PA 28 Warrior Update
-
I have just downloaded the PA28 Update. One of the main gripes of the previous version was the lack of correct stall. It would appear on my first observations that this is still the case. Also the roundout and flare on landing seems to be just as the same. More like a controlled crash onto the runway. It reminds me of the Xplane version.
I have flown many hours in the PA28 Warrior in real life and this still seems way off.
I would really like someone to tell me I'm wrong! -
It's not perfect, but it is improved drastically. there are some noticeable bugs though, mainly with the turbo arrow that i've noticed so far
-
no rotating beacon light
-
camera passes out of the bounds of the cockpit, no collisions,
i'll keep testing over the next few days
-
-
Perfection of the flight model in MSFS is something that we're going to struggle to achieve for the reasons we've given before but we'll continue to work on improving things as much as possible based on feedback.
We'll look into the camera and rotating beacon issues now.
-
I appreciate the reply Martyn.
The problem with the stall, roundout flare etc is not something other aircraft suffer from in MSFS. Its almost unique to the PA28's you produce. As I said the Xplane Just Flight PA28's had the same issue but so did others in Xplane. P3D versions of the PA 28 in my opinion were far better.
You just cannot get the aircraft to stall or land correctly. I have never even heard a stall warning going off.
Unfortunately for me its a deal breaker. The aircraft is visually great but I can't fly it. I've tried all the trim adjustments from high to low but it seems to make no difference. -
@Martyn thank-you for the reply, apologies if my previous comment came across a bit arsey etc... I've edited it because I do fully understand that the team have been working hard on this product line- I can imagine the msfs physics are something of an annoyance for most devs.
Definitely a lot of positives to take away though in terms of ground handling improvements, tablet updates and garmin updates, so kudos to you guys on that, the flight model as i stated before is still a little off, but definitely a vast improvement, as steveb said, there is this issue with being unable to really stall properly, although i'm confident that you guys will get the flight model stuff more as the SDK grows.
Cheers for looking into the camera and beacon light issue though - keep up the hard work.
-
Flight model comments from yet another person who has flown the plane in real life (about 60 hours):
-
The flight model was the only thing that needed work (in my opinion). It needed drastic improvements. Unfortunately, the improvements I've seen in the recent update are subtle at best and are almost unnoticeable to be honest.
-
It still takes almost full back pressure on the yoke to rotate off the runway (even when well over 60 KIAS).
-
I'm still constantly fighting the pitch/elevator when climbing and in cruise. I constantly go back and forth between nearly full aft and full forward pressure on the yoke while trying to trim it out.
-
After leveling out from a turn, the plane wants oscillate nose up and nose down. I can either let it settle down on its own (which takes about 30 seconds) or I can fight the elevator the whole time. Either way, it's annoying and distracting.
-
The real plane obviously does not behave like this. But also, I know of no other plane in MSFS that has these difficulties. Some examples of other GA planes in MSFS that have great flight models and do not exhibit these characteristics: DHC-2 Beaver, Parallel 42 Kitfox, SWS Kodiak, etc.
The flight model is the only reason why I no longer fly this plane. Honestly, I'm starting to regret the purchase. Trying to offer constructive feedback. I'd love to see it improve and I'm willing to help however I can.
-
-
@vizix said
- It still takes almost full back pressure on the yoke to rotate off the runway (even when well over 60 KIAS).
If that is what you are seeing, then there is something wrong with either the installation or your setup. I have just tried at MTOW and also as the sim loads the aircraft. In both cases, less than 1/4 aft yoke had the aircraft airborne, the former at a touch over 65kts and the latter around 55kts (both flap up). With first stage of flap, MTOW, again 1/4 aft yoke and airborne at 62kts.
I don't think I have ever used full fore or full aft in general flight. Nor do I recall anyone else saying they do.
I would suggest that we need to work out why your control deflections are so far from what we see / how the flight model was designed to behave - as all of the other points are pitch-related they can be ignored for now, likely the solution to one will be the solution to all.
First thing to look at is what settings you have - have you adjusted the controller curves at all? They can have a massive impact on how the aircraft flies. It was developed with linear curves, 100% reactivity etc as shown below:
It was designed with those settings, they work best and seemingly can have a massive impact on the aircraft's handling.
-
@delta558
Thanks for the help. I'm using linear curves and all the same control settings you described. Maaaaaaybe it's an installation issue. I might try a fresh install, but I doubt that's gonna fix it.It's been common knowledge that the PA-28 flight model has been messed up for quite some time (at least before the recent update). I've seen many other people on this forum complaining about similar behavior with the flight model. Also, given that I use the same control settings with all planes and the PA-28 is the only plane that behaves like this, it's really hard to see how this would be an issue with my configuration rather than a problem with the PA-28 flight model itself.
Maybe it has something to do with the aggressive gusts/turbulence in MSFS since I almost always fly with live weather on. I might give it another go under super calm conditions.
-
@vizix Couple of bizarre points there - I've made sure to do much of my testing with 'real weather' because of the vast differences between that, preset and standard ISA. Also, one of the other aircraft you've mentioned is my flight dynamics, developed in exactly the same way as the PA28 series!
Yes, common knowledge that the PA28s have been 'messed up' for a while - they were developed when many of the controlling coefficients and tables were still active and were very positively received. Those controls were turned off over successive Sim Updates, what you ended up with was a geometrically correct aircraft which flew as the core flight model determined it should - I have unanswered questions on the official dev support forum asking specifically what we should do when the geometry is correct (as the SDK requires) but the effect is entirely wrong. Unanswered for almost a year, despite multiple 'bumps'.
-
@delta558
I feel your pain. Asobo's support to developers in regards to flight model has been pretty abysmal. Kind of interesting how a "flight simulator" seems to not be that interested in simulating flight.My guess is that the lack of support comes from them not really knowing what they're doing and still trying to figure things out. They excel at creating a beautiful representation of the earth, but flight modeling/physics seems to be a bit outside their wheelhouse. Hopefully they keep getting better at it though.
And of course I'm speaking as a self-entitled customer who has never fine tuned a virtual flight model. :grinning_face_with_sweat: Anyway, thanks for the info.
-
Just out of curiosity I installed the Arrow III. It's my opinion, but it seems to handle better in the stall and landing than the Warrior II.
I can managed to get a "proper " landing out of it. This really surprised me as the Arrow has the heavier engine and I would have expected the nose to drop far more than the warrior. It does not! Also trying to get the aircraft to stall at altitude seemed far better.
Also the take off with a little back trim alleviates the need to "yank" the yoke back.
Could this be adapted at as an alternative flight model to the Warrior II. -
@steveb Same base files - the difference is in the aircraft's geometry, which Asobo state in their SDK is 'critical' to accurate behaviour. The geometry is accurate in both aircraft, the difference lies in how Asobo's core flight model interprets it. Unfortunately, had this been FSX we would have had plenty of controlling coefficients to make the required adjustments.
As this game is set up, we have to take the accurate geometry and trust that the core flight model gets it right. When it doesn't? Well, that question has remained unanswered on Asobo's "DevSupport" forum for about a year now, despite numerous bumps . . . .
