Still worried about the flight model ... how planes move

[Slides 1,552]

4 minutes ago, KERNEL32 said:

In the video pointed out on page 3 of this thread, 7:33 mark where the aircraft gets "pushed" by the airflow when flipping back from being inverted - I've watched this at least 30 times and since a qualification to judge seems to be real world pilot - I've been since 1987 and I have NEVER seen anything like this in a flight simulator... Simply incredible physics just eyeballing it.

You would need to pay really close attention to the part when the aircraft just starts to turn from being inverted - the air "pushes" the aircraft toward the right side of screen for just a split second... I just tried to replicate this in P3D and couldn't even come close.

I suspect that some of the strangeness that people, including the real world pilots, are noticing is related to all of this airflow modeling that has perhaps never been seen in a flight sim to this level. We have certain expectations of a flight sim and it feels weird when those are not met.

I'm sure that butt wobble is a side effect of airflow modeling that while accurate, does not include all of the inputs that exist in the real world leading to this exaggerated effect. Not an easy problem to solve unless you fake it. 

That might also be the reason why the wing flex affect was toned down as it might have been causing issues to the flight model itself. Assuming of course that the 3D model affects the flight model.

This is an exciting new world with new challenges to solve. I couldn't be happier.

[FlyBaby 659]

3 minutes ago, fogboundturtle said:

There is real pilot and experience simmer in the alpha. Only on Avsim you get that kind pf attitude.  No wonder why people has deserted this place over the last few years.
 

So go back to your crusade about how you know everything because you watch some video on YT. 

And yet here you are on Avsim getting all worked up because someone called you out for pretending to be the expert...with an NDA.

LOL. What have "I" claimed to "know" about MSFS in this thread based on a YT video???

Lets calm down...get the facts straight...and then respond in a coherent manner.

[LHookins 3,076]

22 minutes ago, FlyBaby said:

And yet here you are on Avsim getting all worked up because someone called you out for pretending to be the expert...with an NDA.

Well... *I'm* not claiming to be any kind of expert.  I'm only claiming to have actually flown in MSFS.  And read the bug reports on the forum.  And I am claiming that actually controlling the aircraft is different from watching a video.

Hook

[fppilot 4,256]

7 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

Yeah we almost need a sticky for this remark.  Just because they look incredible doesn't mean they are incredible lol

Well. We are now about 40 years into this and the last default airplanes on my system (FSX) are 15 years old with 15 year old design criteria.  I would hope that given what 3rd party developers have tacked up on the wall since then would be a real focus for the aircraft included with this new simulator.

[carmined 132]

7 hours ago, RudyB24 said:

I based my concerns on the stream of new videos that came out today ... on what my eyes saw. Don't need to fly myself to see what's there.

Your eyes and senses do not deceive you!

[carmined 132]

7 hours ago, Chock said:

Based on the vast majority of leaked videos I've seen, from people who'd quite evidently be hard pressed to tell a Cessna from a Cesspit judging by the way they're 'flying', versus the fact that I've had a pilot's license for over twenty years, I sure as hell know a lot more about actually operating aeroplanes.

And to be perfectly frank, I'm a bit tired of this: 'I could tell you about the beta but then I'd have to kill you' attitude from people, because regardless of who is working things, I've got eyes, and those aeroplanes are not looking like they are moving correctly in many of the videos I've seen and certainly on the inverted flight video of the Pitts S2 I saw, the lift vector was very evidently off by 180 degrees, i.e. going the wrong way.

This is not conclusive I know, but it is what it is, on screen right there, and so if this is the best the preview videos can show, then it doesn't seem a very smart way to go about things if there is some much more capable stuff which for some mysterious reason is unable to be shown to anyone despite the fact that this would be a positive selling point to exploit. Whereas if there is some better demonstration of an impressive flight model which serves to illustrate its existence, then let's see it. Until then, we can only judge things off what is there on screen, and at the moment it looks a bit ropey, but, I guess we'll find out.

I'm still looking forward to it and I am pretty sure it will be an improvement on what has gone before, but I see no reason to be blowing sunshine up the developer's @ss until it's been clearly shown that it is warranted. And a bunch of leaked videos from people not knowing how to fly a 747 would not be my choice for marketing it; if it was up to me I'd be getting Patty Wagstaff to fly the @ss off the Pitts in the new sim on full detail at 4K showing a 100 fps to prove it was good, and then banging that video all over Facebook. It's not like MS could not afford to do this.

Bang on Chock!

[carmined 132]

3 hours ago, Chock said:

I did a similar sort of thing once. Someone was throwing out all these stupid buzz words in a meeting once and amongst these, they said: 'I want blue-sky thinking on this, people!', whereupon I pointed out to him that the client we were working on ideas for at this meeting, was an Arabian-based company, and of course in Arabian countries, blue skies mean there is no rain, so it's not really regarded as something you want all the time.

We used to make fun of people who would use 'buzz phrases' all the time, you know the type, exactly like the horrible corporation guys who get knocked off in films such as Robocop and Aliens. Anyway, we devised a game to pass the time in these meetings, which we called W*** Word Bingo (the missing word rhymes with what the M1 Abrams is). Basically you get all the stupid buzz phrases and make them into a few bingo cards in excel or similar, print them off for you and your colleagues and have these under the table at a meeting, so you can see who wins when you mark off these idiotic phrases which inevitably get used by some of the corporate tools that you work with, because they think it makes them sound like a go-getter, instead of actually thinking of some good ideas, which is really how you impress people of course.

