Why adjusting control sensitivity is not the answer

[norman_99 209]

The problem isn't that values are out by a certain percentage. But that the modeling moves things in entire wrong directions!. Torque shouldn't rise as you climb, it should drop as the local air density reduces during a climb. ITT shouldn't drop as you climb into cooler air, it is actually more a function of how hard you're working the gas generator section of the engine. It more closely corresponds to Ng%.

The point being, if we want to enable the best possible environemt for 3rd party developers to create high fidelity models, the underlying assumption built into the simulator at least need to be correct.

Edited August 21, 2020 by norman_99

[robert young 2,897]

21 minutes ago, JRBarrett said:

I tend to agree. Since MSFS is a brand-new simulator, the only aircraft available to fly at the moment are the included defaults. Since all of those are as brand-new as the simulator itself, and have various issues, ranging from flight model problems to very limited (or inaccurate) systems emulations, new users are being hyper critical of every fault because there are currently no alternatives - as if the existing default aircraft are all we are ever going to have.

I have been flying P3D since version 4.0, (currently own Version 5), and in all that time, I have never flown a default aircraft even once. There is no need, because as a mature sim of long-standing there has long been a rich ecosystem of quality third-party content that has grown over the many years the sim has been in existence. In a few months, as more and more quality 3rd party aircraft become available for the MSFS platform, I’m confident the current angst will die down.

Interesting points. However Asobo pledged a different approach with their "no more on rails" philosophy. And they heavily promoted a "new" core flight model. Having looked at the SDK it is apparent that there isn't one, although what they have done is designed a slightly different approach, but it is essentially the usual system with fancy labels like virtual "wind tunnel" testing etc. That would be all very well if there was an improvement but clearly there isn't.

This was (and still might be) an opportunity to produce quite decent aircraft "out of the box", and graphically speaking they've done a fair job. But it is obvious to me that the flight models were utterly hyped and fall way short of their claims. It would be nice for a change to have at least some default aircraft that operate reasonably well by default. After all, their parallel ambitions to produce quite decent weather and some impressive scenery has generally been received very well.

When you compare the effort with scenery, lighting and weather, it is clear that a lot of cash and manpower was used. But it is a FLIGHT simulator above everything else, yet that aspect is in my view woefully short of their stated ambition. Yet again, we appear to have to rely on 3rd party addons which are going to add hugely to the cost for the average simmer. It's nice to have addons and indeed I have been a beneficiary of producing them, but just for once it would have been nice to find just one or two default aircraft that are decent from the word go.

 

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

6 minutes ago, robert young said:

This was (and still might be) an opportunity to produce quite decent aircraft "out of the box", and graphically speaking they've done a fair job. But it is obvious to me that the flight models were utterly hyped and fall way short of their claims. It would be nice for a change to have at least some default aircraft that operate reasonably well by default.

Now, having the flown the C172 G1000 a bit, I would say that it flies quite well..

Better than FSX?  I don't know.. It is certainly livelier, but not unreasonably so.. I am quite pleased with the flight model thus far.. 😉

[RamonB 449]

On the very first announcement Microsoft stated “Emphasis on Simulator” or something like that. Then they forgot an made a beautiful SCENERY simulator.

I truly hope they deliver on their promise and we finally get the SIMULATOR we have wished for since the SubLogic days.

Edited August 21, 2020 by RamonB

[norman_99 209]

7 minutes ago, Bert Pieke said:

Now, having the flown the C172 G1000 a bit, I would say that it flies quite well..

Better than FSX?  I don't know.. It is certainly livelier, but not unreasonably so.. I am quite pleased with the flight model thus far.. 😉

I spent some time doing circuits in the 172 today. When under positive control by the pilot, pitch/roll responses do seem reasonable, probably more so than I originally gave it credit for. What I am noticing is the "liveliness" you mention. It really gets knock around significantly my the most minute deviations. It's not unstable per say, as it always returns to the mean, but the deviations seem very exaggerated.

A butterfly flaps it's wings in Brazil, and a 172 oscillates 10 degrees of pitch in Australia....

[Nyxx 6,993]

I cannot remember being able to do side slips in a default FSX that was true add on aircraft territory. Not now. 
Also the wind you get around hills etc, some people Will never be happy with this sim or seem to want to point out good things.
“ graphically speaking they've done a fair job.” A fair job, yer what ever Robert.

Last night I was doing touch and goes in the 172 with a cross wing, I could not get over the amount of different in the winds effects on the aircraft depending on the amount of flaps. Or the feel of landing on one wheel, yer just like fsx^^.  

