Without recreating the entire thread, basic turboprop engine issues to include ITT on start, ITT with altitude, torque versus altitude, and N1 versus altitude issues.
In other words, it seems just like the legacy FSX model.
A fix would be much appreciated, even when the overall performance seems more or less okay, at least in the TBM 930.
It’s been improved over FSX. It’s now flyable (which was not the case in FSX/P3D), but they still have some work to do here. Way too slow torque response, lacks beta range implementation along with other reported bugs and issue. Really hope this gets fixed.
Agreed. I’ve never flown a real turboprop but I can read POHs, glean torque, ITT, and altitude numbers from them, and see the game does not come close to the POH values.
I started with flying turboprop with the King Airs by Flight1 and Milviz. Especially to Torque logic appears weird respectively inverted (increasing torque with increasing altitude).
In MSFS the TBM 930 appears to be very popular. I hope the issues get the right attention.
@KenG1175, you might want to edit the thread title to state this is a place to up-vote basic modeling issues with turboprop engines. Second, you might want to add the lack of braking effect you get with high RPM combined with low power to the list of basic turboprop problems.
I loves me a bit of disc’ing…thats what its called right?
Yes, it’s called disc’ing, at least on the Dash 8
I didn’t realize there was already a thread on this
Yes, the turboprop modeling is completely backwards. I fly a cargo version of the king air for work, and in a climb the torque should decrease. You have to manually push the power levers forward in a climb to maintain torque. However in the game it’s completely backwards.
Vice versa for descents, it’s backwards in the game.
1900C or 99? haha
Although it’s a very different aircraft, I noticed this with the Cessna 208 aswell.
Yes, the Cessna 208 Caravan uses the same PT6A that the King Air 350 and TBM 930 use. The Caravan uses a smaller -114A variant, but the internal working of the engine remain similar.
Voted up. Having a realistic simulation of a free turbine turboprop would be awesome if it came to change the legacy flawed PT6 model. The most basic thing — the POWER = TORQUE x RPM formula — just doesn’t make sense in the sim now, not to mention other issues you pointed out.
This might actually apply, but when I’ve taken some piston props and pulled the prop all the way back for fun, I’ll actually start accelerating. This is especially prominent in the g36.
There are issues with the piston engine as well, but that’s for another post.
The TP model in Microsoft flightsimulators always have been unrealistic. No betarange, wrong prop animations on feather and low idle. Startup and shutdown is also wrong simulated. When you run the starter, the prop should just spin slow before you add fuel.
So this is a great opportunity for MS / ASOBO to prove they are serious about improving the sim!
I don’t think MS didn’t fix this issue because it’s too complicated. It’s just some functions and relations that need to be implemented. They just didn’t feel the need to.
And please, do something about control surface authority as well!
Slipped out of this weeks blog update. What’s the cause?
Slipped through? Takes longer and so removed it temporarily to present other stuff? Ignored?