2 minutes ago, Slides said:

Image not showing up

Thanks you! how about now?

Just now, sd_flyer said:

Thanks you! how about now?

Nope

5 minutes ago, hangar said:

The quotes I posted from the microsoft forum were all from the real world pilots posting there, and not from the armchair's, if that was your point.

If not, then sorry for misunderstanding 🙂

That quote about weather ! To me its opposite light aircraft are not rocking enough!

I also noticed two conflicting opinions on ground effect

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

Nope

when you click on link what do you see?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3dp4wa08i3k3qnb/thumbnail.jpg?dl=0

18 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

I think you're misunderstanding the problem @norman_99 has highlighted. (or I am). As I understood, his observation was that if he tries to fly the 208 by the power settings he knows from real world flying, he doesn't get the same result. Not that the stall speed is 55% off. The plane stalled at 55 knots - that's right - it's just that at 1100lbs of torque it shouldn't have gotten that slow - in his experience that power setting should have allowed him to maintain 110kts. But how much torque does it take to maintain 110kts with flaps 10 in MSFS? If the answer is 1300, then it's only off by 18%... (I don't know the answer, but can test later, or someone else can...)

NO I didn't misunderstand.

The point you bring up is all well and good and in fact a very necessary thing once you begin to fix that issue...but the point of my post which you are referring to there is not concerned with the semantics you've brought up, it wasn't supposed to really be about the math...it was merely to illustrate that we cannot blame all of the various flight modeling issues on sensitivity and/or control issues alone, which seems to be the trend.

But the point you bring up, I do understand.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by hangar

@hangar "You could fly a turbulent approach on MSFS without any roll inputs. This is definitely wrong."

Does this mean crosswinds aren’t accurately modelled?

 

25 minutes ago, hangar said:

Some negative RW pilot quotes from that Microsoft forum:

Reading that thread makes me remember why I hate software development so much. There is almost no usable feedback in that thread from a developer's perspective. If I were Asobo, I'd just ignore it as noise. Which isn't what we want.

Feedback has to be specific and actionable. What we (they) need is a point person and a team supporting that person for each model of aircraft. So, we've got a Baron pilot and a Caravan pilot so far - I'm sure we have others. Now we need to do a comprehensive test of performance numbers and flight dynamics and systematically present that data so that Asobo can work on each plane.

The question is, though, is if we're going to start seeing Milviz and A2A and Aerosoft and PMDG and..and..and start putting models into this sim over the next six months, do we really care if the torque curve is off by 20% on the default 208? Will any of us still be flying that, or the Baron for that matter, in a few months? I won't be. Milviz is bringing the B55/E55 over as the first or second aircraft. They've already shared screenies of it. I assure you, I'll be using that model when it arrives and not the default.

So I think we have to decide what is a core sim problem and what is a model-specific problem, and maybe focus on the core sim problems?

To that end, the bobbing that Robert and others have spoken to - I've come around - that's an issue that could probably use a global fix. I'd ask the 3PDs that have been working on content - do their aircraft in testing and development exhibit this problem, or have they solved for it?

 

7 minutes ago, High_Alpha said:

@hangar "You could fly a turbulent approach on MSFS without any roll inputs. This is definitely wrong."

Does this mean crosswinds aren’t accurately modelled?

 

Hmm. Should be easy to find out when a test. And what about wake turbulence? DCS does a pretty good job of it. Almost too good.

4 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

So I think we have to decide what is a core sim problem and what is a model-specific problem, and maybe focus on the core sim problems?

...yes! VERY IMPORTANT.

...and that's exactly what I stated at the end of that post (the one with all the negative pilot quotes).

6 minutes ago, hangar said:

it was merely to illustrate that we cannot blame all of the various flight modeling issues on sensitivity and/or control issues alone, which seems to be the trend.

I agree with this, his problem has nothing to do with control sensitivities. However, we don't know what the problem is...that's my point. So to conclude that the entire flight model is buggered, just because a power setting is off, is just as wrong as saying the problem is with controller sensitivity. The only way to know is to systematically test each airframe in a multitude of various stages of flight, configurations and conditions, and then systematically and thoughtfully report that back to the developer of the aircraft.

And I'm asking...is it worth it for default aircraft?

1 minute ago, hangar said:

...and that's exactly what I stated at the end of that post (the one with all the negative pilot quotes).

We are in violent agreement 😉

13 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

That quote about weather ! To me its opposite light aircraft are not rocking enough!

ohhh, ok...really?

I'll have to watch out for that one and see which side of the fence I end up being on 🙂

Few words about real pilot feedback. You have no idea how much they like to complain! Just buy an airplane and put in a club! Seriously, once I had a guy call me and complain that he can't find headphone plug! So listen to us but not religiously ! LOL

1 minute ago, hangar said:

ohhh, ok...really?

I'll have to watch out for that one and see which side of the fence I end up being on 🙂

One of my CFI used to say " you should trust your flight instructor"! I always tell it to my students as well! LOL