sadly they already confirmed on facebook they won’t use any CFD for the PC-12:
SimWorks Studios:
CFD serves a very particular purpose in MSFS and it doesn’t do what we need. We prefer to use academic/industry standard methods which are accurate and predictable.
fair enough - they are indeed not keen on CFD
Especially if they thinks it’s inaccurate, and random. Is there any evidence of this, though?
No more so than issues with any of the other flight modelling systems, which every flight sim has.
If SWS don’t want to use it that’s their choice, but spreading FUD about it when other methods have their own accuracy/predictability/difficulty issues is a bit much (as demonstrated ably by this OP and also certain planes cough having had constant FM issues using those methods), and especially when other developers use CFD on a range of aircraft both vintage to modern with apparently “good enough” success.
Sticking to what you know has obvious benefits too, so can’t blame them either for wanting to do that.
Risk there is will it become a technical debt issue sometime downstream when/if MS/Asobo downgrade “old reliable methods” to legacy and CFD (or more accurately CFD Lite?) is promoted to official new shinee. Then it also becomes a marketing problem, and it already is there to come extent if you think about it.
Who knows, we’ll see!
“Faking it” and “game magic” to get a required behavior due to model constraints are a feature of consumer flight sims, not a bug. Great long comment here that nails that:
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/uhkz7x/comment/i781y2t/
They get better over time, and that’s largely due to CPU/GPU improvements that allow higher fidelity processing to move towards that fabled goal of flight sim “realism”. That has to compete with a lot of other processing requirements that are also growing though, all hungry for their own chunk of the compute budget. Complex AI doesn’t/won’t come for free on the FPS side, for example.
CFD could use some more focused discussion (@HomieFFM @AlpineB4652 ?), and maybe should be spun off into a topic of its own, more in depth than the pure listing here: New Propeller | CFD | Soft Body Simulation - Aircraft List, as it’s evolving as much as the everything else.
Threads with some good CFD info/discussion:
https://www.reddit.com/r/flightsim/comments/uhkz7x/rant_msfs_has_cfd_now/
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/feedback-for-cfd-simulation-on-c172/508234/380?u=tchitkom
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/6-improved-atmospheric-simulation-with-a-big-focus-on-thermals-and-general-tweaks-for-the-cfd/550009
Anything that shines light on how modelling is done, and the reality of the current methods to achieve “realistic” behaviour can’t be a bad thing I think, as long as people understand this is always a work in progress and can only get better - as long as it’s discussed rationally and objectively.
Or is that for the scalar?!
default 0.5 is for the aileron_up_drag_coef
(also linked in the aileron up drag scalar description)
Yeah, penny dropped about the same time you did your reply. Sorry!
This shines the most light on the black-box of the FM. Pour yourself a stiff one.
https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/Primers/Flight_Model_Physics.htm
Well, yeah, I know about that and so does everyone using the SDK.
However, as we’ve seen from the dev forums, there are gaping holes in understanding, still missing documentation, and sometimes even documentation errors which all add to the confusion surrounding implementation.
Not to mention custom flight modelling via WASM or RPN.
Threads like this and others (like your threads too) all throw some more sunlight on it.
Its OK, I wasn’t being serious! It’s some ‘primer’.
I think that’s ok tbh. It’s a serious topic. Not easy doing tech writing either (been there, done that) on a moving target. The forumulas look all messed up on the web too, I have to use the local doc version to read it correctly.
It just needs a wrapper around the primer, filling in all the other stuff!
I like what they’ve done with the Avionics docs: Hello from MSFS Avionics Frameworks and Instruments | MSFS Avionics Frameworks and Instruments
Working Title. Need we say more.
another longer reply from SimWorks Studios:
the CFD is only used for the effects of propwash and deep stall, which is what Asobo answered to us when asked on the dev platform.
We have experimented with CFD and found no difference to the handling qualities of T-Plane aircraft like the PC-12 or DHC-7. In other aircraft like the DA-42, CFD introduces severe problems such as erratic handling with single engine flight.
That said, what it offers makes up for the shortcomings of the base flight model, but we have been able to work around them in ways we don’t like, but still have control over.
You might notice that “having control” is a recurring theme for us in the FM topic. The reason is that with every update MSFS removes coefficients that are used in the real aerospace industry, in favour of a “black box” that does the work for you. That would be good if only it worked. But when you have to make a C172 with an H-Stab that works like the F/A-18’s in order to get proper behaviour, that introduces unpredictable behaviours that appear when you don’t fly straight. IRL that’s what you usually want, but in the sim you want to fly outside the normal envelope because you want to catch that view of Burj Dubai that just slipped past your window. And that’s where you go outside the envelope and MSFS dives in to guesswork.
Another problem I know too well are propellers. The only turboprops using CFD+Modern prop system are Asobo’s own KA350, C208 and TBM. Still, we and other devs have found significant problems with the modern prop system that don’t allow you to run as close to reality as we need to and that Asobo discovered because we told them about it.
On the other hand we have the old FSX tables that have been used by the industry and academia and allow you to have very precise control over the propeller’s performance, without the bugs and guesswork.
TLDR, CFD seems cool but we know what we are doing and why we are not using CFD. When it improves to the point of offering more than the other system, we will definitely jump on it. For now, it is a step back.
I looked over the list, and the only aircraft that I have that I could not see in the list that has VT reinjected into CFD was the Bell 407. In fact it has the full set!
CFD_EnableSimulation = 1
CFD_ReinjectBody = 1
CFD_ReinjectRotors = 1
CFD_ReinjectVTailX = 1
CFD_ReinjectHTailY = 1
I forgot the description! 
Microsoft/Nemeth Designs - Bell Model 407
| Developer_______ | Aircraft________________ | UD - DD_____ | TA/CC__ | FX__ | VT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flysimware | Cessna 414AW | Not listed, so default | 0.2 | Yes for X&Y | |
| Big Radials | Grumman JRF-6 Goose | 0.5-0.5 | 0 | 0.4 | |
| Big Radials | Grumman JRF-6 Goose - Skis | 0.5-0.5 | 0 | 0.4 |
Just stumbled upon this thread when looking up adverse yaw in the C172. Are there mods or changes we can make to the planes to introduce more adverse yaw? Does the list st the top list sny planes wirh good averse yaw?
I’d suggest having a look at that list, and read the explanation of the numbers listed there. There’s quite a bit of info about it.
I have some numbers for the Flyboy Simulations Rans S6S Coyote II as of v1.2:
| Developer_______ | Aircraft________________ | UD - DD_____ | TA/CC__ | FX__ | VT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flyboy Simulations | Rans S6S Coyote II (All variants) | 0.48 - 1.2 | +0.72 | 0.52 |  |
This one has gotten a lot of praise for its flight model - presence of adverse yaw, fluid controls - and fantastic 3D model.
Update
Upcoming aircraft from Airmax514 - XB-70 Valkyrie
UD-DD: 0.5 - 2.5
FX: 1.2
VT: 