Why adjusting control sensitivity is not the answer

[virtualstuff 758]

2 minutes 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 🙂

Well I'm on that side of the fence....

[RamonB 449]

6 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

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

I would say Yes. Up to the point where they are stable, the autopilots work and GA jets can fly the range they are supposed to reach. Even if they leave advanced systems as they are.
But IMO, It would be sad if Asobo made gorgeous looking airplanes that none would fly.

Edited August 20, 2020 by RamonB

[High_Alpha 42]

I do think it’s a problem worth solving if thrust levels are off by such an absurd margin in some of the planes... How do they expect you to accurately fly approaches by the numbers if the power settings aren’t accurate? I hope the “study level” 3PD’s take that into account, otherwise high performance aircraft are not going to be worthwhile in my opinion...

Edited August 20, 2020 by High_Alpha

[hangar 661]

4 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

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

Ah, well that will depend upon who you ask, of course. If you asked me that question back in 2006 when FSX released my answer would have been, nah...I don't care about the default planes. lets just move onto the 3rd party's. But now I dunno...to be honest...Im getting a little older now (55) and I've spent soooo much time over the years investing and tinkering with 3rd party stuff that I'd really like to be able to enjoy the beautiful planes that come with this new sim for once.

It would also just be nice for once, instead of spending 70% of my time tinkering and only 30% of it actually flying for fun, to reverse that and spend more time just flying. These new planes are really nice and it just seems a shame how unfinished they are.

But yes I would otherwise agree with your sentiment, heh.

[virtualstuff 758]

2 minutes ago, High_Alpha said:

I do think it’s a problem worth solving if thrust levels are off by such an absurd margin in some of the planes... How do they expect you to accurately fly approaches by the numbers if the power settings aren’t accurate? I hope the “study level” 3PD’s take that into account, otherwise high performance aircraft are not going to be worthwhile in my opinion...

It seems that some are actually close to the numbers and others need tweaking...

[cwburnett 1,809]

Just now, RamonB said:

I would say Yes. Up to the point where they are stable, the autopilots work and GA jets can fly the range they are supposed to reach. If they want to leave systems as they are, then fine.
But IMO, It would be sad if Asobo made gorgeous looking airplanes that none would fly.

I mostly agree with this. However, from a systems perspective, they've taken the G1000 75% of the way there. I'd like to see it get to 90%... If they do, then 3PDs can use the default G1000 and we can have a consistent and thorough experience with that panel setup. I'd like to be able to completely enter, edit, use the direct to, use procedures correctly, activate vectors to final, etc...and have it sequence the waypoints like the real thing does. They're so close from a development standpoint... We already saw that Carenado put the default G1000 into their the 182 - and that's great. The last thing we need is another poorly executed half-baked Carenado G1000...

As far as autopilots, yes. They should all work properly. To be honest, since the release, most of the AP problems I had prior are fixed. The TBM does FLC and doesn't bob at altitude anymore. Same with a number of other planes. I haven't tried them all. I probably won't ever even set foot in one of the airliners because I know they'll just drive me nuts...as they do most others that have used third party versions in XP or P3D.

Range? Fuel consumption? Climb rates? Let's get them close, sure, but exact? I don't really care about that.

If Asobo told me they could either get the G1000 perfect, or get all the individual performance specs exactly right in each of the default models, my choice would be simple and easy. Do the G1000. It will have a long life if included in many third party planes, and that allows the 3PDs to skip having to develop their own G1000, they can either focus more on performance and handling, or get their products to market faster and cheaper. Everyone wins.

[virtualstuff 758]

1 minute ago, hangar said:

Ah, well that will depend upon who you ask, of course. If you asked me that question back in 2006 when FSX released my answer would have been, nah...I don't care about the default planes. lets just move onto the 3rd party's. But now I dunno...to be honest...Im getting a little older now (55) and I've spent soooo much time over the years investing and tinkering with 3rd party stuff that I'd really like to be able to enjoy the beautiful planes that come with this new sim for once.

It would also just be nice for once, instead of spending 70% of my time tinkering and only 30% of it actually flying for fun, to reverse that and spend more time just flying. These new planes are really nice and it just seems a shame how unfinished they are.

But yes I would otherwise agree with your sentiment, heh.

I agree however system wise it's pretty default and quite a few missing a lot

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Thus far, the Diamond DA-62 is more stable than the others, it has entirely different flight characteristics. The wings rarely bob left and right and you can also manually maintain a consistent altitude without too much effort in most cases. This suggests the core problem might be in the config files more than the actual flight model (hopefully). It's not perfect and I'm not saying the Diamond is more accurate or not. I have not flown the smaller planes with max cruise under 180 kts all that much.

The TBM is really rocky, it bounces all over the place. After takeoff, it tends to immediately veer off in one direction very severely, even when you try a fixed approach you end up cradling the controls and having to use rudder where you shouldn't have to.

I only have the standard edition, so don't have all those other planes. The Bonanza G36 feels severely underpowered to me, have trouble even maintaining 90 kts immediately after take off with RPM red lining.

