Sorry, don’t take this the wrong way but have you actually flown a Hawk in real life?
Just Flight have previously stated that the flight model on the MSFS Hawk was tested with a real hawk pilot, using a linear joystick curve and a Thrustmaster Warthog with a joystick extension.
From their website for this aircraft:
Realistic and accurate flight dynamics based on real world performance and handling data, and input from Hawk T1 pilots
cgaviator in youtube states he is an ex-instructor in the hawk and makes no mention of the flight model being incorrect.
I personally don’t know, I’ve taken Just Flight at their word so if you have actual experience of flying the hawk and can state from that experience that the flight model is incorrect I’d be interested. I followed Just Flight’s recommended joystick sensitives as I have the same joystick.
I also have the Hawk in X-plane 11 but being honest I’ve not been back to X-plane since MSFS was in beta.
Unfortunately or fortunately,depending on your viewpoint, my training was carried out on the Chipmunk, Provost, Gnat and Hunter, though I did manage to sneak a few back seat trips in the hawk during my time.
I am more than happy to defer to a “real” Hawk pilot and was mearly asking for some guidence.
FS2020 , at 400kn indicated and at 7000 ft asl, I am getting 72/s .
Xplane 11 at the same speed and height, I am getting 180/s
I dont have the “real world” flight data and havent looked at other variables that may effect the results but 180/s would seem more in line with a swept wing ,fast jet trainer. Ahhh for the good old days of 360/s twinkle rolls.
It’s always good to hear from someone with real experience flying these or similar aircraft. Hopefully someone who has flown the Hawk will tell us how it truly compares.
Until then I’d say your experience and expectations having flown the aircraft mentioned makes your question totally valid. After all if I recall correctly the Folland Gnat was replaced by the Hawk T1 for the Red Arrows and CFS.
Didn’t you have to pop a fuse to get the twinkle roll?
I remember some brilliant displays from the Red Arrows in Gnats…today’s are great but the old ones were something else
Popping the fuse was frowned upon, and looking back rightly so. Needless to say you had to have a go!
Made you go cross eyed if you tried successive rotations.The sensation was somehow magnified since you more or less strapped the Gnat to you, rather than get into it. The fuse was linked to a limiter to prevent structural damage, to both the pilot and airframe If my memory serves me right (unlikely) the Yellow Jackets first discovered it
I will try the Hydro reset suggestion from Giannino2
I hope no one thinks I am whinging. The product is fantastic as are the sims
I’ve just taken it up to test. At 250kts, I’m getting 180 deg/sec. at 400kts, I’m getting roughly 300 deg/sec. The POH states that maximum roll rate is achieved between 300 and 400kts, and beyond 400 kts it begins to decrease. Following discussion with Chris (Hawk pilot and beta tester), I think the original release files start backing off the roll rate too much and too soon. That’s been adjusted in the upcoming update.
If you are getting 70 deg/sec at any point when airborne (other than possibly just above stall speed), I’d say there is something amiss. Have you set you control curves, sensitivities and deadzones as recommended (linear)?
With regards to the update, there is also some adjustment of pitch and pitch trim (primarily in the low-speed / circuit speed range) so that hopefully there will be less tendency for PIO. The one adjustment I wanted to make is to give the aircraft a correctly free-castering nosewheel, but up to now the sim’s idea of how free-castering works is so badly wrong that nosewheel steering remains in place. There are also many other detail areas of the flight model which are simply unachievable at the moment, but hopefully the update will sort out some of the issues seen so far.
I saw a comment a few posts above regarding the SC F-16 being easier to fly than the Hawk due to FBW and potentially the flight model. Having the Hawk and just recently flown the SC F-16, I can say that the F-16 is like a toy compared to the Hawk to fly. That sounds a bit harsh, but it is how I feel flying them both. The Hawk is the best plane that I have flown in MSFS to date in any category. Maybe Fenix/PMDG will exceed that, but for me, that stands now.
Noting the obvious significant differences in the way that they fly and are built - JF has modeled the Hawk so well in with systems, textures, and the flight model. The Hawk by nature is a bit twitchy if you don’t fly it well or have peripherals up to the task. I have a HOTAS with a stick extension.
I hope the plane is not going to be ‘dumbed’ down to make it easier (unrealistically) to fly to appease a portion of the community that has ‘issues’ causing them problems other than the planes exiting flight model. It is my hope is that any further tweaks are to bring the Hawk closer to realism over what it is today.
There’s no intention of ‘dumbing it down’ - take that as a guarantee. I want to make it as realistic as possible (note my comments on the nosewheel steering), but there is a mass of information which either cannot be included in the flight model OR the SDK does not give adequate instruction where things have changed from the previous sims.
