9 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Ask him. He claims the aerodynamics feel very realistic. But he's just a 737 captain who works together tightly with Zibo on their XP mod - so he must be biased!

 

Actually, he didn't really comment on the aerodynamics, if I saw the same video. He was testing a training scenario.

 

"For those who like the "flying on rails" feel, there is an option in the new sim to use the legacy flight model"

Oh yeah ... that's true ... I forgot ...  maybe that's the setting for me then? 🙂

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by RudyB24

4 minutes ago, robert young said:

Actually, he didn't really comment on the aerodynamics, if I saw the same video. He was testing a training scenario.

 

@11:49 he talks about aerodynamics 

https://youtu.be/9-s-pl-9WGY?t=709 

 

1 hour ago, bonchie said:

Do you think it's as easy as turning something on and off?

 

No of course it isn't. But calculating the aircraft behaviour based on 1000 control surfaces PER PLANE, is intrinsic to the new sim. Something intrinsic to the new sim, a feature, a primary capability, isn't going to be under used. The sim is designed to do it. A primary feature is designed to be as easy to use as possible. They wont be under using it. 

 

Quote

That's not how any of this works. It takes lots and lots of adjusting variables and tweaking to get a flight model correct. Even if the base flight model is designed well, it's still a matter of how much time and energy you are willing to invest to get something that's close to real life coming out the other end.

 

At this point in time, you have no idea how the new sim functions in this regard, or how this capability is designed or implemented. Or how much energy and time needs to be devoted. Or how easy the flight dynamics editor has been designed to be used.

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by martin-w

2 hours ago, robert young said:

You could have a thousand lift points but if you adjust them badly you might as well go back to a couple of them and be done with it.

I think that is a poor argument. You can nullify anything with this argument. If someone puts the parameters in XP wrong, you can make the Eiffel tower fly in XP - so introduce the FSX flight model, cause - why the effort?

It is nice to have the potential of a thousand lifting points for devs that want to put in the effort to design a realistic flight model. And if you don't want that level of detail, well I guess there are ways to still create a somewhat acceptable flight model. As for the default planes, I'd go with that:

1 hour ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Is it too much to say that that probably isn't enough time to get eveey airplane fine tuned like we are used to with 3rd party add ons?

 

Regarding the sensitivity / inertia problem, I'd not put too much meaning into that. It's probably not trivial to solve (truning one knob affects another), but I don't think the core flight model is designed so inflexible that it doesn't allow for adjustments. We will see that solved!

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by tweekz

You know, funny thought here...forgetting about the discussion regarding whats correct/incorrect behavior...I've always wondered how the hardcore FSX/P3D user, on average, would react to the feeling of the flight physics in XP11 on their first day. My own background had me flying the MSFS series since the 80's and then over to XP somewhere around version 9/10. Being so used to flying on rails I was never really able to get into XP for the better part of a decade or so (been trying since v5 actually) and would typically return back to MSFS shortly after giving XP another go every couple years. Everything felt over exaggerated or too sensitive...and the weather was bleh...no good atc...and there were lots of features that were missing back then that would just always end up with me running back to MSFS.

That all changed for me with XP v10. After MS left the genre I finally had the incentive to not run back so quickly this time and I discovered that alot of new features were added that I liked. But the biggest change for me was getting used to the way that the planes fly in XP. They are alot more lively & fluid in movement. A good way of articulating the feel is that if MS was like flying through water, then XP was like flying through air. I would watch and stare at my plane's surfaces from the ground and in cockpit during replays and realize for the first time that I recognized the movements from real life plane watching...the way the wings and tail moved while reacting to the wind...my input movements as compared to input movements on real YT videos and how they matched up as compared to much less input with MFSF due to it's over-done stability...it was all so reminiscent  of real life GA approach/landings I had been watching for decades. This is about the time that I was finally able to learn how to do a proper side slip approach and landing, simply because XP had the physics done well enough to allow you to do this...something that in FSX was a real chore and not typically do-able due to it's limitations.

I stayed with XP since then and have to say that even though the physics still need work (especially how over-the-top turbulence is), that IMO the feeling of flight is years ahead of what MSFS had offered me previously at that time. I am very eager now to see the new physics and if they feel anything like XP physics I just can't help but wonder and assume that on day 1 there will be an awful lot of folks out here who are used to the old "flying on rails" feel and complaining about the new physics.

