Leaderboard

The torque itself, could be quite correct. Have you ever seen the video of the turbine powered Lancair, that had it's first engine run without the wings installed? As the pilot added in more power, the airframe twisted to the left, collapsed the landing gear, and shredded it's very expensive mass of engine and airframe all over the ramp. That's the torque effect, that X-Plane reproduces. It's there! But add the wings, and especially some airspeed, and lift will now counter that torque that wants to twist the fuselage. As physics says, lift squares with airspeed. And "this" is what X-Plane isn't doing the best job of. The torque fix is a compromise. You're actually reducing the simulated torque, rather than X-Plane being able to simulate the lift that counters it. Problem is, X-Plane is creating some false aircraft physics. The question comes up all the time ( just as it has today at the org.) and the one who inquires, is told to use aileron trim, or now the "torque fix". It's then implied, in some cases, that the torque fix, is for those who don't want to be bothered to fly an airplane properly. So, yes, I do have a problem, in the way that X-Plane produces the final result. We shouldn't have to be constantly trimming for roll. There are companies that specialize in re-rigging airplanes, to get rid of any roll or pitch, that adds to drag. When you use aileron trim, or fixed tabs to compensate for roll, you are adding drag, at a cost of airspeed & fuel. You should be able to handle any initial tendency to roll, with just aileron use. The sensation shouldn't be a heavy one. There will always be a need to use aileron trim for heavy wings, due to passenger, load, or fuel imbalance. Either wing could be heavy. And that's if.......you do have aileron trim. Many planes don't. A few months ago, I mentioned this on our experimental aircraft builders forum. A RV6 & 10 owner, who flys a crop dusting ag plane with a Pratt & Whitney turbine, initially replied, that yes, torque is there and you have to compensate with aileron. A week later, he comes back, after a recent flight and says, you have to use whatever control is nessesary to control the airplanes attitude, but when it got right down to it, the torque effect was just inconsequental. He just hadn't really gave it that much thought before. IMO, that's much closer to the answer that Tom got, from MU2, pilot #2. LA

Painted her and took her for a spin. Very nice freeware- aircraft by Alcalá Simulación

This is gonna be soooo sexy when finished Slainte, Andy NZCH

At least one thing is for sure: At least in X-Plane we can effectively create the real world compensations ( less those aerodynamical that I believe have to be fine tuned in future releases and LA mentioned, such as a dynamic pressure building up and than compensating, on most aircraft, for the torque), contrarily to the other sim I have used too and where you either completely tune down the torque or, if you have it, and all prop aircraft in FSX have the roll due torque!, no matter what combination of tuning parameters you use, the results are going to be very weird. In FSX you can cant the thrust axis up/down and left/rigt just like in X-Plane, but don't expect any near the same plausible consequences. You can also play with tuning parameters for p-factor and torque on roll, and even make them depend on AoA, which looks great as a start - problem is the way those parameters affect the flight characteristics, which is very unrealistic to say the least... I have learned to live with this detail, as well as others in X-Plane Ground handling under crosswind is also not very well done in X-Plane ( it's overdone IMO ) but! ground handling as a whole in X-Plane is a lot more realistic in terms for instance of sideways and rolling friction, than in FSX, even using some tweaks for that other sim! Taking off on a good X-Plane prop model, with well done sounds and flight dynamics designed to do the best at matching the real thing is, for me, a much better experience than in that other sim, at least for some aircraft I have had the chance to right seat, and even left seat :-) I am a glider pilot who once considered "adding engines" to his license... A few weeks later a fellow pilot died and the other got seriously injured on a crash with the same Tecnam I was using for my instruction... :-/ From there on, engines only in X-Plane or DCS, and in true prop aircraft, or when flying on an airliner, as opposed to those so called "ultralight aircraft" with engines that when observed/inspected with attention and good sense should bring some thoughts of getting away from it - sorry for the ULM pilots around here.... you are all kamikazes somehow... EDIT: I would really like to add just a bit more... The other day I bought another X-Aviation excellent aircraft - the C400. I am really enjoying everything about it. It's also Austin's aircraft ( or at least was before the accident in the hangar.. ) and many times when I exchanged oppinions with him regarding the roll due to torque - let's not call it "torque bug" again, at least I won't because it's NOT A BUG in the torque modelling! - he told me he certainly made use of the aileron trim when flying it. Well, the Corvalis I bought comes with very complete documentation, and reading the aircraft POH it really suggests that the electric elevator/aileron trim is there exactly for it! Also readng a descrition frm a C400 pilot on the net, an interesting review of the real aircraft, I found exactly the mention to the roll developing at high power settings, not only while climbing!!!! Well.... Then, there is yet another source if respectable information for me, which on some of the included aircraft ( the Bonanza A36 at least) does show evident roll due to torque or other prop effects! ELITE Premium, my 3rd simulator, and one I use often when I am in the mood to pretend I am IFR-rated :-), includes a "hangar" of nice GA representatives. Among them are Cessnas, even equipped with rudder trim, Pipers, Mooneys, Beechraft and even the Trinidad T10 and T20 models. Well, while some clearly show only yaw at high power / AoA settings, the A36 shows a lot less yaw, but a very noticeable roll due to torque! Now, I know ELITE excels at replicating the flight, engine and other important characteristics of the modeled aircraft included in the package. You can actually fly by the POH... so, having never flown in an A36, but having ELITE's "oppinion", I have to accept that most probably the real thing does show a rolling moment due to torque!

