Stearmandriver

Of course, but clearly I was talking about the "other developers" who are working on projects similar to PMDG: complex WASM airliners. How many of those are available for Xbox? FBW and Fenix aren't trying to develop an aircraft for both platforms, right? Thus, it's fair to assume there's things they don't know about what PMDG is trying to do, and difficulties they haven't encountered - because they aren't even trying to do the same thing, right?

Yes but... you've also seen PMDG do things no one else was doing. They still are, by trying to stick with the multi-platform concept this sim is attempting to leverage. The other devs aren't supporting Xbox right? Might have something to do with it.

To be fair... what was proven? Two people said opposing things. Each of them has a financial incentive in their own narrative being true. So how do you decide who to believe? Now, Randazzo / PMDG have been around a bit longer than this current team of sim designers, and they have quite a proven track record in the community. The current sim designers on the other hand... Point is, we don't know the full story. Likely we never will. But it seems odd to arbitrarily believe Jorge must be right and Randazzo must be wrong. Things are rarely that black and white...

Well, that behavior is entirely wrong. C'mon PMDG. 😉

A real aircraft will never, in any automation mode except glideslope, violate the altitude in the MCP window. If you're using VNAV or "managed" for those that speak airbus, you will need to change the altitude in the FMC as well for an updated top of descent; but no matter what, if you've dialed the altitude into the window on top of the panel in the middle of the cockpit, the autpilot WILL honor it. So this sounds like a significant bug, if you set 15,000 in the MCP and it blew through. I've never tried an airliner in the sim so don't really know what state they're in... but this sounds like about what I was expecting lol. C'mon PMDG.

I do find that CG changes make a difference here. I've not found a loading case where I "needed" rudder trim with either the original or modded flight model (in the sense that there's plenty of rudder pedal authority), but I've definitely noticed that the amount changes between a full and empty airplane.

Unless there's a Kodiak-specific quirk I'm not aware of, I don't see why not. Flaps yeild a lower airspeed and that's always nice. Headwind is just free airspeed with a lower groundspeed, which is easier on the plane. Where it's advisable to limit flap usage is with a strong crosswind or gust component. More flaps equals more surface area, which means more weathervaning tendency into a crosswind, and more speed fluctuations in gusts. So in those conditions it can be beneficial to land with less than full flaps. But with a normal, fairly steady mostly headwind, full flaps should be good. The performance of this plane, though, makes them pretty unnecessary at a normal airport. Most of my testing has been in the PNG bush, and even there with uphill landings, landing distance is not an issue. So if you prefer a flaps 20 landing on a normal runway, I say stick with it ;). I did notice she gets squirrely if you get slow (which might well be accurate). I've been referencing the AoA indexer more than the airspeed on final, and a green cross (the on speed indication) seems to run a few knots above the default Vref, so if you're flying ref, it's easy to get slow. Maybe try using AoA and see how it feels.

I'm reasonably sure low idle is not approved in flight. We never did that in Caravans anyway, and a Caravan at idle with full flaps comes down a lot more like the modded Kodiak. The original model strikes me as far too little flap/flat prop drag.

WANT.

Aux fuel pump maybe? I noticed it was pretty loud.

Hah I know what you mean... torque and RPM numbers are a little small for my 46 year old eyes too ;). Let me know what you think if you try the mod; I'm interested in how it strikes someone else with the similar amount of testing (ie not too much) as I've done.

I just did and am really pleased. The plane feels more solid, while at the same time showing a little more realistic response to turbulence. The "sticky nose wheel" is gone, so you can pick the nose up early in a soft field takeoff (and hold it off after landing), and most importantly - it comes down more positively. Original flight model, idle full flaps at 70kts, I was seeing 400-500fpm descent. With the mod, I'm seeing 1300-1400fpm. Makes much more sense, and makes the plane more usable for steep approaches in the bush. Color me impressed. Only con I see is that I think it took away too much of the left turning tendencies on takeoff. I think the orig model felt better in that respect (the "corrected" orig model; I didn't have it until after they corrected their torque typo.) But it's a minor point to me, for a better feel in pretty much the rest of the envelope. YMMV of course, but I'd say it's worth a try.

Huh, I tried the "prop reverse" (vs throttle reverse") and couldn't get the plane to move in either direction, even near full throttle. Seemed like beta to me.

