MSFS Flight Dynamics

[Javis]

After 3 years of MSFS 2020 why don't we talk 'MSFS flight dynamics' a little bit ?

Purely as flight simming pilots who have no experience of flying a real aircraft (or maybe just a little bit..;-), just how we experience flying aircraft in MSFS 2020. It is obvious that we don't need to discuss the difference between FSX/P3D and MSFS graphics and performance but it might be interesting to see what exactly did we gain in the flight dynamics department regarding the MS/Asobo claimed huge difference in the development of the flightmodel/aerodynamics between MSFS and FSX/P3D.

For instance :

#1. Overall, in general terms, are we happy with MSFS flight dynamics ?

#2. Overall, in general terms, were (or are) we happier with FSX/P3D flight dynamics ?

#3. Obviously, one aircraft flies better than the other, in MSFS just as much as in FSX/P3D. But if you had to pick *one* aircraft that flies the best of them all, that you have had the best ever flight simming experience with, would that have been in FSX/P3D or MSFS ?

Just by laying this topic on the table here it might be no wonder that i myself have indeed been happier with the flightmodel department in FSX/P3D compared to that of MSFS. Particularly the take-off and landing characteristics of quite a few MSFS aircraft only makes me want to put these aircraft in the hangar and leave them there to gain nothing but dust. I can't honestly remember to have seen this particular phenomenon in FSX nore in P3D or any of their predecessors. Can we therefor assume that it is this 'revolutionary new way' of creating a flightmodel for a particular native MSFS aircraft that is the cause of that ?

*My* "best ever flightsimming experience ?"....:

Second place : my first ever flight in VR in MSFS with Ant's Tiger Moth (i almost cried.. ;-)

First place : flying a mission (or was it 'adventure'..) in MSFlight ( Yes, that's right ! :-) with a Van's 14 thru the murk. Never experienced something so beautiful and realistic in flightsimming as clearing out of the overcast with the last patches of clouds wizzing by with the correct speed (still totally unrealistic in MSFS) and the sudden sun burst glistening on the canopy and showing tiny imperfections in the glass. Unforgettable ! And likewise great memories of flying the Stearman Kaydet in MSFlight just *because* it flew so wonderful !

(i haste to say that i think that both Ants Tiggie and GAS Stearman fly very nicely in MSFS. Usually it is the much faster kind of aeroplanes that show various oddities and difficulties in the flight dynamics like prop- and jetfighters. No experience myself with commercial jets in MSFS).

MSFlight was a total disaster as a project but the flight dynamics were a major and wonderful upgrade to any other FS edition before and even after this sad MSFlight mishap including FSX/P3D and MSFS. They were on the right track !! If you ask me i'm not so sure about that with the current state of the MSFS aerodynamics department...

The one and only thing i'd be looking for with great anticipation in the forthtcoming MSFS2024 is....drumroll.....: the flightdynamics !

Really, if there's no reasonably significant change for the good in that most important aspect of a flightsimming program they can keep all the no doubt pretty fancy upgrades in the graphics departments for themselves. Not interested. (well, just to have a look maybe..hehe)

Btw, all IMHO of course.

[Daube]

It's a bit hard to reply, because I tend to be cautious about what I *believe* I remember about past sims...
But basically:
#1: it's a mixed bag. Happy but not fully happy.
#2: yes, much happier. Especially on ground.
#3: The best one ? Hard to tell. Could be a flight with an A2A Accusim aircraft in P3D, or a flight with nice weather conditions at sunset in MSFS... Not sure honestly.

Basically, I couldn't stand the behavior of planes in FSX and P3D anymore. Felt scripted. The handling of the ground contacts were the worse, in fact. Actually, I clearly remember how good it felt when I switched from P3Dv4 to XPlane 11. XPlane was nowhere near perfect in some aspect of its flight and ground physics of course, but it finally felt as if my aircraft were touching the ground through suspensions and rubber, not magic like in FSX/P3D. Just a feeling of course.

When it comes to the flight characteristics of aircraft in MSFS, I agreed with the complaints about the lack of inertia. On the other hand, MSFS is the first sim in which the turbulences (and seemingly inertia-less movements of the aircraft) actually looked and almost felt like what I could feel in real life in a PC-6 Turbo Porter in my skydive center during our summer flights (man, felts like somebody was kicking the plane or something). So, for sure MSFS physics are far from perfect. But bad ? No. There's just no way I would go back to P3D. XPlane 12 is the only acceptable alternative, for its own reasons.

[jmig]

1. I like MSFS overall. In my opinion it is a big leap forward from FSX/P3D, and I am not just talking about the graphics. My biggest complaint is its inconsistency in flight dynamics, same airplane, two different flights. Here I am mainly talking about trim. I find it very hard to get a consistent trim setting from one flight to the next. In real world aircraft you can easily trim the airplane to fly hands off for several minutes. As weight changes and airspeed changes, you will need to change trim slightly. Not MSFS. This more than anything else peeves me.