Edited August 21, 2020 by Nyxx

[norman_99 209]

I literally just posted a reply similar to this in another thread. I genuinely don't understand the why is everyone so quick to scream "sim bashing"?

It's an amazing piece of software that has both revolutionary features, and enormous potential. I think that everyone who has engaged in a genuine, reasonable discussion about various aspects agrees with this completely. That however, shouldn't stop a reasonable discussion about things that need improvement. Especially if parts were considerably hyped in the lead up to release, and actually appear as a step backwards when compared to previous versions that are a decade+ older.

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by norman_99

[Slides 1,552]

52 minutes ago, robert young said:

And they heavily promoted a "new" core flight model. Having looked at the SDK it is apparent that there isn't one

They promised air mass simulation and up to 1,000 points of modeling on the aircraft key surfaces and they delivered. Accuracy of their implementation of the FM aside. Not sure what you mean there isn't what they promised. 

[Slides 1,552]

14 minutes ago, norman_99 said:

reasonable discussion

It's not a reasonable discussion to use hyperbole about how Asobo supposedly misled everyone about the new updated flight model. This is clearly false as they delivered what they promised in terms of the core changes and improvements to the FM.

Also, saying that "graphically speaking they've done a fair job" is so comical when they have literally revolutionized flight sims graphically.. Rob is barely able to praise them and what they have accomplished without taking exaggerated swipes at Asobo for  some reason. It almost seems personal for him.

[robert young 2,897]

8 minutes ago, Slides said:

They promised air mass simulation and up to 1,000 points of modeling on the aircraft key surfaces and they delivered. Accuracy of their implementation of the FM aside. Not sure what you mean there isn't what they promised. 

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by robert young

[tweekz 2,165]

On 8/19/2020 at 5:37 PM, hangar said:

Yes...it's true that the flight dynamics of some (if not all) of the default aircraft are flawed in certain ways...there is NO doubt of this. It's not JUST the sensitivities that are wrong. There are other flight dynamic issues with these planes as well, like thrust/drag and even some engine issues.

Yeah, I've noticed the same.

They don't accelerate enough on take-off and don't climb sufficiently, but on the other hand you also can't slow them down properly. 😄

It's a bit of a shame, as the general feeling of the flight physics is great.

 

On 8/19/2020 at 5:37 PM, hangar said:

Don't expect Asobo to change the flight modeling of their planes as, according to them, it's not likely to happen.

Where did they say that?

[Slides 1,552]

2 minutes ago, robert young said:

I know you like to constantly pick holes, but it would help if you understood what I wrote. I did not say they "promised". I said they pledged which has a different meaning. I realise you disagree with everything I say and that's fine.

I'm not picking holes. You're literally telling us that Asobo misled us and I'm telling you to stop making over the top clearly incorrect statements. 

Which other sim has made the changing environmental air mass interact with the airfoils? You really really must have something against Asobo that you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge the advancement they have made in the core.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Slides

[robert young 2,897]

3 minutes ago, Slides said:

It's not a reasonable discussion to use hyperbole about how Asobo supposedly misled everyone about the new updated flight model. This is clearly false as they delivered what they promised in terms of the core changes and improvements to the FM.

Also, saying that "graphically speaking they've done a fair job" is so comical when they have literally revolutionized flight sims graphically.. Rob is barely able to praise them and what they have accomplished without taking exaggerated swipes at Asobo for  some reason. It almost seems personal for him.

I'm not being personal but you are - again. By all means disagree on the subject but yet again you are trying to run a personal baiting match. I have praised them many times for the scenery and the weather. That is not "barely" able to praise and you took a recent post out of context. I don't know why you need to keep personal baiting like this. STICK TO THE SUBJECT, not the person. I have already politely asked you to stop this once. I'm now doing so again.

[tweekz 2,165]

5 minutes ago, Slides said:

It almost seems personal for him.

I've experienced it a lot that people are not happy when they cannot use things the way they are used to or simply are not able to use it for now (due to incomplete SDK).

Seemingly it's a tough challenge to create flight models at the moment. Some complain, some are patient and look forward to the new possibilities.

[Nyxx 6,993]

3 minutes ago, robert young said:

I'm not being personal but you are - again. By all means disagree on the subject but yet again you are trying to run a personal baiting match. I have praised them many times for the scenery and the weather. That is not "barely" able to praise and you took a recent post out of context. I don't know why you need to keep personal baiting like this. STICK TO THE SUBJECT, not the person. I have already politely asked you to stop this once. I'm now doing so again.

“ graphically speaking they've done a fair job.” is that your idea of praise?