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

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

3 minutes ago, Concodroid said:

Look, we're 5 days away. Please, just everyone stop worrying about this?

If you can't, think of FS2020 as a graphics game, with some systems modeled, like in FSX. There isn't any point worrying about it now. I'd just say don't use this thread until release.

From your comment I deduce that you think there is a bad mood in here? For my part I can say "not at all". I find it extremely interesting!

[martin-w 3,235]

2 minutes ago, Concodroid said:

Look, we're 5 days away. Please, just everyone stop worrying about this?

 

 

Some may be "worrying about it" but most aren't. This is a forum where such things are debated. And that's okay. 

[Concodroid 84]

Just now, Andreas Stangenes said:

From your comment I deduce that you think there is a bad mood in here? For my part I can say "not at all". I find it extremely interesting!

Eh. I think it's just a waste of time. However fun it is watching others argue it just feeds into the stereotype Avsim has anyway

[Dominique_K 10,138]

1 hour ago, LHookins said:

Remember all those complaints about "flying on rails"?  I suspect this is how MSFS fixed it.

It looks to me like Asobo took the very subtle random movements in FSX/P3D and exaggerated them.

Hook

You have your own special way to appease the worries of the worried 🤣 ! Wars start for less than that !

 

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

Just now, Concodroid said:

Eh. I think it's just a waste of time. However fun it is watching others argue it just feeds into the stereotype Avsim has anyway

Well you don't have to come to this thread if you dont want to, you know 😉 

[martin-w 3,235]

3 minutes ago, Concodroid said:

Eh. I think it's just a waste of time. However fun it is watching others argue it just feeds into the stereotype Avsim has anyway

 

I disagree. I've learnt something from this debate. I think many of us have. Healthy, sometimes, somewhat heated debates can be quite educational. As long as we all behave like adults of course. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by martin-w

[Bottle 663]

Here's a calming video to keep everyone's nerves at bay whilst we wait. Note: needs sound.

 

 

[robert young 2,897]

7 minutes ago, hangar said:

My 2 questions are:

1. What default out of the box MS plane has not needed fixing to it's flight dynamics? My point is that it's no surprise that we may not get proper physics out of the box, especially considering how new their new physics modeling is and how imperfect it likely is considering this is a first run for it.

2. Why spend 30+ pages arguing a point which you're clearly upset about, when you've already admitted that this can be fixed in literally 5 seconds and that it's so basic of a fix it can be considered aircraft physics 101? (im paraphrasing, but those are essentially your claims, your own words). Point is, according to your own words, you've actually wasted way more time in trying to prove a point than the time it would have taken you to just fix it and be done with it.

I know your upset that you mistook some MS marketing as literal promises, but this isn't worth turning 10 shades of blue over, IMO.

I didn't say in five seconds. I said the coarse global pitch stability can be fixed almost instantly for ONE aircraft. There are lots of them and I suspect they all suffer from the same thing. Then there's the prop modelling, engine modelling, rpm, engine temps, climb rates, descent rates, roll rates, yaw rates, inertia, dihedral, control authority, wing drops, side slip, ad infinitum. I want this sim to be really good (for once) out of the box. And it could be. I'd rather I was made unemployable. There are some great looking aircraft included by default. It would be great if newcomers to flight simulation got a reasonable facsimile of what proper aircraft behaviour is.

[The Flight Level 2,113]

5 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

 It doesn't mean the flight dynamic of the engine is not capable of more.  You can't forget the history of all flight sim that has come to past prior to MSFS : default aircraft as supposed to be just that. 

Quite true! The cat will be out of the bag in 5 days and we will all experience the flight dynamics and base our observations on first hand facts.

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

Just now, robert young said:

I didn't say in five seconds. I said the coarse global pitch stability can be fixed almost instantly for ONE aircraft. There are lots of them and I suspect they all suffer from the same thing. Then there's the prop modelling, engine modelling, rpm, engine temps, climb rates, descent rates, roll rates, yaw rates, inertia, dihedral, control authority, wing drops, side slip, ad infinitum. I want this sim to be really good (for once) out of the box. And it could be. I'd rather I was made unemployable. There are some great looking aircraft included by default. It would be great if newcomers to flight simulation got a reasonable facsimile of what proper aircraft behaviour is.

and this is where the problem lies Robert. You expect A2A level aircraft out of the box. That's never going to happen.  Default aircraft were never meant to be payware quality. Except that and move on. I think the quality is definitely higher and set a new standard but like everything, it does need a bit love. Specially in the avionics area. Flight dynamic wise, they are very good and not they are not wobbling up/down and left/right like you have mention so many times when you just tweaks your controller sensitivity settings.  they fly very well.  I have 5 more days to wait before we can have a more in-depth discussion about why I think you are wrong. I might even do a few videos. I am not a real life pilot. I am a flight simmer all through and through. So that my make any of my comments invalid to you. 

