Milviz Pilatus PC-6 Porter

I tried the DC 3 values in the PC-6 and I believe it improves the ground handling a lot (don’t know about realism though)

Edit: I must correct myself. I did some more testing with same crosswind conditions, and the PC-6’s ground handling is best without any modifications in it’s latest release.

Interesting, thanks! I bought mine via the market place and cannot find the flight_model.cfg. Thinking it might be encrypted. Or maybe just hidden.

Could you post your results to

The modern flight model SDK states specifically that the side forces are now ‚buried‘ within the ‚AIRPLANE-GEOMETRY‘. In the core code, not accessible to 3rd party developers.
Our engineering instincts definitely point in that direction, There must be some variable off ‚in there‘.
It could explain BOTH exaggerated yaw in ground rolls and depreciated adverse yaw in the air.

Would it be too embarrassing for Asobo to find and admit it? Subsequently all planes would have to be modified, more specifically get ‚unpatched‘. (if ahving been patched for more yaw realism in the first place)

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Content_Configuration/SimObjects/Aircraft_SimO/flight_model/aerodynamics.htm

side_force_ …
In the modern flight model this effect is natively obtained through aerodynamic simulation of the surfaces defined in the [AIRPLANE_GEOMETRY] section. In the modern flight model, the side force resulting from a roll is a complex combination of the effect of all the aircraft surfaces that cannot be directly controlled. Making sure the aircraft surfaces are correctly aligned and feature correct areas and coefficients will result in a realistic side force when rolling.

It would indeed explain a lot. ‘Methinks there is something rotten in the state of Kislev’

I think we need to take this to the main thread. As you can see other dream of more radical solutions. More modestly we just need Devs of quality aircraft like Blackbird to make use of the SU9 vars until Asobo find and fix whatever is wrong with lateral force physics.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/all-aircraft-crosswind-takeoff-landing-physics-very-flawed-since-release/485053/253?u=alpineb4652

well, if it were so, then the new wheel friction variables might be a straw man, and with it we are only getting deeper into the smelly stuff, patching over the fundamental flaw, making the return to a correct state only harder.

That would be true.

However, as a counterpoint, those are what we have and know to work and the presence of a deeper flaw is speculation. Also, they are very easily added and work somewhat in isolation, so as a band aid solution they are easy to apply - and just as easy to remove.

but wouldn‘t countering the exaggerated (air) side force in the ground roll with wheel friction amplify the problem with a sudden extreme weathercocking, once the tail (wheel) lifts off the ground?
How would wheel friction help with that?
It‘s already a problem in the sim PC-6 as it is AFAIK.

Also true! I’ve noticed that is exactly the problem you get if you increase the friction scalars.

Now instead of running off the side of the runway before Vr, you track Centreline and immediately the wheels leave the ground - blam you weathercock and yaw around some. But this isn’t so far from what would happen in a strong cross-wind IRL. Less unrealistic than tires with no lateral friction! The trick is not to set the tire scalers so high as that you ‘run on rails’. You should still have to really work the rudder on the roll.

This aspect I feel I can mange through practice and smooth execution - veering off the runway I could do nothing about. This is where your top end pendulum rudder pedals should be worth the investment - my Logitech ones stick as I try to ease the rudder pressure and get stable on the climb out.

One thing that should help here is the reduced P-factor as the tailwheel lifts. I found the Asobo PC-6 much easier to manage once the tail was up. Also the Blackbird/Mil-viz improves…but there is a horrid yawing for a moment.

The UK civil aviation authority specifically warns GA pilots in their ‘Skyway Code’ that operating a trail dragger in crosswind is ‘one of the most perishable pilot skills’. Particularly one with a load of torque and a massive high wing…

Please see that in this video we just made this morning… the ball works as intended…

yes it works… in a stall during steep climb, airplane falling over to the side, followed by heavy airframe side oscillations during low speed regime, showing ball movement, as you demonstrated here. A bit of an extreme example?
Maybe we misunderstand each other. Question was not if it is functional, if the ball can move at all. The ball is only an indicator.

Question is about the flight model, specifically adverse yaw. If there is significant adverse yaw, necessitating a bit of rudder, to „step on the ball“ in a turn.
Your example didn‘t disprove the lack of adverse yaw in the flight model. ( „lack of“ in the sense of heavily underrepresented. question of quantity)
It shows other side forces at work which move the ball, but not adverse yaw.

But thanks for the effort making the video, appreciated.

1 Like

If you haven’t even put it in there, what’s the point for this sentence?

And why are you sell it in the Marketplace as you said buy it directly for a reason without waiting? Why not just tell your customer “Do not purchase it here, because you’ll waiting the update until we sent it in at some point”?

2 Likes

Have you seen the discussion on adverse yaw and some interesting methods that have been developed to measure it in this thread? The focus is on normal turns.

1 Like

Actually I believe it was just submitted on the 3rd…

Some people like having all their purchases in one place, automatic updates and aren’t bothered if they don’t have every update on day 1.

I am the one like my purchases in one place, and i feel sorry deeply if my post offended you developer.

Have perchased so many addons since 2021 via many platforms, and seen different attitude from developers, NEXT TIME i’ll clearly know which to buy and which definitely NOT again.

Once again, sorry if i offend anyone.

This is the first time I’ve ever had something flagged as malicious with a red warning box. Has anyone else had this? I’m sure it’s fine, but I’ve decided to wait on installing the update.

Screenshot 3_5_2023 9_29_41 AM

I had it today (i reinstalled for personal reasons) nothing untoward has happened. ESET did not pick it up as an issue.

Yes, same here, I had it last night, but installed it anyway. No problems so far.

Yeah, I downloaded the file twice, just to make sure I didn’t get a partial download, and it won’t run at all on my Windows 10 machine. I haven’t figured out yet if it’s my machine or the executable itself.

I’ve got an issue going on now with my Search being inactive (SearchUI.exe is missing, and sfc isn’t fixing the problem). This issue happened at the same time I started running the executable. But, it didn’t necessarily happen because of the executable. As I said, I’m still investigating the source of my issues here. I’ve got 16TB of disk to scan and it’s taking a while (not to mention I forgot to turn off auto-sleep last night).

Thanks, very interesting.
Meanwhile here with the PC-6, do we know any independent comments of actual PC-6 pilots, how much adverse yaw is a) normal in a PC-6 and b) how close to reality this sim plane is?
An educated guess would be, with its relatively long wings, designed for superior STOL capability, the PC-6 should demonstrate quite significant adverse yaw effects, more than e.g. a C172?

(since only about 600 PC-6 were ever built, I guess IRL pilots are harder to find for comment than say Cessna or Bonanza pilots.)