45 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

 

Edit: I actually want to amend this slightly...it DOES bother me that the Baron in the sim has MUCH better climb performance than a RW Baron. Where I struggle is, beyond saying it is too high, I don't know what guidance to give Asobo. Climb performance depends on weight, CG, temperature, humidity...and more minute factors like the condition of the engines and prop. Are they just out of overhaul, or at 1,500 hours? So without sitting there for hours testing different atmospheric conditions, weights, CG, etc to really validate the performance and provide useful feedback, I don't know what to say to them. And what we might do in FSX/P3D, reduce the thrust parameter in the aircraft.cfg file, is a sloppy way to try and address a very nuanced question...so I try not to concern myself too much with that stuff...

Well while agree that book not necessarily reflect super accurate values of real airplane I don't think FAA would every approved POH if performance numbers off the scale. You gotta use something for calculation, you can't guesstimate on the fly! 

Unfortunately I have never flown Baron, my experience bound  only by  Duchess and Traveler. But back in the days when I was getting my commercial multi addon in Seminole, I calculated accelerate to stop distance and single engines ops by the book before each flight. And during my training I would get V1 cut and multiple simulated engine failures. And PA44 was performing right on money of my calculations by the book.

As far as MSFS. It actually good to have little overpowered airplane, nice cylinder  compressions and etc. Don't you think 😉 In contrast some airplanes like  Caravan and Bonanza are actually underpowered ! So go figure what they used for modeling and how! 

13 minutes ago, High_Alpha said:

Somewhat related to the original post, if you can alter the flight model of aircraft does that mean people doing the landing challenges can give their aircraft advantageous performance figures? How exactly does altering the parameters work in the multiplayer aspect of the sim?

I hadn't thought of that...interesting. Yes, I suppose one could cheat in that way if they so desired...

Adjusting controls, sensitivities, buying new and better hardware to attain a better feel for the individual...all of that is fine.

But you can't blame controls in certain cases where the numbers are so severely off from reality. Case in point...here's a quote from norman_99:

"took a 208 up for a quick flight. Set it up for downwind, 1100lbs torque, 1750 rpm, 10 degrees flap. Holding 1000ft, I stalled at 55Kts! What the hell? I should maintain roughly 120Kts! I know, I’ve 3000+ hours in the real thing"

Here's the direct link in case you missed it:

When we have direct evidence that actual numbers themselves are that far off from reality then something really needs to be done to rectify it because otherwise you might as well be flying a plane from GTA5, which is no longer plausable. We can't just explain away or fix everything that's wrong with the default aircraft with control sensitivities.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by hangar

1 hour ago, cwburnett said:

Totally understand. But remember, by adjusting the control sensitivity, you're not changing the flight dynamics of the model, you're only changing how much your control is moving the virtual yoke/stick/pedal. So even if I have to move my yoke 2" to get the same 20% deflection it takes you 3" to get because we have different sensitivity, we're still both getting the same performance based on a 20% control surface deflection.

I get your thinking but something quite important needs to be added. When you adjust your stick or yoke sensitivity to say -70%, all you are doing is telling the first part of the stick movement to produce a very small signal in the sim. But once you continue on the curve it starts to climb very steeply, so that the last part of the stick movement is exponential. That convex curve is giving the illusion that the elevator/rudder movement is manageable as long as you confine yourself to very small movements. The total amount of control authority is set in the flight model.

Those small movements don't ever get near the part where the control suddenly and exponentially climbs in authority. This can give the illusion that the aircraft is not too bad to control. If you look at nine out of ten demo videos during the alpha/beta period you'll see this very clearly. Almost everyone is moving their sticks a tiny amount, keeping the control in the first third of movement, ie the low sensitivity range. But that is masking the issue.

The other thing to point out is that (in the case of the Baron and other examples) a sim aircraft might have a reasonably true roll rate at full deflection but that doesn't mean it is accurate. It is the WAY the roll starts and ends that is important. There are lots of parameters which control roll stability. For example you can set the roll to have lots of inertia that moves at the same rate (eventually) as another flight model set up, but this time the start of the roll is less instant and the end can slightly "over-run" when you centre the control. Conversely you can set the roll with almost no inertia yet a lot of roll stability. The roll will start instantaneously and stop instantaneously when you centre the control. The overall roll rate is the same for the two methodologies but the "feel" is completely different.

This is even more relevant to pitch. You can set the flight model so the nose bobs up and down like a yo-yo with very little stick movement (which is the case in nearly all of the default aircraft) but once that initial crazy motion stops the rest of the rise in pitch can be quite mild, giving the illusion that pitch is not so strong and that positive G is within the true range. But that initial bobbing up and down is making the most significant part of control (the first part) the worst section of movement. That is why you could set the stick to -90% sensitivity but you are still going to get that ridiculous bobbing up and down.

