Flight model in MSFS according to aerosoft

[Chock 17,769]

since it's difficult to tell from pics and youtube vids, this chart seems oddly relevant:

Edited August 12, 2020 by Chock

[hangar 661]

17 hours ago, tweekz said:

Yesterday I told you that MFS smashes the other sims in it’s representation of the world. Today, about the flight model I am not so sure.  In the default aircraft I still feel some tweaking needs to be done, but the characteristics or the aircraft I know (like the Robin), is most certainly there. As add-on developers we are still trying to learn what is possible. Most certainly more than ever before, but we need to understand it. We need hundreds of hours of testing and tweaking. In the end I think FSX/P3D will be beaten hands down, X-Plane got a major fight on its hands.

I think this says it all in a nutshell, and should be of no surprise to anyone who's been involved with the hobby for a long time. I said it weeks ago and fully agree that the new flight physics will take lots of time to mature, both for default AND 3rd party aircraft. Patience is key...be happy for what's improved and for the new engine and the new ground work that has been laid. But as far as perfection in flight dynamics...have patience!

[tweekz 2,165]

35 minutes ago, hangar said:

the new flight physics will take lots of time to mature, both for default AND 3rd party aircraft.

Yep. Right now it is a lot of work for devs to figure out what and how it is possible. We have to accept that they release the sim quite early and therefore the SDK just isn't there yet. I really appreciate Aerosoft for putting in those work hours helping ASOBO!

One thing MS / ASOBO could have probably done better: Less aircraft with more detail to keep the community happy in the meantime.

[badderjet 181]

On 8/12/2020 at 4:11 AM, JRBarrett said:

I can assure you that if ....various adjustable parameters... are set for maximum realism, that an aircraft will not just “plant and stick” like in the video. I landed about 20 knots too fast in ...one of the models... flared badly, and bounced about 4 times before I finally got it settled.

That's a good sign then.

 

On 8/12/2020 at 12:58 PM, Baber20 said:

Fully agree. They really nailed the landing effect. It is really something special. You actually notice each individual tyre making contact with the ground which triggers the reaction of aircraft's airframe as it makes small adjustments. Its insane.

Cool, sounds promising. Now if their new advanced sound engine also allows individual sounds for each wheel that'd add a lot to the immersion. Especially in large aircraft, where you sit above or even in front of the nosewheel, its touchdown and ground roll sound can be very unique and noticable while you probably don't even hear much of the main gear at all.

[kapitan 90]

On 8/11/2020 at 4:02 PM, badderjet said:

Now what does that tell us? Given how landings look like with these vertical speeds just before touchdown, or especially something like this, this doesn’t seem to be hard at all. No matter how you smash that poor plane on the tarmac, it’ll just stay there like glued to the ground.

 

On 8/11/2020 at 3:33 PM, Der Zeitgeist said:

I can really confirm this point he was making:

I've been flight simming since FS4, and my landings were never as smooth as in MSFS.

What do you mean? 90% of my landings be it in airliners or GA are so smooth I try making the wheels roll in touchdown so as to not perceive any difference between flying and rolling either by the rumbling wheels. I dont understand, are you saying in P3D FSX were unable to do smooth landings?

 

Edited August 16, 2020 by n4gix
Removed unnecessary long quote!

[Der Zeitgeist 1,575]

54 minutes ago, kapitan said:

What do you mean? 90% of my landings be it in airliners or GA are so smooth I try making the wheels roll in touchdown so as to not perceive any difference between flying and rolling either by the rumbling wheels. I dont understand, are you saying in P3D FSX were unable to do smooth landings?

It's hard to explain, as I'm not an aviation expert. Maybe the airplanes I was using in FSX & P3D weren't the best ones, either. It's just that the last few feet after flaring, everything about the airplane settling on the runway feels much more smooth and natural than I ever experienced in a flight simulator before.

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, kapitan said:

 

90% of my landings be it in airliners or GA are so smooth I try making the wheels roll in touchdown so as to not perceive any difference between flying and rolling either by the rumbling wheels.

Interestingly, if you can do that, whilst it demonstrates you have good control and passengers would probably applaud at such a smooth arrival from their point of view, ironically it's not what the bosses at airlines prefer. They want their pilots to get the thing down fairly positively.

The reason for that is, when you bring it in very lightly, the tires skitter about as they lightly grip the surface passing over several hundred feet of concrete before being down with enough weight on them to start rolling at the actual speed the aeroplane is going. That puts quite a large amount of wear on them, and it can also make the tires creep on the rims too, whereas if you whack the tires down fairly hard, the instantaneous weight on the wheels means the tires grip quickly and start rolling at speed immediately, which puts less wear on them, and you can commence braking sooner.

Additionally, the detection of positive weight on the wheels by switches in the landing gear oleos, triggers two things in an airliner; the lift dump spoilers activating, and the roll rate inhibitor on the ailerons engaging to help in preventing pod strikes from large aileron deflections. If your wheels are skittering about and making the weight on the wheels sensors go on and off, it'll play havoc with the aileron deflection rates. So really, you're better off getting the thing down quite hard in a pretty definite way.

