There has been a lot of discussion about whether or not this is due to incorrect pilot actions (stick into wind and so on). But there seems to be a consensus that the aircraft’s tendency to nose into the wind while in the ground is more or less exaggerated.
So much so, that in moderate wind conditions, well below the proven crosswind, it may be impossible to perform a takeoff light aircraft without running off the runway. Or you may find yourself putting your foot to the left on take-off if the wind is coming from the right, in a way that is completely unrealistic in view of engine effects. For many, including real-life pilots (myself included), this completely ruins the FS2020 experience, since in real weather conditions the wind almost is rarely handlable for that reason.
Unfortunately the problem seems to be diluted in a myriad of posts, not very visible in terms of number of votes, probably for not penalizing so much those who fly in “arcade” mode. For example, this post only garnered around sixty votes. In the end, Asobo hasn’t shown much interest in fixing it (AFAIK).
There’s a very technical and comprehensive post on this topic, which describes some variables that can possibly be modified in flight models to partially solve the problem. But in the end, it’s hard to get clear, directly applicable information from it about the values to apply to a given aircraft.
Some mods or planes like the WB-SIM seem to offer some improvements, but here again I haven’t found sufficiently clear information to be reassured before buying.
I therefore propose to use this thread to share concise, verified information about the solutions we have to date, for the most common aircraft.
Are there any versions, paid or not, that solve the problem more or less satisfactorily ?
Is there a do-it-yourself modification that shows satisfactory results ?
We could start with C172. Personally I don’t have the information (hence this post) but I think the answer could be useful to many.
I posted this in another thread but, might fit better here. Hope I didn’t miss this in earlier posts but, from my experiences compared to the sim, it’s a though the aircraft have little or no mass or momentum. Reactions to control inputs or wind changes (gusts) happen way too fast. Even turbulence reactions are too much aircraft movement. The sim won’t replicate g-forces so the developers try to show these effects by a/c movement. In real a/c the g-loads can be felt with little or no a/c visible movement relative to the horizon view. I’ve lessened the realism for turbulence but, it still seems to be too much a/c movement. Transition forces in cross wind T.O. and landings also result in extreme a/c movement. Again, because of little or no mass or momentum?
Thanks for linking - I agree that it would be useful for a ‘non-technical’ list of aircraft that pass-muster.
A few points:
These variables, if applied well, solve the issue. Asobo - for their part - consider the matter ‘fixed’ as they have provided devs the tools to address the issue. Which is why they are not doing anything about it. The real cause is unknown, but these values will do the job.
It gets complicated if there are other deficiencies in the flight model, such as inadequate prop-wash effect or insufficient rudder authority. So playing with the four ground-handling variables alone may not be enough.
So to answer your second question first: yes you can mod yourself. Start with the four ground handling variables. Have a look at the list and see what professional devs have done with similar aircraft and use those values as a guide. Sadly there is no single value that will work - it really does vary aircraft-by-aircaft. If the ground handling values alone dont do the job, thats when you have to look at what other things are going on in the FM. Oh, and needless to say your crosswind technique has to be well-honed so you can get good results from test flights!
What aircraft are ‘fixed’…well here are some starters for 10 that I know for certain:
PMDG 737 family
SWS Kodiak 100
Blackbird PC-6 (as of their latest release)
The stock CJ4 is now much improved but still a bit prone to weathervane
Others that look like they should be good (but I dont know personally):
JustFlight Arrows
But as you can see from the list on my thread, a huge number of stock aircraft have not been improved.
Not that all aircraft suffer as much as others. The DC Designs F14, for example, has not had the ground values implemented and is rock solid when taxiing and vanes only a bit on take-off.
Just rushed on the recently released A2A Comanche, and I have to say that it looks like a masterpiece in terms of flight model. Including ground handling, but more generally it just “feels right” in any situation I tested. Although I have never flown this particular aircraft in real life, it reasonably close to the DR400 I use to fly, and for the first time in MSFS I happened to get a quite realistic feel with this one. I think that for me it the end of my quest
This essentially tells the plane to ignore the wind values until reaching a speed of 90 feet per second, which is around 53kts. At this speed, which is nearing rotation for most 172s, you’re lighter on the tires and will feel more wind effect.
I believe (but am not sure) the wind effect intensity begins there and would reach full intensity at 200 fps (if one were able to keep it on the ground at that speed).
