I wish the dev would just read this thread or be more specific in the change log - all issues are reported here.
Instrumentation issues are still not fixed e.g. no fuel flow/pressure when engaging the fuel pump before start (engine priming), still lower CHT indications when cowls are closed… HSI course selector hardware binding still u/s to name a few. I have not checked everything.
Crosswind takeoff: put your ailerons into wind and use effective cross controls! As you speed up, less into wind aileron is required due to increasing control surface effectiveness. The way it is modelled is not that unrealistic - don’t snag stuff just because you think it’s not what you believe it should be.
It’s very unrealistic. I’m a pilot I know how to handle crosswinds.
It’s a bug on takeoff. It’s actually possible to land this just fine in a crosswind. There’s an issue with ground friction and/or steering on takeoff BEFORE the rudder becomes effective… Even with a tiny 5 knot crosswind this bug is evident… the plane weathervanes hard into the wind, and you have to to dance on the toe brakes and pedals to try to get it back to centerline.
Someone said the same bug is evident in the new T-34 as well… so they’re probably copying some parameters (copying the bug sigh) to newer planes.
I find that as long as I advance the power slowly then I can keep this on the centre line fairly easily. If I jerk the throttle forward then yes, it doesn’t like it and I need a lot more rudder.
Do you own a T210N ? I do and I have flown thousands of hours on this type. I am not claiming by any means everything is 100% in the Carenado but I honestly have to work keeping the real plane straight on the middle line during any kind of crosswind, especially from the left.
There are many more broken things to get fixed in this product.
You are correct - Big bore piston engines have a lot more metal to move inside affected by inertia - with these you always want to increase and decrease power in a subtle manner.
When you do a (non gravel) short field, slowly go to set 36.5 InHg before releasing the brakes. On gravel runways, make sure you have enough runway for a rolling takeoff and keep moving or have at least a few feet of concrete pad to accelerate - otherwise the prop will get nicked by stones and receive damage - in FS it is not an issue of course as FOD damage is not simulated.
Not to the prop I think, but Black Square did add FOD engine damage to their Duke’s because I made a post about not setting the inertial separator on take off, and whether that could be simulated or not, and they did! I think a tester here had their ear, and mentioned it to them.
Ah, I misremembered. It was in the Duke’s thread, but pointed to a post I made on the C208.
Could prop damage be simulated by reducing its efficiency somehow, short of actually having it fly apart I mean? Not sure what simvars you could use, but perhaps surface type plus prop speed with some chance of prop damage.
They are simulating internal compressor damage - the prop blade damage as such is also not simulated by Black Square. They are two completely different things.
Operating on gravel eventually always causes some nicks - on metal props these can be filed out to a certain limit. Composite props suffer more. It usually does not cause complete disintegration or fatal damage.
Nope I only have low wing piper and beech experience.
However I’ve got 3 other guys reporting the same behavior. It’s only with a crosswind of more than 5 knots though. Maybe there’s a mod interacting or something? No idea.
I posted well above this that I tried a slow application of power (rolling and static takeoff), I’m absolutely using ailerons and rudder appropriately, I use the 36.5 “ takeoff power as well. If I use 30 its much more possible.
Maybe it’s a controller issue. But I’ve verified I’m inputting all of my ailerons and (opposite) rudder… it just veers right off centerline and basically off the runway.
It’s not torque or anything like that… cause if I use custom weather and set a wind from the left or right, the plane turns into the wind and wants to go well off centerline.
But if others aren’t seeing it that makes it harder to track down.
Harking back to last July shortly after launch, the takeoff roll behavior has been kicked around since the beginning. It seems that IRL aircraft behavior meets simulator/modeling limitations at a particularly critical point, which further stresses any controller/hardware limitations/issues? It’s definitely a thing, but I have learned how to manage this model on my particular set-up. Cheers!
I’ve had the same experience. It’s almost uncontrollable at just a few knots of ground speed. And it’s completely due to weathervaning: for example, I tried taking off with a crosswind and it pulled me into the wind. I stopped and turned around on the runway and tried taking off the opposite direction and it pulled me the opposite way. Correct use of ailerons, everything.
Overly-aggressive weathervaning has always been an issue in the sim, but no other plane exhibits behavior quite like this.
It is definitely something they should look into and I know what you mean. I am just not sure what it is exactly that requires fixing - the adv. effect seems a bit exaggerated but they would have to get the proportions right and not tend towards the effect becoming unnoticeable i.e. too weak.
I found if you get in the right amount of aileron, it will not veer off into wind - actually if you use too much, it will even go to the opposite side. Maybe it is also a wheel friction thing, that the wind banks the plane and places more weight on the Lee side wheel which create excessive friction on that side. So what I believe is maybe happening, is that you’re actually balancing out the weight on wheels in addition to countering the crosswind - and of course this makes no real sense at all in terms of physics.
DM @CpMoustache he’s got a mod that beautifully addresses this. I just tried it…still needs aileron input like you would expect but doesn’t veer off the runway like crazy.
I haven’t looked at that particular mod, but typically increasing wheel friction can resolve this, plus a few other related values such as the speed at which crosswind is reduced or cancelled out.
Back when I first encounter this, I wondered if it didn’t have to do with tire friction in three dimensions. As in how a tire behaves on edge versus in full contact. It’s almost as if the area in contact is too narrow.
The other issue that presents itself in this is that the nosewheel has too much friction. That is, while it’s on the ground you’ll notice it has too much direct effect and it doesn’t fade with speed. I’m sure this is what accounts for the differences in experiences with this plane. Apply just a bit of back pressure and the nosewheel gets light enough to lift and you’re left with the plane’s own flight_model.cfg settings for aerodynamics, which is a tad lacking in the crosswind department.
This excessive nosewheel friction is a sadly common thing among MSFS aircraft. The most I’ve seen is around 300x normal friction. Yes, 300. Even some “study level” aircraft I’ve found have main wheel and nosewheel friction set to 4-10x normal which leads to this behaviour. So you get excessive nosewheel steering response and twitchiness on the ground then an instantaneous and shocking change as soon as the nose lifts. Combine that with wrong numbers for crosswind response, rudder effectiveness, or elasticity and you get a mess on takeoff/landing
edit: it’s this effect that leads to lots of people, including devs with decades of experience, saying things like “MSFS has two flight models” or “the flight model changes when it’s on the ground” etc. Neither are true but you understand why they might think this
I was going to go tell you what the 210 defaults to for these numbers but then remembered that I can’t due to encryption. Fortunately with the new file layout the mod was possible but I have no reference to what it was “before” so have to take my best shot
I realise they are different, I was just wondering if one form of damage can be simulated, perhaps the other can too. Prop strikes are already simulated in some planes, for example.
Wow, I can imagine. I was doing research on the layup for composite tubes under external pressure, buckling being the main failure mode. Steel tubes crumple, but do maintain some structural integrity. We did a bunch of tests with a variety of layups for tubes, and, once they buckle/failed.. They just turned to dust. You needed a vacuum cleaner to clean out the chamber. I’m going to imagine they’ve strengthed composite properllers somehow to avoid this?
