Yes likewise here, it doesn’t seem quite right to me but what do I know. Killing the speed seems difficult.
Having said that I am totally prepared to accept that it’s my technique.
We are still working on implimenting prop drag more accurately than the sim allows. That should help!
2 Likes
Keep us posted on this please. I have noticed a lack of p-factor in a number of planes, this seems to be a major limitation of the sim right now. Hopefully Asobo will help by improving the sim-core aspects of it…
If you mean this one:
That is exactly what I was talking about. No bug, I have set it to be fixed in the Kodiak because that is how the Empty Weight CG is. CG, on the other hand, can be adjusted through loading the aircraft correctly - I’ve not seen any slider for that?
2 Likes
Will do - it’ll likely be sorted as part of the work on the amphibian variant, which is ongoing at the moment (or, officially, as soon as the ‘festive break’ is over 
)
1 Like
What then is the purpose of having 8 seats in the tundra variant if putting an average person-sized load in each puts the aircraft out of CG limits?
Load up the Icon A5 someday. That only has 2 seats and filling them both with human occupants will, many times, mean leaving behind anything you had planned on carrying, including fuel.
I haven’t tried flying the 8-seat variant in the sim yet, but I imagine that those seats will be usable with proper loading of the plane. The closer you get to the max useful load, the more of a balancing act it becomes.
It appears our Kodiak is not alone in this:
I have no involvement at all with that product, but it apears that in entirely separate sims the same aircraft behaves in a similar manner despite having been built by entirely separate groups! There is note in that forum post about the real aircraft needing a tail jack-stand at times, and we are aware that the aircraft has an unusually aft CG in most circumstances.
While looking at the amphibian over the next few weeks, I’ll re-check the positioning of everything but I think there is likely to be an element of care needed when loading. For example, there is the obvious fact that different people have different weights - putting a flat figure in every seat may be easy but when operating near to a CG limit in real life I’d suggest that individuals weights are taken into account, you could try that in the sim?
I can test it out sure. My initial test was performed by adding random weights between 170 and 215 pounds to all of the seats and observing the CG, but I can test where I add random weights in random seats then do the same but keeping the higher weights toward the front.
I just want to say I’m not trying to criticize anything, I really don’t know much about the Kodak and just trying to differentiate between sim limitations and real limitations, etc. I only sought out the way to unlock the CG adjustment as I thought the EWCG would vary depending on the interior.
1 Like
Only the pilots’ seats are included in the empty weight - the sim version is literally built as a stripped out shell, hence the immovable EWCG. The manual should detail the weights of the seats for each version etc, anything else that you need to add.
The slider seems like something of a cheat. In that you can load the cargo up however you want, and use the slider to move the CG where you want it. It doesn’t alter the weight only its distribution. I just double checked on a few Asobo default planes, and the slider works as I remember it, just as you imply.
I think it would be fair argument, considering there are no limits that I know of for an individual position, that the slider accomplishes the same task as having to adjust the weights per position to achieve the same goal, but a hell of a lot easier.
If I put 900Kg in the front, and 1Kg in the back, I can use the slider to pull the CG aft. Or with it disabled, I have to adjust those 901Kg to achieve the same goal. Swings, and roundabouts as it were.
But it still leaves you in a position where the EWCG is outside limits, even though the CG may be within. As you burn fuel down during a flight, the effect on balance will therefore be incorrect whereas with it set correctly and weight distributed carefully you should end up with the correct effect on balance.
Using an EWCG slider to alter part of what makes up the total CG is just wrong!
link the discord pls
True, I guess, since it doesn’t exist in real life. But if both options simply adjust where the black, and white spot is, some might like that aspect of things to be unrealistic for simplicities sake.
If we continue down that path we may as well remove all the assistances as well, like auto-rudder. 
Oh how I long for that day 
4 Likes
If anyone does want to enable this feature for whatever reason, go into the “flight_model.cfg” file, and comment out this line:
;empty_cg_deviation_limit =0
It seems to work for me, for some values of work! 
I’m not in a position to test this in flight, but I loaded up 1500lbs in one of the Row 4 positions, then used the slider to move it forwards as far as I could, and it seems to achieve the same thing as putting those 1500lbs in Row 2 instead. I don’t think I’ve ever tested this so I don’t know whether this would actually fly the same or not.
That is a reasonable question. You can only have 8 seats with passengers loaded if you balance the weights carefully to be within limits. This would mean lots of fuel and putting the children in the back, adults in the front, otherwise you cannot have them.
In fact, most passenger variants of the Kodiak don’t have the left seat on the last row, as it obstructs the door -but that’s an option.
For the record, Daher provided us with a W&B utility where we put our aircraft configuration and experimented with MSFS. Our version was very close to the figures given by the utility.
10 Likes
Here is a great Kodiak performance site.
I assume the little differences between it and MSFS are due to limitations of the flight sim and/or the right configuration of the aircraft. But still nice for flight planing and understanding of all the little parts involved for the weight and fuel setup.
https://pohperformance.com/Kodiak/index.html
Edit: Maybe this one is a better link:
https://pohperformance.com/kodiak.html
6 Likes
Maybe a question of perspective but the standard tires seems to be the normal 29’’ larger tires you see in all Kodiak’s. I cannot find a shot of a Kodiak with that big balloons tundra tires.
They may be after market options. I had a look at their sales site, and it doesn’t appear to have any tyre options there.