[snglecoil 1,828]

@Chock, that’s the exact same thing I explain to my 172 pax.... That and a bounce let’s me log 2 landings with way less time and money spent 😉🤣

(By the way, I’m totally joking on logging bounced landing multiple times. Please don’t call the FSDO 🤦‍♂️)

[hangar 661]

4 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

that’s the exact same thing I explain to my 172 pax.... That and a bounce let’s me log 2 landings with way less time and money spent

<writing this one down for future reference, note to self: dont forget to send royalty check to snglecoil>

[Chock 17,769]

12 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

That and a bounce let’s me log 2 landings with way less time and money spent 😉🤣

 

Reminds me of something my friend said once, not long after I'd done my first solo. On that flight, I'd landed smooth, but fairly long, since I'd kept some height on and sideslipped it in and it was no bad thing because it was on a big old WW2 bomber grass airfield with loads of room.

But of course some smart@rse on the flightline commented on this. Shortly afterward, that guy came in for a landing himself and bounced the thing. A lot, ending up even further down the field than I had.

When he got back to the flight line, my friend goes: 'Nice landing.... All four of them.'

Edited August 16, 2020 by Chock

[Bob Scott 7,720]

In the article referenced by the OP, Aerosoft's Mathijs Kok says: "What matters most is not how realistic things actually are, but how believable they are".  Huh?  How can a simulation be believable if it's not realistic? 

He also says some odd (and incorrect) things like "Aircraft are not trains. You can’t fly heading 333. You can fly something close to 333 and on average, if you are lucky, it will be 333."  Well, now tell that to anyone who's ever had to fly an ASR or PAR approach...darned straight the pilots of my generation could hand fly a jet on a heading of 333 and not 332 or 334.  The fighter pilots in my day, in particular, depended on those approaches and the precise skills needed to fly them in Europe where low clouds and bad visibility are as common as good beer.

The proof of the pudding is going to be in the tasting, not in the sworn and notarized testimony that this pudding was made with absolutely superior new techniques that make all other puddings taste like mud in comparison.  That's precisely what Austin tried to do with his flight model vs FSX/P3D and, despite all the protestations to the contrary, many of us who fly/flew airplanes for real were unconvinced.

I find it odd that there are no default sailplanes in the MSFS initial release version.  There's really no better vehicle to highlight the strengths (and weaknesses) of the flight and environment models and how they interact with each other.  And really no better way to appreciate all that streaming scenery, either.  I was really hoping to see at least one sailplane at release.

Two more days, and then the tasting begins.

[Chock 17,769]

44 minutes ago, w6kd said:

I find it odd that there are no default sailplanes in the MSFS initial release version.  There's really no better vehicle to highlight the strengths (and weaknesses) of the flight and environment models and how they interact with each other.  And really no better way to appreciate all that streaming scenery, either.  I was really hoping to see at least one sailplane at release.

Yup, me too. Seems with them touting the air modeling being super-duper, a sailplane would be the usable proof of this.

Still, included - in the middle version of the sim - is the Diamond DV-20, which is a development of the Diamond HK-36 Super Dimona motor glider, so I guess you could take off with minimal fuel, switch the engine off in that and give it a go. You ain't got the big wingspan of the Super Dimona of course, but theoretically at least in a decent updraft in a relatively light aeroplane, so long as the lift you fly in is greater than the glide ratio's rate of descent, you could stay up. I've done that in the default FSX Cub in wave lift.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Chock

[F737MAX 5,604]

38 minutes ago, w6kd said:

In the article referenced by the OP, Aerosoft's Mathijs Kok says: "What matters most is not how realistic things actually are, but how believable they are".  Huh?  How can a simulation be believable if it's not realistic?

I think I understand what he is trying to say here, which is MSFS' flight model needs to give a credible representation of flight, rather than each default aircraft needs to be within 5% of their real world counterpart's parameters. i.e. MSFS doesn't need to be developed to certification standard for people to enjoy 'flying' in the sim.

His next comment, as you rightly point out, is nonsense.

The proof of the pudding will come with the eating.
There will be literally thousands of different (and I imagine some very strident) opinions put forward come 00:01 on Tuesday.

[robert young 2,897]

On 8/11/2020 at 10:02 PM, badderjet said:

Given how landings look like with these vertical speeds just before touchdown, this doesn’t seem to be hard at all. No matter how you smash that poor plane on the tarmac, it’ll just stay there like glued to the ground. Not exactly sure how believable that is.

Setting aside the comical piloting skills in this video which are very funny, the instant yaw in these examples has all the absence of inertia you'd expect to see in a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

[Murmur 3,941]

7 hours ago, w6kd said:

That's precisely what Austin tried to do with his flight model vs FSX/P3D and, despite all the protestations to the contrary, many of us who fly/flew airplanes for real were unconvinced.

I seldom read that nowadays in the forums. More often, the opposite. It's probably linked to the fact that you last tried XP in version 9, eons ago...