it's a screenshot generator far more than it's a flight simulator...at least as of today.
If that ever changes it'll probably have to be due to the 3rd party developers - as 'Chad' says - no one at ASOBO seems to know anything much about actual flight.
as stated - 'If you are flying GA aircraft in typical VOR sightseeing fashion in MSFS (misfis) you are going to be ok and should stop watching this video immediately lol
but if you are doing anything else at all with this sim you will be hugely disappointed."
I have no argument with that statement and can only add that the rudder efficacy /flight dynamic as modeled is ...comical.
of all the things a 'flight sim' community should be insisting need to be addressed - a basic sort of fidelity to actual powered flight dynamics HAS to be PARAMOUNT
I'm not going to get my pitchfork out and go rage against the MSFS machine - I bought this thing expecting an Xbox product and that's what they delivered to date...and to be honest
I fly typically exactly as Chad describes a good MSFS customer should. Low and slow in VOR to enjoy some scenery. For that it is perfect. However, I still want to know that I need to be trying to do things the right way, that something as essential as aerodynamic AOA is modeled.
The MSFS flight model is a tricycle on training wheels.
That guy is attacking the internal flight model which from my testing demonstrated quite the opposite of the behaviors seen in that video. The baseline FDE tables are considerably more advanced in FS2020 than in previous sims BUT as we know, it's external FDE's that truly dial in the models to where they need to be which even then is a still somewhat loose translation of the real thing via sterile feel controller hardware. I was easily able to get normal stall/accelerated stall and spin/MCA behaviors that seemed to be missing from that guy's sim setup. It did look like flight model was heavily dialed back but maybe I am wrong.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Bear with me.. I just woke up..
The base flight model has many issues, some of which havent been found yet. Asobo is new to flight. That much cannot be denied, and like any new engineer, they got a lot of things wrong. Does that make them bad?? No, It makes them inexperienced. Give them time. There are those of us who are rather vociferous about the short comings of the new style flight model, and I would like to believe that sooner or later we will pound it through their thick skulls that x,y,and z, are wrong, but its going to take time, especially when the parent company is so tunnel vision-ed as to only concentrate on how pretty it all looks..
There are lots of us old timers working our butts off right now, to bring you aircraft that go beyond anything that was made before. No exceptions. But the documentation hasnt been and isnt there for a great many things and we all find ourselves "making it up as we go along". We also feel as iff we;re the ones creating the procedures and writing the documentation. Microsoft pushed this out the door way too quickly. Thats a known fact, but there it is. It's what we have to work with, so we work with it. Theres a lot coming out that your going to love. DC Designs has released their F-15 and Concord, and a P-61C is on the way. Wing42 has released The Bleriot XI and its terrifyingly realistic. Paul Dominque is working on the Duck, CBF sim is working on Their Dragon Rapide and a new one I dont have permission to talk about yet. Big Radials ( Formerly Wookiees Hangar ) Is completely rebuilding the interior and coding for the OzX Grumman Goose Redux. Paul, My old partner has a few projects he's working on and I am working on a P40 and two projects from Wing42 I cant talk about, and Lionheart has a new plane thats gonna knock your sox off..
Stuff is coming, and corrections are being made across the board, But its new, and its going to take a little time.. Bear with us. You'll like it..
Pam
I came across this video a little late myself - too late to specifically test the identical planes in the identical manner to the video publisher. We at no time can see his ‘realism settings’ or other key parameters either.
But I have noticed enough fudging in the base flight modeling to find it an interesting take.
I do believe that things will improve but at present I also know what MSFS is and what it isn’t.
I am also - just as with FSX - grateful for the efforts of 3rd party developers and contributors who have done so much more of the heavy lifting in flight sim than MS ever has..though they provide the backdrop.
I say surprising because I immeadiately replicated this flight in a C152 and C172 with a 2 knot headwind. Stall was preceeded by a noisy buffeting excactly at the prescribed speed and if the nose was kept up a wing would drop. No way I could aerobat straight off the ground even with load weight at minimum. But hey I'm no proffessional pilot.
Actually, adverse yaw is messed up also. Go ahead and perform a banked turn and see how much rudder you'll need. I thought I mistakenly left auto rudder on. Nope, matter of fact there is no "auto rudder". This was brought up with Asobo and the good news is that adverse yaw is indeed modeled but are going to look into the issue. Makes me wonder if it is all being caused by bad flight models of the specific aircraft. I also heard that they are making the staff take flight lessons. So maybe they put all the stuff in the sim as per a text book but did a really lousy job when creating the individual aircraft because they really don't understand how all this stuff comes into play. At least I'm hoping that's what it is.
