Having to use the rudder for a coordinated turn seems basic functionality to me. It is present in other consumer grade sims. I sincerely hope they improve this aspect of the sim.
2 Likes
Well, this is after all an off the shelf commercial product. Not EASA/FAA certified flight simulation training system. YOU SHALL NOT TRAIN WITH MFSF for real world applications!
Its all about the IP namely “Microsoft Flight Simulator” and the community. If this IP fails we also fail! So I welcome you to our community.
Well, I see you edited my post, I didn’t think it was bad but ok. I am watching a YouTube video as I write this and the CEO of ASOBO, Sebastan Wloch, has acknowledged the issue with adverse yaw where it is modeled but is too weak. They are working on correcting the issue, so I’m all set. Based on my observations so far, I’d be surprised if there was no attempt to correct this. It’s good to see a commitment for a great flight simulator.
Have an awesome day,
LouP
5 Likes
Does anyone has updates on this topic?
I am eagerly awaiting for this fix as well. It is frustrating that such basic functionality is not present in such an amazing simulator. There are other issues as well, but this is one that should be a mandatory fix ASAP.
1 Like
Hi, Dev team is working on this issue. They said it is present in sim but very weak! So hopefully in upcoming sim updates.
Adverse yaw is virtually non-existent on the C172. I’m trying to rock the wings from left to right without applying back pressure or touching the rudder, first at higher speed, then at stall speed.
What you would observe in real life, especially at low speed, is that the nose would really lack behind (stays out off the turn) until the moment aileron input is removed (yoke neutral) at which point the nose should start to yaw into the turn. There is some movement visible on the slip indicator but when looking outside there isn’t much yaw noticeable. At some points it does look like something is happening but I think that is caused by the nose dropping due to loss of lift, its not a yaw.
9 Likes
Okay, supposedly 7 aircraft (including the 172, not sure of the others) had adverse yaw fixes … anybody know the full list, and have they confirmed that the difference is significant?
3 Likes
The planes that had their “flight_model.cfg” updated, for me at least are:
TBM
C152
Pitts
DA62
King Air 350
C208
E330
C172 G1000
Some planes are encrypted, and we know the steam gauge 172 has been updated as well.
There’s no way of knowing what they added to those *.fsarchive files, but quite a few of those were updated as well.
Carenado Arrow
DA40 TDI
SR22
Pipistrel Virus
C172SP-Classic
Cessna Longitude
Savage Shock Ultra
Baron G58
DV20
C152 Aerobat
787-10
1 Like
Did anyone experience the change in the flight model for adverse yaw effect on C172 gauge? I tried to replicate the example on the Q&A of today video but couldn’t.
1 Like
BTW, slight tangent: this is the first dev Q&A I’ve actually listened to, and I gotta say, so impressed with Asobo (and MSFT). This level of access and honesty is amazing, and makes me even more irritated with people treating them like ■■■■ in the forums - with faces to a name and all that.
I’m now I guess 100% fanboy. Of course, it also helps that I’ve been a developer at a very large dev house for many years, so when they describe, say, losing track of a few fixes for air pressure and the pitot system because they didn’t quite make the fork date into the SU4 branch, I’m like “OH yeah, been there, done that, have the t-shirt.”
Anyway, off to re-learn how to use my rudder pedals!
3 Likes
At 9:40 he said it will be in the next update.