If you have flown the P3D version, you’ll notice there is mach tuck. That is not present in the MSFS version because the tables used to create it are non-functional. The P3D version also has what could be described as ‘odd’ rudder behaviour (opposite roll on application of rudder) in a small speed band somewhere over 300kts. Stalls, spins, they are pretty much non-existant. Engine behaviour - has anyone looked at where the higher response RPM band should be? Asobo has it backwards and until the various engine issues are sorted out I have refrained from making any adjustments to that file. Again, the tables used to create these minor but significant characteristics are non-functional in MSFS and accurate definition of the geometry does not create the desired accuracy in behaviour. Unfortunately, the core flight model is not good enough to deal with these behaviours and the control over them has been taken away from us.
I actually love many aspects of the core FM, but wish it was left as a core to interact with the brilliant environment of the sim and that we were given back ultimate control of how the aircraft fly. Speaking only about the aircraft I have had a hand in, they have generally been well-received (as here with the Hawk) but they could be so much better if we (flight dynamics specialists) were given the proper tools to do our job.
Thanks for your comments and I believe you that the aim is to make it as realistic as possible.
I have never flown in P3D. MSFS brought me back into flight simming since the late 80’s (showing my age). I have my ratings as a pilot IRL and like you appreciate realism. What a time for flight simming.
I do hope MS/Asobo gets it together and does what you and many in the community want to create the best simulation of our favorite aircraft. Jorg did say at the last Q&A that it is a simulation and not a game, so hopefully, this extends to the shortcomings that exist with good developers like JF.
Then we as developers have both done our work well The F-16 should feel that way, as its Fly-By-Wire system takes the load from the pilot and lets the computers sort it out. We have heard from actual F-16 pilots who say it’s a good rendition of the aircraft and its performance. The F-18 Hornet is also like this, and reputedly as easy to fly in real life as a GA aircraft. The spin procedure in the F-18C is pretty much to let go of the controls and let the airplane work the problem out.
The BAe Hawk, on the other hand, is what I’d call a “proper” airplane - all hands on throttle and stick. It absolutely should feel more “alive” than an FBW airframe and require more work from the pilot to get the best from it, especially as befitting its role as an advanced trainer.
You may need to expand a bit on what actually made it feel like a toy - was it the FBW which won’t let you bust limits unless you override it ( I don’t know if the MSFS one can even do that ), or is it a lack of sensation of parts fighting to change direction, or something like that? the latter is a FM issue ( or possibly a core sim issue ) rather than systems, so the distinction is important if you don’t think it’s all it should be.
Even in DCS the Hornet is pretty flat & odd feeling to fly, compared to some of the older aircraft they have detailed data of. The only FBW aircraft in any sim I’ve really liked flying just for flying is the DCS Mirage 2000.
Quite like the Hawk, as MSFS a/c go it’s fairly near the top of the ones I have for feel - I’m not sure if the last few percent are a problem with the aircraft or the sim itself, because I’ve never been 100% happy with any of them so far. I wish they’d done the EFB as a combination of clipboard & kneeboard though.
Expanding on my comment, the textures and visual fidelity in the F-16 is lacking a lot. I’ve never seen corners on a ball attitude indicator before. The attitude ball does not look convincingly 3D round. I’ve never seen more corners in a circle before. The glass on the steam gauges has a frosted appearance like very old headlights. They have some reflective capability which glass should have but since they lack the transparency of real glass it does not look realistic and washes out the information of the gauge data. The steam gauges needles and center posts lack 3D perspective. The HSI is so basic and 2D.
Compare the center console of the real plane in the picture attached.
Some rivets in the cockpit are 2D and some of the 3D rivets are floating 1mm or so above the panel they should be directly attached to it. The throttle appears too small and oddly shaped. shows a lot when you compare it to the stick. I do have a 1:1 scale F-16 throttle and stick. I don’t know what happened to the modeling and textures of the throttle, but it looks like something a dog has chewed. I get it to try and get a used look, but here across the cockpit it does not work. These are just some examples and I could go on with a much longer list.
There is a lot that is good about the plane and I am not beating up on the flight model or suggesting system depth needs to be greater. This is MSFS and we are flying and not performing combat missions. However, with arguably the best graphics engine of any simulator out there, the modeling and textures of the plane should be much much better.
I hope the developer will address the texturing and modeling shortcomings. That would support all their products going forward if they can get them to a much higher level. There is so much potential there and it is not an MSFS limitation as demonstrated by other developers Even 80pct of the texture/modeling detail that goes into the Hawk would be a significant improvement.
This will all come in time, as it does to all DC/SC products and has been mentioned here and elsewhere many, many times. The flight model comments you made about the F-16 were suggestive that somehow it was incorrect, which I think we have established as being false, that was all I was replying to. Discussions specifically about the F-16s belong on the F-16 thread, not here. We can get back to the Hawk now.
If my memory serves me right (unlikely) the Yellow Jackets first discovered it