Finishing up the night lighting

I'm just picturing him accidentally calling the ATC call button while screaming "Holy S%$& you F*%* #$#!@"

I agree Tom, And, I can't forget how other aspects are so much more detailed in terms of simulation in X-Plane. It's nice to see things like the propwash being calculated ( only yesterday by Austin's suggestion did I enable it in the Data output in order to better tune a prop aircraft using one of the parameters that asks for cruise speed + 1/2 propwash), the control surfaces moving with the unstable air around them, even the effects of the asymmetric hit of different aircraft surfaces by the spiraling slipstream etc..., the myriad of hypothesis we have to edit the airfoils using Airfoil Maker, etc... It certainly is a different approach altogether, and the fact that I'd like to see some aspects done better doesn't mean I can't recognize the complexity and quality of the sim, as you know :-) Yesterday I got yet another aircraft into my X-Plane 10 hangar - the X-Aviation C400 was my latest acquisition, and I really like this model!

I can't wait for this .acf.Wonderful plane!

yea..it's been debated endlessly but its a matter of perspective IMO. Take a car rolling backwards slowly next to another car. For an instant, a person questions whether he/she is rolling back or the other vehicle is moving forward...and for that instant, you don't know and have to look a little futher to make a final determination. Some folks would say the car is moving back, others would say the adjacent car is moving forward. The whole "perception" of too much torque is attributable to multiple factors and each person has a different perception of what the cause is (I know I'm resolute on my conclusions) and my whole point during the forum conversations was that the torque reaction is not the mathematical problem...but rather the lack of other factors fidelity that put torque in the spotlight. BUT.....of all factors, adjusting a torque effect in sim would be the easiest solution to compensate for other algorithmic limitations no doubt. So all this time, I just don't like the words "torque is wrong" or "torque is broke" or "fix the torque". Torque is one of the easiest and most fundamental quantities to calculate. Its right, but is the final motion of the aircraft "realistic" is the "effect" realistic? Definitely not always as Larry can attest with his experience......should torque be "tunable to compensate"? yea...I think so. Desktop simulation is a compromise in many areas and I like that fact that folks can fine tune things. It just so happens I prefer not to tune the torque, at least not on the Moo I'd tune it down on some other aircraft though, but I'd never say the torque was implemented wrong in x-plane. TomK

