Is it more that you should specify the vertical stabilizer area only, not including the rudder area? And specify the rudder area separately? Or is this what you guys are saying? Has anyone asked the SDK team about this in DevSupport?
Of course, this would mean the horizontal stabilizer for a Piper would be zero and all elevator. Or only a teeny area to fool the system into the forward part of the horizontal stabilator.
The v_tail area should not include the rudder - that has a separate area value.
What I’m saying is that when you enter values into the flight model and go into dev/debug mode, you can see the boundaries and location of the various surface areas the sim has calculated to use. When you put in wings, for example, the boundary markers show up (overlay) at approximately the area of the wings as rendered in the 3D model. Same with H_stab. Adding ailerons and elevators show independently, but correctly, and move when you deflect them.
However, when you enter the V_Tail area, sans rudder, the generated boundaries are only half the size of the rendered v_tail. This was replicated across every aircraft I tried. To get the boundary to display correctly, you had to enter twice the surface area of the actual V_tail. My theory is that it’s either rendering the boundaries incorrectly, or it’s expecting too large a value.
The first scenario - if the sim is purely following the generated boundary, would cause a lack of rudder authority. The second scenario - if we tried to conform the boundaries to the 3D model, could potentially cause too much stability, control authority (and weathervaning, etc). The third possibility is that entering the correct real-world area value is correct and the sim treats it as such, but just renders the boundary locations wrong, which would be misleading upon debug.
I’ve asked Asobo several times, here and in the dev forum and there’s been no official response and none of the few folks that have discussed this can reach consensus on the rationale.
(Edit to correct “rudder” to “v_tail” in the third paragraph)
That was my question. And I agree with your theories.
Yeah, fully agree - the SDK states that both the wing and V-Tail should have their aft line at approximately half chord, whereas the H-Tail should be ‘aligned’ (and with an image of the green sensors front and rear of the fixed tail section minus elevator.
So my read from that is that different surfaces are treated differently, which is inherently wrong.
Regarding asking for help on DevSupport, ‘no official response’ is a good summary and I would be tempted to remove the word official. Anything flight model related went very quiet, very quickly. I’m hoping 2024 brings more answers but with a currently unpopulated SDK for the more promising features I won’t hold my breath.
Playing with this some more, and I still don’t know why it really only affects me, but the plane flies beautifully in calm winds. However, when I enabled Live Weather with a 10-knot wind, my elevator loses effectiveness, like somebody is sitting on it, and might respond in sudden large lurches when it does respond. I was in a 20-ish degree bank the other day and had zero pitch authority through a wide range of travel on the stick. I’m assuming the flight model this plane has is conflicting with the sim’s atmospheric model somehow.
Ahead of the release in the next week or so, here’s the current change log for the next Warrior update, which will include MSFS 2024 compatibility.
This update will also be submitted to both the MSFS 2020 and 2024 Marketplaces (PC and Xbox) at the same time, so should hopefully be available within a couple of weeks after that.
PA-28-161 Warrior II (MSFS) – v0.4.0 changelog
- Added MSFS 2024 compatibility (upgraded to a MSFS 2024 native package)
- Additional model LODs added for improved performance (MSFS 2020/2024) and MSFS 2024 compatibility
- Added Just Flight V3 EFB – Features include:
- Redesigned EFB interface, including a new ‘greyscale’ Aircraft page
- Added support for Navigraph en route charts.
