I wonder if this is a reasonable analogy (not perfect I'm sure.

MFS is like MS Excel with 1000 data cells. What you put into the cells (and that includes relational dependencies between cells) gives you the net profits or losses for your business, it all depends on the values you use and how you get it to do the calculations. So the flight model is a matter of what data you feed the underlying system (Excel). If Asobo haven't quite got the data right yet, it can be updated to get it right. Similarly, all a 3PD has to do is put in the data they feel better reflects the flight of the aircraft in question. As long as the underlying system (Excel) is fit for purpose, you should eventually get a satisfactory result after tinkering with the input data. It's not like the flight model is hard baked into the aircraft model and unalterable.

The problem will be if Asobo have made an Excel that just can't ever get it right no matter what data you feed it and so a 3PD will have to design their own bit of code to make appropriate adjustments. That's certainly what happened with FSX (and not just for the flight model). However, I get the strong feeling from everything I've seen so far that what Asobo have made is fit for purpose.

I remember the good old days of IL2 Sturmovik. They were still updating the flight models in that years after release.

Don't get me wrong either, I'm greatly looking forward to it too. And I'm also no old timer spazzing out (thanks for that qualification, from here on you can address me as 'sir' 🙂 ).

I'm watching more video's now and I'm greatly enjoying what I see, breathtaking scenery and lighting, great clouds, and wonderful little details like fingerprints on the window and pilots that move their heads around (they might smile a bit more). And guess what ... the water plane can actually land on the water. And take off too. Should we now complain there's not a splash of water to be seen in the process? Nahh...

13 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Could you show me that part?

Take a look at this video, in a few places, but for example at timestamp 7:14. The lift vector acts the wrong way. It does this a few times from this point onwards.

This issue is common in a lot of flight sims, which get confused by inverted flight, and most of the time it doesn't matter much, but with a Pitts S2, it matters, since it is intended for aerobatics.

Now in fairness, the Pitts S2 has aerofoils which can lead to some odd behaviour; they are chosen to make it fly pretty well when inverted. Specifically the Pitts S2 has a NACA 63A015 aerofoil on the upper wing, and a NACA 0012 on the lower, both of which are symmetrical as they are in most aerobatic aeroplanes, so the lift vector only acts upwards when the angle of attack places it in a position to do so, however what this placement cannot affect, and certainly not instantly as we see in that video clip, is the vector of the lift, owing to inertia, which is instantaneous in the sim, and this basically defies normal flight physics. As I say, I suspect this is as a result of the flight model getting confused by the inverted attitude, but whatever it is, it is very evidently not correct.

13 minutes ago, Chock said:

Take a look at this video, in a few places, but for example at timestamp 7:14. The lift vector acts the wrong way. It does this a few times from this point onwards.

 

Maybe I'm missing it, but it seems correct to me. It's flying inverted at about -1g, and the change in heading looks consistent with a lift vector pointed downward (relative to aircraft, so towards the belly/gear).

As I'm in no way familiar with XBOX:  I don't know for sure if XBox users can add-on payware aircraft at a later point, or if they can tweak the default aircraft?  But when I first heard that 2020 would be available on XBox, I almost grimaced.  Was this an appeal to the masses: Was this new flight sim going to be "dumbed-down"?  Well,  those concerns were thankfully NOT the case.  I  fully expect 2020 to be a quantum leap, even if the default aircraft may not meet real life flight dynamics 100%.  Hopefully,  we will all still have payware to take-up the slack in that area ....  

So I say, all future complaints should be tabled until  8/18/2020😏 

     

 

2 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

I could answer you but I got this thing called NDA. Read back my stuff and read between the lines.

 

2 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

because you know more about the game than people who actually played it...right.

The bait and switch "NDA" comments are getting old.

If you cant have a real conversation, then why try to (t)ease in your sly comments that would obviously cause others to want to know more....that you can't tell? It is like having a "tin" badge & barking orders with no gun or cuffs to really substantiate your authority (or opinion).

Going back and forth with someone while shielding yourself with the NDA clause is mostly about "bragging rights" when there are "no details available" to support your comments. Keep it to yourself if you are suppose to keep it to yourself.

All will see on Aug 18...

On a hopeful point, I am sure each aircraft has some sort of a flight model config file where a user could make flight model adjustments in case an aircraft might be too twitchy or feel like it does not have sufficient mass. Perhaps users could make available certain files related to an aircraft to the community through Avsim or some other venue. 

59 minutes ago, Chock said:

Take a look at this video, in a few places, but for example at timestamp 7:14. The lift vector acts the wrong way. It does this a few times from this point onwards.

