Calm down

[himmelhorse 1,276]

b737800

Now THAT is how we should be treating this chappie. 

I love this response LOL best chuckle I have had all day and I thank you for that.

Regards

Tony

 

[GCBraun 2,392]

I haven’t fired P3D and XP11 for more than a month...and I have good reasons for that. 😁

[divide 97]

6 weeks to fix a bug haha... I've been programming for 20 years+ and I've never ever encountered a bug that would take me that long to fix. Even the most hidden, vicious heisenbugs never took me more than a week to fix. 

[b737800 470]

4 minutes ago, divide said:

6 weeks to fix a bug haha... I've been programming for 20 years+ and I've never ever encountered a bug that would take me that long to fix. Even the most hidden, vicious heisenbugs never took me more than a week to fix. 

It's a pretty clear signal that something is fundamentally wrong. I usually smile inwardly when people blurt out "separation of concerns", as they often know the words better than they do the ethos, but on this occasion I am that blurter.

[tweekz 2,165]

11 hours ago, mSparks said:

It would be crazy to think there is going to be any further revision of something that isnt on the road map, isnt a most requested item on the feedback, and has already been described as "realistic".

I don't know what all the stir is about. The stall looks fine to me.

Besides, of course things get changed. That's the main reason they do a public Alpha! When enough people complain that some details in the flight model aren't done quite right, they will look into that. No matter if it's on a roadmap or not.

You are very picky when it's about MSFS. You should... calm down. Your behavior is not adequate when you think that even great sims like X-Plane still have some major flaws in that regard. Like do you know how many aircraft (including the LR default of course) fail to model forward slipping accurately? Go try it out and complain about that! Even some stalls feel awkwardly incorrect! Or parts of the wing being modeled inside the fuselage...

Edited February 2, 2020 by tweekz

[ca_metal 2,025]

3 hours ago, tweekz said:

I don't know what all the stir is about. The stall looks fine to me.

Besides, of course things get changed. That's the main reason they do a public Alpha! When enough people complain that some details in the flight model aren't done quite right, they will look into that. No matter if it's on a roadmap or not.

You are very picky when it's about MSFS. You should... calm down. Your behavior is not adequate when you think that even great sims like X-Plane still have some major flaws in that regard. Like do you know how many aircraft (including the LR default of course) fail to model forward slipping accurately? Go try it out and complain about that! Even some stalls feel awkwardly incorrect! Or parts of the wing being modeled inside the fuselage...

You see... the problem is this Cessna 172 in MSFS2020 isn't stalling like the F-14 in DCS... That's the problem... How can't you see it?

[b737800 470]

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

happens at 7 hours runtime means it might not happen for 770 hours.

We can come back to that when the goalposts stop moving.

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

so you would sign off on a bug that reportedly takes 7 hours to happen when you couldn't recreate after 2 days.....

I would sign off on it when I knew I understood WHY it was taking 7 hours to manifest and was confident that the fix was the fix, but that changes depending on the application of the software and and impact of it failing.

If it was software for a heart pacemaker, for example, I'd say... well they had a bad heart anyway.

If it was for a flight sim game it would be far more important. Imagine recreating a LHR > SYD flight and it hanging on short finals. That would be enough to kill any one of us.

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

do hope you dont go anywhere near any backend dev.

Shhh. 27 years and counting but I'd rather my customers didn't find out from you that I'm not very good at it 😉

8 hours ago, mSparks said:

and to demonstrate this is how msft/xbox studios/asobo work, you would choose what as an example?

If I wanted to draw conclusions based on them collaborating on a flight sim? Well, I'd probably wait for it to be released before I concluded anything, let alone stated any absolutes.

Sparky, start up a new thread. I'm sure we could go on like this for days, but let's not hijack any (and every) other thread created by other people. What dya say?

[mSparks 2,086]

2 hours ago, b737800 said:

WHY it was taking 7 hours to manifest

thats the nature of modern multi threaded non deterministic design.

1 in 7 chance of happening in a 1 hour cycle = 7 hours to manifest, after 48 hours still a good chance you never see it.

2 hours ago, b737800 said:

heart pacemaker

super simplistic problem compared to something like parallel computation of taylor series approximations required for flight simulation.

2 hours ago, b737800 said:

Well, I'd probably wait for it to be released before I concluded anything

....obviously.

