Added:
DG Aviation DG-1001E
DG Aviation LS8-18
(according to the release notes of Sim Update 12, both glider got improved adverse yaw)
Edit: both deleted after research,
both gliders have exact same adverse yaw values which means it can’t be realistic.
Got some values for the PMDG DC-6, from 01/02/2023 version 2.0.46, which I just re-installed:
| Plane | Model | AUDC | ADDC |
|---|---|---|---|
| pmdg-aircraft-dc6 | PMDG DC-6A | 0.405 | 0.81 |
| pmdg-aircraft-dc6 | PMDG DC-6B | 0.405 | 0.81 |
I’m still trying to understand the basics, as you pointed out in the CFD list there are a few values, according to the SDK documentation it basically comes down to this:
aileron_up_drag_coef decreased
+aileron_down_drag_coef increased = More Adverse Yaw
The question now is, what are the standard values, if there are any?
The SDK page is behaving weird at the moment. I was planning on posting what it states there, but when I search for things, it tells me it has hits, but won’t show them.
Searching by hand worked, going through the Index:
aileron_up_drag_coef
Defines the drag added by upwards aileron deflection. This parameter has a significant impact on adverse yaw. Reduce upward deflection drag to get more adverse yaw. This parameter is multiplied by the aileron deflection angle and internal coefficients.
Default is 0.5.
aileron_down_drag_coef
Defines the drag added by upwards aileron deflection. This parameter has a significant impact on adverse yaw. Increase downward deflection drag to get more adverse yaw. This parameter is multiplied by the aileron deflection angle.
Default is 1.
Any plane that is not 0.5, and 1 respectively has had its values tweaked. It may not be right, but they were changed for a reason.
From what I have seen, for many attributes, values that are whole numbers or maybe to 1 or 2 decimal places have probably been punched in by hand. When you see a number like 1.273859 it was probably the result of dragging a slider with the mouse or some other operation that led to that. You wouldn’t choose a number like that by hand. Its likely a product of an interface somewhere.
Perfect, that’s very helpful,
so the aileron deflection angle (and internal coefficients) is a multiplier on top of the aileron up&down drag coef. But ‘aileron deflection angle’ is probably not a number in the cfg file.
Also the up&down drag coef can be further modified by internal coefficients.
That’s probably where the big decimal numbers are coming from (more effort into the adverse yaw simulation instead of a basic number).
(One thing we have to keep in mind is that developer like GotGravel have an own custom adverse yaw implementation, so there are some developer which maybe don’t work with any of these values.)
It’s funny, I checked the gliders which got ‘‘adverse yaw improved’’ in SU12.
DG Aviation DG-1001E & DG Aviation LS8-18 both have identical:
aileron_up_drag_coef = 0.125
aileron_down_drag_coef = 0.25
which means they put 0 effort into making them more realistic 
2 completely different Gliders shouldn’t have the exact same adverse yaw values…
I’m gonna delete them from the list.
I could list the PMDG DC-6 , but I don’t know if the adverse yaw can be called realistic,
At the end that’s what only a developer or even better a actual Pilot of the aircraft can approve.
We can only fly the aircraft, make a turn with low airspeed and see how it reacts and then only guess if it makes sense for the aircraft build, size and aspect ratio of the wings.
But the numbers give at least a first hint if realitsic adverse yaw is even possible.
Or if a developer is using default numbers, then you can be sure they didn’t invest any work.
Perhaps it’s would be best if this thread were merely a list of all planes available, and their respective values, rather than making a difficult judgment on whether they are realistic or not.
Knowing what developer has set what is useful, even if that is the default values. Default values is perhaps indicative of how much work was put in and/or reflects how well they understand the SDK.
Yes that would be one option,
another idea is to list all the aircraft which are using default values without any custom code.
As a ‘‘list of shame’’ 
The Just Flight Piper Warrior absolutely has had adverse yaw when it came out. I haven’t flown it in a while since sim updates have degraded the flight model. But it will be updated this week and hopefully will continue to be a top notch flight model.
Ok can you check in the flight_model.cfg of the aircraft
the values of:
would be interesting to know
The 0.3.5 Warrior has these values:
| Plane | Model | NPS | CFD | SBS | AUDC | ADDC |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| justflight-aircraft-pa28-warrior-ii_0.3.5 | JF_PA28_Warrior_II | 0.5 | 2.8 ;3.9 |
They didn’t touch the aileron up drag coefficient, but they certainly did for the aileron down drag coefficient. I’m not sure why they have 3.9 commented out, unless that was a previous version, but it’s not the default value which is 1.
which makes sense:
To increase adverse yaw:
They increased the down drag and left up drag default which results in more adverse yaw.