This is probably the worst problem with the default aircraft. Even with the tiniest elevator input at low sensitivity you are still getting a large amount of elasticity in movement. This is a schoolboy error in flight model design caused by too little attention to short term pitch oscillation. The other oscillation is phugoid, which means that even a trimmed aircraft at almost constant speed has a tendency to slowly fall and then rise in pitch if the speed even very slightly increases or decreases, and you get a low frequency porpoising.

In yaw it is different but just as bad. With the rudder controls set again to very low sensitivity what's happening is that people are noticing that p factor or other forces (cross wind) are making it difficult to keep straight. So they input some slight opposite rudder to the drift, but as they are on low sensitivy, nothing happens, so they then apply more rudder and suddenly they on the exponentially rising curve of their sensitivity settings. And also suddenly a huge amount of rudder kicks in.

The best possible way to set up controllers is, if possible, to have a completely straight 45 degree diagonal line. If the flight model is reasonably good, whatever controller you have, it should give you the best control over the whole range of the stick. If a controller is tiny (like a game pad or shockwave type controller) then obviously you need at least some low sensitivity at the initial movement.

The FSX method of lowering sensitivity through a time delay is in my view a very good method, because it prevents sudden spikes in control caused by exponential curves. It is quite cleverly designed so that the delay is not ridiculously exaggerated unless you set the sliders too far to the left. It is not perfect but it is better than exponential curves.

But none of the above are really solutions to the core problem which is in the design of the flight model. Lastly, the reason larger aircraft can more easily get away with really bad flight modelling is because they have enormous mass and hugely more inertia. The flaws in a sim aircraft show up much more obviously in smaller aircraft, athough the larger aircraft will start displaying very poor autopilot control, not because of the autopilot setting but also because the basic flight model is way off.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by robert young

21 minutes ago, robert young said:

The basic flight model is way off.

Just wondering if you could clarify, do you think the flight dynamics engine is flawed? Or are the parameters just being incorrectly set to create accurate flight models? I was very hesitant to make a concrete assessment about how the sim flies with the stock aircraft before the game was even released and the testers couldn’t share their opinions, but I do have to concur the stock aircraft are not great (but still better than in some older popular simulators), I am however still very optimistic 3PD’s can get things right...

9 minutes ago, High_Alpha said:

Just wondering if you could clarify, do you think the flight dynamics engine is flawed? Or are the parameters just being incorrectly set to create accurate flight models? I was very hesitant to make a concrete assessment about how the sim flies with the stock aircraft before the game was even released and the testers couldn’t share their opinions, but I do have to concur the stock aircraft are not great (but still better than in some older popular simulators), I am however still very optimistic 3PD’s can get things right...

I can't see anything in the basic flight physics that suggest they are much different from FSX, unless there are hidden files which contain something not yet seen. Asobo have however removed some parameters and slightly altered the syntax of others. The only params I think they have added (or at least ones I have never seen before) are what they label "elasticity" controls. I have little doubt this is in pursuit of their philosophy to get away from what they assume to be too much "flying on rails". It looks like they have introduced some extra elasticity in pitch, yaw and roll. I don't know why as these kind of features can already be tuned in the standard flight model.

I would guess that the physics engine itself is perfectly ok. A bit like tuning a musical instrument - it could be a really fine one - but if someone tunes it up badly it is still going to sound bloody awful!

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by robert young

37 minutes ago, robert young said:

But none of the above are really solutions to the core problem which is in the design of the flight model. Lastly, the reason larger aircraft can more easily get away with really bad flight modelling is because they are very large and have enormously more inertia. The flaws in a sim aircraft show up much more obviously in smaller aircraft. Although the larger aircraft will start displaying very poor autopilot control, not because of the autopilot setting but also because the basic flight model is way off.

I don't disagree with anything you said above, and I agree the curve approach to sensitivity is problematic at higher deflections. Isn't the solution sim controls that have more realistic throw? That's one reason I went to the Honeycomb from the Saitek - to at least be able to have a linear response for roll. What I'm less clear on is what feedback to give Asobo on the 'design of the flight model' - how does that get fixed?

More importantly, when you say 'design of the flight model' are you speaking to the sim engine/physics or the specific aircraft model parameters?

For fun, I just recorded a quick circuit in the Baron. Forgive the bad recording framerate - I'm not smart enough to figure out how to make a nice smooth recording...

I compared it to a video of me actually flying my Baron and noticed that my yoke movements are larger in the real plane on final/short final, though in the real landing I was recording there were 20 knot winds, so...that's part of it. That said, I'm not experiencing (or recognizing?) the bobbing you're referring to. I'd love your feedback on what you see, if you have any. This subject is very interesting to me...

Also, forgive the out of trim condition on the takeoff roll - I didn't reset the trim for takeoff so got a little nose up around 40 knots...

 

34 minutes ago, cwburnett said:

I don't disagree with anything you said above, and I agree the curve approach to sensitivity is problematic at higher deflections. Isn't the solution sim controls that have more realistic throw? That's one reason I went to the Honeycomb from the Saitek - to at least be able to have a linear response for roll. What I'm less clear on is what feedback to give Asobo on the 'design of the flight model' - how does that get fixed?

