Ground handling is horrible

Quite so. But they could equally say: ‘we have provided a solution in SU9, it’s now up to aircraft developers to apply it’.

Now it’s a point of contention if it is infact a solution and if the core physics needs addressed. But what it means for us as consumers is we need to keep a beady eye on the products were are being offered, ask the questions and track the answers. That way we can at least make informed choices.

Keeping pressure on matters, but I’ll keep making individual changes to improve my personal experience as, after nearly 3 years of this fundamental issue being flagged and such little progress, I’m not going to hold my breath and if there is anything I can do to improve my personal experience, I’ll take it.

Make sure to vote for this bug report:

1 Like

The following is a word for word copy and paste of a post I did on a thread someone linked that has a vote attached to it. It only has 48 votes, including my own, and as you will see below even though I started this thread speaking of the 414, my proof of concept was with the stock 172.


So, I just tried a super simple experiment that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hypothesis of this thread is spot on.

The maximum demonstrated crosswind component of a Cessna 172 is 17 kts. That is not a legal limitation, insofar as it’s not a violation of any FAR to attempt to takeoff or land in winds that have a higher crosswind component than that, but I’m not sure how relevant that is to the sim.

So, I set myself up on the end of a runway with precisely a 17 kt. crosswind. Using FULL RUDDER DEFLECTION, the wind blew me off the runway within about 100 feet, and I’m not talking about my left wheels going off, I was so far off that I would have died if this had been real life. At least 100 yards from the edge of the runway until I was able to get airborne, which only happened because you can take off a 172 at about 50 kts, or less.

What is happening is that the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) being calculated as effecting the vertical stabilizer is either way more than it should be, the coefficient of friction of the tires against the pavement is way less than it should be, or possibly a combination of both.

I repeated the test 3 times with identical results each time, independent of whether or not I steered the ailerons into the wind as you are taught to do during RL flight training.

I also attempting to taxi in the same crosswind, which was at least possible if I was at essentially a speed no faster than a normal walk, but quite difficult even at that.

I’ve made many crosswind landings during my piloting career (which is in all likelihood sadly over), and most of the time it becomes muscle memory to the point you don’t even have to think about it. I do doubt that I ever took off or landed with that much of a pure crosswind component, but that is the primary reason airports have multiple runways in different directions, so as to minimize the odds of even needing to attempt that.

However, for a sim self-described as ‘as real as it gets’, it’s done a ■■■■-poor job on this aspect. Don’t get me wrong, I have and always will be a fan, as I spend more time with this sim than most people do with their jobs, but this is something that has been an issue from day One and has never to my knowledge been addressed.

This is with the SU12 beta, but it’s not new.

1 Like

This goes without saying, and I don’t want to play captain obvious, but for those who won’t think about it, “rudder trim is your friend”. Checking the POH or checklist and setting the correct rudder trim makes a substantial difference. As a pilot I’m sure you’ve considered this.

1 Like

I have experienced the samething…the effect of cross winds while on the ground is not realistic.

Indeed it is. But no amount of correct rudder trim addresses the issue.

To anyone who doubts this, try setting up with a pure 25knt crosswind with the CJ4 (AAU1). The CJ4 is good both because it’s stock and we all have it and it’s a jet so we don’t need to worry about torque, propwash, P-factor or gyroscopic precession. It’s also low wing who h helps keep the amount of cross control aileron down.

Now see if you can track Centreline. You might just be able to because the AAU1 CJ4 has enhanced lateral tire friction scalars of ‘5’

For a stark indicator of the problem try again except this time set the tire friction scalars to nil (which is the case for virtualy every aircraft in the SIM) or use the old WT CJ4 mod which has no enhanced lateral friction. Then, at 25 knots, you will eat dirt by 80kias and certainly before Vr (usually 99kias) no matter your skill as a pilot or the trim used.

25knts is the max demonstrated for the CJ4.

The 414 doesn’t have any of the newer sim features IIRC, not even the new prop physics.

I have to say those two settings for controlling at what speed the aircraft experiences crosswind, and when it stop seems like a big cheat. To my mind those aspects of the simulation should be an emergent property based on other aspects of the simulation. You could design a plane with as big a vertical stabiliser as you liked, and simply turn off its ability to experience crosswind entirely if you wanted.

I see it as a stop gap measure until Asobo builds something better. Whether Asobo see it like that or not is anyone’s guess.

1 Like

Agree. The tire friction scalars are the better route right now. The min/max crosswind is basically a hidden assistance option…or if you prefer, a cheat!

1 Like

I’m not sure about the 414, I’ll check it in a bit, but the 172 that I did in the test I described a few posts above yours doesn’t have one, except a bendable piece of aluminum that you ‘adjust’ on the ground.

That said the TBM actually has rudder trim, and I’ve tried putting it in the green "T/O’ area (it defaults to the center), and it runs the plane off the runway, though that was under unknown, but not at all extreme weather conditions, not any sort of test, save “I never saw this before, should I use it??”

The answer, at least now, is a resounding ‘NO’!

