RW pilots giving the flight model the thumbs up

[scotchegg 4,169]

Plenty of encouraging feedback about the FM on the official site:

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/real-world-pilots-please-state-your-feedback-about-the-flight-model/150771/142

[tweekz 2,165]

Well, here's the thing. The guys that come here and state something like "totally unrealistic" obviously didn't reflect on it.

There is a lot wrong with how the planes currently behave. But there's a lot of potential. It's not like there's something essential missing. It's rather that it's overdone or incorrect. Such things usually can be tweaked. Most probably just by the specific flight model (performance, specific behavior). Others need some tweaking on the core flight model (surface authority).

But there are already some planes that behave quite OK. Like the C152. I heard the Robin is also quite good.

Edited August 24, 2020 by tweekz

[F737MAX 5,544]

The first two pilots' comments I came across did not give the thumbs-up.

A320-rated pilot (Renato G200) stated:

Quote

- However, jets are absolutely wrong! I crashed trying to land the aircraft I flew in the past 4h almost everyday (A320)! This raises a concern whether the flight model depends on the actual airframe or just programming lines.
Turbulence is better than other sims, but it lacks the wing dropping that demands work from the pilot. I seems that the wing rocks but always returns to level. You could fly a turbulent approach on MSFS without any roll inputs. This is definitely wrong. Other than that, all the interaction with obstacles and clouds is great!

- In actual aircraft, if you are approaching in bumpy wx and you don’t touch your roll controls, you will eventually bank quite a lot to either side and lose the final track. I’ve tried setting 40kt of crosswind with a good gust and 90° away from the steady wind vector and the airplane just yaws left and right. No roll input required to hold it straight like in real world. That’s the main disappointment that I had with MSFS flight dynamics, besides weak adverse yaw and left turning tendencies.

and another A320 pilot (RealA320Pilot):

Quote

Some of the current issues I am aware of right now is incorrect angle of attack (AOA) for a given airspeed. This is why some of you may notice excessive nose up angles at cruise even near maximum mach numbers and during approach. The fuel flow numbers are also significantly off (I verified this in my performance manuals). This engine N1 settings in cruise are also wrong by a good margin.

The biggest issues I have is actually handling the aircraft. The plane is far more difficult to handle In flight sim then in the real world. So those of you that have managed a nice soft touchdown on the centerline and in the touch-down zone give yourself a pat on the back, because its harder than in the real thing.
[...]
If I had to rate its state right now it would be a C-

'Potential' is the main theme I get from reading the thread.

I want MSFS to be as good as it can be, so I hope that Asobo get some type-rated pilots to give comprehensive feedback for the A32N, B748 and B78X. A lot of real world pilots are furloughed / redundant at the moment. I'm sure some paid consultancy would be snapped-up.

[W2DR 1,859]

1 hour ago, F737NG said:

A lot of real world pilots are furloughed / redundant at the moment. I'm sure some paid consultancy would be snapped-up.

Paid heck. There are a lot of RW pilots, furloughed or not, that would do it for free if asked.

[Chock 17,769]

Put my two cents on that thread, pointing out what is wrong with the flight model. To save anyone having to find it (if they are bothered about what I think), here it is:

'Real-world pilot, plus I work in aviation too (at EGCC). My first solo was 23 years ago this week coincidentally. Been using Flight Simulator since the very first subLOGIC version.

The problem with the flight model is that the ‘twitchiness’ of it, appears to be modeled by pivoting the aeroplane from a central point, in an attempt to emulate turbulent movement, which has the effect of making the nose wander all over the place as though the aeroplane has no penetration through the air.

This is not how turbulence affects an aeroplane. Turbulence acts on the whole airframe, so it doesn’t just wobble the nose around, the entire aeroplane does this as a function of riding on air which is doing that. The emulation of minor variance turbulence within that moving air mass needs at least two moments of leverage, one at either end of the fuselage; then it would be in with a shot at emulating turbulent passage movement reasonably well.

This is why the ‘landing challenges’ in the simulator are difficult; not because an aeroplane is hard to fly, but because we are battling against an incorrect emulation of turbulent movement, with the aeroplane wobbling around like one of those kids rides at a playground mounted on a big spring, which needless to say, does not reflect the movement of an aeroplane through the air mass at all.

