Another thing over the designchoice of not using realistic adverse yaw numbers is:
The airplane doesn’t get hard to fly because of realistic adverse yaw,
when you try the 3rd party gliders with 100% adverse yaw and dont’t use any rudder, you can still make a turn without directly spinning to the ground.
So I don’t understand what’s Asobos or anybodys problem with going the realism route in this case.
That would seem logical. But it doesn’t seem that the CFD is clever enough in FS2020 yet to accurately model the drag of the ailerons.
Or they simply don’t want it to be accurate, because outside of the CFD they also don’t use any realistic adverse yaw numbers and it would be possible to do so.
Well, if this sim really does have CFD – as is claimed by it creators – then it would be doing adverse yaw, whether or not that was the intention. However, the fact that FS2020 does not currently do adverse yaw, indicates that any mention of CFD is largely a marketing gimmick.
On aircraft with good rudder authority the adverse yaw is very strong, much stronger than in MSFS.
NTSB report:
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20021018X05344&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=IA
TLDR: Half the rudder on a 747 jammed hard over mid flight due to a failure. This caused the aircraft to rapidly enter a near 40 degree bank. That was with only half the rudder.
They had to compensate with full opposite rudder for the functional half and aileron input.
If you fully deflect the rudder on most aircraft (without opposite aileron), you have very little time until you end up in a 90° bank.
…and in MSFS, if you push full rudder without any aileron the aircraft will just wiggle a little bit and recenter itself. So that’s also far from reality.
It would be nice if they would integrate Adverse Yaw into the CFD simulation instead of making it an seperate ‘‘fake’’ value.
I’m starting a list of aircraft which are using realistic adverse yaw,
feel free to comment if you know one:
Here is a showcase how realistic Adverse Yaw looks like with the Discus 2-c, I’m making a left and right turn without using the rudder, you can see how the front of the glider moves in the opposite direction.
And here I’m doing the same turns with rudder, now you see the front follows the turn and everything looks smooth. (I’m using an old thrustmaster joystick with twist function and a setting of 100% adverse yaw in the Discus 2-c)
This is how it looks like with almost every other airplane, but you actually don’t use any rudder and that is highly unrealistic.
It’s specially a big disappointment with the stock MSFS gliders, no adverse yaw at all, just take a look:
For everybody who is wondering why there aren’t many aircraft with realistic adverse yaw, there is currently only one developer (GotGravel) who does a very good job with the implementation.
And he is involved in the FlyingIron and GotFriends development, that’s why their and his own aircraft projects are currently the only ones with realsitic adverse yaw.
Hopefully other developers are following his example soon.
Every aircraft with realistic adverse yaw gonna be listed here in the future:
Realistic Adverse Yaw / Aircraft list
Now here it gets interesting. What you describe is absolutely how it should be. That’s what the SDK states, in theory. But it’s not happening. From observations of the behaviour of the majority of planes, apparently there seems to be something fundamentally wrong in the underlying code/math with how specifically side vectored forces are calculated (based on airframe geometry). (cross wind behaviour, tail dragger behaviour, sail plane behaviour…)
Like - this is speculation - some variable is using the wrong values, based on a unit in feet, while it should be the numeric value in meters, resulting in three times too much force in a certain vector. Maybe, maybe not, but something seems to be off.
(just a thought experiment: if the side force of the airstream hitting the airframe is calculated significantly too high erroneously, it would neutralise adverse yaw effects in the air. The vertical stabiliser, that large vertical surface with the purposefully biggest leverage, would push the airframe straighter than it would be, were the side force calculated correctly. If that error were in the fundamental code, it would correlate with the strange overly extreme effects we get in cross winds and with tail draggers like the DC-3.)
Or it’s intentional, to not annoy the arcade game lovers, who like to drive bricks on rails through the air. (but I don’t think so, because Asobo went to some efforts to implement all the optional assistants which do that)
Just something fundamental is off, and all the efforts to fix it with more variables, look a bit like attempts to patch over a broken foundation.
Side vectored forces seem to be off in general, you also see this in turbulence situations, vertically it looks good, but as soon as they come sideways it looks like a fish on a hook.
It feels like it’s better to not use any rudder at all, you end up in a part of the simulation which is incorrectly.
And that problem goes all the way through into the adverse yaw simulation.
Sadly the current situation is that not enough people care about it = Asobo/MS won’t look further into it.
That’s a good way of describing it !
The nose of the aircraft seems to be stuck on a fixed point, and the rest of the aircraft simply wobbles behind it.
Fly the Just-Flight Hawk at a high speed, and it shows this fish-wobble behaviour perfectly.
After lot’s of feedback and research I updated the wishlist topic,
main problem is that currently only 2 values really having an affect on adverse yaw, while everything else doesn’t do anything.
That’s why we currently have the ‘‘partial adverse yaw’’ bahavior of aircraft (depending on which values have been used).
So the OP got updated to be more clear with the improvement wish.
Update: A big typo has been identified which also has an effect on adverse yaw!
I created a bug report:
SDK - Fuselage CX - wrong default values for all developers!