44 minutes ago, tgsweat said:

I like said, i think most of this can be solved in the sensitivity settings. 

Disagree I'm afraid. If you mean control sensitivity. It is not just the controls that appear to be too sensitive. It is the reaction of small aircraft  to BOTH control input and the weather, as demonstrated in many videos since alpha / beta. Anyway I'll retire from this thread now as I've made my point. I hope it is a fabulous sim, and it does look amazing. I want it to be very successful, but with luck without the need to spend a fortune on addons to get things right.

1 hour ago, robert young said:

Most aircraft by themselves are remarkably stable, especially in pitch.

Absolutely. Anyone who has ever done any formation flying will know that part of the trick to it is to stop thinking there is a trick to it and leave the goddam stick alone!

5 minutes ago, Chock said:

Absolutely. Anyone who has ever done any formation flying will know that part of the trick to it is to stop thinking there is a trick to it and leave the goddam stick alone!

That's the hardest part. To start with you feel you must CONTROL and grip the stick as hard as you possible can.

Disclaimer: I speak only as an erstwhile sim formation flyer. gosh 🙄 I miss it.

Edited August 5, 20205 yr by Ron Attwood

1 minute ago, Ron Attwood said:

That's the hardest part. To start with you feel you must CONTROL and grip the stick as hard as you possible can.

Disclaimer: I speak only as an erstwhile sim formation flyer. word not allowed, I miss it.

Absolutely, when I first started flying I found that after the flight my hand and wrist would be aching like mad because I'd not even really realised that I was gripping the stick really hard.

And with formation flying, when you first start doing that, you over-control like crazy to the point where you get really out of position, after a while you realise that you'll stay with the other aeroplane if you just chill out and make very small anticipated gentle trend corrections by watching the ailerons on the other aeroplane.

The other thing which surprises you, is just how low down behind the aeroplane in front of you the wake turbulence is; you think it's going to be right behind it, but it's not, it's a good twenty to thirty feet below it.

12 minutes ago, robert young said:

Disagree I'm afraid. If you mean control sensitivity. It is not just the controls that appear to be too sensitive. It is the reaction of small aircraft  to BOTH control input and the weather, as demonstrated in many videos since alpha / beta. Anyway I'll retire from this thread now as I've made my point. I hope it is a fabulous sim, and it does look amazing. I want it to be very successful, but with luck without the need to spend a fortune on addons to get things right.

If you're correct, I have to believe these issues will be resolved easily enough. As you know, you have a great deal of control to finesse these behaviours in FSX and P3D in the aircraft.cfg (not to mention the control available if you choose to custom code). I have no idea what MSFS will offer for flight dynamics, but it will be even better, right? (Fingers crossed)

3 hours ago, robert young said:

I do not see anything like this in the alpha or beta videos I've watched. I also see a lot of bucking in pitch when viewing landings, despite the fact that hardly any pitch input is used. This bucking is the result of oscillations that on any well made aeroplane are well damped. You should not have to fight those oscillations or even cause them. The TINIEST aircraft will simply not demonstrate such pitch instability.

Very good posts, from the videos I watched I tend to agree.

The interesting thing is that _exactly_ the same flaws (twitchiness and underdamping, especially in pitch) were present in XP aircraft up to v10.

I _think_ that the situation in v11 was improved thanks to a combination of improvements in the code of the FM, plus tweaking of flight dynamics of the default aircraft.

In flight dynamics terms, the issue seems to suggest an underestimation of c_m_alpha, c_m_alpha_dot and c_m_q.

It may not be a coincidence that the brand new flight model, apparently quite similar conceptually to XP's one, could suffer from some of its (past?) issues.

Could be teething problems that could require future improvements in the internal coding of the flight model. Or maybe it is already customizable in all of its parts to such an extent, that an expert 3rd party could eliminate those issues.

We'll all find more after the 18th, anyway.

Just one more example: In this video you can clearly see the stick inputs, which are tiny. The aircraft featured is bucking up and down like a very small RC aircraft with extremely low inertia, similar to a hobbiest RC plane that weighs 2 kilos, not 700+Kilos (350 times the mass) . The pitch twitchiness and general handling are totally implausible. The stick is being moved barely half an inch at times yet the reaction of the aircraft is commensurate with more than full deflection. Please watch to the end as things get more and more twitchy and absurdly toy-like the further in you get. If you cannot see this I despair!

 

Edited August 6, 20205 yr by robert young

15 minutes ago, robert young said:

If you cannot see this I despair!

Despair all you want, we don't mind. 😄 

The controls have a sensitivity setting which apparently works differently from what it did in P3D.  I'm guessing people are expected to use it.  

I would prefer to have better defaults but the method they are using gives the most flexibility.

Edit:  I watched the video and I see no problems with the way he is moving his joystick.  Your mileage may vary.

Hook

Edited August 6, 20205 yr by LHookins

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

Despair all you want, we don't mind. 😄 

The controls have a sensitivity setting which apparently works differently from what it did in P3D.  I'm guessing people are expected to use it.  

I would prefer to have better defaults but the method they are using gives the most flexibility.

Hook

But it's not the controls alone. It is the reaction, inertia and twitchiness of the aircraft! Sure you can damp down the control input but that is entirely different from the inertia (or lack thereof) of the aeroplane. 

4 minutes ago, robert young said:

But it's not the controls alone. It is the reaction, inertia and twitchiness of the aircraft!

I'm not sure where I heard this, but aerobatic aircraft like the one he is flying are twitchy in real life. 😄 

Maybe a better test would be to watch the controls during some extreme aerobatics.

Hook

Just now, LHookins said:

I'm not sure where I heard this, but aerobatic aircraft like the one he is flying are twitchy in real life. 😄 

A high potential roll rate or potential for high G is not the same as twitchiness. They are two completely different things. (I despair once more!)

5 minutes ago, robert young said:

A high potential roll rate or potential for high G is not the same as twitchiness.

How would you fix this in FSX or P3D?  You will be able to fix it the same way in MSFS.

I'm flying aircraft like the Cessna 152, the Savage Cub and the Icon A5 using full sensitivity and I have no complaints.  At one point in the Alpha they increased the sensitivity on the 152 roll rate and I edited a config file to fix it.  Next update it went back to normal.  Perhaps they were checking to see how many people would adjust the sensitivity.

If I wanted more control movement for the same aircraft movement (i.e. less sensitive controls), I could either edit the sensitivity for the control or edit a config file.  I'm guessing that some people would *prefer* the control sensitivity on that particular aircraft to be what it is in that video.

In any case, we won't know until release day what we're actually getting.

Hook

definitely ‘twitchy’ - looking at the videos.

Sorry of this was posted earlier (I haven’t read the whole thread), but at least for the 172, this guy flew one shortly after flying in the sim and says it had the “exact touch and execution” of the sim controls. https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2019/09/the-new-ms-flight-simulator-taught-me-how-to-fly-an-actual-plane

3 hours ago, robert young said:

The aircraft featured is bucking up and down like a very small RC aircraft with extremely low inertia, similar to a hobbiest RC plane that weighs 2 kilos, not 700+Kilos (350 times the mass) . The pitch twitchiness and general handling are totally implausible.

 

An underestimation of stability and damping coefficients would give the (incorrect) impression of inertia moments being set too low.

As I said, the behaviour seen in those videos closely reminds me of the flight models of past XP versions, where one had to use values of inertia moments that were 2x or 3x those of the real aircraft. Of course that solved one issue but produced other side issues.

We still don't have any documents on this new flight model. Let's see how easily modifiable it is after MFS is released, and also if it will receive continued development and updates.