Naw, I use that axis as an elevator trim wheel (of course, also use the hat switch on the stick as an electric trim switch, but for some sim aircraft like the Stearman the axis works better.) For reverse, I used the three-position latching switch under your left thumb, on the throttle. I bound the aft position of that switch to "throttle reverse thrust." Now when I have the throttle at idle and I toggle that switch aft, the prop is in reverse, and if I advance the throttle, progressively more reverse thrust is applied. It works well; as in real life, you can back the plane up this way (but stay off the brakes! 😉 .)

I always understood beta to just mean neutral prop pitch that creates no thrust at all, only drag. On the PT-6 (in the caravan anyway, and the Kodiak throttle quadrant looks the same) it's achieved by moving the throttle back below idle into the beta range. Moving the throttle further back moves the prop into a reverse pitch and starts spooling the engine up for reverse thrust. I don't remember a beta indication in the cockpit, but it's been a minute (or 20+years lol).

I would say the "prop reverse thrust" is true beta, in the sense that it just flattens the blades to produce no thrust, in either direction. You can verify this by setting this flavor of reverse and then spooling up your throttle at a standstill. You go nowhere, forwards or backwards ;).

It does, but I think its convenience of use depends on your hardware. There are two control bindings: "propellor reverse thrust" and "throttle reverse thrust". I first bound the prop reverse to a latching switch on my warthog throttle, and found that to be equivalent to beta. Fine for controlling taxi speed, but spooling the throttle up did not yeild any reverse thrust. I then changed that latching switch to "throttle reverse thrust" and this works well. If I toggle that thumb switch and leave the throttle at idle, it functions as beta. If I spool up the throttle, I get nice reverse. So it's a one-stop solution, just like the power lever works in the real aircraft.

Picked up the Kodiak tonight, and did quite a few patterns around Port Moresby to get a feel for her and tune my controls before making many hops through the jungle strips along the Kokoda track. Beautiful aircraft with many well-thought-out features and little touches that make the experience feel richer. I'm looking forward to trying the flight model mod tomorrow. I've never flown a Kodiak, but I have quite a bit of real world time in Caravans, and I think it's fair to assume some similarities in behavior. The persistent annoyance I had with the Kodiak in the sim tonight is that the darn thing wouldn't come down! Full flaps, prop full forward, idle power... and I was gliding down at 70kts and 400 ft/min. I cannot believe that even approximates reality. In the Caravan when flying jumpers, we'd go idle and full flaps and have to point the nose down 15-20 degrees to maintain 65kts. We could reliably beat the tandems down, and some of the solos. When flying freight, we'd routinely carry a bunch of power and fly the approach at 90-100kts. When you pulled the power to idle at the threshold and you heard that big prop swing flat, you were thrown into your harnesses like it was an arrested landing. That big prop creates a ton of drag when flat. It's the same engine and prop on the Kodiak (a lighter plane). The Kodiak's flaps also look bigger and more slotted than the Caravan's. I'm not meaning to knock the Kodiak model, really. They've got a great project here, I know they're not done tweaking it, and in its present state it's well worth the purchase. But I'm gonna try that mod tomorrow. 😉

Sim ground handling is absolutely in need of improvement. Left turning tendencies and crosswind weathervaning are modeled; the problem is that they aren't exactly modeled correctly. Ground friction values seem odd to me; planes seem to slide around on dry pavement like it's icy. And crosswind weathervaning is crazily overdone; 5kts of crosswind component in the sim makes the plane behave like a 15 or 20kt crosswind in reality. To be fair though, I've never seen a desktop sim do any better at this (well, at friction. The crosswind, yes.) FSX and XP have the same issue. I guess it's either a real challenge, or deemed not worth the effort, to improve in the desktop sim world.

