Did he say gentleman?

Regards

bs

12 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

Did he say gentleman?

Regards

bs

38 minutes ago, bean_sprout said:

Robert - are you familiar with the FSX turboprop model and if yes has it been corrected in FS2020?

Cheers

bs

I don't know I'm afraid. I am not an alpha or beta tester. What I do know is that the turboprop model is only "broken" because of the start up routine. You could get much quicker throttle/power response except that it ruins the start up which would result in gross prop overspeed, so for the sake of a reasonably stable start the power response has to be somewhat reduced. If the new sim could provide separate params for start up speed and normal power/throttle response once started, that would solve it.

33 minutes ago, n4gix said:

GENTLEMEN!!! (and any LADIES as well)

I've just wasted 40 minutes of my time removing entirely too much quoting!!!

PLEASE either highlight some text in the post you are quoting or manually trim the excessive quoted text before posting your reply.

Many of our members have data caps, and many are using smart phones and/or tablets to access AVSIM. Please be considerate of them.

Thank you in advance.

Sorry Bill if that was me as well as others. 40 minutes is a long time doing that. Apologies.

5 minutes ago, robert young said:

Sorry Bill if that was me as well as others. 40 minutes is a long time doing that. Apologies.

No problem Robert. It wasn't just you and not only in this one thread.

Many members aren't aware that they can simply highlight one or two sentences, then use only that selection in their quote.

For example:

39 minutes ago, ahsmatt7 said:

I was talking about my company's level-d sim

Oh.

Never mind. 😄 

Hook

Yikes, moderation slipped off the rails in spots for this thread.

I’ll say it again, this is Version 1.0 with brand new technology. Whether you have or have not had a go as a tester through the previous few months, let things shake down after the release on August 18th. I appreciate the wealth of knowledge and perception by the contributors related to the thread title either by first hand experience or by watching a video. Problems will be addressed in due time as far as the technology will permit. This is a flight simulator designed to be accessible to the average household for flight enthusiasts at all levels. It is going to be phenomenal in so many ways. When we all have first hand experience with the sim, we can then make our own solid evaluations on flight dynamics. Some aircraft will be better than others, some improved with time and future tuning. If certain flight models do not meet expectations, we have other platforms to exercise our simulation expectations.

As a private pilot, I’m almost as excited about the release of FS2020 as the time I soloed in C-GBSL. Enjoy this time and how this new technology will contribute to flight simulation. 

Edited August 13, 20205 yr by Doering

3 hours ago, Doering said:

Yikes, moderation slipped off the rails in spots for this thread.

I’ll say it again, this is Version 1.0 with brand new technology. Whether you have or have not had a go as a tester through the previous few months, let things shake down after the release on August 18th.

I've been reading this thread for a while now with some popcorn and find it quite amusing to be frank. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions about the new sim and we should all be happy that people spend their valuable time providing what is hopefully constructive criticism about what flaws they may see in what limited gameplay we have seen so far. All that being said I don't think a lot of it is going actually be of much genuine insight into how this new sim will actually pan out even in the short term. There are far too many variables from one gameplay to another to make any concrete assessments as to how the flight model will actually be to fly until the game is released and people can do their own testing after setting the simulator up correctly (control sensitivity, full realism settings, knowing exactly what the weather variables are you are flying in, weight and balance of the aeroplane, density altitude, etc). I think there may be some problems with the flight model with regards to energy retention and thrust levels, but I haven't the slightest idea if that is actually a genuine problem, merely a guess...

All of that being said I think we just have to wait and see. The ones who have actually flown the sim accounting for all the aforementioned variables before formulating an opinion and know definitively the current state of things can't share their opinions, and most of the content creators either have no actual aviation experience or poor peripherals and incorrect settings with regards to sensitivity and perhaps calibration to make an accurate assessment. (of course there are exceptions to this critique) With all that being said I still think it is going to be a big step forward compared to other simulators we currently have, and after third party developers have time to create their own study level aircraft there will be no comparison.

 

Just my 2 cents...

Edited August 13, 20205 yr by High_Alpha

On 7/30/2020 at 7:19 PM, Swe_Richard said:

Exactly, this should probably be repeated more often; do not expect "PMDG"-quality from default aircraft. High fidelity aircraft will surely come.

Now take a deep breath. 

The stock aircraft are basically like a Carenado. Adequate, pretty but not realistic... And probably won't be improved beyond v1.1

But they do have better FMS systems in the jets...!

8 minutes ago, Gabe777 said:

The stock aircraft are basically like a Carenado. Adequate, pretty but not realistic... And probably won't be improved beyond v1.1

But they do have better FMS systems in the jets...!

The GA aircraft are very realistic though not always feature complete 

15 hours ago, robert young said:

You are entitled to your opinion but I disagree on all your points I'm afraid.

 

 

Woah ... Passive aggression. Love it !

You are correct about these Youlubers raking in the cash. It sickens me.

There's a "Countdown" video, to release date (or rather the time you can begin to download the 150 odd GB of data; which from Microsoft's store should be a right laugh !), which begins by forcing the (sad) viewer, to sit through 15 seconds of ads.

... at that point, one is presented with: a timer !

You wouldn't believe how people have clicked on it. Kerching !

Edited August 13, 20205 yr by Gabe777

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

The GA aircraft are very realistic though not always feature complete 

Well there's realistic and there's A2A realistic.

I bet Carenado's releases will be indistinguishable from the 'stocks' from a functional perspective; although if they have any sense, they'll add some wear and tear to the textures. The 'stocks' do look a little brand new... and not in a good way.

The main points I have picked up in this thread so far has been the question of the MSFS flight model being realistic or not. Especially pitch stability has been a big point. Some say the pitch stability is totally unrealistic, and that even small planes do not wobble up and down on the nose as has been seen ie on Squirrels talk during his landing in Courchevel. The planes SHOULD demonstrate more stability than what was shown on that and other videos. 

On the other hand, some people are saying that gauging pitch stability from the videos mentioned is near impossible. A big part of why is because we don't know how the video creator has set up his controllers especially in regards to sensitivity. Many of the yokes and flightsticks have smaller travel ranges than in real life, and often even very small movement of the stick will result in big inputs in the sim. Combined with other factors, such as weather, CG and load, the oscillation of the nose is likely to be pilot induced/user error.

Further more, what is in the end the universal flight model that limits what 3PD has to work with in the SDK, and what was specific to the default airplane, is hard to tell. It is not so bad if the default airplane is off in regards to realistic parameters as long as the flight model in the SDK is not limited to erroneous parameters. 

Is that about correct when it comes to the gist of it?

Edited August 13, 20205 yr by Andreas Stangenes

4 minutes ago, Gabe777 said:

Well there's realistic and there's A2A realistic.

I bet Carenado's releases will be indistinguishable from the 'stocks' from a functional perspective; although if they have any sense, they'll add some wear and tear to the textures. The 'stocks' do look a little brand new... and not in a good way.

No. Realistic is realistic. You can have features missing but the features you do have are either high fidelity or not.

Wear and tear to textures does not determine realism.

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. I don't think joystick sensitivity is the issue, but cranking down sensitivity may help.