Taking the “updates” to the Garmin systems with Update 3 into account and the still existing 100/1000 units increment “feature” after Update 3 I’m not holding my breath tbh…
1 Like
@TomL7753, well, if you were MS, given the other options available (the WT G-series mods, and Scorpion’s GNS430 & 530 mods), would you spend a lot of effort on building your own, or would you point end users to them, and maybe even work on buying their IP and hiring them on to the dev team? Because that’s what I would do!
And while I don’t know the ins and outs of the laws around IP of Open Source stuff, but I suppose it’s completely possible that MS could just use the IP legally, and even incorporate it into the sim itself without having to buy it in the first place. But even though it might be legal, it’s not necessarily the right or nice thing to do.
@KevyKevTPA , You may be right, and I don’t have a big problem with the shortcomings of the original Garmins as I’m using the G3000 mod for the TBM.
Speaking of the TBM - there’s mods out there but they don’t change the flaws of the Turboprop simulation in MSFS - because these flaws are fundamental. I sincerely hope MS/ASOBO are aware of these flaws and genuinely want to bring up the flightmodel to something that Majestic have achieved with their Dash8 Q400 in FSX and P3D by running the engine simulation outside the sim - something that might be more difficult in MSFS given the Web-Assmebly architecture.
@TomL7753, I can’t speak to Majestic and what they did or didn’t do (I’m assuming you’re talking about a mod for FSX or something that I’ve simply never heard of), but I’m using @mixMugz’s TBM mod and I like it a lot! It may not (yet?) deal with the shortcomings of MS’s turboprop model, indeed it may take a payware maker to get to that, but if it does, I hope they work with Mugz to incorporate his changes, too, (and perhaps share the financial benefits) as I am a big fan.
So this seems hugely improved in SU4.
(Main thing is that torque now decreases with altitude instead of increasing, which was the biggest logic problem! Temperature control should also be different, but I haven’t done a lot of testing yet.)
1 Like
(post deleted by author)
1 Like
ITT, propeller drag and RPMs are still way off.
2 Likes
No updates to any SU5 … Bummer…
1 Like
SU6 also didn’t include any improvments for the correct ITT / torque relationship. In fact, for the TBM it made things even worse.
I have high doubts now that they will be able to fix the issue with SU7.
2 Likes
I tested turboprops with SU7. ITT torque relationship is still wrong. In some cases, it is not even possible to get ITT to redline under any circumstances. KA350 is the worst with the engines not being able to develop full takeoff power (low level airport, cool day), seconded by the brand new Turbo Porter which climbs easily past FL 400 with almost no loss in power up to FL320. Great performance for a non-pressurized turboprop designed for low altitude flying mostly.
4 Likes
Still no beta range implementation? For the caravan the engine still starts and stops with prop unfeathered. Same goes for the TBM. Not possible to assign beta range to controllers like in XP.
Haven’t seen the updated sim yet. So that’s how they work: log the bug and make everyone believe there are changes.
Nothing was adjusted /fixed for this in SU7. Same behavior as SU4, 5, etc. Now that reverse thrust and condition levers are broken, seems we took a few steps back.
Very disappointing there were no fixes I could see in SU7.
In my testing the Milviz Porter seemed to mostly behave correctly but the ITT is still backwards, dropping continuously with altitude. This seems to be due to limitations in the base sim.
We have more and more turbo props are coming to MSFS; we just had Milviz and Asobo Porters, another from FSG on the way, Kodiak and Twin Otter coming soon, Milviz and Asobo ATRs being worked on for next year, and its very sad if they’re all going to be showing incorrect engine behaviour.
4 Likes
Dec 2nd Dev update states they are done via SU7 having the last fix. But really doesn’t seem they did ANYTHING the last two updates…
yes it seems Sim Works Studio per this quoted report from their facebook is doing something along those lines for their Kodiak? Messing with the display somehow.
But this seems in no way to be satisfactory as far as I’m concerned.
Just saw this and I will add my 2 cents to this. The way ITT is modelled in MSFS is very simplistic and the formula for it is visible in the SDK doc. It does not allow us to control ITT well enough so for Kodi we could have an overheating engine with good low range ITT or a non-overheating engine with cold ITT. Custom job needed.
The other thing is that while we were able to go past 100% Ng under certain circumstances, My decreases instead of increasing with altitude. I believe that this is because of certain turbine tables being INOP in the flight model, otherwise it would kick up - the tables are filled in.
Beta range is also not possible, unless you do something like MV did which is a partial workaround to the problem.
The good news is that you can get the required flight performance out of the engine if you jump through some hoops. I.e. our torque, rpm. thrust and fuel flow are workable. ITT and Ng partially only.
Bottom line: we want more turboprop improvements.
7 Likes
Actually compared to P3D, in MSFS we have a bit more engine variables that can be custom controlled. As a result, any turboprop engine model can be simulated very close to real, following engine’s documentation and performance tables.
Despite MSFS inaccuracies in ITT/Ng/Torque, etc, when speaking of realistic perfomances only custom coded simulation can give the expected results. Each engine model has specific relationships between parameters like ITT, Ng, Torque, etc; it wouldn’t be possible to include them all in a simple config file.
Like it happened in other sims, I believe engine default (somehow unrealistic) parameters will remain in MSFS base aircraft, and specific performances in hands of third party developers (like in other sims, history repeats!).
2 Likes
I agree with the overall concept that the core simulator won’t be able to get everything right. However, I have been able to achieve mostly by-the-book performance with my current turboprop engine and the Ng dropping with altitude sticks out like a sore thumb. In FSX we had tables that we could use to scale N1 vs Altitude and get the right behaviours, but that is not possible now.
ITT: the upper & lower limits are hardcoded for turboprops, not for jets. Both use the same formula with minor modifications. Why not TPs?
Then there is beta operation, which every turboprop I can think of has. This has never been handled and it is a real shame, because it is core to the operation of TPs and, really, not that hard to make given what data is available in the flight model.
So I don’t expect accurate thermodynamics, but I do expect some things that worked for the past 20 years to be fixed,reimplemented and even improved upon.
7 Likes
Asobo is calling this fixed. Far from it. Another bug thread opened up for the remaining issues not addressed.
2 Likes