Already done.
And I hate wasps!!
I would agree that perhaps blowing the engine would be the right route to go. If we are moving into territory that cannot even be replicated in the real world, then perhaps we are looking at fantasy physics that the sim cannot possibly simulate realistically. So wrecking the engine would be a neat way to avoid that situation.
1 Like
Is that similar to āspace magicā?
Interesting find youāve discovered.
I do love the sound of the Kodiak in full reverse thrust mode ā sublime!
1 Like
I think its got the nicest reverse thrust sound in the sim, at least of the planes I have, and it certainly has a hell of a kick to it, unlike the relatively sedentary Caravan.
Iām kind of curious what it would look like with CFD enabled, and with visualisation turned on. I know it would be a complete franken-plane at that point, but might still be flyable with SDK default values.
1 Like
For sure! I find myself using reverse thrust to slow down when it is so entirely unnecessary, just so I can listen to it!
1 Like
Heheh. Donāt feel too bad. Brakes are expensive to replace also 
1 Like
I wont say dim limitation, I will say sim bug.
The thrust efficiency values for reverse pitch are negative, which means the propeller will produce reverse thrust.
Why MSFS treats it backwards while in the air makes no sense and is news to me. I will report it to Asobo.
4 Likes
Itās really odd, and unexpected. I donāt even remember why I tried it, possibly just because I never had, and was curious. 
3 Likes
Fixed: SimWorks Studios Kodiak 100 one the best aircraft for MSFS 2020 both forwards and backwards
@Baracus250 Time for a new list! The best bi-directional aircraft in the sim. Put it next to the blacksharkAI glitch thread.
hahaha, Iām on it!
How long before someone makes a mod for the coming soon Double Ender to actually make it fly either way. The 337 Skymaster could do the same
Iām sure I have seen some aircraft that look kinda symmetrical in both axis but canāt recall what Iām thinking of at the moment
It would be interesting to know why the Caravan doesnāt do this however. I assume both are using Asobo turboprop code.
I assume that the Caravan uses Asoboās propeller code, while ours uses the propeller performance tables from FSX. The latter were upgraded by Asobo to allow for much more fine control around the time of SU6, but this weird bug hadnāt been observed until you pointed it out.
2 Likes
Wasnāt me 
2 Likes
Not a light undertaking Iām sure, but I wonder whether it would be resolved by moving to the new propeller simulation (NPS). It seems non-trivial to implement though, but many planes are using it.
Funnily enough, the Asobo Caravan does use NPS, so that may explain it.
1 Like
Kodiak sounds a bit like a Stuka, flying with the props reversed.
Maybe we should do a dive bombing comp with sacks of flour!
We used to throw stuffed jumpsuits out the door of the jump plane to hit the pit sometimes, so itās kitted already.
Though I donāt think anybodies done a useable droppable object yet. Even the Porterās trapdoor doohicky is really just for show.
2 Likes
Iāve created something of a franken-plane. I removed all the propeller configuration from the Kodiak, and copied in the NPS settings from the BS Caravan. Other than loss of airspeed, and other performance issues such as no need for massive amounts of right rudder, take-off was possible, and I levelled off at 6000ft. When engaging full reverse, loss of airspeed was observed, and then I entered a steep dive, but at a much arrested rate. This was closer to what I saw in the BS C208 Caravan, but an even more pronounced dive.
It certainly seems like those FSX propeller settings are the cause for it. The AP was not able to maintain level flight, and it did not accelerate when in reverse. This may be one of those FSX code not working properly with MSFS modern physics. Actually, I wonder how it behaves with the modern flight model disabled!?
Again, I donāt have all my gear set up, but it would have been interesting to fly all three tests without the AP to see what happens in level flight.
One of the problems of NPS is that it does not allow us to get correct thrust, torque and Np across the entire operating envelope of the engine. I.e. the Kodiak will idle at 1080rpm Np at ground idle, 1400-1440 at high idle and max out at 2200rpm. With correct torque values I was unable to get one of the two idles right.
A rather long discussion about it can be seen on the Asobo developer support forums that we use to report issues. Please avoid posting there as it will clutter things up for Asobo.
The first topic covers a lot of problems with the NPS, the second one is an indicative post of more problems with it: https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/questions/9677/prop-modern-power-abosorb-formulas.html
https://devsupport.flightsimulator.com/questions/15368/modern-propmodel-breaks-taxing.html
Long story short, it is not complete enough to be usable by developers across all planes. It can work perfectly for some planes because it will happen to fit them. It will not work for others because it isnāt configurable enough and its existing bugs may make it inaccurate or just unusable.
Furthermore, we have a clear bias in favour of the FSX legacy table system because it provides very fine control across the entire operating range of the propeller, its results are predictable using formulas that are accepted by the industry and academia and lastly, we are in a position to know that this is indeed how propeller performance maps are done in the industry.
The glitch with reverse thrust that you discovered is extreme, but it seems to be a bug on an edge case of Asoboās implementation. It would not make sense to spend time redoing the engine with a system that is knowingly problematic and lacking, which may also need to further adjustments to the flight model of the āgliderā because of a bug caused while trying to fly backwards! 
For the heck of it, though, I will negate the propeller tables so that I have reverse thrust everywhere and see how the kaidoK flies.
9 Likes
I just tried it with the modern flight model disabled, and saw no change in behaviour. I belt, and braced it with the GUI setting, and setting the option in the flight model file to 0, rather than 1. I was thinking along the lines of FSX-like settings working better with the legacy flight model, but it appears unrelated.
On another note, does anyone else have that issue where you spawn in, and it unceremoniously drops you onto the tarmac? Itās like the plane always spawns a foot above the ground. It doesnāt seem to matter if you are on grass, dirt or paved it always does it. I think it also affects both tyre types as well.
1 Like
I knew I heard that somewhere, before! Watched āThe Malta Storyā (1953) a couple of nights ago and it has several what appear to be real-life clips of the venerable Stuka doing its thing.
1 Like
Didnāt recall this ever happening, but just re-tried it in both ācold and darkā and ready to fly modes.
No untoward droppages noted. Might be your set-up. BTW, I donāt fly in VR.
1 Like