If this got sorted, the flight model would be very good. But until it does, it’s just not a correct emulation of the behaviour of an aeroplane in flight.'

Edited August 24, 2020 by Chock

[Slides 1,552]

The base flight model is good and a big improvement over FSX/P3D in terms of ability and future advancement. The airliners were rushed for launch and that's reflected in their performance.

Most of the GA are good to decent with some minor tweaking needed. The turbo props lack study level engine modeling but are generally okay to fly.

Also ground handling needs further tweaking. They're overdoing the runway friction. And also the taildraggers are too easy to land. No ground loops from what I can tell.

 

[mrchrsrider 66]

This is interesting to me (also a RW Airline Pilot). I feel like flight characteristics are so subjective. It’s like driving a car, every single driver has something different to say. Some say the car has a right steering tendency some think it doesn’t. It’s just so completely subjective. 

[Chock 17,769]

8 minutes ago, mrchrsrider said:

It’s like driving a car, every single driver has something different to say. Some say the car has a right steering tendency some think it doesn’t. It’s just so completely subjective. 

Except with the Mazda MX5 Mark 1. Anyone who doesn't think that's a brilliant car, is a pillock. 🤣

Edited August 24, 2020 by Chock

[Andreas Stangenes 1,628]

Most of the RL pilots in the MSFS forums in that specific thread seem to mostly agree that the small piston aircraft are very good. There are certain things that seem off, and some RL pilots with some outlier views. Most pilots judge the tubeliners to be way off, and describe them as rocket-like, and that the flightsystems are bugged, non-functioning etc. Some of them seem to wish for Asobo to implement these planes at the level of pmdg or fslabs, which I think, from a simmer's perspective , is a bit naive, though I can understand the want from a pilot training perspective. 

What might be missing in that thread, or maybe is just a bit under-communicated, is how pilots need to give feedback on *compromise*. How to tweak the airplanes so they are MORE inline with the real thing, but not demanding FSLabs or PMDG quality from Asobo. 

Another good point made by pilots in that thread is the benefit of having Asobo making a near perfect G1000, at least when it comes to implementing the various functions in it. That way, 3pd dont have to invent it all over again, but can just use the default g1000 from Asobo - because it is so good 🙂 I think I like the sound of that. 

Edited August 24, 2020 by Andreas Stangenes

[robert young 2,897]

57 minutes ago, Chock said:

Put my two cents on that thread, pointing out what is wrong with the flight model. To save anyone having to find it (if they are bothered about what I think), here it is:

'Real-world pilot, plus I work in aviation too (at EGCC). My first solo was 23 years ago this week coincidentally. Been using Flight Simulator since the very first subLOGIC version.

The problem with the flight model is that the ‘twitchiness’ of it, appears to be modeled by pivoting the aeroplane from a central point, in an attempt to emulate turbulent movement, which has the effect of making the nose wander all over the place as though the aeroplane has no penetration through the air.

This is not how turbulence affects an aeroplane.

I agree with that statement, but the "twitchiness" of the kind described is not generated by the flight modelling, which can only react to two things: pilot input and weather input.

I've been doing a lot of digging around the folders and files, and it is pretty clear that the seemingly random twitchiness is actually nothing connected with any flight model. None of the aircraft cfg files contain any hint of random or other movement (indeed they are probably not capable of it). The flight models are absolutely standard in that regard. There are two completely separate things going one. The first is that the smaller aircraft, and particularly the "high performance" piston singles have what looks like low inertia values, but those values may also be dependent on some kind of  global inertia settings which might be made elsewhere. The second is that it is very obvious that the devs decided to apply another global effect independent of both aircraft flight modelling and the weather.

As I pointed out much in another thread, in benign conditions aircraft do not move around. They stay on course, stay in trim and do not randomly roll or yaw unless some air mass is acting upon them, or unless the pilot intervenes. I think what is happening is that someone decided to impose a permanent randomized movement in order to give an impression of either fluidity or what they regard as getting away from "flying on rails".