We actually expanded upon this, by occasionally making up preposterous-sounding phrases which sounded like they might be genuine ones these pillocks would use, and we'd throw them into the meetings, whereupon they would invariably be enthusiastically nodded at by people who are into that kind of stupid stuff. Some of these I have actually heard being used from time to time too. Ones we invented for this which I can recall included: 'Let's test the Kevlar on this baby', 'Let's take this up to the thirteenth floor', 'Let's grease the pan' and 'Let's bat the monkey'. And of these, I have genuinely heard people using the 'let's test the kevlar on this baby' in all seriousness. Quite a few times actually. Credit for that one goes to my ex missus, who at the time worked with me at an ad agency.

 

I've got some low hanging fruit here for you Chock while I whistle by the graveyard! I laugh about this stuff all the time to my wife in business meetings I have to go to all the time.  It's ridiculous and not human and I don't personally do it so I've always been looked at as well as an outcast.

[ryanbatc 12,061]

1 hour ago, fppilot said:

Well. We are now about 40 years into this and the last default airplanes on my system (FSX) are 15 years old with 15 year old design criteria.  I would hope that given what 3rd party developers have tacked up on the wall since then would be a real focus for the aircraft included with this new simulator.

I just think people are expecting payware aircraft like we know today in P3D, XP11 etc.... as defaults in the new sim.  

[molleh 451]

From everything I've seen so far (and I've seen a lot...) the aircraft physics, as modeled with the included default aircraft, are frankly, terrible. If people thought the old FSX physics felt "on rails" then MS2020 takes that to a whole new level.

It is possible that the underlying physics are actually pretty good and whoever's doing the FDE (translating a real aircraft into the sim) just isn't that great at tuning them, or at the very least is intentionally making them have that "on rails" feeling to appeal to average Joe Sixpack gamer. Maybe a third party developer could create an aircraft that utilizes the physics engine in a way that actually feels real, but that's still an open question obviously.

Edited July 31, 2020 by molleh

[Chock 17,765]

2 minutes ago, carmined said:

I've got some low hanging fruit here for you Chock while I whistle by the graveyard! I laugh about this stuff all the time to my wife in business meetings I have to go to all the time.  It's ridiculous and not human and I don't personally do it so I've always been looked at as well as an outcast.

You just reminded me of someone I used to work - not exactly with - but I'd occasionally have to deal with her when I was a writer and sub editor for a big daily newspaper in the UK. She was one of the advertising reps, she was brassy and loud and that can get you by as an ad rep a lot of the time, but she wasn't exactly a rocket scientist shall we say. However, she would try to impress by doing what people sometimes do in conversation - throw a latin phrase in there. She obviously thought doing this would make people think she was clever, but she'd always get it completely wrong by saying a phrase she'd quite evidently heard, but had absolutely no clue of in regards to the correct meaning or context. So for example, when sometimes people who are in a rush might say, 'Must dash - tempus fugit!' she'd say something like 'must dash - aqua vitae!' or something equally nonsensical. It was absolutely ridiculous.

[Adrian123 1,005]

Any worse that 200 word post? 🙂

[LHookins 3,076]

55 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

I just think people are expecting payware aircraft like we know today in P3D, XP11 etc.... as defaults in the new sim.  

Starry-eyed dreamer:  "Gee, I hope the 747 is PMDG quality!"

Me:  "Gee, I hope the autopilot works."

😄

Hook

[WestAir 2,434]

1 hour ago, molleh said:

From everything I've seen so far (and I've seen a lot...) the aircraft physics, as modeled with the included default aircraft, are frankly, terrible.

I respectfully disagree. I think it's a spectacular improvement on FS9/FSX.


This is a Level-D sim. I bet if I told people this was Flight SIm 2020 someone would shout "The plane moves like it has no inertia".

Here's an Air Bull aerobatic aircraft. If this were Flight Sim 2020, I am sure someone would claim it was "twitchy" and like a video game.

This next video is MFS2020. It behaves exactly as I'd expect it to, having landed in a similar aircraft at Sedona on more than one occasion:

Cheers

Edited July 31, 2020 by WestAir

[thepitts 24]

“Let’s test the Kevlar on this baby”--- your ex-missus had a moment of brilliance.

If you want to sound like your making love. .. French.

If you want to sound like  your  going to war... German or Japanese.

If you want to sound like your having an argument... Italian.

But when it comes to hype it has to be.......  AMERICAN.

Interesting article from the writer at Tech Crunch who seems to not be subject to a non disclosure agreement.  Glad to have my expectations punctured slightly at this stage .  I am sure the sim will be good just not perfect. Who’d have thought .  Any way I have pre purchased and with my expectations re-calibrated by the article I am sure I’ll enjoy it. If it spurs  my favourite sim (X-plane) to new heights even better.

Now I need to get back to dreaming up more Admin / Professional  Bull  encouraged by the previous poster and his ex-missus.

[RobertRent 17]

Could the subject behavior be caused by the use of the Legacy Flight Model?