1. I can’t remember that far back 😉 to compare.

1. Two, one P3D and one MSFS. P3D: Unreleased (to the general public) Milviz T-38C. This was a USAF development model that I got to beta test. I thought its handling was amazing. It literally put me back (Deja vu) to when I flew the actual airplane.

MSFS: SimSkunkWorks F-260 other than not having a left side cockpit arrangement. I found this airplane to have amazingly accurate flight characteristics for this type of airplane. It is stable, yet nimble, as I would expect a training aircraft to be. I have some time in the Beech T-34 and found the F-260 to handle much like the T-34, something I would expect from two similar aircraft.

[Sunny9850]

The best Flightsim experience with an aircraft I have never actually flown or even flown in, is still the Constellation series that I had a small part in developing, along Manfred Jahn and the rest of the gang.
I did go out to fly with some old Captains in my Saratoga, to have a way to feel control forces and roll rates for example, since we could not go out and fly a few patterns in a L-049 or L-1649A.
And when the simulated Connies perfectly matched the performance and endurance figures that we found in the actual POH and factory literature from Lockheed, TWA, Lufthansa and KLM, thanks to the ingenious FD that Luis developed almost single handedly, that was an amazing thing.

The second best was the Saratoga in FS that actually matched my real world airplane. And in the end I even tested the paintjob of the real one I had designed on the simulated aircraft. I often practiced flights in that simulation before flying the real thing into a new airport.

And that is where MSFS really shines, with the ability to fly virtually anywhere and recognize things down to street level. I often expect to see the traffic lights change in synch with the ones down the street from my house.

The Flight dynamics of much of MSFS are not that much better in my opinion than what we had in FS9/X. At least with the GA singles and twins I usually fly, and have flown IRL.
But most of that I blame on the ever changing SDK and sim, that keeps changing how a model works.

The landing troubles that have been mentioned, I think are mostly caused by strange weather/wind phenomenon in the last few hundred feet AGL. This is not per se unrealistic, such changes can exist in real life. And they do require quick reactions from the PIC, that can include going around.
In the sim however that is almost all the time and at every airport, if you are using the live weather model.

[Tom Clayton]

I don't know enough about real aviation to say which version is more real. All I can do is trust the developer when they say that real pilots like something. I will agree that the FS9 Connies were very believable - even Mike Stone's after the updated cockpit and FD's for that one were released. As for the current sim, the only fully stock Asobo plane I fly is the TBM930. Everything else is either enhanced by 3rd party performance tweaks (DA62X) or complete 3rd party addons. All of those are quite enjoyable.

[Javis]

I don't know enough about real aviation to say which version is more real.

Yes, Tom, but isn't that the case with, say, more or less 90% of us flightsimmers and possibly the main reason aviation enthusiasts like us become flightsimmers in the first place ? By reading the booklet that came with FSII (played on a Commodore64..)i learned more about aviation then i did during the more or less 20 years of being an aviation hobby'ist. In general flightsimmers can not know how a certain aircraft flies/feels/behaves for real because they are not pilots. But they certainly can *believe* in a simulated aircraft that they are virtually flying and feel very happy with it. What i think would be interested to know is with which FS version would that goal be accomplished easiest, MSFS, FSX, P3D or even MSFlight. Obviously mine turns out to be the latter, renarkably enough... hehe

Atm i am following a video series of an as much beautiful as well as professional GA flying lady crossing the US either in a Cessna 140 or Beech Bonanza. I have seen her do about 14 take-offs and landings sofar with both planes and not seen *one* hickup, not *one* stray off the centerline let alone roll off the runway (something i am notoriously known for in MSFS ;-), nothing but supersmooth buttersoft landings. Ok, usually pretty nice weather, one landing with a good crosswind, but never anything coming even remotely close to what i often have to deal with landing an aeroplane in MSFS. And that goes often for take-offs as well. I am no pilot whatsoever, actually that "GA cross the US" video series was the catalyst for my flight dynamics thread here, and maybe i take a risk by saying that i think that, with quite a few MSFS planes, take-offs and landings have a tendency to be pretty unrealistic or, better still, too damn difficult to really master. Maybe i am mistaken but i honestly don't remember having had that specific problem in FSX/P3D.

All I can do is trust the developer when they say that real pilots like something. I will agree that the FS9 Connies were very believable - even Mike Stone's after the updated cockpit and FD's for that one were released. As for the current sim, the only fully stock Asobo plane I fly is the TBM930. Everything else is either enhanced by 3rd party performance tweaks (DA62X) or complete 3rd party addons. All of those are quite enjoyable.

Not sure about the 930 but we did have a TBM in FSX/P3D too, didn't we ? ( not refering to the Avenger..;-) So you wouldn't say that it flew better or just as good in FSX/P3D ?

Thanks Tom.