Can I just add a point of order here.

Rudder trim is not something that is used ordinarily. On twin engined aircraft it is used to relieve pilot workload and trim the aircraft in an asymmetric condition, and in a single engined prop you might use it (very sparingly I might add) to trim in the cruise phase if the aircraft flies naturally a bit cock-eyed. I’m talking minuscule amounts.

Primarily, however, you control rudders with your feet. Rudder trim will give you no more authority than the pedals do, and you absolutely would never be setting rudder trim on a runway/take-off to counteract a cross-wind.


Trim on any control surface, including the rudder, doesn’t add any additional control deflection or authority, it merely (in real life) reduces the force that the pilot has to apply to the controls. The problem with this ground handling issue is that even a light breeze is enough to push your aircraft right off the runway, and your rudder in the sim lacks the effectiveness to counteract it.

It’s both a problem of the effects of the wind being grossly exaggerated and the effectiveness of the rudder being far less than it should be. As I mentioned earlier, I’ve even had my aircraft start spinning in a circle while parked (with the nose wheel straight) because the weathervane effect of the wind is so overpowered. It was like it was on ice. What’s even stranger is that if you then set the parking brake the spinning immediately stops. So the wind can spin the aircraft in a circle, without the wheels rolling at all by the way, but if you set the parking brake (which keeps the wheels from rolling - something they weren’t doing anyway) the aircraft stops like it’s glued to the pavement. None of that behavior makes any sense.


Remember, many of us are on XBOX, so editing config files is not an option.

It’s definitely not as simple as changing controller configuration, either. I’ve had my aircraft, while parked with the nose wheel straight and not rolling at all, spin in a circle due to the overpowered weathervane effect in the sim. It’s clearly overpowering the friction coefficient of the tires, because the tires are not rolling in a circle, they’re sliding in a circle. The pivot point is the center of the aircraft and it’s spinning like a top.

Even stranger is that while it’s doing this if you activate the parking brake it instantly stops dead, like it’s bolted to the ground. In fact, while I haven’t tested this, I’m pretty sure no matter how high the wind speed is the parking brake is all powerful and will keep the aircraft glued to the ground. That doesn’t make any sense, nor does the ability of a 20-ish mph wind to spin your aircraft in circles like it’s on ice.

None of this reflects real-world behavior.

I am not a real world pilot, but I do have a fair bit of sailing experience.

The ground handling in crosswinds reminds me of trying to sail a dinghy with the centreboard up.

It shouldn’t be like this.


The issue is multifaceted. For non-pilots, not used to controlling a real aircraft on the ground, it’s difficult to learn that skill in the simulator. Adding to the difficulty is the negative transference of skills learned from driving a car. The other thing is non-pilots haven’t learned to anticipate what the aircraft will do on the ground, and as such, they fall behind what’s happening very quickly. They don’t anticipate, they react. Lastly, there is no seat of the pants feedback, so that gets added on to people being late to react to what the aircraft is doing on the ground.

The ground handling isn’t as horrible as people make it out to be. It could probably be made more “user friendly” to accommodate a wider range of skills, especially those folks with only simulator experience. I guess it could be a “quality of life” thing, like the new turbulence selector that allows for a little less of a simulator experience and a little more of a game experience. Both would make the majority of users happy I’d guess.

I agree wholeheartedly that pilot skill &. expectation is a big factor in how this is experienced.

I like my yardsticks to be measurable, so for me ‘horribe’ is to be unable to perform a take off at max demonstrated (no gusts) without tracking or maintaining parallel Centreline.

So with the current release of the SWS Kodiak, it isn’t horrible - it tracks well (with skill and practice). But then it has a lateral tire friction coefficient of 9.8 for the mains.

If you go and set that to 0, to make it like most of the stock aircraft and try a take off at MDC, then horrible. Very horrible!

1 Like

Fair point, but I am not a non-pilot, in fact I have owned several 172s and flown a multitude of others in the real world. As I said above, I tried a test with a 172, at the max demonstrated crosswind, and even with the proper aileron and rudder inputs pre-applied before hitting the gas, the wind blew me off the runway almost before I even managed to get to the numbers.

I’m not sure how many times I’ve taken off in a real world 172 with a 17 kt crosswind, if it’s even once, but based on my simplistic test, in the sim it simply cannot be done. The fact that my legs no longer work is a handicap (no pun intended) as using a twist function on a stick (indeed, it’s the only reason I even have a stick instead of a yoke) is not the same, but max rudder is max rudder, no matter what control is used to get there.

If it’s as easy as adjusting the tire C-sub-f, that’s fine, but that should be on the plate of Asobo and third party designers, not us end-users. Once upon a time I could code, but that was back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. And I’ll be ■■■■■■ if I don’t sound just like my dad, even if such a silly word is censored here, like we’re 3rd graders at some parochial school.


I find myself sounding more and more like my dad as well. I’ve also turned into “Mr. We’re not wasting food” in this house, and end up eating a lot of leftovers nobody wants to eat. LOL.

1 Like