You may think I hate the sim because of this but actually I'm still having a blast with it as I'm not going pull 4gs in a 172. I'm in the camp he mentions in the beginning of the video, I guess. lol
LouP
In real life, adverse yaw is a bit of a witch. It pops up when least expected and does what it does in a sometimes devastating manner. Ergo we have the rel life F-104 as an example. In sim, adverse yaw, is a set variable thats called on when a specific set of conditions are met. It does exactly the same thing, at the exact same point, every time.. I'm not sure that can ever be fixed.. It was heartbreaking to figure that out with the Douglas X-3..
agree 100% with LouP - I love MSFS for what it does well and I think it's ok to have questions about what it doesn't.
I plan to spend some time today looking into this a bit more forensically - the video publisher here pointedly does not show his 'realism' settings or any other key parameters in that example.
That said I think most of us have become comfortable with the idea that ASOBO's flight modeling is generally 'soft' and 'basic' to use the most polite terms.
I think we all hope and expect this will change to some degree and at some point in time.
Originally Posted by heywooood
Workin on it
Well...
I happen to be one of those "hundred dollar hamburger" types that likes to fly from point A to point B just to enjoy the scenery and solitude. My other favorite imaginary scenario is waiting in the main terminal of somewhere like TNCM with a sign that says "Private flight shuttle to St. Barts, $50 for one person or $200 for up to family of six." I would imagine that an air taxi service in Hawaii could also be lucrative.
So yeah, there may be issues with the flight model. But since I'm not a licensed pilot, I don't know. What I do know is that I like what I see in this simulator. Flying IFR (as in "I Follow Roads") has never been easier. The flight dynamics of the DA62 and the TBM are gentle as might be expected for corporate/family haulers, and make flying fun. I'm happy with this sim, but I also know that it's not a study-level training aid either. But then again, it doesn't fetch the price of a study-level simulator either. For $90(US), I don't expect a training aid - I expect something I can kill some time with and have fun. And that's what I have!
Thermaltake H570 TG Tower
X670 Aorus Elite AX motherboard
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 12-Core Processor
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
NZXT Kraken X cooler
32GB DDR5 RAM
750 Watt PS
Windows 11 Home
And I appreciate that!
I just tested the same three aircraft in MSFS as the 'garbage fire' video shows and - using the 'modern' setting which is locked by MSFS (meaning the user cannot adjust gyro, p-factor, or torque) nd the results were identical to the video.
*I had thought the reviewer had been using the 'Legacy' flight model and then changing the available settings to something naff to get those obviously flawed results, but that is not the case apparently*
Starting with the C-152 (I used the aerobat version because I am using the FM mod on the std C-152 - same performance ultimately) results identical to the video. Power off level flight stall was barely perceptible. The stall horn works but nothing else is remotely real.
I have done this testing in a real world Piper Arrow II - when it was delivered I was there for the check ride with the factory rep.
The Piper stall horn was activated to warn the pilot that a stall is imminent - the rep said you have about 5 seconds to push the nose down before buffeting starts. We held nose up through the horn and sure enough about 5 seconds later the plane started to buffet lightly at first while the rep said to hold the nose up
then it burbled and the left wing fell off and the bottom dropped out a bit - power on, nose down and level the wings. All in all a gentle stall for a low wing airplane.
We did the stall testing in level flight gear up - then checked it again with gear down, but only until the horn sounded. Rep says the pilot has got to know his airplane's limitations personally - not just on paper.
back to MSFS flight modeling.
Then I tested the modified C-152 and the results were better - but not perfect. With the power off in level flight the horn sounded at 40kts indicated and the buffet began about 5-8 seconds later - the left wing fell off as the airspeed went below the dial and the recovery was basic - as it should be.
However - with the power on in both aircraft the thing was unrealistic. Both could loop vertically and horizontally at almost any airspeed. The modded C-152 would stall at the top of the loop but only when beginning the loop at below 60kts indicated. Anything over that and the plane could loop easily and recover even as the loop was initiated below 1500' !
In horizontal loop neither aircraft stalled or fell out of the loop.
In the Zlin Cub it was the same as the video - identical 'Chad' flight model.
In the King Air it was the same as the video. 'Chad' Doesn't Stall...ever.
In fact - landing the King Air was a chore because it just will not bleed energy properly. There is no parasitic drag - no prop drag - even with full flaps and gear - zero prop energy, idle throttle she refuses to properly decelerate.