More importantly, when you say 'design of the flight model' are you speaking to the sim engine/physics or the specific aircraft model parameters?

For fun, I just recorded a quick circuit in the Baron. Forgive the bad recording framerate - I'm not smart enough to figure out how to make a nice smooth recording...

I compared it to a video of me actually flying my Baron and noticed that my yoke movements are larger in the real plane on final/short final, though in the real landing I was recording there were 20 knot winds, so...that's part of it. That said, I'm not experiencing (or recognizing?) the bobbing you're referring to. I'd love your feedback on what you see, if you have any. This subject is very interesting to me...

Also, forgive the out of trim condition on the takeoff roll - I didn't reset the trim for takeoff so got a little nose up around 40 knots...

 

Good video. Your control is very good but to be expected from an owner of same aircraft! I do notice straightaway the extremely small movements you are inputting in the sim. I agree part of that would be because the real aircraft has a bigger total throw on the elevator side. However you seem to be avoiding the "bobbing" because it looks like you are being very careful in pitch control. I haven't actually tried the Baron in MSFS yet so maybe it doesn't suffer so much as others from the over-elastic pitch instability, but I'm pretty sure I saw a bit of it going on, though your excellent piloting is flattering the flight model!

There are tons of Baron videos on YouTube and every one I've seen so far exhibits a good deal more pitch stability than I see in most sims, not just this one. But the stand out difference is the roll control inputs which in most examples I've seen are much, much larger than in this sim, despite the smaller "throw" of sim yokes. If you have a substantial spring or some kind of force feeback on your honeycomb yoke I'm sure that really helps in providing resistance to over-control.

I have a Saitek yoke which is useless because it has an enormous built in deadzone in both pitch and roll. My stick has quite a long throw because I altered it slightly, and despite that I find the pitch elasticity in nearly all the MSFS defaults to be intolerable. It just ruins the pleasure of flying.

I did have a couple of flights in a Baron, right seat, many years ago and I recall the yoke was extremely satisfying and beautifully engineered. It's a fine aircraft. The nearest equivalent I have experience of is the Beech Duke piston, which I've flown a couple of times and also co-designed one for FSX/P3d when RealAir Simulations was active. It has proven to be a very popular addon.. I wonder if you've tried it?

I'm not even sure my edition of MSFS has the Baron but I will check and if time allows I'll get back to you. Thanks for posting the video!

As I said earlier in the thread, I don't think the flight physics in MSFS are bad at all - only the tuning of the individual aircraft.

 

2 hours ago, cwburnett said:

That said, I'm not experiencing (or recognizing?) the bobbing you're referring to.

Yeah. This is a big nothing burger to me the more I compare in MSFS vs. X-plane. I have had to adjust control sensitivities in every sim and this is no different. It's just the nature of using the same controller with limited throw from everything to a 152 to a 747.

I'm sure if @robert young flew DCS jets he would lose his mind because without adjusting sensitivities or being careful with the controls you'll have the same issues that Rob is describing with MSFS.

3 hours ago, hangar said:

"took a 208 up for a quick flight. Set it up for downwind, 1100lbs torque, 1750 rpm, 10 degrees flap. Holding 1000ft, I stalled at 55Kts! What the hell? I should maintain roughly 120Kts! I know, I’ve 3000+ hours in the real thing"

 

But which version of the aircraft? Asobo will want to know the exact model and details before they fix their version.

Couldn't agree more with @OP.

Something is fundamentally wrong with control sensitivity.

I have, as many, tried to set sensitivity down to -70/80, but as the final part of the curve has a massive sensitivity, rolling your yoke a bit far to the left/right/down/up turns your aircracft into F16. 

 

 

@cwburnett Nice flyin'. With these settings it all looks 'doable' although like to Robert, also to me it looks like the control inputs are quite minimal. But I understand you fly the the real thing ... you're in the best place to judge if this is the case or not.

Completely off topic ... I notice a constant (micro)stuttering in the video. Frame rates seem to be OK but the scenery moves by in a stuttering way and when you rotate the camera to look out of the left window, that move is stuttery. Is this due to screen capture video running or is it similar when you don't video? If so ... something is very wrong here.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by RudyB24

3 hours ago, Slides said:

But which version of the aircraft? Asobo will want to know the exact model and details before they fix their version.

He posted after release, so I assume this is regarding the release version, not beta.

24 minutes ago, hangar said:

He posted after release, so I assume this is regarding the release version, not beta.

I meant the exact version of the aircraft. Any modifications he has in the real aircraft will impact performance and Asobo will need to know those specifics.

Edited August 20, 20205 yr by Slides

1 minute ago, Slides said:

I meant the exact version of the aircraft. Any modifications he has in the real aircraft will impact performance and Asobo will need to know those specifics.

hehe, the exact version is meaningless with numbers that far off (55% less speed causing a stall is not a version discrepancy). Besides Asobo has already mentioned that they don't do flight models based on exact aircraft versions...they interpolate using various versions and pilot reports...so their models are not based on 1 particular version, but sort of an across the board average.