Are you saying that I’m fat? 
Lets get back on topic guys, to the OP apologies for de-railing the thread 
. Lets get back “on rails” just like the MSFS flight model 
.
2 Likes
you did specify (flight sim) in your post !
Sorry OP for our over-reactive motivation
1 Like
Hi Yeti, I wanted to touch on what you wrote here. Thank you for your contributions to the forum (genuinely).
If I understand your point to be that often what works out on “paper” does not always “fit” into the real world, then I don’t think you’ll find much disagreement. Aspiration meets practical reality, or some such.
But I think everyone would be better served by avoiding analogies (especially given language barriers, where analogies, metaphor, and idioms don’t carry over well) and instead being direct with their explanations and thoughts.
The analogy you give isn’t (to my mind, anyways) accurate, but rather, problematic. Particularly because it perpetuates an incorrect and unhelpful popular science belief/meme that “theoretical physics” is just a stand-in for “hypothetical physics” whereas “applied physics” is simply “physics known to be (or curated to) work in the ‘real world’ on planes, trains, and automobiles”.
For what its worth, I think of theoretical physics as really being about explaining and predicting physical phenomenon. There is nothing much “theoretical” about it in the conventional sense. Applied physics is an extraordinarily broad term, a term that could probably be done away with in place of more accurate terms of computational (simulations) and experimental (synthesize/build and measure).
Owing to the fact that you have a teaching and technical background, your use of this analogy is no doubt well intentioned and meant to foster learning. Just wanted to this point out the flaw in this though, so any confusion can be avoided.
All the best.
You are absolutely right and I am wrong.
I am guilty of using TV’s Big Bang Theory physicist stereotypes to illustrate a point. Computer Science and Software Engineering are named that way because they are scientific endeavors with theoretical and applied components requiring a rather intimate knowledge of engineering principles.
I hold all physicists in high regard and apologize for any offense by using a weak, inaccurate analogy.
As to the language barriers, use of idioms and slang, sometimes weak analogies, and being direct and unvarnished in my statements – it is problematic. On the other hand, I would ask you to consider the possibility that I might be bending those very obstacles to serve my communications objective. I can tailor my response to hit the intended audience, and also convey messages that would be inappropriate if stated directly.
I often use the word “misinformation” and openly state I have declared war on it and those who spread it. Well, in this case, my inaccurate analogy falls in that category, so thank you for your feedback and clarifications. I assure you, I appreciate it and respect the way you offered it. I will continue trying to improve myself and my communications, just as I try to improve this forum.
However, at the risk of propagating an inaccurate stereotype, you sound like you are a scientist yourself. I can’t be sure, though, because you are so well-spoken! 
1 Like
The main aircraft that I have used to look into this issue is the Cessna 172 and the 152. However, it should be the same for every aircraft.
The physics of adverse yaw are absent, even when on the most realistic settings. If you want to see this in action, put the airplane in cruise, and do brisk rolls to the left and right without any rudder correction. In real life, you would see the nose initially swinging to the outside of the turn due to adverse yaw. The aileron that is being deflected downwards creates a drag on that wing, which causes the nose to momentarily swing to the outside of the turn. It would be awesome to see this accurately represented in the sim in all aircraft!
Source: Flight Instructing in 172s.
As the recent adobo video says, adverse yaw and other improvements are on their way. Have a look if you want to see it in action.
Is that chicken or pork?
1 Like
Actually they said it is already in the sim. In the aerodynamics video they even showed it. In the recent Q&A they did say that they were looking into the magnitude of the effect. Thus their claim is, that the physics is modelled, but the magnitude could be off. Also they mentioned they were going to get data, about adverse yaw, from a real plane and compare it to the sim. So improvements are on the way it seems.
And on a plane per plane basis, from what I heard. I did not notice a little smile by Jorg when this was mentioned. So that suggests that this is an option in the SDK, to either enable or disable it?
Any devs. care to comment on that?
I’ve been trying to add it using the line in the flight_model.cfg "yaw_moment_delta_aileron = ", which is noted in the aircraft editor as ‘Adverse Yaw’ (so equates to Cn_da). Extreme numbers do not have a noticeable effect, so I would agree that the magnitude is off. Quite a way off, actually. Still, at least it’s being looked at.
1 Like
What I would say in response to Asobo saying they are going to take some measurements from real aircraft, to get this right, which is great to hear, but why did they not do this originally? I thought they had already gone through this process of taking measurements. I guess this got omitted for some reason.
Well, I tested adverse yaw in FS2020 version 1.12.13.0. Nothing. I changed some parameter values. Nothing. I set “autorudder off” in controls. Nothing. Summary: including the current version 1.12.13.0 Asobo has done nothing.
FSX has a good simulation of adverse yaw. It is airplane depending.
I wrote a Zendesk request #90796 “Autorudder off does not work”.
I think: Upvote, upvote, upvote this topic and hope the best.
2 Likes
The developers have commented on this issue:
3 Likes
Glade to hear that more improvements are coming to adverse yaw!
1 Like
I have to say, during the aerodynamics video it is also not very pronounced.
1 Like
I wonder who he’s referring to when he says “our pilots”. Does he mean the members of the team who have a pilots license?
New slogan: “FS2020 by PPLers, for PPLers”. But I guess not, in the aerodynamics video they mentioned they are consulting professional pilots as well. Its not very noticeable so far but lets hope that will change in the near future.
3 Likes
Is this getting ANY attention? Does not fly properly at all. It feels like auto rudder has been built in. DO NOT TRAIN FOR REAL WORLD FLYING HERE. Shame…
LouP
1 Like
have you seen the latest Feature discovery series?
Also, it seems like your caps lock button is broken.
Also also; if you want to train for ‘REAL WORLD FLYING’, I’m pretty sure you’ll need a certified commercial flight simulator (like the ones ‘REAL WORLD ACTUAL PILOTS’ do their training in). Not a consumer grade flight sim.
No the caps lock wasn’t broken. It was meant as a sincere warning. Now I think I see the problem. In watching the video from Asobo on the flight dynamics, I don’t recall seeing anything about yaw. It’s great that they are doing all they are doing but dam, how about a basic coordinated turn using the airilons and rudder.
LouP
PS. There are enough other people here pointing out the same thing so I am not alone here. Also, I do have a commercial pilot license with an instrument rating. I know how an aircraft feels in the sky.
1 Like