Still worried about the flight model ... how planes move

[odourboy 1,292]

4 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Maybe MFS is modeling wind boundary layer, with the wind speed decreasing towards the ground. So even if wind is set to say 40 knots, it would actually be weaker close to the ground where the aircraft is sitting. There's a competing sim that models this phenomenon as well.

My first thought as well.  As he gained altitude, the IAS approached  the sim's wind speed setting.

[MattNischan 3,904]

The video flying via windy conditions only reminds me a lot of the New Zealanders trying to land in insane conditions. Looks very similar. Some large gusty landings have 172s looking like they're little leaves in the wind.

Nonetheless, I do agree that the default planes are a bit underdamped, and that control authority at low speeds and/or high angles of attack looks to be on the high side.

As someone who is still under NDA and has looked at the aircraft files, I'll just say that we're all gonna be just fine. 😉

[Murmur 3,978]

When A2A C172 users complained that it had too much elevator sensitivity/authority, they produced this video to show that it had the same characteristics of the real aircraft:

So the difference in the feeling of pc flight controls and the lack of force feedback may play a role in the perceived sensitivity of sim aircraft.

Nevertheless, I agree with Robert Young that it doesn't explain everything and there's apparently an issue of an underdamped flight model that produces pitch oscillations.

[tgsweat 146]

2 minutes ago, Murmur said:

When A2A C172 users complained that it had too much elevator sensitivity/authority, they produced this video to show that it had the same characteristics of the real aircraft:

So the difference in the feeling of pc flight controls and the lack of force feedback may play a role in the perceived sensitivity of sim aircraft.

Nevertheless, I agree with Robert Young that it doesn't explain everything and there's apparently an issue of an underdamped flight model that produces pitch oscillations.

Yeah but that doesn't look "twitchy" to me. The pitch response is still smooth.  

[new display name 2]

On 7/30/2020 at 1:51 PM, omarsmak30 said:

People are so dramatic in this community, it hasn't been released and there are threads who are already worried or disappointed 😥. Wait until its release and then we can talk again. 

You've noticed?   😉

[new display name 2]

58 minutes ago, Murmur said:

When A2A C172 users complained that it had too much elevator sensitivity/authority, they produced this video to show that it had the same characteristics of the real aircraft:

So the difference in the feeling of pc flight controls and the lack of force feedback may play a role in the perceived sensitivity of sim aircraft.

Nevertheless, I agree with Robert Young that it doesn't explain everything and there's apparently an issue of an underdamped flight model that produces pitch oscillations.

Pilot-induced oscillations (PIOs) don't just happen in flight sims; they're alive and well in real flying too.  YouTube shows many videos of pilots who came to grief with a PIO-flavored landing attempt.

In sims, we have sensitivity and null zone adjustments to attempt to address control sensitivity issues.  But the fact is, no desktop simulation can EVER replicate real flying, due to factors like loss of peripheral vision, "seat of the pants" sensations, realistic control feedback, even WITH FFB controls, etc.  At the end of the day, there's nothing gained by lamenting that simulations differ from real flying - they always will.  We just have to mentally adjust to things that aren't "just right" and make the best of it. 

Things I like most about flying sims are that I never get any unfunded FAA ADs for my sim airplanes, I don't need any flight physicals, biennial flight reviews, or instrument competancy checks, and my sim airplanes never need annual inspections.  That's a LOT to like! 

Edited August 6, 2020 by ex-N9142P

[robert young 2,897]

2 hours ago, Murmur said:

When A2A C172 users complained that it had too much elevator sensitivity/authority, they produced this video to show that it had the same characteristics of the real aircraft:

So the difference in the feeling of pc flight controls and the lack of force feedback may play a role in the perceived sensitivity of sim aircraft.

Nevertheless, I agree with Robert Young that it doesn't explain everything and there's apparently an issue of an underdamped flight model that produces pitch oscillations.

Yes indeed, and as almost no-one uses force feedback any longer, sims have to be accomodating to crude spring mechanisms and very short throw sticks compared with real aircraft. But you can do this without making the flight model unrealistic. It just takes a lot of work and very careful observation then appropriate tweeks, which seem to me to be absent so far in the beta and a few days before release.

If you look very very carefully at the A2A demonstration you will notice that the control inputs are very assertive and much greater than the majority of MSMS 2020 demo videos. But even when the nose is pushed down and up hard, it does NOT JERK. It moves fairly rapidly but it does not bob up and down. It stays where it is put unless another input is made. Now look at the yoke aileron control.and the deflections to get quite modest roll even at high speed. I have never argued that controls should not be positive. Please read my comments earlier in the thread, where I make a distinction between three separate elements: Aircraft reaction to input, aircraft reaction to speed and aircraft reaction to weather.

Edited August 6, 2020 by robert young

[Murmur 3,978]

1 hour ago, robert young said:

Please read my comments earlier in the thread, where I make a distinction between three separate elements: Aircraft reaction to input, aircraft reaction to speed and aircraft reaction to weather.

No need to re-read, I agree with all your observations. I was just pointing out that the limitations of PC flight controls can make a virtual aircraft feel more sensitive than it is in real life, BUT in this case (MFS videos) there's certainly something more going on, as you correctly explained in previous posts.

As I observed, the handling looks extremely similar to the twitchy handling of past XP versions, with significant underdamping (most visible in the pitch axis).

I don't think most other people in this thread get the point, rambling about how real aircraft are always different from virtual ones, etc.

I'm optimistic that the flight model can be tweaked though.

[hangar 661]

1 hour ago, robert young said:

If you look very very carefully at the A2A demonstration you will notice that the control inputs are very assertive and much greater than the majority of MSMS 2020 demo videos

Considering my earlier comment (which you may have missed), either I'm missing the point or you are.

What I mean is...let us not forget that you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare a 3rd party aircraft's behavior (one which flight file's was designed by a real world pilot with time in type over a period of many months and full access to said aircraft) with the behavior of a default out of the box MS aircraft. Is it likely MS got the flight dynamics wrong? It's not only possible but it's extremely likely if we go by their long history of plane design....in fact when did they ever get it right (the flight dynamics)?

Don't expect the default planes to fly accurately, period. if one actually does then we're lucky I guess, but in 40 years of aircraft development in games MS has yet to get it right...so again...this is nothing new and not a surprise to those of us who have been here for very long. I think some of us are thinking that just because they changed the physics modeling that you just enter in the airfoil measurements and presto, you have a perfect flying aircraft...nope doesn't work that way. you still need to fudge and fuss with hundreds of numbers until you get the desired result...extremely time consuming, regardless of the physics code.

What will you do to satisfy yourself then? The same thing we've all done over the years...try to edit in the needed changes or wait until a better flying craft comes along.

That's it, in a nutshell. I'm not saying that we shouldn't WANT MS to finally be giving us accurate flying airplanes out of the box by doing the work themselves...in this way I am very sympathetic to all of us, but what I'm saying is...do be surprised if it happens, guys.

It should not surprise us to see Robert proven right...nope, not one bit. Some of us will be satisfied with the dynamics of a plane and some will be laughing, no seriously. But it doesn't much matter because,as always, there will either be improved dynamics released by someone or an entirely new plane that fly's proper.

[robert young 2,897]

1 minute ago, hangar said:

Considering my earlier comment (which you may have missed), either I'm missing the point or you are.

What I mean is...let us not forget that you are comparing apples and oranges when you compare a 3rd party aircraft's behavior (one which flight file's was designed by a real world pilot with time in type over a period of many months and full access to said aircraft) with the behavior of a default out of the box MS aircraft. Is it likely MS got the flight dynamics wrong? It's not only possible but it's extremely likely if we go by their long history of plane design....in fact when did they ever get it right (the flight dynamics)?

Don't expect the default planes to fly accurately, period. if one actually does then we're lucky I guess, but in 40 years of aircraft development in games MS has yet to get it right...so again...this is nothing new and not a surprise to those of us who have been here for very long. I think some of us are thinking that just because they changed the physics modeling that you just enter in the airfoil measurements and presto, you have a perfect flying aircraft...nope doesn't work that way. you still need to fudge and fuss with hundreds of numbers until you get the desired result...extremely time consuming, regardless of the physics code.

What will you do to satisfy yourself then? The same thing we've all done over the years...try to edit in the needed changes or wait until a better flying craft comes along.

That's it, in a nutshell. I'm not saying that we shouldn't WANT MS to finally be giving us accurate flying airplanes out of the box by doing the work themselves...in this way I am very sympathetic to all of us, but what I'm saying is...do be surprised if it happens, guys.

It should not surprise us to see Robert proven right...nope, not one bit. Some of us will be satisfied with the dynamics of a plane and some will be laughing, no seriously. But it doesn't much matter because,as always, there will either be improved dynamics released by someone or an entirely new plane that fly's proper.

Point taken hanger, but Asobo released a lot of PR about how wonderful its multipoint lift areas were and how this would revolutionise aerodynamics! Default aircraft flight models do not take so much work that the basic elements are missing. No-one expects perfection. But the flaws I observe are fundamental. You could even design a f/m template for, say, several aircraft in the same broad category, then alter the inertia, stability and lift values for individual models, which honestly does not take long to get to a reasonable standard. What I see is the same errors in stability for all the aircraft shown, whether large or small.

[joec63 253]

11 minutes ago, robert young said:

Point taken hanger, but Asobo released a lot of PR about how wonderful its multipoint lift areas were and how this would revolutionise aerodynamics! Default aircraft flight models do not take so much work that the basic elements are missing. No-one expects perfection. But the flaws I observe are fundamental. You could even design a f/m template for, say, several aircraft in the same broad category, then alter the inertia, stability and lift values for individual models, which honestly does not take long to get to a reasonable standard. What I see is the same errors in stability for all the aircraft shown, whether large or small.

I dont recall ASOBO ever saying it would revolutionize aerodynamics, sounds a bit sensational. . Can you point me to the video?   All that and you've yet to fly it. Maybe hold the critique until you try it . There will be plenty to criticize I'm sure.  

[hangar 661]

@robert young

Hey listen, I am on your side here with this. This sort of issue is exactly why I ended up becoming an XP fan. Not that they don't also have issues but they are still way closer in plausible GA physics than MS was. But one thing I can warn you about (which has already been proven here today in this thread) is that what one considers to be perfect or fundamental is, in this genre, has always been relative to the user. I am very fussy about numbers and behavior of my aircraft...but I realize that, from my own experience, most others are not...especially over in the XP camp. They are much more forgiving than over here at planet Avsim/MS. I would be going nuts over a bad job someone did on flight dynamics yet others wouldnt care nearly as much. What that ends up meaning is that either you learn to edit dynamics yourself, or you accept what you get, or you leave the genre. I do a little of all of the above at times 🙂 I buy, I edit, I leave for long periods of time because I get tired of the BS...you know.

You bring up a point that I did not realize, regarding how Asobo toots their own horn regarding default flight dynamics...I have not delved into their marketing hype too deeply from day 1 I was very skeptical, and still am...as I said...if you are proven wrong then we can finally rejoice...but I just don't expect it because if it all sounds too good to be true then it likely is. This is why I don't believe I'll be leaving XP anytime soon. I've assumed from day 1 that the new sim will need time to mature. It's not right, however if they've misled the public into believing that the default planes wouldn't need tweaking. I mean who wants to wait 3-4 months after release for them to patch those things...not me.

I'm ok with putting it aside if im not pleased and waiting it out though. I'm more concerned with the future of the hobby in general and my own eyes right now are on MS and how they behave and manage this title over the next 12 months. To me, that is crucial if we want the title to survive. I'm glad at least that MS is giving this a serious try...I just hope they don't blow it.

Edited August 6, 2020 by hangar

[RALF9636 2,036]

21 pages about the flight model of a pre-release version seen in some videos? 

Did you ever think about the possibility that the public Alpha / Beta was not meant to test the flight dynamics? That the Alpha / Beta versions - which have been tested by several thousand people who probably have no idea about flying an airplane at all (as could be seen from many videos) - received a basic flight model while Asobo were testing and tweaking the actual flight models with some professionals?

 

 

Edited August 6, 2020 by RALF9636

[odourboy 1,292]

It's just code. If it's seriously messed up, they can fix it. ☺️

[robert young 2,897]

19 minutes ago, hangar said:

@robert young

Hey listen, I am on your side here with this.

Again, good points. The thing is, I want this new sim to be very successful, and so far it looks to be in many areas. I'm sure there will be bugs and that is inevitable. Like you I'm quite fussy about aircraft behaviour, which is hardly surprising as I spent 20 years working on it professionally and another five before that as a hobby. I've never produced a perfect flight model (it's impossible!) but in co-operation with some very experienced pilots who understand both professional flying AND what is possible in a sim, some reasonably decent projects were realised.

You are quite right, in that assuming there is scope to do so I will undoubtedly tweek things for my private amusement. I just think it is a pity that more attention wasn't paid to fundamental things that are so glaring that I really do not need to fly the thing to see very clearly what is wrong. Some think it is silly to judge on what you see before hands on, but the flaws are so obvious it is impossible to ignore them.

If I wanted to "fly" over georgeous landscapes I could do that on google earth. The weather in the new sim is fantastic, and the airfileds look wonderful. As I said earlier, there is no reason why a default flight physics engine has to be poor "out of the box". The core of any flight sim for me is rooted first in how things fly and handle. Thanks for your measured and civilised posts which I appreciate.

Edited August 6, 2020 by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!