Please don‘t remove adverse yaw from the list. It is an area where the sim is lacking in realism, and it would be great if we could distinguish between the developers who put more effort into the flight modeling, and those who don‘t.
It seems particularly adverse yaw is a good differentiator between the „toy game“ plane makers and the more serious ones for us users.
What exactly is different in the new adverse yaw modeling, compared to the old way, where the SDK stated it would be an „automatic“ result of airframe geometry?
Since there are several side force effects in this sim, that make many people scratch their heads, why it feels so unrealistic (ground handling in cross winds for instance) it might very well be, that the effect of adverse yaw is falsely diminished in the air, and therefor harder to demonstrate/measure.
Like if for some reason, the vectored side airstream force hitting the vertical stabilizer is exaggerated in the sim due to some error in the underlying math, it would neutralize adverse yaw effects to a certain degree.
There are airplanes in the sim - e.g. the Pilatus PC-6, available as both stock aircraft and 3rd party enhanced version - which should demonstrate strong adverse yaw effects. Due to their geometry (big leverage from long wings) and also reported by IRL pilots (for IRL planes).
Have you experimented with speed in your measurements? Because depending on which constructive method plane makers used to decrease adverse yaw effects, these never work proportionally over the whole speed envelope, exposing stronger adverse yaw effects only in certain ranges of the speed range of an airplane.
And not sure the turn coordinator is an effective instrument to measure adverse yaw, lacking the knowledge how directly or not it shows side forces, or if it has its own math for that,