I shouldn't need to point out what I am talking about. Anyone who is a pilot and also "flies" any MSFS can see the clear difference. The aircraft is alive and the pilot is not simply sitting there watching the instruments. They are working hard at it hand flying. Yes, some of the best add-ons and weather add-ons can go some way to recreating this feeling but it has always been something that MS quite simply hasn't been good at. X-Plane on the other hand has been reasonably good at this.

 

Edited October 9, 20196 yr by Jim Young
Embedded the video.

You shouldn't compare an approach in calm weather with an approach in turbulence.

E.g. once you are established on the ILS in e.g. a Dash8 in calm weather, you don't have to apply any corrections for a looong time. 

Btw, turbulence in x-plane isn't exactly realistic as it is greatly exaggerated and airplanes are generally too unstable.

Take a look at jcomms wobbly 757 landing in the x-plane crosswind landing thread. 

If MSFS feels/handles like DCS I'll be happy 🙂

Edited October 6, 20196 yr by FDEdev

Well I'm not really convinced that any aircraft lands in completely and utterly calm and stagnant air to such an extent that the pilot is not having to put some pro-active work (and a good deal of concentration) into maintaining the required track, target landing zone, airspeed etc. Even if the air is otherwise ostensibly "still" there is going to be aircraft movement on account of the influence of the underlying and surrounding topography and ground structures, etc, particularly at those low levels. And I'm not convinced the video I linked to is even an example of what would even be considered as turbulence. It's just air being air...and the aircraft is not a large one to boot, so it is going to react to the moving air more than a 747 would. But even when watching large aircraft such as a 747 land, the pilots are almost without exception doing what I see in the video I linked to - to a greater or lesser extent.

It's only in MSFS up to this point in time where I am not seeing a realistic depiction unless I deliberately "over-engineer" the weather to exaggerate things compared to real life and then use a high calibre add-on aircraft. So I stand by my assertion that as it currently stands, MSFS is the problem in that there is a disconnect  between the feel and the reaction of the controls in a real aircraft and what happens in the simulator. Not once have I ever seen a simulated landing in MSFS even remotely emulate the same thing in a real aircraft. It does go some way, but it still falls a fair way short.

I agree though that X Plane overdoes things and goes too far the other way. I only mentioned it because even though it does go too far the other way, I still feel it is closer to real life than MSFS is, even though it is obviously at the other end of the spectrum.

21 minutes ago, JonP01 said:

Even if the air is otherwise ostensibly "still" there is going to be aircraft movement on account of the influence of the underlying and surrounding topography and ground structures, etc, particularly at those low levels. 

Nope. If you fly e.g. an ILS approach over (usually) flat terrain during winter, the air can be totally, 100% smooth.

Very nice to fly especially at high visibility over a snow covered landscape, very FSX/P3D like 😉

It always happens to me when I'm flying x-plane for a while and I enjoy the instability, that when switching back to P3D I'm thinking, now that's much more stable and realistic.

As mentioned before, if it's DCS like it,  kind of a mix between x-plane and FSX/P3D, it should be a great  flying experience.

 

Edited October 8, 20196 yr by FDEdev

I think I understand what the OP is talking about. It´s not just the turbulence, which adds a nice touch. It´s the "elasticity" of the Flight Model. You can easily feel that in modern Sims like IL-2 or DCS, which features a much more complex and modern approach to FDM development, and I think, more like Asobo is trying to implement. The control inputs doesn´t translate to a immediate and exact reaction. It goes through various dampening effects, dealing with airflow, inercia, and in the end, there´s no way to get the same feeling if you´re using tables to translate input to output, it has to be done dinamically.

It´s something I´m looking forward as well for such long time!

10 hours ago, JonP01 said:

Well I'm not really convinced that any aircraft lands in completely and utterly calm and stagnant air to such an extent that the pilot is not having to put some pro-active work (and a good deal of concentration) into maintaining the required track, target landing zone, airspeed etc. Even if the air is otherwise ostensibly "still" there is going to be aircraft movement on account of the influence of the underlying and surrounding topography and ground structures, etc, particularly at those low levels. And I'm not convinced the video I linked to is even an example of what would even be considered as turbulence.

To me it looks like the aircraft in the video is being a bit over controlled.  As FDEdev said a lot really depends on the stability of the surrounding air mass.  When I was first getting my instrument rating I had a tendency to over control during the last 500’ or so of an ILS approach.  So my instructor had me do several approaches using only the throttle and rudder to stay on course.  I was amazed at how much my approaches improved. It was his way of demonstrating that sometimes we’re our own worse enemy when it comes to a stabilized approach.  Sure you’ll have days where you need ample aileron to keep the wings level, but this notion that to constantly need to fight the aircraft just isn’t true. 

My instructor best described it as if you put the plane in a bowl, it will find its center. 

 

Now, if you turn the bowl upside down, and put the aircraft on top, that's flying a helicopter. Lol

On 10/8/2019 at 10:50 PM, FDEdev said:

Nope.

I guess I need to clarify. My original post wasn't a question, nor was I asking for any advice or "correction". It was a statement as I see it based on experience. If you can only say "nope" all the time, then we will have to agree to disagree. If you think aircraft can fly down to a runway without any control movement off autopilot even in calm weather, then no wonder MSFS is so far off the mark if people think that sort of behaviour is somehow OK. No normal real world aircraft is so perfectly stable that is does not need any perceptible control inputs onto the runway even in still air. Yet that is typical of what MSFS has done all these years and it isn't even remotely realistic.

Edited October 9, 20196 yr by JonP01

I don't know how much RW experience you have and in which types of aircraft, but if you are convinced that there are no perfectly stable aircraft, I don't think that it makes much sense trying to tell you that this is incorrect. 

Since I'm curious, what are the factors in calm air that are causing the instability?

Edited October 9, 20196 yr by FDEdev

If wind is represented like in XP11, i`d be happy. Approaches on the TBM950 on that sim can be pretty challenging depending on the weather conditions.

If the wind/turbulence IRL would be as exaggerated as in XP11, I wouldn' t be flying IRL!

34 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

If the wind/turbulence IRL would be as exaggerated as in XP11, I wouldn' t be flying IRL!

Good that we are not speaking about RL. Between the on-rails model of P3D and the possibly exaggerated XP’s depiction, I enjoy the second much more. 

Edited October 9, 20196 yr by GCBraun

1 minute ago, GCBraun said:

Good that we are not speaking about RL. 

I always thought that the closer to RL a flying game is, the more it can be considered a simulator.

1 minute ago, FDEdev said:

I always thought that the closer to RL a flying game is, the more it can be considered a simulator.

Sure, that is the goal. For me XPs depiction is much closer to my flying experience, even though no PC simulator can really depict the real thing. 

Edited October 9, 20196 yr by GCBraun

You don't consider DCS more realistic concerning xwnd and turbulence?

Edited October 9, 20196 yr by FDEdev