- Added ability to draw on Navigraph charts
- Added confirmation popup when changing aircraft states
- Improved transition logic between JS/HTML and WASM EFB pages
- Added interactive paper charts
- Added ‘Heading Sync’ hidden clickspot – on screw to the left of the DI/HSI
- Added control assignment support for primer – ‘ENGINE PRIMER’ / ‘TOGGLE PRIMERS’ / ‘TOGGLE PRIMER 1’
- Added ADI wobble during engine start
- Improved flight model, including:
- Improved low-speed handling characteristics
- Improved stall characteristics
- Improved ground handling
- Improved ALT HOLD logic for better altitude holding
- Improved state saving logic
- Performance optimisation of digital displays (yoke timer, GPS 100, KN62 DME, EFB tablet, autopilot)
- Improved ADF tuning logic – ADF radio will now automatically cycle through decimal frequencies if it can’t detect an active signal on a whole numbered frequency
- Improved landing light bloom effects
- Fixed ASI Temperature Reference Scale default state
- Fixed battery not recharging to 12V when triggering “Recharge Battery” on EFB
- Fixed TOGGLE LIGHT control assignment not turning on the integral instrument lighting
- Fixed GPS100 power state when loading a flight on the runway
- Improved Cockpit and Showcase cameras
- Pilot avatar will now be shown in the cockpit when the co-pilot camera is selected
- Reordered aircraft into alphabetical order in aircraft.cfg
- Added new thumbnails (MSFS 2020)
- Updated Clean/Worn textures (MSFS 2020) – Textures provided in .DDS (MSFS 2020) and .KTX2 (MSFS 2024) formats
- Fixed missing NAV/GPS switch labels on ‘Clean’ texture set
- Removed paint kit from aircraft package – Now available via the Arrow III’s support page
- Removed Documentation folder from package – Now available via the Arrow III’s support page
- Updated Operations Manual
- Updated EFB Manual (now a separate manual)
Martyn - Just Flight
Having arrows what should make me to buy warrior? 
Very cool! Looks like a substantial update, nay, upgrade! Thank you!
A plane with less performance can sometimes lead to a more challenging, interesting flight.
They’re both derivatives of the Cherokee (of which there a ton of). Do you only want the Arrow?
The Warrior is the sweetest of the three to fly but as already said is low performance.
If your purpose is to get places, or fly at altitude up in the mountains, stick with the Arrows.
If your after something to bumble around at low altitude checking out the scenery up close and personal while nice and slow, the Warrior is the pick of the three.
At one stage there was a discount on the Warrior if you already had the Arrows.
Note that these are all newer Cherokee variants, none of them are the original old school “Hershey Bar” Cherokee which had all the flight characteristics of a house brick when slow with flaps out.
Would it be like…
Arrows if your that kinda person that just wants to get from A-B…
Piper if your that person that wants to get from A to B but likes taking the C through to Z to get B.. especially if getting to B requires going over “significant” terrain 
Here’s an old comparison that we put together which shows some of the key differences (and similarities). There are also plenty of discussions on this subject on FS and real world aviation forums.
Martyn - Just Flight
Altitude is a relevant comparison also. That turbo charged engine makes a big difference.
| Characteristic | Piper Arrow III | Piper Turbo Arrow III | Piper Warrior II |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine | Lycoming IO-360-C1C6 (200 hp) | Continental TSIO-360-F (200 hp, turbocharged) | Lycoming O-320-D3G (160 hp) |
| Cruise Speed (ktas) | ~137–140 | ~165–170 | ~105–110 |
| Maximum Range (nm) | ~700–750 | ~850–900 | ~520–525 |
| Service Ceiling (ft) | 15,000 | 20,000 | 13,000 |
| Stall Speed (landing, kcas) | ~61 | ~61 | ~50 |
| Fuel Capacity (usable, gal) | 72 | 72 | 48 |
| Rate of Climb (fpm) | ~850 | ~1,000 | ~660 |
| Takeoff Distance (50 ft obstacle) | ~1,600 ft | ~1,600 ft | ~1,600 ft |
| Landing Distance (50 ft obstacle) | ~1,350 ft | ~1,350 ft | ~1,250 ft |
| Landing Gear | Retractable | Retractable | Fixed |
| Propeller | Constant-speed | Constant-speed | Fixed-pitch |
I have the full set of Pipers (eagerly awaiting their return in 2024).
I enjoy using the Warrior for circuit practice (especially recreating my real life PPL practice at my local airfield) and for low-level sight seeing trips around areas I’m familiar with and those I want to explore. Ideal for that.
I’m also very fond of one of the Warrior paint schemes, so like taking low-level external shots of places I’ve been in real life.
The realization when you read useful load 972 pounds and you look at yourself in the mirror like i did and realise that im carrying a good portion of that “useful” load 
The reason you’d get a Warrior in the sim is that they’re ubiquitous in real life - used heavily for training and cheaper and easier to rent, own, and maintain than an Arrow. Love the Arrow, too - I have plenty of time in them and they’re great cruisers in that market segment.
But if you want to experience what a lot of pilots experience, fly a Warrior, especially in the early phases of your journey. And as said above, it’s going to cause you to have to do pilot stuff because you’re always on the margins with the lower performance - you have to pay attention. But just dinking around, it’s great. Hope they all get added to career mode, quickly.
(post deleted by author)