[Javis]

The best Flightsim experience with an aircraft I have never actually flown or even flown in, is still the Constellation series that I had a small part in developing, along Manfred Jahn and the rest of the gang.
I did go out to fly with some old Captains in my Saratoga, to have a way to feel control forces and roll rates for example, since we could not go out and fly a few patterns in a L-049 or L-1649A.
And when the simulated Connies perfectly matched the performance and endurance figures that we found in the actual POH and factory literature from Lockheed, TWA, Lufthansa and KLM, thanks to the ingenious FD that Luis developed almost single handedly, that was an amazing thing.

Thanks, Sunny, that's very interesting ! Enthusiastic Connie lover here too. (i fumbled around with the 2D Connie panel a bit ;-)

Wonderful memories of Manfred's beautiful Connies in FS9. That makes me want to pop this question : what are your thoughts about the Red Wing L1049 ?...

The second best was the Saratoga in FS that actually matched my real world airplane. And in the end I even tested the paintjob of the real one I had designed on the simulated aircraft. I often practiced flights in that simulation before flying the real thing into a new airport.

You are talking about FSX/P3D, right ?..

And that is where MSFS really shines, with the ability to fly virtually anywhere and recognize things down to street level. I often expect to see the traffic lights change in synch with the ones down the street from my house.

Yes, amazing, isn't it ! Unbelievable really ! And that's why it would be so wonderful if we could say that about the aerodynamics in MSFS as well but sadly that's a completely different story if you ask me...

The Flight dynamics of much of MSFS are not that much better in my opinion than what we had in FS9/X. At least with the GA singles and twins I usually fly, and have flown IRL.

Ok! So you wouldn't say the flight dynamics in MSFS are *worse* compared to FSX/P3D ?.....

But most of that I blame on the ever changing SDK and sim, that keeps changing how a model works.

That's most probabely a very good point, Sunny. Latest i seem to notice is that there can be a sudden change in flight behaviour after i change from external to internal view or vice-versa. Something i did not notice before.

The landing troubles that have been mentioned, I think are mostly caused by strange weather/wind phenomenon in the last few hundred feet AGL. This is not per se unrealistic, such changes can exist in real life. And they do require quick reactions from the PIC, that can include going around. In the sim however that is almost all the time and at every airport, if you are using the live weather model.

It's probabely why i never use live weather.. Difficult enough as it is.. During landing i can't do nothing else but end up side down in the bushes with the Virtavia A-4E i bought recently...

Thanks for your comments, Sunny

[Javis]

It's a bit hard to reply, because I tend to be cautious about what I *believe* I remember about past sims...

Yeah, that *could* be a bit problematic

But basically:
#1: it's a mixed bag. Happy but not fully happy.
#2: yes, much happier. Especially on ground.
#3: The best one ? Hard to tell. Could be a flight with an A2A Accusim aircraft in P3D, or a flight with nice weather conditions at sunset in MSFS... Not sure honestly.

Ok ! You did not have MSFlight ?.... I think i am honestly hoping someone might agree with me that the flight dynamics were something special. And, come to think of it, not only that but f.i. the way the clouds were rendered was also quite different from what we were used to. IIRC way better. Sadly enough MSFlight doesn't mean anything anymore on the Tube. It's just MSFS what you get.... ;-)

Basically, I couldn't stand the behavior of planes in FSX and P3D anymore. Felt scripted. The handling of the ground contacts were the worse, in fact. Actually, I clearly remember how good it felt when I switched from P3Dv4 to XPlane 11. XPlane was nowhere near perfect in some aspect of its flight and ground physics of course, but it finally felt as if my aircraft were touching the ground through suspensions and rubber, not magic like in FSX/P3D. Just a feeling of course.

Ok, Daube! But that's just what flight dynamics in flightsims are all about, isn't it: feeling ! No matter that it will be different with any flightsimmer, if the flight dynamics of a certain airplane feels right to a flightsimmer then that's what it should be. With reference to your opening statement of being cautious about what to believe to remember..( ) i believe i have been extremely over the moon with atleast a dozen flight dynamics of aircraft in FS9/FSX/P3D. Something i certainly cannot say about MSFS. A few maybe but more or less satisfied, certainly not 'over the moon'... While i tried a couple pf editions i could never get into XPlane that much. One time i was very much impressed with the night lighting but never really examined the flightmodels to know anything about it.

When it comes to the flight characteristics of aircraft in MSFS, I agreed with the complaints about the lack of inertia. On the other hand, MSFS is the first sim in which the turbulences (and seemingly inertia-less movements of the aircraft) actually looked and almost felt like what I could feel in real life in a PC-6 Turbo Porter in my skydive center during our summer flights (man, felts like somebody was kicking the plane or something). So, for sure MSFS physics are far from perfect. But bad ? No. There's just no way I would go back to P3D. XPlane 12 is the only acceptable alternative, for its own reasons.

Interesting ! Would really love to know what you can remember about the flight dynamics department of MSFlight but i take it you did not try it, right ? Besides, all water under the bridge (sadly enough, they should've kept the flightmodel computations and build on that...;-)

Thanks Daube !

