jcomm

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!

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!

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 :-)

I've been successfuly applying the "Torque Fix" to many of my prop aircraft, which is based on a very simple LUA script directive . This includes the LES dc-3, which is Gizmo-based, and it worked there too. When I tried to apply it to the MU2, v1.5, the results were rather unpredictable... It doesn't work and even produces very strange effects. Could Tom Kyler or someone with experience in Gizmo advise me on how to make it work? I am aware that this "tweak" explores an undocumented legacy feature of oe of the datarefs in X-Plane 10, inherited from previous versions, and allows for decimal values where a 1 or a -1 were actually the only values expected, but it works beautifully so far, and I would really like to try it in the MU2. Ah! I even took care to set it to -0.3 for both props since the MU is CCW! Thx in advance for any suggestions ;-)

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!

Thx Mario and mj! It looks like a good candidate for my hangar :-) Yes I was referring to the "torque bug" in X-Plane 10 and to the fact that there is a overdone roll tendency, rather than yaw...

I've seen it and even downloaded the PDF Manual - very comprehensive :-) Questions: 1) How good is this aircraft model compared to the one now included as a default X-Plane 10 aircraft? 2) Have the flight dynamics been tuned to get realistic performance, including prop effects? 3) I believe this is a 64-bit ready aircraft, correct?

I want that thing RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!! :-)