Flying along with the gear down and zero flaps at 4000' and idle throttle, a clean wing.. the King Air can CLIMB and easily hold altitude - long as you like.
The good news is that based on what I saw in the modded C-152 (which had only minor flight model adjustments) the game's poor implementation can be redressed somewhat...and yes I called it a game.
When things improve maybe it can be called a simulator. As it sits it simulates the earth really well - amazingly for sure - but flying a powered heavier than air vehicle? not nearly so much...yet
I agree with you and also fly almost 100% the same way - point to point, GA, VOR, no frills or thrills - just flying easy.
But I'm not looking for a 'study level' simulation either - just a handful of real world parameters - the bare minimum that would let me call this a 'flight sim' - to remind me to do things correctly or risk losing my virtual airplane..it doesn't have to be perfect, but there has to
have been an effort made to 'simulate' what happens when you get it wrong...or else it isn't a flight sim.
I'm not a hater - As I have said time and again - I like MSFS for what it does well. I'm just not sure they're being responsible with this title. Enticing people to take an interest in Flying is wonderful - we need more young people to take an interest in it.
But if the experience is fraught with basic and fundamental flaws that have to be 'unlearned' through real training then it is a disservice to it's own intent.
Certainly it has its disclaimers - it isn't meant to be a training tool. But it calls itself a flight sim and ardent supporters with zero flight experience vehemently defend that. It needs to try harder to be one. That's all I'm saying.
Ummm, Damn.. Can I make a blatant plug here???
If I have a vote I say yes, please - but it's Tom's call I think
and BtW I love your TWA banner logo
wellllll, If your into cubs and bush flying, I worked on this tricky little plane by SWS that is the best sky jeep Ive ever seen.. I personally love the plane, and not because I worked on it.. I mean, since when has Microsoft ever made a default aircraft worth its weight in salt??? It hasnt, ever. So what the guy says in the vid is true, I mean, in a sense, its always been true. Try out the Zenith 701. To hell with those failures..
I plan on picking that up asap
PAM!!!! my wallet!!! ;-)
LouP
Seriously, nice job. Fun to fly.
LouP :-)
PS. Nice company in the cockpit, too. A bonus!
Yeah see?? I wouldnt complain about the default aircraft. They're default aircraft!. Theres stuff coming out as we speek that will definitely brighten your day. The Zenith is just one of em, The Goose another and the P-40 yet another.. And those are just the ones I've been involved in.. Like I said, default aircraft have never flown right. Sure, the base flight model has flaws. Its always had flaws. Thats what happens when you take an analog concept like fluid dynamics and apply it to a digital world.. We got ya covered though.
I have this😊. It is AWESOME! Very responsive, and a blast to fly! ✈️ NC
This has been a problem ever since the alpha testing. the rudder doesn't get used correctly and the FM's feel like they are on rails. The more I've flown MSFS the more I notice it. That's not to say it won't improve or isn't fun for what it is. It is super fun, and visually satisfying...but the Flight modeling, I agree is inferior by a long shot to P3D with external ability to calculate FDE.
MACH 3 DESIGN STUDIO
Heatblur Rivet Counting Squad™
Always!
Thermaltake H570 TG Tower
X670 Aorus Elite AX motherboard
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 12-Core Processor
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
NZXT Kraken X cooler
32GB DDR5 RAM
750 Watt PS
Windows 11 Home
At least under the Microsoft banner, flight sims have been a few steps short of accurate for a while. (Although I can't really speak to FSX.) About 15½ years ago, I took a half-hour "orientation lesson" in a C172 for my 40th birthday. The instructor asked if I had any prior experience, and I told him that I had a couple thousand hours in FS9, but that I also knew enough to know that it was probably nowhere near the real thing. Boy, was I right. The real 172 was much more forgiving than the version in FS9. In that sim, making a gentle turn (with auto-rudder) caused a major departure from altitude, even though airspeed was steady and the ball stayed centered. In my real flight, when I made the first turn, I was watching the ball and altitude, expecting to see major deviations. But to my great surprise, she held rock steady. For me, MSFS is much closer to my experience from that day.
Thermaltake H570 TG Tower
X670 Aorus Elite AX motherboard
AMD Ryzen 9 7900X 12-Core Processor
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
NZXT Kraken X cooler
32GB DDR5 RAM
750 Watt PS
Windows 11 Home
Members who have read this thread: 1
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks