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

[Sasyska 12]

Don't need study level. Give me achievements, missions, good default scenery, good default planes and it will be one of the best flight game ever. FS2020 has a bright future.

Edited August 8, 2020 by Sasyska

[LHookins 3,113]

7 minutes ago, Sasyska said:

it will be one of the best flight game ever.

😄 I hope you're wearing your asbestos underwear! 😄 

There is a sizable portion of this community who take offense at calling their simulator a game.  🙂 

Personally, I want the same things you do, plus some study level aircraft for when I'm in the mood for them.  I like to do a lot of real world style flying, but I like to have fun too.

Hook

[ahsmatt7 1,201]

3 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

Did you not read the bit were Rob said... "Picky I know" He was fully aware he was being "picky" and actually said so. Some of you guys need a bit more respect. Rob Young is well respected in the flight sim community and has been developing top-notch flight models for a couple of decades. If he feels like being "picky" he is perfectly entitled to be so. If Rob isn't aware of the numerous camera views that can be set in the new sim then all we have to do is let him know, not berate him. 

There's a bit too much of this going on. Everybody is entitled to an opinion, we are all entitled to freely express ourselves here. What we shouldn't be doing is berating people who highlight aspects of the new sim that concern them. 

 

 

Trust me, Rob has the  experience to do such a thing with a degree of expertise that surpasses the majority in this thread. 

 

 

Come on.....I'm not going to fhy away because Rob is Rob. Him saying it's picky is actually the kicker that made me write the post. 

Is he infallible? Definitely not. 

The fact of the matter is that there is a huge difference between giving an educated opinion and going on a witch hunt.

Complaining about the default cockpit camera position is one of them. 

Like I tell my passengers who " fly all the time" who complain about all the little inconveniences.........

"You should know better than everyone else...."

Since Rob has all this experience, he should be keenly aware that since this is default, it's not going be perfectly polished like his add-ons he created are.

Finally,  sure Rob can talk to me if he wants. I have nothing against him as a person because I don't know him. Hell, here's my invitation to grab a beer and hang out .....so to speak.

And finally....again...I'm not going to shy away from expressing my opinion about things just because someone has a made great add ons.

[robert young 2,897]

The viewpoint post was intended to be a diversion for amusement from the heavier subjects. Let's keep things civilised. I've said like everyone else that the scenery is georgeous and the weather visuals are stunning. That doesn't mean no-one is allowed to comment on other things that they feel need looking at. We all want this sim to be fantastic out of the box if possible. I do understand that in practise that is very hard to achieve. A few people have contacted me privately with their concerns about the flight model too, and they say Asobo has taken on board some of the points and it is likely they follow threads like this one

Vewpoints are quite important, as even if you can tweak them, by default the aircraft will load with "factory" view settings.  I do think it is odd that someone should set a default view and not realise it is so low that (in a real aircraft) it would be a hazard to decent visibility. I get that there are other views.

But back to the main subject. It's easy to get carried away with enthusiasm because the visuals are so good. But at its core this is still a FLIGHT simulator, which is why I feel compelled to point a few things out. It is only my opinion and that is the purpose of a forum - to express opinions. Looking back to some announcements there was a key one by Asobo a while back. They stated that they wanted to get away from "Flying on Rails". 

That phrase is a regrettable one because the myth has spread that somehow everything about FSX (and now P3d) has the default models flying on rails. That is simply not so and there is nuance within the core FSX flight modelling. The YAW out of the box definitely was a little on raills because it was impossible to side slip as the weather vane effect was too strong. So you could not slip with the rudder. We fixed that at Realair as far back as 2002 and refined it in subsequent products.

In large airliners the inertia is so great compared with smaller aeroplanes that pitch control is reasonably stable anyway, but in small aircraft the FSX core modelling was the exact opposite to "on rails". It was ridiculously elastic, with the nose pitching up and down like a yo-yo with the smallest stick input. As I've said previously unless you abruptly pull back the stick and then let go, when there are some brief oscilations in some aircraft that quickly dampen out, most small aircraft are REMARKABLY stable in pitch.

In roll it is not that the core modelling was on rails either, but Microsoft/FSX applied too much dihedral effect so that when you banked, the wings too strongly returned to level. In fact in many light aircraft, when you turn you actually have to in some cases apply a little opposite aileron in order to prevent the wings continuing to roll more than you intended. 

To those who insist that there is no problem at all with the flight modelling, well you are as entitled to that view as I am to mine. There is no witch hunt going on. Asobo have briefly replied to an email I sent to them assuring me that they have taken on board many points from a variety of sources and they are working hard to fix things, and that is consistent with recent announcements that they concede the inertia issues need looking at among other things Before pointing out what I think are flaws I told them that I thought the scenery and weather were fabulous. 

 

 

Edited August 8, 2020 by robert young
typo

[ahsmatt7 1,201]

8 minutes ago, robert young said:

The viewpoint post was intended to be a diversion for amusement from the heavier subjects. Let's keep things civilised. I've said like everyone else that the scenery is georgeous and the weather visuals are stunning. That doesn't mean no-one is allowed to comment on other things that they feel need looking at. We all want this sim to be fantastic out of the box if possible. I do understand that in practise that is very hard to achieve. A few people have contacted me privately with their concerns about the flight model too, and they say Asobo has taken on board some of the points and it is likely they follow threads like this one

Vewpoints are quite important, as even if you can tweak them, by default the aircraft will load with "factory" view settings.  I do think it is odd that someone should set a default view and not realise it is so low that (in a real aircraft) it would be a hazard to decent visibility. I get that there are other views.

But back to the main subject. It's easy to get carried away with enthusiasm because the visuals are so good. But at its core this is still a FLIGHT simulator, which is why I feel compelled to point a few things out. It is only my opinion and that is the purpose of a forum - to express opinions. Looking back to some announcements there was a key one by Asobo a while back. They stated that they wanted to get away from "Flying on Rails". 

That phrase is a regrettable one because the myth has spread that somehow everything about FSX (and now P3d) has the default models flying on rails. That is simply not so and there is nuance within the core FSX flight modelling. The YAW out of the box definitely was a little on raills because it was impossible to side slip as the weather vane effect was too strong. So you could not slip with the rudder. We fixed that at Realair as far back as 2002 and refined it in subsequent products.

In large airliners the inertia is so great compared with smaller aeroplanes that pitch control is reasonably stable anyway, but in small aircraft the FSX core modelling was the exact opposite to "on rails". It was ridiculously elastic, with the nose pitching up and down like a yo-yo with the smallest stick input. As I've said previously unless you abruptly pull back the stick and then let go, when there are some brief oscilations in some aircraft that quickly dampen out, most small aircraft are REMARKABLY stable in pitch.

In roll it is not that the core modelling was on rails either, but Microsoft/FSX applied too much dihedral effect so that when you banked, the wings too strongly returned to level. In fact in many light aircraft, when you turn you actually have to in some cases apply a little opposite aileron in order to prevent the wings continuing to roll more than you intended. 

To those who insist that there is no problem at all with the flight modelling, well you are as entitled to that view as I am to mine. There is no witch hunt going on. Asobo have briefly replied to an email I sent to them assuring me that they have taken on board many points from a variety of sources and they are working hard to fix things, and that is consistent with recent announcements that they concede the inertia issues need looking at among other things Before pointing out what I think are flaws I told them that I thought the scenery and weather were fabulous. 

 

 

Very well said. Very respectful and respectable as well!

For me, I'm very interested to see how this sim flies. What you have pointed out, I have seen in some videos. I would be lying if I said I didn't see any issues with the flight model. 

Ultimately though, I can't comment and have an opinion on it because I have not personally flown the sim. 

That's where I stand, until someone has flown it, give it the benefit of the doubt. 

I'll promise you this, come August 18th, well 24th because I will be gone the days in between the 18tj and 24th, if I don't think the flight model is up to par, I'll eat crow and post my thoughts on avsim.

[RudyB24 296]

This was the whole intention of starting the thread, the wish that Asobo would look into it. Right now they told us, in the Feedback Snapshot and told Rob via email, that they are. I'm hopeful things will turn out OK.

The autopilot oscillations still are concerning. In another video the Airbus 320 kept rolling left to right. That can not be explained by a wrong throttle setting ... it rather looks like the correct PID parameters haven't been sorted out yet.

I'm sure they're looking into that too, Autopilot was on the list of issues they're working on, although it was not specified exactly what was meant. Anyhow, these oscillations need solving.

[LHookins 3,113]

7 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

Anyhow, these oscillations need solving.

I seem to recall similar problems back in the FSX days, and they could be solved by changing parameters in a config file that handled autopilot functions.  

Hook

[RudyB24 296]

Of course it's nice if there are files with which we can tinker parameters, but shouldn't the autopilot be flying stable out of the box?

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

2 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

Of course it's nice if there are files with which we can tinker parameters, but shouldn't the autopilot be flying stable out of the box?

Maybe it will be on release. It's hard to say right now.

[Dominique_K 10,152]

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

I seem to recall similar problems back in the FSX days, and they could be solved by changing parameters in a config file that handled autopilot functions.  

Hook

It is still here in some P3D TPD aircraft. Last year, I gave up buying an expensive addon because YouTube vids were clearly showing porpoising in following the ILS glideslope.  I have another TPD aircraft which cruises with a wing lower than the other to counter the strong altitude winds...

Edited August 8, 2020 by Dominique_K

[LHookins 3,113]

1 minute ago, Der Zeitgeist said:

Maybe it will be on release. It's hard to say right now.

This is indeed the case, as the Beta testers simply don't know exactly how the version we have relates to what will be released.

The issue isn't so much if they will fix it, but that it's likely it *can* be fixed.  If so, it will eventually make its way into an update.

Hook

[RudyB24 296]

I'm very hopeful it'll get solved, it has to because with oscillations like this the autopilot is unusable. What I wonder about is how they could send out the software in this state knowing a lot of YouTube footage was going to be made?

I've been designing digital control systems professionally and my career would have been a lot shorter had I cranked out a result like this. I wonder what was going on with the guy who designed the control system algorithm:

• Was he drunk when he tested it and in his eyes the plane was flying straight?
• Was he under time pressure and had to commit his code at the very second, before proper testing?
• He could not solve the issue? In which case we're &$%£ed

[LHookins 3,113]

2 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

He could not solve the issue?

Well, it's not like they don't know about the issue.  I'm sure it will eventually be solved, but likely not before release.  Might as well get used to the idea... MSFS is not going to be perfect and will rely on updates.

Hook

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

3 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

• Was he under time pressure and had to commit his code at the very second, before proper testing?

Probably this.

Everyone who ever worked on some project in his working life knows that a lot of these things often make little sense. It's all a mad rush to the finish line, filled with insane corporate decisions. With time, one learns to appreciate the cases where the stars align perfectly and things actually get done and lead to acceptable results.

[LHookins 3,113]

I'll go with "couldn't get it solved in the time he had available."  I think the August release date surprised more than just us. 🙂 

Hook