14 hours ago, allrighta said:

Hey guys, I'm sure a lot of you use sims to keep current on your IRL skills, and if you're like me you had enormous hopes that FS 2020 would improve on the legacy FS and X-plane flight dynamics which are not very accurate in many areas of the flight envelope. FS2020 looks gorgeous but as someone who really needs fidelity to the real thing, their physics modeling of aerodynamic forces on light piston singles is a letdown after so much anticipation.

You bought the wrong simulator. It's not intended as a training sim. It's a game, with great visuals, atmospherics, and immersion. The default planes are (mostly) fun to fly. Most people understand that they are as close to the real thing as I am to dating a 6 feet tall Brazlian super model. 

6 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

I have reduced sensitive curves to -45% in pitch FYI. Anything else worth trying?

After I reduced the curve on my VKB Gladiator to -60% on the pitch access, it feels accurate to me. Look at the control deflection outside when moving your stick to see what's happening 

6 hours ago, wim123 said:

i say its pretty naive to think the default aircraft would mimic live .

actually in this case the hope was justified. Asobo posted updates of them giving actual test pilots for the companies that manufacture the aircraft hands-on access to the early sim builds to help verify the flight models. So either this was only done for a few of the default planes or they decided to "gameify" the physics further along the development road for wider player access

20 hours ago, allrighta said:

Hey guys, I'm sure a lot of you use sims to keep current on your IRL skills, and if you're like me you had enormous hopes that FS 2020 would improve on the legacy FS and X-plane flight dynamics which are not very accurate in many areas of the flight envelope. FS2020 looks gorgeous but as someone who really needs fidelity to the real thing, their physics modeling of aerodynamic forces on light piston singles is a letdown after so much anticipation.

I have not flown a 748 so I can't compare that to IRL but I am a CFI and hold an ATP and have sat in a 172 and 152 for a few thousand hours over 20 years and all I can say is that I am disappointed in FS2020's inaccurate flight model rendering of light singles.  They are about as accurate as XPlane which is ok i guess, but not very good really. Just for basics, there seems to be a decent model of left-turning factors (torque, p-factor, precession, etc.) when the plane is still on the take-off roll, but these forces magically disappear once you leave the ground. I can do a full power steep climb with no rudders, which obviously is inaccurate. Likewise, with full reality settings, I can make no-rudder steep turns just fine. Slow flight and stall behavior are likewise not accurate.  It may be that there's another realism setting I'm missing, or maybe they'll be some add-on Cessna someone designs that for $29 gets closer to reality, but I am reading all these glowing reviews and it sounds like folks are non-IRL and just really impressed by the visual renderings

But the actual flight models don't seem close to reality to me at all.

 

 

i dont agree, i find the C152 and C172 flightmodel spot on, much more realistic then xplane11. the xplane flightmodel is to stable, but in this the aircraft reacts right to the winds and forces on different part of the aircraft.

6 hours ago, SAS443 said:

my biggest issue is the control setup. I have a PFC Saab 340 yoke and it is not recognized by the game (but that is ok). My main gripe so far is that whatever I do, the C172 feels so twitchy around the pitch axis, like you have an invisible divine hand that pokes the aft empennage down repeatedly. the yoke animation inside the plane is also barely moving which is very odd as well. I have reduced sensitive curves to -45% in pitch FYI. Anything else worth trying?

YT video. 

 

Have you seen this post?

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/581210-how-to-make-pitch-and-yaw-control-less-twitchy/

18 hours ago, broncoblair said:

Its awful. All of the piston engines have the same exact dynamics to me and even with the turbo props as well... The TBM is so far off its insane, my dad had a TBM and its just laughable. Wish i could tweak them myself. I am dying for a 3rd party to install to get off of these stupid plajhes. 

I like your DAD have a fair amount of time on the tbm and no is not perfect. Is a default Airplane just that . I had to make a ton of adjustments to the yoke settings .  lets see who’s the first 3rd party that comes out with a more accurate model . 

For those of us who had experience with FS95, 98 FS2004, FSX etc, though far from perfect, these default aircraft are LIGHT YEARS ahead of those aircraft. I' quite sure 3rd party developers will havae fantastic aircraft.

18 hours ago, broncoblair said:

The TBM is so far off its insane, my dad had a TBM and its just laughable. Wish i could tweak them myself. I am dying for a 3rd party to install to get off of these stupid plajhes. 

Thats really interesting that your dad had a TBM. You have personal real world experience of how that plane feels and flies. I dont have the sim yet but will get it in about a year so I hope some improvements will have been made by then.

Guys, neither XP11 not MSFS2020 out of the box are certified by FAA to be use for any kind of currency! Yes, you can invest  thousands of dollars getting appropriate peripherals and perhaps get it certified as ATD (advance training device) Then you can use it toward your rating or IFR currency.

Now a word of disappointment! I did use FAA approved sim for both training and currency. Other than realistic cockpit the rest was poor graphic and flight model that barely resemble real life counterpart. The only exception probably would be LEVEL D sims. I tried one with full motion cockpit and it was the most realistic experience in sim I ever had. I logged about 15 hours in it by sheer luck!

 

So the bottom line you can not legally use MSFS for currency, only as training aid for your own purposes!

 

    

8 hours ago, Slides said:

There are like a billion variants of these 172s and 152s and apparently every one of them flies differently because for every 1 pilot who says it's inaccurate, there are 2 who say it's close to real life.

Make up your mind pilots!

I agree. Many are throwing around all kinds of flying backgrounds like X flight hours, license ABC, currently flying aircraft type Y to back up their assessment of the flight models in this sim. I don't want to doubt anyone's credentials, but it's going back and forth between a) the flight models are arcade-like and bad and b) realistic and better than other sims like a ball bouncing off two walls opposite of each other. You'd think it would be relatively easy and reliable to get a good assessment of the flight models, but it's apparently just as divided as a heavily taste-driven topic like visuals.

Edited August 22, 20205 yr by threegreen

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

Guys, neither XP11 not MSFS2020 out of the box are certified by FAA to be use for any kind of currency! Yes, you can invest  thousands of dollars getting appropriate peripherals and perhaps get it certified as ATD (advance training device) Then you can use it toward your rating or IFR currency.

Now a word of disappointment! I did use FAA approved sim for both training and currency. Other than realistic cockpit the rest was poor graphic and flight model that barely resemble real life counterpart. The only exception probably would be LEVEL D sims. I tried one with full motion cockpit and it was the most realistic experience in sim I ever had. I logged about 15 hours in it by sheer luck!

 

So the bottom line you can not legally use MSFS for currency, only as training aid for your own purposes!

 

    

I confirm this is true. I've been invited many times to try out approved simulators, but unless they are very hi-tech, expensive and similar to Level D, they are graphically way behind most consumer sims, and their systems are geared towards the procedural, not necessarily the visceral. FAA and CAA certification is often much more to do with paying an eye-watering fee to be "approved" than strict accuracy.