Now I have no idea if these new physics will feel anything like XP physics...but you know what? It might not be a bad idea for those of you who never experienced this to go and try out the XP demo in the C172 or Baron (forget the large airliners). Give yourself a week or 2 to get used to it (stay away from FSX/P3D)...and maybe, just maybe...it might give you better insight and expectations regarding the new physics in MFSF after it releases on the 18th.

...just some insight from someone who's already had to go through that "adjustment period" due to a skewed perception of what felt real or not🙂

 

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by hangar

17 minutes ago, martin-w said:

 

No of course it isn't. But calculating the aircraft behaviour based on 1000 control surfaces PER PLANE, is intrinsic to the new sim. Something intrinsic to the new sim, a feature, a primary capability, isn't going to be under used. The sim is designed to do it. A primary feature is designed to be as easy to use as possible. They wont be under using it. 

 

 

At this point in time, you have no idea how the new sim functions in this regard, or how this capability is designed or implemented. Or how much energy and time needs to be devoted. Or how easy the flight dynamics editor has been designed to be used.

Let me suggest that if it were as easy as you are suggesting, they wouldn't still be spending so much time tweaking the individual flight models in the beta. 

So no, I don't know every nut and bolt of how it works (and if I did, I couldn't say it anyway), but I do know the changes they've been making and have a pretty good idea that it's just as complicated to get right as any other sim. 

It is not a system you just throw an airfoil in and get a functioning plane out the other end because that system doesn't exist in any simulator. The 1000 points thing is marketing. It's still a matter of calibrating each point to actually mean something reasonably accurate in conjunction with every other point. In fact, having so many data points makes things more complicated, not less complicated. With every change, you change something else, just like in XP11. Austin spent years playing tug of war to get the flight model even to where it is today. 

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by bonchie

I was just going to say, forever and a day people have been complaining about the old MS flight sims "flying on rails." Perhaps the team wanted to squash that statement and has swung the pendulum too far the other direction? Personally, I think not. I do believe that Mr. Young is on the right path in talking about control sensitivity and input curves. That may be why I've heard that other real-world pilots who have taken some time experiment with control settings in the beta reporting a little more satisfaction with the flight dynamics. 

By the way, can we talk about the landing in that video above? Stall speed in landing configuration (Vs₀₎ in a 152 is all the way down at 35 kts indicated. If you use the 1.3 x Vs₀ as a reference speed, that puts you at 46 kts on short final. He was 60 kts over the threshold which I probably would have used too. 46 seems sooooo slow. However, what did the plane do? It floated a good bit until the airspeed bled off to just under 40 kts. I'd say that is pretty nicely modeled.

42 minutes ago, tweekz said:

I think that is a poor argument. You can nullify anything with this argument. If someone puts the parameters in XP wrong, you can make the Eiffel tower fly in XP - so introduce the FSX flight model, cause - why the effort?

It is nice to have the potential of a thousand lifting points for devs that want to put in the effort to design a realistic flight model. And if you don't want that level of detail, well I guess there are ways to still create a somewhat acceptable flight model. As for the default planes, I'd go with that:

 

Regarding the sensitivity / inertia problem, I'd not put too much meaning into that. It's probably not trivial to solve (truning one knob affects another), but I don't think the core flight model is designed so inflexible that it doesn't allow for adjustments. We will see that solved!

Hi Tweekz, I don't think it's a poor argument. The most significant factor in tuning anything is to observe empirically whether it works. No amount of potential sophistication can improve something that is perhaps not well observed and then adjusted. I'm not a mathemetician and have no formal qualifications in this field. All my work has been done by observing then adjusting. What you observe is the starting point. As I said  for some unfathomable reason nearly every flight sim invented starts with way too sensitive controls. With very large aircraft you can get away with quite a lot because the inherent inertia values prevent the worst in over-sensitive control, but the telling aircraft are the small ones. 

When I land a glider, small piston twin or similarly light aircraft, I can SEE, feel and hear that as I near the flare, the world goes relatively silent, the controls go somewhat limp and I need at least twice the control input (sometimes more) to achieve the same reaction. I've seen perhaps over fifty videos of MSFS 2020 and this does not happen at all. In each case without exception the sim demonstrates that pitch control is way too generous and twitchy at low and even high speeds. This is wrong. Plain wrong.