[Javis]

Quote Originally Posted by jmig View Post
I like MSFS overall. In my opinion it is a big leap forward from FSX/P3D, and I am not just talking about the graphics. My biggest complaint is its inconsistency in flight dynamics, same airplane, two different flights. Here I am mainly talking about trim. I find it very hard to get a consistent trim setting from one flight to the next. In real world aircraft you can easily trim the airplane to fly hands off for several minutes. As weight changes and airspeed changes, you will need to change trim slightly. Not MSFS. This more than anything else peeves me.

100% Agreed !

I can’t remember that far back 😉 to compare.

Looong time ago, i know... ;-)

Two, one P3D and one MSFS. P3D: Unreleased (to the general public) Milviz T-38C. This was a USAF development model that I got to beta test. I thought its handling was amazing. It literally put me back (Deja vu) to when I flew the actual airplane.

Ok, that's wonderful, John. Bummer that was never released...

MSFS: SimSkunkWorks F-260 other than not having a left side cockpit arrangement. I found this airplane to have amazingly accurate flight characteristics for this type of airplane. It is stable, yet nimble, as I would expect a training aircraft to be. I have some time in the Beech T-34 and found the F-260 to handle much like the T-34, something I would expect from two similar aircraft.

I do not have the SSW SF-260 (yet) but i loved the RealAir version in FS9 (Rob Young, talk about flight dynamics !....;-). You know i specifically asked Carenado after they released their lovely Bonanza if they plans for the T-34 Mentor derivative. I was very pleased with their answer : we're working on it ! Always been one of my fav aircraft in FS9. Flightmodel felt good to me

Thanks for your comments, John.

[Stickshaker]

I flew some ultralights and other planes (with a pilot) for real, and I fly mainly DCS. Their Mustang feels so good that I (during landings) feel it is about the same as the real P-51 that I flew in (that was a bit lighter because it had no guns). In a flightsim for me (but that is strictly personal) it is more the general feeling of flying than exact speeds and power settings. Now I have VR and a motion platform, so perhaps this helps. I feel FS is a bit more scripted and less realistic, but I don't mind very much.

[Javis]

Goeiedag Hans,

I flew some ultralights and other planes (with a pilot) for real, and I fly mainly DCS.

Good for you !

Their Mustang feels so good that I (during landings) feel it is about the same as the real P-51 that I flew in (that was a bit lighter because it had no guns).

Yes, amazing isn't it. You'd think why can't the MS/Asobo's accomplish that. I also wonder, re the MS team, would there still be engineers from the original Aces team involved ? Or does the Asobo team do the flight dynamics ? I did enjoy DCS very much, mostly because of the carrier ops, but it can never be my main flightsim program. FS/MSFS forever.

In a flightsim for me (but that is strictly personal) it is more the general feeling of flying than exact speeds and power settings.

That's 100% agreed for me too. Don't want to toot our own horn but i dearly miss Rob Young in MSFS. Not only big fun creating all the Maam-Sim models for FS9 but i did enjoy flying them tremendously too. Just like our FS9 freeware Sabre. All flight dynamics black-art-magistery courtesy Robert Young. He is a composer, i'm sure he makes just as wonderful music.

Now I have VR and a motion platform, so perhaps this helps. I feel FS is a bit more scripted and less realistic, but I don't mind very much.

You mean compared to DCS ? Do you fly DCS VR as well ? Not as 'environmentally' immersive as MSFS i suppose ?

Thanks Hans!

[Tom Clayton]

Not sure about the 930 but we did have a TBM in FSX/P3D too, didn't we ? ( not refering to the Avenger..;-) So you wouldn't say that it flew better or just as good in FSX/P3D ?

Thanks Tom.

I have no clue about the FSX version. I took a long hiatus from simming after FS9 until the pandemic hit and I was out of work with some extra cash available. When I heard about the upcoming MSFS, I decided to buy myself a gaming laptop bought the new sim on day two. Then after my dad passed, I used part of the life insurance money to buy my current rig (specs in my sig), and I've been flying most weekends ever since.

[modelr]

After 3 years of MSFS 2020 why don't we talk 'MSFS flight dynamics' a little bit ?

Purely as flight simming pilots who have no experience of flying a real aircraft (or maybe just a little bit..;-), just how we experience flying aircraft in MSFS 2020. It is obvious that we don't need to discuss the difference between FSX/P3D and MSFS graphics and performance but it might be interesting to see what exactly did we gain in the flight dynamics department regarding the MS/Asobo claimed huge difference in the development of the flightmodel/aerodynamics between MSFS and FSX/P3D.

For instance :

#1. Overall, in general terms, are we happy with MSFS flight dynamics ?

#2. Overall, in general terms, were (or are) we happier with FSX/P3D flight dynamics ?

#3. Obviously, one aircraft flies better than the other, in MSFS just as much as in FSX/P3D. But if you had to pick *one* aircraft that flies the best of them all, that you have had the best ever flight simming experience with, would that have been in FSX/P3D or MSFS ?

