If that’s true I feel a bit… miffed. Why would it be the same?
Err, exactly!!!
It most definitely is NOT the same. Unless the comment is regarding sections which (according to the sdk) have no relevance unless the legacy flight model is being used. Which it shouldn’t be.
1 Like
361
Regarding the Target Performance file - it can safely be ignored as, confirmed by the screenshot from the SDK below, it has no bearing on how the aircraft flies.
298
Regarding the Flight Model file, the short version is that the C152 has 298 lines whereas the PA38 has 361 lines. Most definitely NOT the same file.
To go into more depth for those that may wish to see the detail with side-by-side comparisons.
PA38 on the left, default C152 on the right.
Lines which are white are identical:
Geometry is the primary mover in MSFS
Aerodynamics section is largely, though not entirely, redundant (according to the SDK, most of the lines are only functional in the Legacy FM). However, the lines need to remain of the game crashes 
Flight Tuning
This is the area used to ‘nudge’ things in the right direction - far less capable than the fully-working aerodynamics section would have been but it’s what we’ve got.
The files are NOT the same, not even in the same format for most of it. Looking at certain areas, however, I would say that I have used the default as a template in specific areas.
2 Likes
You said Target Performance and Flight Model files in your original post, then focused on the Flight Model.
As in my post above, and worth repeating here for clarity,
All we have to go on is what is written in the SDK, which I have shown here. It wouldn’t surprise me AT ALL if Asobo have that wrong, but it is what we develop to . . .
However, if you have altered it and found that it directly affects the behaviour we would be very interested!
Hell of a presumption to make, there.
Dude, lighten up a bit.
In your first post you state that flight_model.cfg is exactly the same.
The dev has demonstrated this to be completely false so maybe an apology on that mistake would be a good place to start instead of doubling down.
1 Like
I’ve already taken time out of my weekend to refute your accusation that the Flight Model was a direct copy of the C152.
At no point have I made any presumptions about your background, qualifications or experiences. In fact, I was going to go to PM and suggest we discuss further based on your experience of the real aircraft.
The stall speed has been a bugbear, I acknowledge that and if what you say is correct then I will look into the “optional, no effect on Flight Dynamics” file - note I did say it wouldn’t surprise me!!
Now back to my weekend and family, I’ll pick this up again when I am working next.
2 Likes
Some kind of amicable collaboration and acknowledgement would be to the benefit of everyone.
3 Likes
Dude totally go back to your family, they come first.
Apologies too, I did copy and paste the wrong .cfg when I was writing that part of the post. The only thing with the flight_model.cfg I think was glide speed and the speed arcs.
I really didn’t intend to offend you and yeah I’d love to share with you the cfg. I literally flew for a couple of hours after all day on the repaint today in the Pimax 5K and I honestly couldn’t tell the difference with the real plane.
Also I found a slight surface texture missing the matte paint on the corner of G-LFSN, but I think it’s the from the base texture folder… It’s the corner of the front right cockpit, black in the Albedo (at top of front right cabin texture PA38_EXT_01_ALBEDO.PNG.DDS), but missing that little corner on the surface file in PA38_EXT_01_SURFACE.PNG.DDS.
@HollywoodX7046 Would you be able to fix the Hawk, Arrow and Warrior whilst you’re at it? 
1 Like
I haven’t flown them, and don’t have the POH nor Information Manuals for them, I’d not be able to do that for aircraft I haven’t flown. Just muscle memory with the Tomahawk… If it was a 767-277 or 727-277 (Father was flight crew and I have all the manuals) I’d be able to contribute or a Vans RV-7. shrug
1 Like
Per the suggestion of the other guy, I took an extreme example and stuck the target_performance.cfg of the IFE F-14 and stuck that into the Tomahawk. I bet you can guess what happened. Can anyone else?
A 700 knot Tomahawk?
1 Like
Nope. Absolutely no change. Just as the SDK says, and verified by me testing, the target performance file has no impact on the flight model whatsoever and is instead used for comparison/ flight analysis in a results file during flight testing
5 Likes
Ah, okay. Good to know.
Okay, you guys are right, and [GrimPhoenix9349] I humbly apologize, you’re correct that is used for testing datasets, what I was seeing was placebo effect.
Still wondering what is causing the stall warning triggering at 40 KIAS, have you looked up any NASA data on the aerofoil shape? I have over 100 years of NASA technical reports and may be able to track down data (hopefully) for that info, but the wing as modeled is stalling correctly as far as I can tell, but the airflow disconnect still seems to be at 40 KIAS.
3 Likes
The stall speed should be set still by the lift v AoA table, but I have one thing to check tomorrow which may be contributory - more on that after a quick test.
The airfoil section should be correct, on the PC I use for dev work I have a website which is searchable for NACA airfoil sections and gives detail such as lift and drag curves.
More tomorrow!
1 Like
Yeah I’m wondering if the warning is tied into the lift vs AoA table or how the actual stall warning triggers are modeled.
The actual stall itself seems to be pretty right on.
Nice plane!! 
Would it be possible to reduce the constant noise of the wind during flight? For me it is quite loud and annoying after a few minutes… Thanks!