44 minutes ago, Murmur said:

I think many people in this thread have the idea that changing control sensitivities is all it takes to resolve the issues, whereas my idea is that those issues are intrinsic to the current flight models of default aircraft (and I reckon you think the same?).

Indeed I agree. They are separate issues and both are important, but however you calibrate the stick, the behaviour of the aircraft will still asserted itself.

Slightly off thread topic, strictly speaking, but another thing I notice is that default pilot view positions are approximately at the eye level of a small child in all of the example aircraft I've seen. I'm surprised the devs don't seem to have noticed this. The example below is fairly typical. Draw an imaginary line between the exact eye point directly forward. I think the (child pilot) needs a lot of cushions so he or she can see the horizon better, and the runway ahead. .

Picky I know, but these things are quite important. I assume one can easily adjust with a slider, or change within the current equivalent of an aircraft cfg file.

 

58 minutes ago, robert young said:

Picky I know, but these things are quite important. I assume one can easily adjust with a slider, or change within the current equivalent of an aircraft cfg file.

Yes I’ve noticed the same thing. There are a couple of ways built in to customize that. One appears to be a slider. The other is user assigned custom camera bindings available for each plane. 

2 hours ago, robert young said:

Slightly off thread topic, strictly speaking, but another thing I notice is that default pilot view positions are approximately at the eye level of a small child in all of the example aircraft I've seen. I'm surprised the devs don't seem to have noticed this. The example below is fairly typical. Draw an imaginary line between the exact eye point directly forward. I think the (child pilot) needs a lot of cushions so he or she can see the horizon better, and the runway ahead. .

Picky I know, but these things are quite important. I assume one can easily adjust with a slider, or change within the current equivalent of an aircraft cfg file.

 

When they  released  you’d be surprised how many views you can have from pilot perspective 😉

2 hours ago, robert young said:

another thing I notice is that default pilot view positions are approximately at the eye level of a small child in all of the example aircraft I've seen

Yeah, it’s more of an instrument view and can be changed with a key-stroke.

Am I seeing things or do the trees on the distant hill, on take off, suddenly appear to cover the hills when your almost flying over them?  From the runway they looked very barren and spotty?

 

Is this extremely low LOD settings or bad pop in?

 

 

3 hours ago, robert young said:

Slightly off thread topic, strictly speaking, but another thing I notice is that default pilot view positions are approximately at the eye level of a small child in all of the example aircraft I've seen. I'm surprised the devs don't seem to have noticed this. The example below is fairly typical. Draw an imaginary line between the exact eye point directly forward. I think the (child pilot) needs a lot of cushions so he or she can see the horizon better, and the runway ahead. .

Picky I know, but these things are quite important. I assume one can easily adjust with a slider, or change within the current equivalent of an aircraft cfg file.

 

Seriously dude, we get it, small stuff in the sim isn't EXACTLY how it is in real life. For once, just once, compare this current sim with what we have had in the past and see what you come up with.

 

It's one thing to criticize something major...like the flight dynamics.....it's another thing to go on a witch hunt.

 

Better yet, let's just scrap their entire project and stay with p3d and x plane 11.

3 hours ago, robert young said:

I'm surprised the devs don't seem to have noticed this.

This is the line that changes it from constructive criticism to bashing.

Hook

44 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

Am I seeing things or do the trees on the distant hill, on take off, suddenly appear to cover the hills when your almost flying over them?  From the runway they looked very barren and spotty?

 

Is this extremely low LOD settings or bad pop in?

 

 

Seems like a draw distance bug with the palm trees.

Quote

It's one thing to criticize something major...like the flight dynamics.....it's another thing to go on a witch hunt.

I don't see Robert's comment as any kind of "witch hunt". It sounds like a perfectly valid observation to me. That oscillation also looks annoying, but.......I guess I am not supposed to mention that

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by Christopher Low

3 hours ago, ahsmatt7 said:

Seriously dude, we get it, small stuff in the sim isn't EXACTLY how it is in real life. For once, just once, compare this current sim with what we have had in the past and see what you come up with.

 

It's one thing to criticize something major...like the flight dynamics.....it's another thing to go on a witch hunt.

 

Better yet, let's just scrap their entire project and stay with p3d and x plane 11.

 

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. 

 

Quote

Seriously dude, we get it, small stuff in the sim isn't EXACTLY how it is in real life. For once, just once, compare this current sim with what we have had in the past and see what you come up with.

 

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

 

 

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by martin-w

The problem is that Rob has an underlying attitude that comes through in his writing.  People are picking up on it even if they don't realize it and this is why he's got a few arrows in his back.

Got a problem with the pilot's eyepoint being too low and the spacebar "landing view" is too high, it's a very simple edit to a config file.  I've edited the eyepoints on about 1/3 of the aircraft I fly in FSX and P3D.  In the Cessna 152 I changed the eyepoint height from 1.4 to 1.5 and now it's perfect.  In the Savage Cub the landing view is about right for flying while the default is good for using the panel.  I prefer flying the Icon in landing view.

Should the developers have set the default eyepoint to what I prefer, when they don't even know what that is?  Well, given the number of eyepoints I've had to edit over the years I suspect it's unlikely.

Besides, the spacebar isn't the only way to adjust the eyepoint.  Don't complain.  Ask.

Hook

 

1 hour ago, martin-w said:

 

 

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. 

Agreed, Martin. There had been definitely some spillovers from the Reddit sewers around here these recent days. Same vocabulary, same postures from the same three or four new posters.  They sound more like Russian bots  in an electoral campaign than simmers 🤣 !

Quote

Should the developers have set the default eyepoint to what I prefer, when they don't even know what that is?

Yes, but you would expect the default eyepoint to be that of an adult. Granted this appears to be an easy correction, but what about that oscillation? That would drive me nuts.

Edited August 8, 20205 yr by Christopher Low

8 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Yes, but you would expect the default eyepoint to be that of an adult.

Some eyepoints appear to be intended for flight, others for ease of using the instrument panel, with the higher "landing" viewpoint better for flight.  

Remember in FSX we had a special Instrument viewpoint for 2D panels?  I'm guessing this is what is going on, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency.

11 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Granted this appears to be an easy correction, but what about that oscillation? That would drive me nuts.

Gee, I don't get any of that when hand flying. 😄  I haven't researched the oscillation, which is a known problem on some autopilots, but I suspect the autopilot is attempting to maintain a higher angle of attack than the throttle allows and this sets up conflicts in the autopilot.  

A lot of this stuff is going to have to be fixed after release.

Hook