Just by laying this topic on the table here it might be no wonder that i myself have indeed been happier with the flightmodel department in FSX/P3D compared to that of MSFS. Particularly the take-off and landing characteristics of quite a few MSFS aircraft only makes me want to put these aircraft in the hangar and leave them there to gain nothing but dust. I can't honestly remember to have seen this particular phenomenon in FSX nore in P3D or any of their predecessors. Can we therefor assume that it is this 'revolutionary new way' of creating a flightmodel for a particular native MSFS aircraft that is the cause of that ?

*My* "best ever flightsimming experience ?"....:

Second place : my first ever flight in VR in MSFS with Ant's Tiger Moth (i almost cried.. ;-)

First place : flying a mission (or was it 'adventure'..) in MSFlight ( Yes, that's right ! :-) with a Van's 14 thru the murk. Never experienced something so beautiful and realistic in flightsimming as clearing out of the overcast with the last patches of clouds wizzing by with the correct speed (still totally unrealistic in MSFS) and the sudden sun burst glistening on the canopy and showing tiny imperfections in the glass. Unforgettable ! And likewise great memories of flying the Stearman Kaydet in MSFlight just *because* it flew so wonderful !

(i haste to say that i think that both Ants Tiggie and GAS Stearman fly very nicely in MSFS. Usually it is the much faster kind of aeroplanes that show various oddities and difficulties in the flight dynamics like prop- and jetfighters. No experience myself with commercial jets in MSFS).

MSFlight was a total disaster as a project but the flight dynamics were a major and wonderful upgrade to any other FS edition before and even after this sad MSFlight mishap including FSX/P3D and MSFS. They were on the right track !! If you ask me i'm not so sure about that with the current state of the MSFS aerodynamics department...

The one and only thing i'd be looking for with great anticipation in the forthtcoming MSFS2024 is....drumroll.....: the flightdynamics !

Really, if there's no reasonably significant change for the good in that most important aspect of a flightsimming program they can keep all the no doubt pretty fancy upgrades in the graphics departments for themselves. Not interested. (well, just to have a look maybe..hehe)

Btw, all IMHO of course.

i am much happier in MSFS than in the prevous sims, more because of the graphics, but that's not the question.

Flight dynamics wise, for most of the aircraft I have flown, (not as nealy as many as I own,) 2020 feels far more realistic than the previous sims. I tend to just do short hops, in the local areas I am aquainted with, i.e. San Diego and most of lower California, where I was born and raised, and in Central Iowa, where I've lived since the late '70s. That's especially why I love the graphics. However, I actually dislike the ground handling of most of the light propellor driven aircraft at 50-60mph, before lift off. Almost every one totally loses traction and veers strongly leftwards, often off the runway. I used to own an ultrlight, and regularly go up in a real Aircoupe and piper Cherokee160. Neither of these have this tendency. I have many other friends who own other types of aircraft, from Cessna's through warbirds homebuilts, and when questioned all say this is totally unrealistic. One of the friends is a CFI, who also flies a lot of different aircraft for a flying museum nearby, who flies FSX alot, (until he get's a new computer capable of running 2020,) says that is the most unrealistic part of even the older sims, but that it is worse in MSFS (He has flown mine often.) He says most of the flight dynamics are pretty close, except for just before takeoff, at 10-20 mph before rotation. The more powerfull, the worse. I've tried a couple warbirds, and the only ones I've been able to keep on the runway are Got Friends F4F-4 Wildcat, and surprisingly, Aeroplane Heaven/Just Flight's F3F-2. The GAS Stearman is in a class by itself. At least the rudder has some effect on it. I tried the Big Radials P-40B Tomahawk, and with full right rudder applied, did two complete lefthand groundloops before hitting 35 knots, at just over 1/4 throttle. No way is this realistic. My even bigger complaint is tire sideways traction at 50+ knots. Even when I can keep the nose straight ahaed, the aircraft slides sideways, to the left, off the runway. Not realistic.

Speaking of the Aircoupe, the one I go up in regularly, and am working on getting my sport licence in, the one by BRSims is very realistic, especially after installing Tiger's FD mod. Tiger's Erco 415 Ercoupe mod V1.1.zip Unfortunately I can't find where I got the file. I'm sure it was flightsim.to, but a search only brings up JanKee's paints. The FD on it is nearly perfect. And it feels real in turbulence, and to/tds feel nearly perfect.

I'm planning on recreating the adventures of Stephen Coonts in his auto biographical tour of the lower 48 US states in his book "The Cannibal Queen." I tried it way back in FS95, or was it FS98, when we had Bill Lyon's fantastic Stearman, and the Cannibal Queen's paintscheme available.

[Stickshaker]

Hallo Jan,

Very kind words, and we seem to be in agreement. Yes, I fly DCS with VR too. I used to write flight simulator reviews for the Dutch aviation magazine 'Piloot & Vliegtuig'('Pilot & Airplane') but I don't do that any more. I haven't flown solo for twenty years now but I still love to fly simulators. Recently I bought the biography of WWI ace Werner Voss and I plan to fly the Fokker Dr.I in 'Flying Corps' (part of the Il-2 franchise). That is perhaps my most motivating reason for flying sims: to get a feel for aircraft that I read about. Yes, landing on a carrier is very rewarding, and I am looking forward to the DCS Hellcat and Corsair (did quite a lot of carrier landings in the F/A-18) and to Combat Pilot.