I’m gonna rebuild the list, it’s like you said @hobanagerik , it makes more sense to list the values of every airplane. Will be a good indication which aircraft has the potential of good adverse yaw bahaviour, depending on how you want to fly.
I will add a tutorial how to search for the values so the community can help to make the list more complete.
It’s gonna take some time tho
I’ll mail you my dump of everything I have. Just pick out the last two columns.
That was some work, took me a few hours, but I hope that everything is now understandable!
And the community will help to fill in some numbers.
So everybody just check the instruction arrow in the OP
and feel free to send me the numbers right here or with a PM and I’m gonna update the list in the future 
Thanks in advance!
thank you for your great work here.
Is it really only the aileron up/down drag coefficients that define adverse yaw in MSFS?
Because in real life aileron drag differential is only a fraction of the forces contributing to adverse yaw. Wing roll rate is the other force, in many planes bigger in effect than differential aileron drag,
Doesn’t the SDK state, that it’s also a result of the airplane_geometry?
There is widespread suspicion something is wrong with that core math calculating side forces based on airplane_geometry, also adverse yaw,
And then increasing the ratio between up and down aileron drag might be a quick patch to remedy the problem to a degree, but not solving the fundamental problem?
Thank you! I’m gonna take a look at the wing roll rate and airplane geometry!
For now I choosed the aileron up & down drag because they are listed in the sdk as ‘‘significant’’
This parameter has a significant impact on adverse yaw. Reduce upward deflection drag to get more adverse yaw. Increase downward deflection drag to get more adverse yaw. This parameter is multiplied by the aileron deflection angle and internal coefficients.
So it gives a first big indication if a developer actually did something,
the fundamental problems are another topic, that’s why I have a wishlist linked in the OP
Here is everything I found which has an impact on Adverse Yaw including Airplane Geometry,
couldn’t find wing roll rate, the sdk page is currently bugged.
Aerodynamics
Defines the drag added by upwards aileron deflection.
This parameter has a significant impact on adverse yaw.
Reduce upward deflection drag to get more adverse yaw.
This parameter is multiplied by the aileron deflection angle and internal coefficients.
Default is 0.5. This can be scaled with the aileron_up_drag_scalar parameter
in the [FLIGHT_TUNING] section and is further modified by internal coefficients.
Defines the drag added by upwards aileron deflection. This parameter has a significant impact on adverse yaw.
Increase downward deflection drag to get more adverse yaw.
This parameter is multiplied by the aileron deflection angle.
Default is 1. This can be scaled with the aileron_down_drag_scalar parameter
in the [FLIGHT_TUNING] section and is further modified by internal coefficients.
Defines the lift coefficient slope of the rudder control surface.
This will have a direct impact on rudder authority, yaw stability, adverse yaw and induced roll.
The rudder lift coefficient slope is usually dependent on the rudder aspect ratio and should be between 1.0 and 𝝅.
Default is 5.0, and generally values will always fall between 1.0 and 5.0, with a theoretical maximum of 2𝝅
and a recommended value between 2.0 (for less authority and stability) and 5.0 (for more authority and stability).
This can be scaled with the rudder_effectiveness parameter in the [FLIGHT_TUNING] section.
Airplane Geometry
This is the angle between the wing leading edge and a horizontal line parallel to the ground,
as seen when looking at the front of an aircraft. Technically defined as the dihedral angle Lambda, in degrees.
The wing dihedral impacts secondary effects such as induced roll and adverse yaw.
The vertical tail span is the vertical distance from the vertical tail-fuselage intersection
to the tip of the vertical tail, in ft. A large vtail span will impact the roll moment of the propeller wash
but also resist the aircraft roll movement. It will also counter adverse yaw and counter induced roll during rudder inputs.
But it still looks like the main values for adverse yaw are the aileron up/down drag coef’s.
Which are multiplied by the aileron defelection angle and further modified by internal coeficients.
And there are a few ‘‘Internal coeficients’’ , when you search in the flightmodel.cfg for ‘‘coef’’ you see things like flaps, spoiler, gear and so on.
I’m by no means an expert, I’m just reading and guessing,
I hope one day a Developer shows up in this thread and shines some light into everything 
All that is very interesting. If roll rate is indeed not a factor in the MSFS flight model, and adverse yaw is mostly defined only by aileron drag differential, it could explain why it’s effect is so weak (or almost nonexistent) by default - in comparison to real life - in pretty much all planes in MSFS.
It is said that for airplanes with higher wing aspect ratios (aka ‘long wings’) like gliders, or the Pilatus Porter PC-6, the rolling of the wings effect is even higher on adverse yaw than their aileron differential drag.