Tom has mentioned something I fully agree with - mathematically the torque calculations in X-Plane 10 are probably near perfect, but the fact is that other factors that could help turning it all a lot more into yaw aren't that perfect. So we are left with two options - either accept that the torque is correctly modeled, which I am able to accept it is and forget about the other factors not being yet there or well simulated, or try to, while those other factors don't get better modeled, overcome the roll tendency using tweaks... The torque fix is one of those tweaks. Turboprops and twins, even with non-counter rotating props are better known for the lesser effects of the turning props and engines. There are a few easy t understand explanations for why a Baron58, a Beech 1900D, etc, require no aileron input or aileron trim on takeoff and climb - only rudder / rudder trim. Given that the MU2 has such a small wing area / high load factor, I admit the torque effects will be present at least when power variations occur. Of course I look fwd for the day Austin announces that those other factors that come into play are being correctly modeled, just as the torque ! Thx Tom for the reply, and meanwhile I think I'll keep using the aileron trim on the MU :-)

Hi jcomm. I do not subscribe to Dan's 'fix',...there is a reason BenS cautioned him and I would not make any recommendations or expend any effort to alter the torque in the MU2 as I've flown the darn thing and it simply has a ridiculously strong roll tendency; however, I fully understand the desire for users tweaking to their comfort level though, after all, it is your personal enjoyment you are seeking, but folks are on their own on this one. The torque in x-plane is fine, its real, and accurate and mathematically I can demonstrate it. What is not real and accurate though are a whole host of other factors that exacerbate the perception of the effect though so I can easily understand why some folks would want to "turn it down" to compensate....its just happens to be one of those areas, cognitively, that I find accurate and acceptable and therefore am not the one to expend time to investigate the 'fix' or the implementation. Do post any results you find though...I'm sure other folks are definitely interested. Certainly swapping one of the prop rotation directions is the fastest way to lose the MU2 roll...but perhaps you're only seeking to minimize it a bit. If you can't get it to work though.....then there is another tweak you can do and ironically, its what we do in the real MU2. Use aileron trim TomK

Definitely. We'll try. No promises. We really want to finish it as soon as possible, and the bug list is getting shorter by the day.

V9 still looks good...

Ok, just bought it and the first flight was very rewarding! I am enjoying this airplane, and the G1000, not being exaustively modeled, appears very complete... Now the Manual.... Again, thank you for your oppinions!

1) The default X-Plane 10 aircraft has just a fake G1000. The payware has a G1000 that works like the real thing (albeit with reduced functions) and is the ONLY X-Plane aircraft with a terrain view on its moving map. 2) In my review I was able to fly by the numbers given in the manual. What do you mean by prop effects? You can change prop settings and it affects performance, of course. 3) It is 64 bit ONLY. Summary: Highly recommended.

As for a bona-fide report....We are most definitely working on it, doing small 3D bits and details, texturing the other parts of the cockpit, the gallies, specular map work, etc...doing mechanisms on the flaps and gear...small areas you don't normally see in screenshots. We expect to wrap up the 3D fairly soon and then will turn our focus to unfinished programming tasks, gui and documentation to round it all out. We're moving along fine. TomK

One of the best liveries on 152s in my opinion.

A few quick quotes from our beta test crew thus far (remember, a number of them fly the real deal!): - I LOVE that the AP is so accurate to the real thing. So good. - Wow guys, what a detailed model! This is a lot of fun for a nuts ´n bolts and systems freak like me. - I finally have had some time away from the real aircraft to sit down and fly this one. First impressions are that it is an incredible piece of work. The replication of the systems and the actual cockpit are amazing.

This topic is now closed. I'm glad we could get to the bottom of this mess and clear Dan's AND Carenado's name from the bad accused of them. There is no tolerance for individuals who choose to take part in pirating aircraft here, as it hinders the good in our passion and hobby. As such, PilotHudson is banned without further notice. Thanks to Steven for investigating further and following up with responses as requested. If anyone has objections to this ban, please feel free to PM any admin here.