autogyro

I haven't flown in awhile but I do recall the AP struggling to maintain the set IAS. It was never off by as much as you seem to be getting. Try trimming the airplane and set the target altitude before engaging AP. I don't recall if it was ever fixed.

Don't use rudder trim to counteract yawing forces of take off. Use rudder itself. The rudder required varies with torque and speed so trimming is not going to really stop it. You need to vary the rudder trim til the airplane gets up to speed and into a consistent climb. Best to do that manually.

Very very simply: A lot of aircraft have a trim wheel or gauge. Often a default or neutral trim and a take off trim is shown, usually with an arrow or other mark on the wheel or gauge. Zero or the default trim is often associated with cruise flight at typical power settings at a clean configuration (no flaps, spoilers etc) Usually you trim nose up for take off, which is again based on a typical take off profile and power settings. The trim's purpose is to take load off the controls so you don't have to keep pressure to keep the yoke or joystick where it is. In video games it's slightly different because it feels like you can release the yoke or joystick back to center. In reality it's about the pressure you exert in keeping the yoke or joystick in a specific spot. In essence it's to help you maintain the attitude of the aircraft. For most aircraft, you hand fly then trim to neutral pressure. Whether you are climbing, flying straight and level or descending. The only exception is take off, where you trim the aircraft first to help with the initial climb. The above refers to elevator trim, which is the most used. You may also have rudder and aileron trim, which again is for helping you maintain attitude.

Best to contact Carenado through their ticket system. I don't think they read these forums.

Yep that can be done. I'll need to dust off the old file but it should be easy enough. I've been tardy on PC12 changes but then I personally haven't had time to do any flight simming myself since June last year. But this should be a quick change.

Try some of Milton's comments here: http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php?15848-Fsx-acceleration-Landing-gear

Hi guys just came across this thread thanks to LDP's email. Ostensibly yes it can be done to any and all aircraft; all I did was to brute force it in a way. The current turboprop simulation in the base FSX game is all sorts of wrong for the PT6A engines. No doubt your professional modellers from RealAir and Milviz will do a bang up job with ITT modelling. Unfortunately these days I'm short on time so I'm hesitant to make promises I can't keep - although I wish I had the time to help everyone. The current ITT output is mostly affected by the torque output only and drops too much with altitude. What I did in the PC12 is to: Determine what the realistic ITT values are in relation to various flight regimes based on POH. Correct ITT values with altitude at ISA conditions. In retrospect I should not have made the ITT values a function of altitude but air pressure or inverse air pressure as it gave me more work to do later on. Correct ITT values with temperature for a fixed altitude based on POH. Correct ITT vs torque. I found it was not sensitive enough to torque changes at various altitudes and temperatures. Correct fuel use to be an approximate average to real world use at near cruising conditions based on POH. The corrections are basic maths, you just take what you output and you write formulae to correct it and set it as close to a trend as you can. Cleverer people than I would write better functions and use better input parameters. A better starting point than the FSX ITT model would also help. In the end though, my ######ised model does its job well enough to be a more realistic approximation of the PC12 torque and ITT relationship than anything the base gauge would output or what you could do with the .air file, and I'd argue is the most realistic PC12 simulation available at the moment. As for the C90, the theory would be the same, if anybody wants to give it a go. I'm more than happy to help but I can't devote that much time (or it would take me months to do it) to do it myself anymore.

Sorry guys all paints have been on hold for the last 3 months, on account of me not having my PC. I'll be getting it back in 2 weeks so I'll ease back into painting along with modding. Apologies and thanks for the patience.

Yep its classic Carenado behaviour. A lot of their airplanes have this issue. Yes it's an FDE issue, can be corrected if someone is well versed with developing the aerodynamics side of the air file.

It's not impossible, just time consuming. If I had time I would do some custom ones. Alas I don't even have time to fire up P3D these days.

I haven't installed Reshade into v2.5, however these were the MER settings I was using before to make a nice sunny day (does make for a bright night though): https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz_9RuK6jIkhM1ljbmw0VzRtUUU/view?usp=sharing

They almost never go back to older releases. Carenado's modus operandi is to introduce improvements or new systems modelling or fixes in subsequent planes. On the other hand they are also more inclined to accept and suggest optional community made patches to their existing aircraft than many other developers. I'm sure SP2 will be it. The rest is up to us if we want it fixed. But also we can't always expect and rely on Bert to be providing fixes, as appreciated as they are.

Haven't had a chance to look into yet, really depends on what I've got on the next few days. I doubt this weekend as it'll take many hours to basically review and rewrite if necessary all the xml changes I've made to see if any bugs have crept in. But going along with this I will be aiming to do some further corrections to the systems modelling, probably starting with further annunciator panel fixes.

It's not meant to make it work it's meant to make it work better. If you have issues with capturing GS or FLC mode in the first place then that needs to be done correctly or fixed first.

WIP shot for D-FUEL:

Had a check but unfortunately Table 1505 which controls engine spool doesn't seem to apply to turboprops I don't think. In light of this there's only one other way to change engine spool. If you guys don't mind slightly slower throttle response during flight, please look into your aircraft.cfg file for something called fuel_flow_gain. Make the value something like 80% of the current value. That'll make it spool slower including at start up.

Probably not going to be looking into repaints for the Hawker for a long time. They're really big time commitments due to the complexity of the template.

They all are... Carenado paints are immensely frustrating to paint! I've done plenty and they're not easy to align, unfortunately that's all we get though so the painters make do. And thanks buddy

There is already a paint kit - the blank white paint serves as the paint kit.

No worries that'll also go on the list

I'm gonna tackle the creeping issue another way, by fixing engine spool. Hopefully something this weekend on it.

This will probably be the last one I do for awhile as is like to devote a bit more time fixing the PC12 systemswhen I do get free time. D-FUEL N58NG N524TW Did I miss anyone's request before the Tradewinds one?

Hi guys, I occasionally get Google Drive requests for access to the first version, please use v3 (or whatever latest is if there will be further updates) instead.

I've been playing around with the .air files, that should allow more realistic thrust and N1, although this is a WIP. Coupled with that I'm going to make an XML change that works as an EEC when the engine computers are turned on - in other words, allow you to firewall the throttle but have it auto manage thrust/N1.

Always wanted a Phenom 300 rather than the 100 or the Hawker... What to do...