[robert young 2,897]

10 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

As much as I respect your conviction and passion toward aviation. I can tell you that a lot of the alpha tester who owns PPL and CPL talks a lots about this stuff and none of them have ever come to the extremism view you seem to be having toward MSFS. I have 150 hours of flight time with all sorts of aircraft in the game. Even if I can't comment on everything you have mention, I think you are wrong on many points. Now there is certain aspect of the flight dynamics that has not been model with the default aircraft. Something that was also talk about at great length.  We all come to the conclusion that it's a default aircraft and we believe Asobo decided to do this on purpose to make the sim more accessible to everyone. It doesn't mean the flight dynamic of the engine is not capable of more.  You can't forget the history of all flight sim that has come to past prior to MSFS : default aircraft as supposed to be just that. 

But my views are not "extreme". I'm just observing something that I believe is fundamentally wrong. The fact that few agree with me here is tough for me but I'm quite relaxed about it. It doesn't stress me and nor do I wish to stress others. I'm limited in what I can say but I can assure you that there will be plenty of testers who agree with me, but they are not permitted to say so here. 

Asobo has done a fantastic job on the visuals, presentation, UI and most of the weather. Kudos to them.

[High_Alpha 42]

5 hours ago, RudyB24 said:

What I tried to say when I opened the thread is:

1. Look into the sky and watch how real airplanes fly, or watch some videos of real planes landing in heavy winds ... that tells you how they move.

2. Then watch the MFS video's. Compared, to me, most of them felt like toy planes.

One of the biggest things I’ve noticed when flying GA aircraft is that on final and landing even very small movements as seen from the ground feel much more pronounced in the airplane. Flaring a foot too high feels like dropping the plane from 3 or more as an example. Also they do move quite a lot due to turbulence in all axes of movement, this is why some small planes with autopilots have a yaw damper to keep the plane from constantly swinging side to side in bumpy weather.  There is a reason aircraft have a Vno speed that should not be exceeded in turbulent air, it could literally tear a plane apart.

Are there some videos of planes in the sim displaying odd and unrealistic flight characteristics? Sure, but for every one of those examples there are far more that display a more advanced simulation package in all aspects than anything else we currently have. The inclusion of study level aircraft will only solidify that further.

That’s my opinion at least.

[hangar 661]

1 minute ago, robert young said:

There are some great looking aircraft included by default. It would be great if newcomers to flight simulation got a reasonable facsimile of what proper aircraft behaviour is.

I feel the same way...but that's only in our own heads. The reality is that in general terms the casuals and beginners would not appreciate perfect flight dynamics. It's the hardcore audience that wants and cares about that.

 

3 minutes ago, robert young said:

the coarse global pitch stability can be fixed almost instantly for ONE aircraft. There are lots of them and I suspect they all suffer from the same thing

..and that is the crux of what you have been so upset in this thread (pitch stability)...so if it can be fixed almost "instantly"...how long does it take to fix 20 aircraft x "instantly"?

Again...if it's so easy & simple to fix then it's no big deal.

Now, if this issue were something that cannot be fixed so easily because it is a hard coded issue and will continue to effect all future aircraft including those developed by 3rd parties, then yea...I'd be all for making a huge thread and moaning about it because the squeaky wheel gets the grease...but according to you, that is not the case here.

Have your fun, I suppose (if thats what your doing here all this time)...but if you're still really upset about it I just don't see how it's worth it...according to your own words.

 

[tgsweat 144]

50 minutes ago, robert young said:

Look CAREFULLY at this video. The nose is rising and falling in response to SUBSTANTIAL yoke inputs. It is NOT bobbing up and down by itself. The pilot is constantly adjusting pitch in order to keep the glideslope/Papi lights accurate, not because there is pitch instability. Please look again very carefully. The nose of this aircraft is not unstable. It is solid as a rock. The pitch changes are commanded by ASSERTIVE push and pull on the yoke. The aircraft is not exaggeratedly pitching up and down through small movements, or any big airmass movements. The adjustments in pitch are to keep the aircraft bang on target against quite small gusts/lift changes, but the nose is NOT UNSTABLE. It is doing exactly what the pilot is inputting. This is a million miles from MSMS 2020 videos. Chalk and cheese.

I will use the zibo in x plane because its what i fly the most, but i can get this same behavior when my sensitivity is set to high.  It was a big issue I had when I first started.  I would make small corrections and the place would pitch up and down like i was flying a cessna.  I added a curve to the controls and it made a world of difference.  We don't even know if he's trimmed correctly which is causing him to have to keep correcting the pitch.  We also can't see his yoke movement, he may be causing this up and down movement himself and it being exaggerated by too sensitive of control settings.

I know you keep mentioning the yoke travel, but i don't think we will ever get that much in a sim with the yokes we have available.   But like i said, adding a curve and adjusting the sensitivity also helped with that as well.  You seem to have more experience than I, but just my observations.

What i would hate to see happen is asobo correct in the complete opposite direction and we get no extra movement at all lol   

[joec63 253]

I remember FSX release like it was yesterday . 8-12 FPS cranked up.   Ughhh  😁