VNAV PATH is a geometric path, it will always take you to the same point in space. Thus there will be no getting down early or late; you'll always arrive at the next constraint on altitude. The lack of wind data just means the pilot flying may have to manage speed a bit more actively, by either adding thrust or dragging brake. But VNAV is entirely usable without descent forecast wind data; it just assumes a smooth gradient from present wind at present altitude to zero wind at surface. There are many operators who never even look at the descent forecasts page; they still use VNAV. There are many more who do enter descent winds manually, but do not pay for the uplinked winds data. Just like cruise winds uplinks, it's nice to have but in no way unrealistic to not have. I can't imagine PMDG holding up a release for it. I agree with your overall take that PMDG does not want to release an unfinished product, but I can't believe the holdup would be something so nonessential; a QOL item vs an actual fundamental issue. I really do think, from reading everything Randazzo writes, that it has more to do with PMDG ultimately intending their products to run on xbox as well as PC; thus they are constrained to "inside the box" solutions in a way that other devs like the Fenix and FBW teams are not. Watching Randazzo admonish the FBW guy for commenting while under false assumptions was fun. 😉

This fixation with descent forecast winds is odd. VNAV in a 737 works just fine even if you never enter descent winds at all; it just assumes a steady gradient from current wind to zero at the surface. Will this be quite as precise? No, you may end up adding a little more thrust or dragging a little more brake. But I mean, you'll still be able to use a VNAV path. Where greater precision matters in VNAV path is during RNAV and especially RNP approach procedures, down low where the wind doesn't matter much anyway as it's lighter. The datalinked descent winds are nice to have and I always use them, but there are plenty of operators in the world who never even bother to enter this information. They still use VNAV.

You seem to be confusing a lack of understanding of how to use the flight guidance with "error". That would not be error, but poor training. Error is, by definition, unintentional. If a pilot makes an incorrect but fully intended change to flight guidance, this is not an error. This is an improperly performed task. Error would be an UNintentional change to the MCP, such as bumping another control while manipulating the heading knob. Again, it's not as if I'm preaching a pet peeve of mine, I'm just telling you what data from all over the world shows - pilots have a tendency to make these errors, in all aircraft types. The acceptance of the inevitability of human error is the foundation of all of human factors; it's why we do basically everything we do. It's why we have defined pilot flying / pilot monitoring roles, it's why standardization and TEM / CRM exist, it's why checklists and briefings are held almost sacred in the industry. If we could simply, through any level of training, convince pilots to just stop making mistakes, we wouldn't need any of that, would we? Imagine how much money we could save. 😉 But that's impossible, because humans are human. And so yes, every time you touch anything, an opportunity for error is introduced. You still haven't told me; what value do you see in this act? Why are you so staunchly defending it? I love this stuff; I really want to know.

I don't mean to continue de-railing this thread, but you've got me curious: could you explain what you mean here? How do you feel that the data I referenced has nothing to do with the "procedure" of synching the heading bug? You seem to feel the procedure should be continued, despite the fact that every time a pilot touches the MCP an opportunity for error (which has nothing to do with good or bad training) is created. What positives come of this procedure that you feel outweigh that?

I think I see what you mean, but my gut feeling is to agree with Randazzo, that this is more of a lighting engine thing. The panel looks natural where the stripe of sun falls on the right side of the MCP and the FO's EFIS control panel. I've noticed that even with the latest patch, MSFS does seem to auto-adjust exposure a little bit based on where you're looking, and the outside, front-lit world is nicely exposed in this shot, so maybe we're seeing a little underexposure of the cockpit? Not too bad though, I'm not seeing details lost in shadow or anything. It's always hard to compare like this; given all the variability in display types, color correction and gamma settings etc, it's hard to say if any two of us on here are even seeing this photo in exactly the same way. I can't say it's not too dark for you. But I'll say this: in the last round of photos Randazzo posted, showing full sun in the cockpit, there were several photos that I'd have believed were photographs of a real airplane, no exaggeration. All the little details like the level of translucency of different materials like the fire switches, the wheel on the gear handle... it was ridiculously good. When desktop sims get so good that you honestly can't tell it's not a real photo... wow. I'm looking forward to this one. 👍

People are resistant to change, but I don't know why this idea seems to bother you so much. It's just a simple point of improvement the data has identified. That's the whole reason to collect and analyze this data, isn't it? I only included my experience to show that I wasn't one of those "bean counters" or "people without any understanding of the real picture who try to be important" that you were attempting to dismiss. I wish the 737 had a push to sync heading bug for convenience when actually using the bug as intended, not so I can reach up and mash it every ten minutes for no reason while not in heading select. That's what we should probably be avoiding.