[tiger1962]

Speaking of the Aircoupe, the one I go up in regularly, and am working on getting my sport licence in, the one by BRSims is very realistic, especially after installing Tiger's FD mod. Tiger's Erco 415 Ercoupe mod V1.1.zip Unfortunately I can't find where I got the file. I'm sure it was flightsim.to, but a search only brings up JanKee's paints. The FD on it is nearly perfect. And it feels real in turbulence, and to/tds feel nearly perfect.

Thank you Don, I'm working on v1.2 right now which (hopefully) reduces the wingtip-scraping tendency in a crosswind on the ground to a more realistic level. You can download this and my other mods over at flightsim.com, the Beaver mod is my most downloaded by a long way.

I think crosswind ground handling is the most common Flight Dynamics boo-boo in MSFS. The weathervane effect seems to have been set up for the heavy jets and then applied to everything else by default.
The result (as mentioned in earlier posts above) is that anything smaller and lighter than a heavy jet has the weathervane resistance of a sheet of paper held at arm's length in a gale.
I've found that this is not a straightfoward fix either, there's no single "silver bullet" command or number - each aircraft has to be adjusted individually to get the right 'feel' due to the different crosswind limits for each type.
I now have a small collection of well-behaved tail-draggers and other GA planes of all sizes, but I've only uploaded a few so far.

[modelr]

Thank you Don, I'm working on v1.2 right now which (hopefully) reduces the wingtip-scraping tendency in a crosswind on the ground to a more realistic level. You can download this and my other mods over at flightsim.com, the Beaver mod is my most downloaded by a long way.

I think crosswind ground handling is the most common Flight Dynamics boo-boo in MSFS. The weathervane effect seems to have been set up for the heavy jets and then applied to everything else by default.
The result (as mentioned in earlier posts above) is that anything smaller and lighter than a heavy jet has the weathervane resistance of a sheet of paper held at arm's length in a gale.
I've found that this is not a straightfoward fix either, there's no single "silver bullet" command or number - each aircraft has to be adjusted individually to get the right 'feel' due to the different crosswind limits for each type.
I now have a small collection of well-behaved tail-draggers and other GA planes of all sizes, but I've only uploaded a few so far.

Thank you tiger1962. Looking forward to your update. Will checkout your others, also.

As I said, the Aircoupe with your mod is very realistic. It hits the numbers of the one I fly in almost perfectly. I did notice the problem of wingtip scraping last time I flew the sim in near max allowable crosswinds.

[Javis]

i am much happier in MSFS than in the prevous sims, more because of the graphics, but that's not the question.
Flight dynamics wise, for most of the aircraft I have flown, (not as nealy as many as I own,) 2020 feels far more realistic than the previous sims.

Thanks, Don, good to know you think so. Very important (to me... ;-)

I tend to just do short hops, in the local areas I am aquainted with, i.e. San Diego and most of lower California, where I was born and raised, and in Central Iowa, where I've lived since the late '70s. That's especially why I love the graphics. However, I actually dislike the ground handling of most of the light propellor driven aircraft at 50-60mph, before lift off. Almost every one totally loses traction and veers strongly leftwards, often off the runway. I used to own an ultrlight, and regularly go up in a real Aircoupe and piper Cherokee160. Neither of these have this tendency. I have many other friends who own other types of aircraft, from Cessna's through warbirds homebuilts, and when questioned all say this is totally unrealistic. One of the friends is a CFI, who also flies a lot of different aircraft for a flying museum nearby, who flies FSX alot, (until he get's a new computer capable of running 2020,) says that is the most unrealistic part of even the older sims, but that it is worse in MSFS (He has flown mine often.) He says most of the flight dynamics are pretty close, except for just before takeoff, at 10-20 mph before rotation. The more powerfull, the worse. I've tried a couple warbirds, and the only ones I've been able to keep on the runway are Got Friends F4F-4 Wildcat, and surprisingly, Aeroplane Heaven/Just Flight's F3F-2. The GAS Stearman is in a class by itself. At least the rudder has some effect on it. I tried the Big Radials P-40B Tomahawk, and with full right rudder applied, did two complete lefthand groundloops before hitting 35 knots, at just over 1/4 throttle. No way is this realistic. My even bigger complaint is tire sideways traction at 50+ knots. Even when I can keep the nose straight ahaed, the aircraft slides sideways, to the left, off the runway. Not realistic.

Speaking of the Aircoupe, the one I go up in regularly, and am working on getting my sport licence in, the one by BRSims is very realistic, especially after installing Tiger's FD mod. Tiger's Erco 415 Ercoupe mod V1.1.zip Unfortunately I can't find where I got the file. I'm sure it was flightsim.to, but a search only brings up JanKee's paints. The FD on it is nearly perfect. And it feels real in turbulence, and to/tds feel nearly perfect.

