippant. They are a publishing house that also creates 'in house' products. They are not responsible for others' work / updates and will therefore get to them when they are in work. They are not really "losing customers" as you put it, because their regular customers know the level JF staff go to to support their products. If you don't want to buy from there, that's fine / if you'd bought direct from SWS you would have the update already. If it only takes seconds to sort, that is still time away from the family and I have seen JF staff over the last 12 months supporting various releases 'out of hours'. Give them 48hrs off for Christmas, or whatever their bosses have decided - their customer support is generally second to none.

Because, according to Working Title's own website, it is still in "early access beta" . Therefore it is still subject to changes, which may require changes to the Kodiak. When it is out of beta and complete, I'm sure the situation will change.

Are you talking about any specific point? If it's circuit then make sure it's properly trimmed. Particularly after take-off, depending on your CG you may want to add up to 2 units of trim (as per the POH). If it is during cruise, that seems to be something with the core FM of this sim. I dislike the tendency to bob the nose, but haven't found a way to entirely eradicate it.

Low level, you should be able to take off from Valley, make your way to the Mach loop, on down to the Sennybridge range (spending a little time at each!) and then back up to North Wales for a run through the A5 pass and return to Valley with a bit above diversion fuel. High level is a different matter, of course - the test route for high level fuel consumption was full power climb out from Valley, 350kts / 0.76M to 35k, then 0.7M until descent point 50 miles from Lossiemouth descending at 0.7 / 350 and over Lossie at low level with roughly 1000kg left. Both courtesy of a Hawk instructor!

Depends what you mean by cruise! Climb is always full power, 350kts is usual, until 0.76M, then maintain 0.76M to whatever altitude. Then high level cruise would normally be 0.7M. Low level, on the other hand - 92/93% rpm for 420kts. 7 miles a minute, so helps with the route planning!

Yes, the rear cockpit is fully functional and you can fly from there.

Fuel flow testing has been great fun for me - using info from a well-known Hawk instructor for a high-level transit and also a low-level routing through Wales. The planning and execution of these flights is definitely one good reason for military aircraft to be in this sim, you certainly wouldn't be able to recreate either of these in DCS!

I have absolutely no idea. I started answering questions about the P3D release several years ago, shortly after 'commercial member' arrived underneath. I'm not a forum regular, don't really have time for that with real world work, family etc and only tend to come on here directly after releases to see if I can help out a bit with any problems. By all means complain to whoever put that there, get them to put something else there if you want but as I said, I really don't have the time sorry.

Yes, that's exactly what it needs: Sensitivity+ 0% Sensitivity- 0% Dead Zone 1% Neutral 0% Extreme dead zone 0% Reactivity 100% The problem is, the end user can now set the curves however they want them either side of linear so it is impossible for me to set one curve that would suit everyone. Straight down the middle is what I aimed for!

Several current on the PA28, with a few that have it in their logbook in the past.

If only it were as simple as that! So many aspects of the aircraft affect this, including fuselage shape for side-force and weathervane effect. The shape of the aircraft appears to be the primary mover in terms of behaviours, and the shape is accurate here. Taking the figures from a default aircraft just does not work. Personally, I think the ridiculously over-sensitive default behaviours are far far worse. At least here you can use a bit of rudder on the runway to keep you straight, rather than some wild ride that launches you off the edge of the runway if you dare to think 'rudder' 😂 Sorry, but it was my call along with the testers and this is where it's at, with hopefully some improvement to be made as already noted.

The rudder is a bug-bear of mine in this. It has been set correctly in terms of surface area, max angle of deflection, coefficients and damping levels. Yet no matter what I did it just would not feel 'normal' - adjustments to any / all of the modifiers don't seem to have an effect. It may be that I have to give it an unrealistic size or deflection angle? Probably something I will continue to look at as the Turbo versions are worked on. I'm only slightly consoled by the fact that I think rudder behaviour in this sim is very unrealistic in general anyway!

It's been 'interesting', shall we say? The specific point about adverse yaw is that it's one area Asobo have stated that they need to improve. In the older sims, when using correct coefficients, yaw from aileron in an aircraft of this size should be in the region of -0.02 to -0.07 (Roskam: Airplane Flight Dynamics and Automatic Flight Controls Part I). In this Arrow, I've set it to -9.5 and there's the faintest glimpse of a pause before the nose starts to swing into the turn. In more general terms, it appears that the priority is now to build the aircraft as accurately as possible on paper, and then use the tables effectively to nudge things in the direction you want. It's not totally clear and there are plenty of stumbling blocks along the way but I think that the sim governs a lot more and to get the aircraft behaving correctly within that confine is actually a lot harder now than it was in previous sims. Hopefully as the sim develops and possibly 3rd party tools become available (and we get more used to working in it!) it'll get a lot easier.

I've probably done more aerobatics in a Puchacz than any other glider - it just seemed to flow nicely. That spin entry, though - wahey, I'm inverted 🤣🤣🤣