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by SceneryFX

[hangar 661]

12 minutes ago, awf said:

system wise it's pretty default and quite a few missing a lot

I know...that's for sure. But at least with the GA, many of those don't require all the fancy systems and if they at least flew really well so they better reflected their RW counterparts I'd at least feel like spending the next 12 months flying those while I waited for the new 3rd party's to come.

Right now I'm just not certain what I want to do, and might just end staying where I am (XP11) until either the FM's improve or 3rd party has enough time to evolve around all this new tech they'll need to now learn.

I want to get it...but I just know I'm gonna likely tear into it because Im a real PITA, lol

Edited August 20, 2020 by hangar

[RamonB 449]

I agree with You,  😀 except:

18 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

Range? Fuel consumption? Climb rates? Let's get them close, sure, but exact? I don't really care about that.

The problem with range and fuel consumption is not minor. Both Citation GA Jets are bugged.

On the CJ4 and the Longitude You wont even reach 1000 nm with full tanks and low payload. Fuel capacity, consumption and fuel flow are way off the mark, and that affects most phases of flight.

Anyone can test: Load the CJ4 with  50% fuel and try to reach 500 nm.

It has been reported since launch, can't say much else NDA, .

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by RamonB

[cwburnett 1,809]

By the way, from the 'pilot' thread on the msfs forum, one poster put the 'bobbing' issue better than I was able to put it in this thread...so I'm pasting it for reference - I think this is a much better articulated version of what I was trying to say with respect to trim and computer controls causing bobbing in pitch...

Quote

Rotation. In most aircraft, if the aircraft is trimmed for takeoff properly, at rotation you give a gentle pull to get the nose off the ground. After setting the proper pitch, the aircraft will accelerate quickly due to lack of ground friction, this acceleration causes your flight controls to become more effective and thus causing you to release that required back pressure to maintain the desired pitch. However, in the game, even with trim set properly for takeoff after rotation the aircraft requires excessive back pressure or trim to hold the desired climb pitch attitude. This causes a very annoying oscillation when you try to trim and relieve back pressure at the same time. For every airspeed you need a different amount of control input to maintain the desired pitch. Massive airspeed changes in jets occur frequently so having a trim wheel that can keep up with your acceleration/deceleration rate will be much appreciated. It feels as though I can not trim fast enough with the given trim switch. All of this is manageable in the cessna but further exacerbated in the citation and larger jets. Terrible flight model for larger jets.

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/real-world-pilots-please-state-your-feedback-about-the-flight-model/150771/31

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by cwburnett

[hangar 661]

16 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

The TBM is really rocky, it bounces all over the place. After takeoff, it tends to immediately veer off in one direction very severely, even when you try a fixed approach you end up cradling the controls and having to use rudder where you shouldn't have to.

This caught my attention. Are you familiar at all with the TBM? It's is known for having alot of turning tendency due to both torque on take-off roll and p-factor during climb out. During this time the plane should require a boot full of right rudder (assuming no winds from your left side). Most power settings require rudder trim to be set correctly or else youll need to always be using your foot.

I'm only mentioning it because I'd be curious to find out if this is what's causing your wing to drop.

Edited August 20, 2020 by hangar

[virtualstuff 758]

4 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

By the way, from the 'pilot' thread on the msfs forum, one poster put the 'bobbing' issue better than I was able to put it in this thread...so I'm pasting it for reference - I think this is a much better articulated version of what I was trying to say with respect to trim and computer controls causing bobbing in pitch...

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/real-world-pilots-please-state-your-feedback-about-the-flight-model/150771/31

 

Correct I think they have merged from the good old FSX default trim function which causes all sort of problems.

They have to revisit the trim function in my opinion to tweak it...

 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

6 minutes ago, hangar said:

This caught my attention. Are you familiar at all with the TBM? It's is known for having alot of turning tendency due to both torque on take-off roll and p-factor during climb out. During this time the plane should require a boot full of right rudder (assuming no winds from your left side). Most power settings require rudder trim to be set correctly or else youll need to always be using your foot.

It's too severe, the wings will immediately lift right or left way too much, sometimes to near 90 degrees, it's totally unrealistic. If planes were that unstable on takeoff they would not even be approved for commercial aviation. 

If you are on the ground in a real TBM and lifting off, the plane does not immediately tilt 45 to 90 degrees in 1/4 second, even if you release the rudder pedals entirely. I am talking about lifting off the ground straight as you would, not at an angle. If someone had a split second delay in their reaction, it would risk a crash, this is just not how it works.

I've flown the TBM in many other sims, including the HotStart in Xplane 11. 

Edited August 20, 2020 by SceneryFX

[hangar 661]

2 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

including the HotStart in Xplane 11

You do realize that Hotstart ended up actually removing the torque effects from their TBM?

It was in there originally but they removed it due to everyone complaining that it made the plane too difficult for them to fly 🙂

If there's a green trim indicator for the rudder (on the mfd?), try centering the rudder trim on it before takeoff just to see if that helps...you never know.