5 minutes ago, Slides said:

Where? I remember you claimed this but "forgot" where this claim was made. 

No, you are claiming they "promised" and did not deliver and made "schoolboy" errors. As smart as you are, I bet there at least 20 engineers at Asobo that are smarter than you. Not saying they can't make mistakes but the way you describe what they have done does not lead to a mature reasonable discussion. 

No I did not say that. The Asobo statement regarding the physics was reported, verbatum, in a previous thread on flight modelling,, not this one. I said ONE error, not "errors". We've been here before. You have a perfect right to disagree. But again you are simply picking a fight or looking for an opening to do what you did before a while back. I asked you then to please stop and you are doing it again. If you don't like what I'm posting you can block me. Please read the sticky by the moderators which specifically adresses this situation. 

I'm sure you are right that there are much smarter people than me in this field. Can I please ask you onjce more to back off and just state your case without taking opportunities to get personal. Argue the subject, not personal gripes. Thank you.

This is SIMPLY RIDICULOUS !

Along this thread I have been able to read some posts that really make me sad.

Robert Young may, or may not, be 100% correct about the claims he makes regarding MFS FDM, the fact that we should or shouldn't use the sensitivity sliders to tweak the controller response, etc... BUT what it really must be taken into consideration is that this is the same Robert Young who took some good years of his life and activity creating some of the best add-ons available for MS FS, then ported to P3D.

Someone dedicated to take the most out of the base FDM available for MS FS has, for sure, a lot more of specific and detailed knowledge about "how the thing works" intrinsically. It's really complex, and some 20 yrs ago I started exchanging a very enriching exchange of info with someone I still consider one of the persons who knew better the details of MS FDM - Ron Freimuth. I learned with him how to look at some details of that FDM, and better understand what and how some features could or couldn't me modeled in MS FS.

We still don't know, at least I don't, how the new MODERN FDM is designed. It appears to still take some data from the legacy CFG files, and add to it using a new concept that allows it not to model the whole aircraft as a single body but rather a composition of bodies affected by airstream and "it's own streams" due to engine thrust and how it works ( depending on type of engine ).

I am sure Rob, should he find the patience to, could as easily as he did with the RealAir fleet of masterpieces be able to take the best out of the new MODERN FDM. I am sure he, better than most if not all other of the participants in this thread ( I haven't gone through it all... ) knows better how that could be possible, should he be able to look at the details and start playing with it.

All I can expect is that Rob finds the Inspiration and Motivation to do it 😉

Also, sometimes it is just too complex to explain, in an efficient way for a thread at non-technical forum, why some claims are made. There is just a bit too much in details and formulae that could be tedious to drop here, and even more to assimilate. So, some claims made by Rob summarize his knowledge, without going into details.

This all being said, I have to express my total satisfaction with what MFS already offers, including the apparent sensitivity of the controls. I believe there is a LOT more to it and the new MODERN FDM will probably bring flight simulation in MFS to a very interesting level not possible before. I'm 100% on MFS, so, I want to believe this 🙂

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by jcomm

17 minutes ago, robert young said:

I didn't twist anything. Clearly a default aircraft could have performed sideslips if someone at the time had tweaked the physics to do so. So the answer is yes, it was and is possible whether it is a default aircraft or some addon. 

Why Robert? who said anything about tweaking, did I ask if someone could edit files etc , NO, I was simple talking out the box, put you know that but again you simple could not help yourself, am done Robert your clearly not here to be constructive or to help out just on some sort of engender. No idea why, but am done I will leave you to it, like others above seem I have come to the same conclusion. 

Most of my ~5000 hrs IRL I was paid to fly. I flew so many different kinds of a/c at one point, they began to all seem the same. I am not that fussy about how an a/c handles. But I know what is normal airplane behavior and I can easily get into a "real" sense of flying with most sims. 

