14 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

So if on run up you can't clear the mag, or your static RPM below allowable value during  take of run you don't challenge it?

I probably could have worded that better. I was more referring to the subtle handling characteristics, not anything that has a value associated with it.  For example if you took a 172 pilot with no floatplane experience and had them do steep turns in a float equipped 172 they probably wouldn't expect the aggressive yaw, but they wouldn't challenge it as being "unrealistic" since it's really happening.  If it was in a simulator you'd have some people saying they're 172 pilots and the flight model is way off. 

Same with roll in cruise flight, I've seen a lot of posts where someone complains that the plane wants to roll slightly in cruise.  The real thing can do that too.  As real pilots we know that each aircraft of the same make/model can even handle slightly differently.  You can't say a 172 will always fly straight and level in cruise because frequently they don't.  If you're lucky enough to be in one of the models with rudder trim you can compensate, but in other cases you're stuck either holding manual input or finding power setting that works with what's set on the fixed trim tab.

Edited July 21, 20205 yr by BrianW

2 hours ago, BrianW said:

I probably could have worded that better.

 To a reasonable extend we not trying to simulate actual stick and rudder feel which is impossible with PC, plastic stick and rudder. But there are reasonable expectations on "realistic" aircraft behavior! So if person flew 172 in sim and tried discovery fight in real life it wasn't few light years apart. A2A meets this expectations.

As far as aircraft performance this is a delicate topic. In real life If pilot calculate  endurance say, based on 55% brake hoses power and expected  true airspeed be exactly off the charts.If airplane doesn't perform accordingly one may ended landing of freeway (happens many time even with highly experienced pilots) 🙂 Aircraft expected to fly based on POH (the one with serial number) performance chart or IA won't sign it off next annual inspection. 

And now we slowly rolling into the topic that indicated 110 kts with the same power is not expected to be the same for each altitude, but will pass on it 🙂

Edited July 21, 20205 yr by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

 To a reasonable extend we not trying to simulate actual stick and rudder feel which is impossible with PC, plastic stick and rudder. But there are reasonable expectations on "realistic" aircraft behavior! So if person flew 172 in sim and tried discovery fight in real life it wasn't few light years apart. A2A meets this expectations.

Agreed, and that was my point about even real pilots don’t always agree about how good a flight model is in a simulator.  The feel doesn’t translate well from the real thing to the simulator so some of those procedural memories we’ve formed become more noticeable in the simulator, and others less so.

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

indicated 110 kts with the same power is not expected to be the same for each altitude

You’re right I should have said cruise. 110 knots had no bearing to the point I intended to make.

18 minutes ago, BrianW said:

Agreed, and that was my point about even real pilots don’t always agree about how good a flight model is in a simulator.  The feel doesn’t translate well from the real thing to the simulator so some of those procedural memories we’ve formed become more noticeable in the simulator, and others less so.

That's why all this discussion about flight models is really pointless. I think that the original debate (or maybe sin) was because many of the default FSX aircraft flew  (ahem) "like they were on rails". This mantra was picked up by the XP crowd with good cause, because the default XP aircraft did fly more like a real aircraft. But then, FSX 3rd party developers figured out how to build aircraft that had realistic handling.

But your point is correct, compared to real thing, none of the consumer flightsims are perfect reproducers of aerodynamics. In a real aircraft, especially trainers and helicopters, you really get the feeling that the aircraft is floating on the air, just like a boat floats on water. In a simulator, the aircraft feels like a car driving on land held up by the ground. That's my poor description of what the difference is.

The whole "flying on rails" thing isn't a flight model problem, but an atmospheric problem.  Is it better to inject random movement even in the early morning when the air is calm?

Microsoft Flight did it right, in any case, and I notice subtle movement in P3D.  Too subtle for some, I'm sure.

Hook

More goodies from Scott at A2A! 😄 

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=540624#p540624

Quote

Jon, we can't port any airplanes to FS2020 or any flight sim for that matter. Every airplane we make from this point on, whether it's for FS2020 or P3D is being developed with completely different tools. The end result that the user sees will not be all that different, but from our point of view (developer) it's completely different.

We are currently developing the Aerostar 600 for FS2020 and P3Dv5. We have no timelines because core elements are still being worked out. But the aircraft that follows the Aerostar 600 should be quicker as it will be the second one made with these new tools, but if that aircraft is a Comanche 250 (which we already have made) or another brand new one, it will literally take exactly the same amount of time. As nothing is carried forward.

So don't expect quantity from us, but do expect quality. It's conceivable we will never make an aircraft for FS2020 that we've already made for Prepar3D and instead see two airplanes per year moving forward, all brand new.

Scott

Love this guy.

Hook

Edited July 21, 20205 yr by LHookins

7 hours ago, LHookins said:

More goodies from Scott at A2A! 😄 

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=540624#p540624

Love this guy.

Hook

Excellent news at last after his first disappointing statement. The point is the commitment to FS20 rather than a time line. 

4 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Excellent news at last after his first disappointing statement. The point is the commitment to FS20 rather than a time line. 

Also in his first statement Scott never ever said there wouldn't be A2A aircraft for MSFS. That is what you made of it.

3 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Also in his first statement Scott never ever said there wouldn't be A2A aircraft for MSFS. That is what you made of it.

He was ambiguous in his first statement. But, anyway, if I was wrong, aren't you glad that I was  ? I am 😁.  I have also the weakness to think that this thread, on a major forum, thanks to all the participants, pushed him to give us a clearer view of his plans. I have bought over the years ten A2A aircraft. Looking forward to buy more.  And I have to say I am happy that he said that he would develop the Aerostar for both FS20 and v5. 

16 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

But, anyway, if I was wrong, aren't you glad that I was  ? I am 😁.

I am extremely pleased Scott confirmed my suspicion 🙂