Thanks for your great and very interesting comments, Don ! Particularly because you fly for real i feel reassured that it is not so much my incompetence to end up on the wayside or even in the bushes on take-off and/or landing every now and then. I can very much subscribe to everything you say. That's why i got interested in the Ercoupe as well.

I searched and found Tiger's Ercoupe mod, read the readme and in my naivety was surprised not to find it amongst my aircraft collection in MSFS... Bummer... hehe.. More searching brought me to Simmarket where i found it for about 25 euro. Just recently i bought a few jetfighters i wanted and did not have yet so i'll leave that little Ercoupe for later. It *does* look very good ! Love that you can have all kinds of colored panels. Instead i watched a video by Jonathan Beckett flying the BRSim Ercoupe and he couldn't be more enthusiastic about it !

We nearly made one for FSX because MAAM (Mid Atlantic Air Museum, Reading Pennsylvania) owns an Ercoupe too. I didn't get behind the one 'mistery' that still remains for me about the Ercoupe : how do the canopy windows operate ?.... The handles on top make me think that they slide down into the cockpit side walls somehow ?.. But how does that work because the're fairly rounded at the top ?....

Anyway, thanks very much again, Don. I think you summed up exactly my own feelings about MSFS.

[Javis]

I think crosswind ground handling is the most common Flight Dynamics boo-boo in MSFS. The weathervane effect seems to have been set up for the heavy jets and then applied to everything else by default.
The result (as mentioned in earlier posts above) is that anything smaller and lighter than a heavy jet has the weathervane resistance of a sheet of paper held at arm's length in a gale.
I've found that this is not a straightfoward fix either, there's no single "silver bullet" command or number - each aircraft has to be adjusted individually to get the right 'feel' due to the different crosswind limits for each type.
I now have a small collection of well-behaved tail-draggers and other GA planes of all sizes, but I've only uploaded a few so far.

A lot of thanks for your very interesting comment, Tiger ! Particularly about the weathervane effect ! Has been there right from the start, you'd think they woud've dealt with that immensely annoying problem by now already ! Insane looking scenery, insane looking aircraft models inside and out (not always but still..), and yet end up upside down in the bushes after trying to land (sometimes.... luckily...;-) It *does* seem like devs who really care for their work get the grips on it more and more. But i guess that's *their* merit, not so much Asobo's..

Going to buy that Ercoupe shortly, i do have your mod already in my Community folder. ;-)

Thanks again, Tiger !

[Javis]

Hallo Jan,

Very kind words, and we seem to be in agreement. Yes, I fly DCS with VR too. I used to write flight simulator reviews for the Dutch aviation magazine 'Piloot & Vliegtuig'('Pilot & Airplane') but I don't do that any more. I haven't flown solo for twenty years now but I still love to fly simulators. Recently I bought the biography of WWI ace Werner Voss and I plan to fly the Fokker Dr.I in 'Flying Corps' (part of the Il-2 franchise). That is perhaps my most motivating reason for flying sims: to get a feel for aircraft that I read about. Yes, landing on a carrier is very rewarding, and I am looking forward to the DCS Hellcat and Corsair (did quite a lot of carrier landings in the F/A-18) and to Combat Pilot.

Thanks Hans ! What do you think about the MSFS Hellcat and Corsair ?

I quickly learned not to fly VR with bigger aircraft/VC's than GA or the occasional prop- or jetfighter. Flying VR is totally amazing but if i can't read the instruments properly it can become annoying. (i have a HP Reverb G2). How's that with DCS ? Are VC's in DCS generally better/sharper looking compared to MSFS ? ( DCS VC's look a lot better compared to VC's in MSFS in the first place, isn't it..). And there are no 'big' aircraft in DCS to begin with, right ? I mean no airliners or cargo planes, WWII bombers and that sort of thing. What i *would* love to see in DCS is a B-17 or Lancaster. Do you know if anything like that might be in the pipeline ? C-47 maybe ?....

Thanks !

[Sundog]

Part of the problem with the flight dynamics in MSFS is, at least historically, it wasn't that well documented. I say that as someone who used to be a developer. I've flown planes that seemed quite accurate and some that were, shall we say, less than "Is this supposed to be an airplane?" The most realistic I've flown is X-Plane. However, X-Plane, just like MSFS, is still dependent on whether or not the person setting up the flight model knows what they're actually doing. There have been great flight models in every version of modern FS (Which I consider every version since, and including, FS9), even given the limitations of MSFS, IMHO. The main reason I fly mostly MSFS is the eye candy and the fact that I get to fly anywhere in the world.

[Mach3DS]

Thanks Hans ! What do you think about the MSFS Hellcat and Corsair ?