 That said, I have found most of the a/c in MSFS2020 that I have flown to be weird,  quirky or  unrealistic in one respect or another.  I do know how real aircraft handle. My considered opinion is the same as Robert's.  The a/c are not satisfactory as delivered.  His observations resonate with my own experience with these flight models .

Of course, the scenery is absolutely wonderful. Maybe they tried to make engineers out of artists for the a/c dynamics. Whatever the reason, they fell into the Dunn-Kruger effect of not knowing what they didn't know.  I will have to just park MSFS2020 until the a/c are improved.

2 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Why Robert? who said anything about tweaking, did I ask if someone could edit files etc , NO, I was simple talking out the box, put you know that but again you simple could not help yourself, am done Robert your clearly not here to be constructive or to help out just on some sort of engender. No idea why, but am done I will leave you to it, like others above seem I have come to the same conclusion. 

But I answered your question truthfully. You asked whether a default aircraft could have slips. And I said yes, they could (ie the phyiscs engine was capable of it) if someone had used it to do so. Sorry but I just can't see how you think I'm avoiding anything. There is no reason why I would do so. The "others" you refer to are two or at the most three people, out of the many who have contributed to this thread, and you are clearly using them as added ammunition for some reason.

Apologies for repeating, but this has been a civilised thread in a lively discussion with many different views. I don't agree with all of them, but I'm not using that as an opportunity to attack other posters. I'd be grateful if you did the same. Thanks.

 

@robert young you made a claim insinuating that the Asobo CEO was lying and were not able to provide proof for it. That's all and my last comment on this directly to you. Have a good day.

2 minutes ago, Slides said:

@robert young you made a claim insinuating that the Asobo CEO was lying and were not able to provide proof for it. That's all and my last comment on this directly to you. Have a good day.

No I did not. I don't even know who the CEO is. I didn't report whatever he said. Someone else did. I have never accused anyone of lying. Nor of misleading. Read the thread on which the statement was reported. He didn't lie and nor did anyone else.

2 hours 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 must admit I do like some of the aspects of the C152 too. It is a little twitchy and the inertia is far too small for my tastes. But it is quite fun to fly. I haven't really tried the C172.

52 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Robert Young who took some good years of his life and activity creating some of the best add-ons available for MS FS, then ported to P3D

Nobody is marginalizing his contributions and achievements. That still does not make him an expert on something where he does not have full insight yet. He is basically contradicting ASOBO, PMDG, Aerosoft and many others who are very happy about the new possibilities.

The constructive way of approaching a problem is somewhat like this:

• Find and validate a problem
• Describe it / complain about it
• Find a way to deal with it in a constructive manner

Mr. Young seems to got stuck in #2.

No problem, there will be a new Mr Young who keeps on doing what he did for the new MSFS.

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by tweekz

45 minutes ago, ronmarks said:

I have found most of the a/c in MSFS2020 that I have flown to be weird,  quirky or  unrealistic in one respect or anothe

I find some of this can be rectified through a better quality yoke or flight stick and changes to the control sensitivities. I know some disagree that changes to control sensitivities should ever be made but they are absolutely necessary in flights sims like DCS and IL2. Both of them are known for good to great flight models. IL2 especially has the best aerodynamic modeling of any flight sim game and in fact makes most civilian flight sim airplanes look like garbage when it comes to edge case modeling - spins, snap rolls, stalls, ground handling etc. 

I know longer fly IL2 much because it reminds me of how word not allowed of a real world pilot I would be in old warbirds. 😐

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by Slides

Wow, this thread has taken a turn. Prior to the last 2 hours or so, there were actually more than a few hours of genuine, rational discussion about a host of FDE related issues. Not necessarily coming to any agreement, but people expressing thoughts and ideas in the constructive manner some of you have been suggesting all along. If you weren't here during that time frame, but have joined the conversation in the last hour or two, maybe that's some food for thought...

1 hour ago, Nyxx said:

Could you do side slips in FSX in anything but an add on aircraft? yes or no?