3 Likes
As luck would have it, I had taken a copy of the 172 G1000 prior to the update, so I have both the SU3, and SU4 copies of its “flight_model.cfg”, ordered as SU3 top, and SU4 bottom:
htail_area = 22 ; Horizontal tail area (SQUARE FEET)
htail_area = 15 ; Horizontal tail area (SQUARE FEET)
htail_pos_lon = -18.5 ; Longitudinal (z) position of horizontal tail w.r.t reference datum (FEET)
htail_pos_lon = -17.75 ; Longitudinal (z) position of horizontal tail w.r.t reference datum (FEET)
htail_thickness_ratio = 0.025 ; Local thickness is local_chord(x)*htail_thickness_ratio, x = lateral coord
htail_thickness_ratio = 0.033 ; Local thickness is local_chord(x)*htail_thickness_ratio, x = lateral coord
vtail_area = 15 ; Vertical tail area (SQUARE FEET)
vtail_area = 11 ; Vertical tail area (SQUARE FEET)
vtail_pos_lon = -18.5 ; Longitudinal (z) position of vertical tail w.r.t reference datum (FEET)
vtail_pos_lon = -18.0 ; Longitudinal (z) position of vertical tail w.r.t reference datum (FEET)
fuselage_length = -1 ; Nose to tail (FEET)
fuselage_length = 23 ; Nose to tail (FEET)
fuselage_center_pos = -6, 0, 0.3
fuselage_center_pos = -5.5, 0, 0.3
elevator_area = 22 ; Elevator area (SQUARE FEET)
elevator_area = 15 ; Elevator area (SQUARE FEET)
rudder_area = 15 ; Elevator area (SQUARE FEET)
rudder_area = 11 ; Elevator area (SQUARE FEET)
aileron_span_outboard = 0.6 - New for SU4
elevator_effectiveness = 1.0
elevator_effectiveness = 0.66
elevator_maxangle_scalar = 1.0
elevator_maxangle_scalar = 0.75
elevator_chordangle_scalar = 1.4 - Removed from SU4
rudder_effectiveness = 1
rudder_effectiveness = 0.66
rudder_maxangle_scalar = 1.0
rudder_maxangle_scalar = 0.75
rudder_chordangle_scalar = 1.4 - Removed from SU4
pitch_gyro_stability = 0.25
pitch_gyro_stability = 0.0
roll_gyro_stability = 0.25
roll_gyro_stability = 0.0
yaw_gyro_stability = 0.25
yaw_gyro_stability = 0.0
I’m surprised by some of these, like the SU3 model for fuselage length being -1 feet.
2 Likes
If after the next SU 5 update the adverse yaw at least in the steam gauge C172 works like Seb showed in the video, I’ll be extremely happy and won’t feel like having to go back to A2A or Simcoders C172 again 
Yes I’m not expecting a default aircraft to have all the hardcore realism features of a payware A2A or Simcoders or AirfoilLabs Cessna but if the basic things work correctly then I’m content 
3 Likes
Nicely documented 
YES: the SU3 model for fuselage length being -1 feet. was “unexpected” !!!
I did the same, and have a C172 SU3 plane, and a C172 SU4 plane for comparison, and a quick change between them, using Dev Mode.
Either the original setting were way wrong, or this is an attempt to modify the way the plane flies in the Current Flight Model, by PHYSICALLY altering the dimensions of the plane.
If this is needed to make the plane fly correctly in the Current Flight Model, its a slippery slope to start going down.
What is even more strange, if that if you compare the flight characteristic of both Version, they “feel” to be virtually identical !!
Interesting Read about C172 Performance Assessment, with dimensional data.
(May not be exactly the same model C172 as in MSFS)
http://www.temporal.com.au/c172.pdf
2 Likes
If MSFS is similar to FSX than this wouldn’t be a surprise since the FSX FDE simply doesn’t use all cfg entries, including e.g. the horizontal tail area.
2 Likes
Its difficult to imagine that MSFS does not use “horizontal tail area” in it’s flight modeling !!
I guess one could check this out my trial & error, making the “horizontal tail area” ridiculously BIG and then SMALL, and seeing if it affects the flying performance of the plane, – but there must be 1001 better things to do !!.
Probably the value of -1 was used as a so-called sentinel value, i.e. a value that would trigger special logic in the model. For example, the value of -1 could mean: invalid, do not use, use this or that model instead.
For anyone (like me) trying to design adverse yaw into an MSFS aircraft, it’s worth noting that there are [FLIGHT TUNING] parameters in the flight_model.cfg file that are best thought of as a ‘final hack’ if you can’t get the model to give you the performance you want, and the ‘default’ setting for each parameter is effectively 1.0, and for the C172 Asobo has set
[FLIGHT_TUNING]
pitch_stability = 0.1
roll_stability = 0.1
yaw_stability = 0.1
pitch_gyro_stability = 0.0
roll_gyro_stability = 0.0
yaw_gyro_stability = 0.0
1 Like
I have tested the adverse yaw effect on both C152 and C172 after sim update V. C172’s adverse yaw effect is significantly improved. However, C152 still needs some tweaks. Thanks.
4 Likes