NOW with a modest right crosswind, you only need the standard right rudder (for torque, p-factor and propwash) as it is irl. Once you take off, you will get a fairly sudden yaw into the wind and require left rudder to stay coordinated, just as in real life.
I’m flying irl in a couple hours and will edit this post should I tweak my numbers and/or change other values such as tire friction, etc.
I’ve noticed a few times that I haven’t been able to pull out of parking without full rudder, some brake, and 2,500 engine RPM given a modest crosswind. It’s been so bad I had to pull up the inputs panel to make sure the rudder was working.
I haven’t tried your parameters yet but they seem like logical settings.
Let’s be Pragmatic ? OK, so lets be practical, matter-of-fact, realistic, sensible, down-to-earth or even commonsensical. The ground effect feels fairly good to me for a Console/Personal Computer Flight Simulation Game… On a few occassions I noticed my beloved C172 wanting to hit a bit hard but then realized that it was 97 degrees here on the gulf coast today which made the density altitude seem quite thin. I think the runway temp was near 130. Happy for those good shocks… Smile
…
Oh, when the rudder control got a bit out of hand I ran joy.cpl on my Windows computer in command mode and re-calibrated my joy stick and engaged rudder assistance. All other assistance was set to OFF. Straight down the runway we go now… Big Smile
I’ll be able to recreate the conditions and test. In this one incident I think I had a 5 knot wind perpendicular to my side. I Pulling out straight from parking proved to be near impossible. The amount of brake had to be compensated with significate engine power.
The real conditions at the time were probably occasional gusts to 5 but it was steady in the sim.
The ground effect is ok…but too much really and most noticeable in hovering a helo IGE. Very hard to keep it stable as there is so much GE coming back at ya.
Weathervaning on the ground - different story. Way too strong.
Now you can eliminate it using the min/max crosswind values as @N582TC has effectively done with his mod, but do understand this is basically an ‘assistance’ and not really realistic. At least at those values. I mean 'vaning is a thing and should be a challenge in high crosswinds.
Better is to up the lateral tire friction then use the min/max values to eliminate the unrealistic vaning that can go on at even very low wind speeds.
For the 172, I’d suggest lateral tire frictions of 2 for main and steering and 5 and 15 for the min /max.
@MeridianOwl4306 : The title of my post is admittedly misleading as ground effect isn’t the core problem, as stated by @AlpineB4652.
As for weathervaning, however, the current state is just crazy for many people, and AFAIK very few (if any) IRL pilots commenting on this subject recognize this behavior as even close to reality.
And no, it’s not related to calibration, and more importantly activating rudder assistance does not qualify as an acceptable solution
I like N582TC’s solution. It seems like the crosswind is having the effect of a strong rudder deflection. From my experience, the prop wash should cancel out the crosswind component (below 15 knots) on the tail. I am going to try his solution on my YMF5.
I also think my rudder is far too sensitive. It takes very little rudder to stay aligned on a windless day, but when I get strong veering to the side I over correct.
What do you do if there is no flight_model.cfg file for an aircraft?
They are typically available for Asobo/Microsoft aircraft or 3rd party purchases made outside the Marketplace. The 3rd party ones purchased inside the marketplace have the flight_model.cfg encrypted and not available to edit.
It’s a very good reason never to purchase 3rd party aircraft from the Marketplace.
Have you adjusted sensitivity in the control options? It doesn’t help with the topic of this thread, but I find sensitivity tweaks are essential for more realistic control in general. I have a different yoke and rudder pedal profile for every aircraft.
Yes, I have adjusted the sensitivity, and like you say it varies with the hardware.
So, it looks like Asobo adds the fluid dynamics to the sim, and it’s up to the content creators to add the ground_crosswind_effect_zero/max values to their flight model. That makes perfect sense, and there’s probably no better way to do it.
What about the effect of the crosswind on the tail. Is this increased due to the moment (distance of the tail from the CG) of the airframe? Can they adjust the algorithm to reduce this effect? Moment = force x distance. But the Force component is too strong because the air rushing past the tail from the prop wash would cancel a good deal of the force coming from the crosswind component.
Actually, I didn’t say it was related to calibration.
What I said was: Oh, when the rudder control got a bit out of hand I ran joy.cpl on my Windows computer in command mode and re-calibrated my joy stick. That qualified as a solution for an out of sorts rudder control for me and maybe others.
As for Weathervaning, I do agree with you, especially with experience IRL.