Now in fairness, the Pitts S2 has aerofoils which can lead to some odd behaviour; they are chosen to make it fly pretty well when inverted. Specifically the Pitts S2 has a NACA 63A015 aerofoil on the upper wing, and a NACA 0012 on the lower, both of which are symmetrical as they are in most aerobatic aeroplanes, so the lift vector only acts upwards when the angle of attack places it in a position to do so, however what this placement cannot affect, and certainly not instantly as we see in that video clip, is the vector of the lift, owing to inertia, which is instantaneous in the sim, and this basically defies normal flight physics. As I say, I suspect this is as a result of the flight model getting confused by the inverted attitude, but whatever it is, it is very evidently not correct.

Very good explanation about those wings. I fully agree with that aspect. But I am not sure about your argument of the inverted lift vector - or at least it is not obvious to me.

I admit, when I saw it the first time, I found the wobbling around also weird. Then I watched the outside view and thought it would actually behave pretty well in terms of fluid dynamics. As you said, the angle of attack is what matters here and that seems OK to me. Air can be pretty "solid" the faster you go, hence react quite instantaneous. I then concluded for myself, that I shouldn't take this too serious.

All in all, I'm really not that concerned. Not saying some things aren't ridiculously wrong at the moment. But I hope that threads like this one make them fix that stuff faster.

Why is it flawed in first place? Well, it's not X-Plane. It's not a sim primarily focused on flight dynamics and it's not been out there for decades. They had so much innovative stuff to work on and then provide a variety of planes to appeal to the mass market... yeah... it should not happen, but I can understand. I will give them time to prove they are serious about the flight dynamics. We'll see how they react.

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by tweekz

13 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

 

The bait and switch "NDA" comments are getting old.

If you cant have a real conversation, then why try to (t)ease in your sly comments that would obviously cause others to want to know more....that you can't tell? It is like having a "tin" badge & barking orders with no gun or cuffs to really substantiate your authority (or opinion).

Going back and forth with someone while shielding yourself with the NDA clause is mostly about "bragging rights" when there are "no details available" to support your comments. Keep it to yourself if you are suppose to keep it to yourself.

All will see on Aug 18...

Blame Microsoft on that one. It's not my fault if they are very uptight about the NDA.  My point is that people should worried less because it's not as bad as portrait but not as good as people want it too with a default aircraft.

26 minutes ago, overspeed3 said:

I  fully expect 2020 to be a quantum leap

In physics a quantum leap is actually the smallest possible change. 🤣

I know what you mean though and I suspect you are probably right, or at least will be when some of those TPDs get their hands on it. 🙂

I’d like to know more about your experience and flight hours in a commercial aircraft before your concerns about the flight model being unrealistic. 
 

Just because it’s different than what you’re used to, doesn’t mean it’s unrealistic. It could be the most realistic flight model ever made and you could have no clue about it. 

https://imgur.com/L6Lwivr

Edited July 30, 20205 yr by FAZZ3

Some of you are getting your panties in a wad for a sim that isn't even released yet. 

The banter back and forth is hilarious and embarrassing all at the same time.

People complaining about how airplanes move.....when was the last time you saw a real life airplane in spot view? 

For those talking about how they think the airplanes are moving weirdly, are you guys/girls pilots? If you are, once again? How many of you have seen the plane you are flying from the outside? Maybe a handful....if that. 

Secondly, for those real pilots, how many of you are seriously thinking "hmm, I wonder how much my airplane is wobbling or shaking right now as I'm in cruise or when I'm on final?" Most likely, none of you.

If you aren't a pilot, seriously, it's time to keep quiet because quite frankly, your opinion is useless. Its useless because you literally have no basis for whats right except your video game experience. That's just the fact. 

Here's something for a lot of you, I've jumpseated on a ton of Airbus a320 flights. From the jumpseat, in any amount of turbulence on approach and while flying low, it actually looks like that airplane is shaking and wobbling like crazy. To the point where I've been surprised because of the weight of the thing. 

Long story short, default is default. If it was required to be a good measure of what s sim is truly capable of then we wouldn't go for payware. Not only that, with all the airplanes available in a sim that has only been in development for 4 years, yeah good luck with airplanes tuned to fly like the real counterparts. 

Wait until the sim comes out and make an opinion then and test what you want to test. Either way, this is the future and one thousand times ahead than what we currently have. It would be worth ones health to chill out and give it the benefit of the doubt.

 

 

I think that those who are dissing the default planes without actually flying them are ignoring the fact that Asobo spent years working with the actual aircraft manufacturers, who presumably know how their planes should fly. Will every plane be perfect? Of course not.  But the new blade element style physics will ensure that we get a lot more realistic aerodynamics than exist in P3D. 

2 hours ago, WestAir said:

As an aside, I always felt the flight models shown were very life-like. Like a vessel in a fluid.

Well, I have seen a few vessels in fluid and a few airplanes in the air and none of them wagged their tail like it was in heat trying to attract a mate. I noticed that trait in several of the "official" clips. That is the sort of thing some are talking about. Chock make a valid point. Why would the Dev's not use those "secret" tricks that are going to be available to 3rd Party Dev's?