I quickly learned not to fly VR with bigger aircraft/VC's than GA or the occasional prop- or jetfighter. Flying VR is totally amazing but if i can't read the instruments properly it can become annoying. (i have a HP Reverb G2). How's that with DCS ? Are VC's in DCS generally better/sharper looking compared to MSFS ? ( DCS VC's look a lot better compared to VC's in MSFS in the first place, isn't it..). And there are no 'big' aircraft in DCS to begin with, right ? I mean no airliners or cargo planes, WWII bombers and that sort of thing. What i *would* love to see in DCS is a B-17 or Lancaster. Do you know if anything like that might be in the pipeline ? C-47 maybe ?....

Thanks !

Yes, I would say that for the most part the payware aircraft are to a higher quality than MSFS in general. There are of course devs who do just as good in MSFS. But I would say in general DCS looks better for the majority of aircraft.

To give my opinion regarding your original question, the FM:

I believe that the order of possible highest fidelity FMs goes in order:

1. DCS
2. P3D
3. X-plane
4. MSFS

2 and 3 may be swapped....I don't recall...I just remember talking to a dev behind the scenes who has done work in all of them that was what they said. So take it with a grain of salt.

In terms of what I fly, I mainly only fly military. And so I fly DCS in an online squadron. Most are Real world pilots, including me. None of us have MSFS installed. I installed it to fly the Dark star from Top Gun module. But then once the novelty wore off I took it off. I find it to be an amazing world simulator but overall just not interested. I can do like 95% of everything you can do with the DCS aircraft counterparts of the real thing. So it's much more immersive for me. My buddy who recently transitioned said that he used PMDG 737 in order to learn all the flows for his checkrides. So it was a precise system simulator/task trainer 1:1 to his real life ride. Outside of that, no one I fly with uses MSFS. Probably because they're geared to mil flight. But we were all on the beta and didn't like the ground handling at the time. Not sure if that ever changed or not. Any way. I think your question should have categories for the "Best" aircraft. My bid would be the Heatblur F-14 Tomcat. Overall it's probably THE benchmark in simulation, for FM, Engine Model, Systems, Crew and Comms. It's not even something I fly that much. But it's just mind blowing. Nothing I've ever flown ever before even comes close to it's total immersion in a specific type. My main mount is the Viper, which is amazing. But HB Tomcat is on another level of immersion.

No, it doesn't have big aircraft (Yet). A C-130 is coming. There is also a Freeware Lancaster being made as a mod. It does look quite good. I'm not sure how that will work out but it does look quite good quality for freeware! The AI B-17 in DCS is quite good external. I'll attach a recent set of pics for a livery I made not too long ago. I'm hoping that with the expansion of the Spherical world model, DCS will be able to incorporate our favorite bombers and recon aircraft like, SR-71, U-2, B-52, B-58, B-17, Lancaster, B-24.



C-130J Info
https://stormbirds.blog/2022/09/02/d...ld-dev-update/


LANCASTER INFO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEXgG-C4P_U&t=2s

[tiger1962]

Thank you Don and Jan, I'm humbled and inspired at the same time to release more of my FD mods, especially the taildraggers.
Today's my 62nd birthday - it's weird to be the same age as Old People isn't it - so I've uploaded the v1.2 Ercoupe mod to flightsim.com and the library here.
I hope you find it to be as much fun as I do now!

[modelr]

Thank you Don and Jan, I'm humbled and inspired at the same time to release more of my FD mods, especially the taildraggers.
Today's my 62nd birthday - it's weird to be the same age as Old People isn't it - so I've uploaded the v1.2 Ercoupe mod to flightsim.com and the library here.
I hope you find it to be as much fun as I do now!

Happy Birthday, Tiger. My wife is 67 today.

On my way to pick up your v1.2 update. Will let you know what I think in a day or two when I get a chance to try it out.

EDIT: I just picked up your update, and (finally) read all of the improvements. "Sweet Pea" N99287 does not have the differential brakes. Only one pedal, on left (PIC) side. Later models, that, incidentally decoupled aileron-rudder, did have differential braking.

@Javis, The canopy windows do indeed open from the top, sliding down into the fuselage. Totally manual. They are made of thin plexiglass, and can be opened in flight.

[tiger1962]

"Sweet Pea" N99287 does not have the differential brakes. Only one pedal, on left (PIC) side. Later models, that, incidentally decoupled aileron-rudder, did have differential braking.

@Javis, The canopy windows do indeed open from the top, sliding down into the fuselage. Totally manual. They are made of thin plexiglass, and can be opened in flight.

Thanks Don - I only added the differential braking to aid with ground handling before I discovered the latest improvements, and I've forgotten to remove it! I've changed it now.

Jan: The windows did open in earlier versions of the BRSim model but they slid straight down and the curved part at the top went through the pilot's head, so that feature has been removed in the latest version.

[modelr]

Thanks Don - I only added the differential braking to aid with ground handling before I discovered the latest improvements, and I've forgotten to remove it! I've changed it now.

Jan: The windows did open in earlier versions of the BRSim model but they slid straight down and the curved part at the top went through the pilot's head, so that feature has been removed in the latest version.

Ahh, ok. Another update, or just redownload?

I was telling Jan about the R/L aircraft windows. Never tried the model's windows, so didn't know of the problem.