4 hours ago, ca_metal said:

You see... the problem is this Cessna 172 in MSFS2020 isn't stalling like the F-14 in DCS... That's the problem... How can't you see it?

Way to prove my point.

Nothing to fix

So they wont.

Edited February 2, 2020 by mSparks
deleted your unmentionables!

[ca_metal 2,025]

If ain't broke, don't fix it...

Your point was they needed to fix it because the F-14 behaves differently in DCS... Different aircraft in a different platform. And who said the physics on DCS are perfectly accurate?

Why would anyone in here give you more credit than we would to the devs at Asobo/MS? They are getting feedback from the real pilots and the airplane manufacturers, which is a more important feedback (concerning the physics) than yours or any alpha testers.

[mSparks 2,086]

3 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Your point was they needed to fix it because the F-14 behaves differently in DCS

my point is they would need to fix it for me (and many others) to consider it a valuable simulator rather than a simple game.

But they very likely wont fix it because doing so is crazy hard, it will eat into the bottom line and the vast majority of people (with perhaps the exception of the many many hundreds of thousands of real life glider pilots around the world) will not know or care, and even those who do still mostly like games anyway.

With a secondary point of calm down, it will be good or it will not be good. It does not look like its going to be seriously competing with modern/real simulators any time soon, and that's OK. There is still a nice little niche for it to fill for anyone who likes flight stuff - as long as they get a few basics right.

About all I can add to that - is getting those basics right really does depend on microsoft not doing typical microsoft stuff - and the only way that goes down is to tell them in no uncertain terms the ways they can ' it up, then sit back and watch the fireworks.

 

[ca_metal 2,025]

AGAIN: If ain't broke, don't fix it...

You say their physics are wrong, but they have REAL PILOTS (PILOTS that use the specific aircrafts they are developing) and the AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURERS helping/giving feedback for them.

I'm sure they will get good results using the feedbacks that really matter (those I said above). If you think it's wrong or too much gamey, just stick with X-Plane. 
 

[divide 97]

mSpark, why do you say the Cessna stall is wrong ? Do you have a real Cessna stall video to compare it to (NOT another simulation - a real Cessna stall video) ?

[mSparks 2,086]

42 minutes ago, divide said:

mSpark, why do you say the Cessna stall is wrong ? Do you have a real Cessna stall video to compare it to (NOT another simulation - a real Cessna stall video) ?

Trajectory is wrong, a Cessna doesnt survive flying sideways, getting them flying sideways makes them land vertically on cars in carparks, or in fields with the wings ripped off. Often with forever young kids in the back. so you wont find such real cessna videos on youtube.

Plenty of videos on the topic of cessna stalls and unrecoverable stalls on youtube if you do care.

I was also more comparing how a video on stall characteristics should be done without breaking house rules.

 

Edited February 2, 2020 by mSparks

[tweekz 2,165]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

my point is they would need to fix it for me (and many others) to consider it a valuable simulator rather than a simple game.

 

You are trying to convince us that MSFS flight model is by far inferior (a toy) compared to X-Planes, DCS ... no reason to post those videos otherwise.

I don't have DCS, but I use X-Plane. So I would really be interested in your stance on the bad forward slipping behavior of almost all aircraft in X-Plane? Take the LR Cessna. There is almost no rise in negative vertical speed. No change in IAS at all.

I don't get it how you can be so nit-picky regarding MSFS, but overlook this major flaw with a basic maneuver.

If MS really modeled a little over 1000 surfaces, with the airflow calculated separately for each, then they've layed out a solid foundation. Let there be flaws in the beginning. They will get fixed. There will be addon devs supplying us with awesome models.

Edited February 2, 2020 by tweekz

[snglecoil 1,828]

As of this morning, I have 232.5 hours in various Cessna 172s. If X-plane is the benchmark for accuracy with the 172’s flight model, I suggest reevaluating your standards. 

It has been a few years since I spun a 172 as we are generally loaded too heavily to be in the utility category. But the promo video MS put out appears very similar to my own recollection as flawed as it may be with the passing of time. I do recall the 172 being pretty reluctant to spin at all. It takes application of full rudder right at the stall break to get it to go over. 

I’m not stating that MSFS is good nor bad with respect to their flight modeling. I won’t be able to evaluate it until I actually get a chance to use it. The assertion that the flight model is anything based on a couple videos is asinine.