I just hope that there is scope for user adjustment, because it would be a pity for such a wonderful visual feast to be compromised by over-sensitive pitch, roll and yaw. It just makes flying not very pleasurable. The other thing to point out is that contemporary sim joysticks are sprung very crudely and don't communicate the resistance that aircraft control surfaces convey to the pilot.

If I do a winch launch in some gliders, I need very large amounts of back pressure to prevent the winch cable pulling down on the glider's nose. You cannot emulate this with a consumer sim joystick because the crude springs do not kick in until you've pulled the stick at least an inch or two. Similarly, a typical very light aircraft really does not bob up and down in pitch unless the pilot is suffering from pilot-induced oscillation. I can see from the MSFS 2020 videos that each demonstrated flight has the pilot barely moving the controls at all. This communicates that the control surface reactions are WAY too sensitive, and you can easily see this by the way the nose of those aircraft over-respond to tiny inputs, but even worse they have a spring like bobbing oscillation that I simply do not see in the many light aircraft I have flown

It's only my opinion. Others will have different opinions. Whatever opinion is correct, I really do hope the developers have built in plenty of scope to iron out these control issues to individual preference.

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by robert young

1 hour ago, robert young said:

Actually, he didn't really comment on the aerodynamics, if I saw the same video. He was testing a training scenario.

 

11:50
So, how does the sim feel from an aerodynamic point of view? It has been a long time since I've flown this aircraft, but yeah, it does feel pretty dynmaic [...]
it's how I sort of remember how these aircraft handle. So it feels great. I mean, for VFR flying guys, it's gonna be an absolute game changer.

 

Fun fact:

He even mentions he will try to get Zibo over to do some flying with him. 😄

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by tweekz

5 hours ago, robert young said:

I've seen perhaps over fifty videos of MSFS 2020 and this does not happen at all. In each case without exception the sim demonstrates that pitch control is way too generous and twitchy at low and even high speeds. This is wrong. Plain wrong.

 

Can you link one of those videos where ‘without exeption’ You can observe the control inputs and show that they’re wrong? 

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

12 minutes ago, 2reds2whites said:

Can you link one of those videos where ‘without exeption’ You can observe the control inputs and show that they’re wrong? 

I don't really need to link. Just look at a few of them. Unfortunately, some videos have the camera angle rather high so do not always include the stick or yoke movement. But there are plenty of videos of take offs, circuits and landings where you can clearly see the amounts of input and the aircraft reaction to them.

6 hours ago, snglecoil said:

I was just going to say, forever and a day people have been complaining about the old MS flight sims "flying on rails."

Don't bring anything positive about the flight model in this thread. How dare you hahahah 🤣👍

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

Just some food for thought ...and by the way... I have not bothered checking into this yet and therefore have no opinion on right/wrong arguing until I get to try it myself on my own hardware.

Just want to point out that often times you cannot expect RL input travel movements to mimic those of retail yokes which have much less travel to begin with (especially in the pitch axis). Unless you have a very high end yoke which offers the same exact travel as its RL counterpart you would likely see more travel being used in the real plane as compared to the sim. This is a hardware issue, and not always a software/physics issue.

I'm not saying you have no point (I wouldnt know as I havent spent any time reviewing this issue in the videos yet)...but only that you might consider the point I just made as part of your research. The more important aspect to consider might be to judge how much increase in actual input on your yoke is required (the "feel")...rather than travel (the "numbers").

Now, that being said it might still be that MS has left things just too sensitive and we'll have to wait and see why that has happened and what can be done to rectify it (user adjustments or patch required?).

But I'm saying right now, I have no plans to go back to spending 75% of my free time tweaking and only 25% flying. I'm done with that forever, personally speaking. So I demand that the new sim offer me at least 1 or 2 planes (that I would have interest in) that fly well out of the box (both in numbers and my own perception of proper feel). If I need to wait a few weeks for a hot-fix so be it...but beyond that I'd likely put this aside for a long period until I feel enough time has passed for things to have improved.

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by hangar

You make interesting points hanger. I agree that consumer controllers don't exactly help. However almost no-one in any of the videos I've seen are inputting anywhere near more than an inch or two control movement, so there is plenty of travel left even on rather short sim stick or yoke.

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by robert young