@Nyxx I'm not a real world pilot, just a hobbyist interested in flight sims. An 'arm chair pilot', and eager to learn. In this video I think I did a side slip in FSX. Curious to know if I'm wrong and this was not a side slip at all? I did lose speed, from 100 to 80.

I posted the video in the other thread where we extensively discussed the way planes seem to behave. That was before release, so all of it was assumptions based on what we saw in YouTube videos. Now real experimentation can be executed, which is nice.

Not being a pilot myself does not mean I'm not able to judge, or at least to have an opinion, on the plane behavior is see. You don't need a driver's license to spot a drunk driver. I've been designing digital control systems for a living ... it's possible to spot if a system is behaving controlled or is reacting 'weird'. Some planes in MSF behave 'weird', in my observation and opinion, which may differ form others.

It is telling that a majority of users have to tune their controls down to -40 or even -80 to make it feel 'flyable'. Unfortunately the exponential curve that results is also not what you want ... you want linear controls that go from one limit to the other to control the ailerons, elevator or rudder surface to go from one limit to the other. It's nice that Rob is looking into this to find out if there is a cause and if there are ways to 'tame' them until maybe Asobo tunes them differently.

 

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by RudyB24

12 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Nobody is marginalizing his contributions and achievements. That still does not make him an expert on something where he does not have full insight yet. He is basically contradicting ASOBO, PMDG, Aerosoft and many others who are very happy about the new possibilities.

The constructive way of approaching a problem is somewhat like this:

• Find and validate a problem
• Describe it / complain about it
• Find a way to deal with it in a constructive manner

Mr. Young seems to got stuck in #2.

No problem, there will be a new Mr Young who keeps on doing what he did for the new MSFS.

Well maybe you missed a couple of posts a while back when I did say I was getting stuck into #3. I'm constructively trying to fix a few issues on a couple of aircraft which I hope to share if I can achieve anything. 

Slides, I understand what you saying about control sensitivities, but if I were to try and "fix" my issues with this method, my question is, what do I use as a reference? If I want a realistic experience, how do I know if I'm achieving that, or just conforming to my preconceived notion of what I think it should feel like? The result I'm happy with may be completely different to the one you end up with. Which one reproduces the most realistic experience?

Ultimately, it seems almost everyone, regardless of their control quality, is making some sort of change, often quite significant, because they are not satisfied with the vanilla, out of the box representation that we are presented with. Surely this is at least worth the discussion, and a closer look at the mechanics involved?

2 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

@Nyxx I'm not a real world pilot, just a hobbyist interested in flight sims. In this video I think I did a side slip in FSX? Curious to know if I'm wrong and this was not a side slip at all. I did lose speed, from 100 to 80.

I posted the video in the other thread where we extensively discussed the way planes seem to behave. That was before release, so all of it was assumptions based on what we saw in YouTube videos. Now real experimentation can be executed, which is nice.

Not being a pilot myself does not mean I'm not able to judge, or at least to have an opinion on, on the plane behavior is see. You don't need a driver's license to spot a drunk driver. I've been designing digital control systems for a living ... it's possible to spot if a system is behaving controlled or is reacting 'weird'. Some planes in MSF behave 'weird', in my observation and opinion, which may differ form others.

It is telling that a majority of users have to tune their controls down to -40 or even -80 to make it feel 'flyable'. Unfortunately the exponential curve that results is also not what you want ... you want linear controls that go from one limit to the other to control the ailerons, elevator or rudder surface to go from one limit to the other. It's nice that Rob is looking into this to find out if there is a cause and if there are ways to 'tame' them until maybe Asobo tunes them differently.

I don't see any problem with having a curve, DCS F-18, I real life F-18 pilot sat down to try it out, his first words were "this is way..way to sensitive", you add a curve around 25 in DCS and the difference is night and day. I personally find having a curve in settings no problem at all. 60 on pitch and roll and rudders i have 70. 30 on brakes. Breaks in a car are not linear you get to a point were they bite and become more progressive, so sorry I don't buy into everything has to be a linear line. Far from it.