The problem for me (and a few other posters) is that this randomized movement is not at all convincing. It looks and feels completely artificial. It isn't even that random and watching closely at what's happening, there is almost a predictability about each separate movement in yaw and roll. The larger the aircraft, the less it impacts on the airframe. In small aircraft with low inertia, this artificial movement looks very different from actual weather-related movement.

I am baffled as to why any developer would think this is convincing. They have a whole weather engine with which to do this, using actual gusts, actual thermals, actual wind changes, layers, cloud turbulence, and so on. I do not see the need for imposing yet another movement, and the only reason I can think of is that the dev team decided that for those who might be flying in zero wind or benign conditions, they wanted to superimpose this random movement.

The only way to lesson or get rid of, or at least hide, this artificial twitchiness is to vastly increase the inertia in some flight models, especially in roll and yaw, of the smaller aircraft. To some extent this is not such a bad solution as I think the core inertia values (or at least the result of them) are way, way too low on the smaller aircraft in any case. But the better solution is just to get rid of the effect altogether and let the weather engine provide the solution by itself.

Edited August 24, 2020 by robert young

[Dominique_K 10,133]

3 minutes ago, robert young said:

 

I am baffled as to why any developer would think this is convincing.

The Asobo people have started to take piloting lessons on the Robin in the Bordeaux region close to the Atlantic, over a large estuary. I suppose that the air is often turbulent there. Does it reflect their own flying experience ? A bit far fetched I know but ... 

[LHookins 3,102]

7 minutes ago, robert young said:

I think what is happening is that someone decided to impose a permanent randomized movement in order to give an impression of either fluidity or what they regard as getting away from "flying on rails".

This was my very first impression of it.  After less than an hour of flying I realized that we were actually flying on rails and the slight movement was an attempt to disguise that fact.
 

9 minutes ago, robert young said:

But the better solution is just to get rid of the effect altogether and let the weather engine provide the solution by itself.

I agree, but I doubt the current weather engine is capable.

So is it good or bad?  I have no opinion one way or another.  Newcomers who are not real world pilots might prefer it the way it is.  I might prefer it myself but have the ability to scale it, tone it down.  It does make flying feel a little more fluid, but I think the effect in Microsoft Flight was better.

During my first flight I was wondering if I could induce the same kind of motion in FSX/P3D for those who wanted it.  Probably not worth the effort as Active Sky does a better job.

Hook

[Chock 17,769]

51 minutes ago, robert young said:

I agree with that statement, but the "twitchiness" of the kind described is not generated by the flight modelling

Yup, I agree that the effect I'm referring to is probably a 'canned effect' and not the actual, second-by-second flight model calculation from the individual aeroplane's stats (although maybe with a few broad presets for differing conditions) but since it is ultimately the problem with the portrayal of flight, and that was the thread getting the most air on the MS forum, I figured I'd make it known there.

In the end, how it is being done is not the issue, it's the fact that it is being done which is the problem. I should think it would be easy to tone it down massively or bin it off completely in a matter of minutes, work-wise.

Personally, I don't care if hundreds or even thousands of 'real pilots' are blowing sunshine up Asobo and MS's @ss about the flight model. The amount of people saying something has no bearing on whether it is true.

Plus, I strongly suspect that a lot of 'I'm a real pilot' claims on the intertron, are suspect. Not that this matters anyway, you don't have to be able to drive a plane to know that's not what they go through the air like, a pair of eyes is sufficient to make that assessment correctly.

Edited August 24, 2020 by Chock

[Dominique_K 10,133]

9 minutes ago, LHookins said:

 

So is it good or bad?  I have no opinion one way or another. 

 

Yes a good question. When I fly the A2A Cub (old version, the new may be better) I never get the 'shaking' in the air (for lack of better word) feeling that I see in real Cub flying on  You Tube. It is more stable that it should. I gave it up because I didn't feel it convincing by comparison with these videos. I said the Cub as an example of a light aircraft.  

Simulation is also recreating something convincing even through a sleight of hand. 

[F737MAX 5,544]

34 minutes ago, robert young said:

[...]
The only way to lesson or get rid of, or at least hide, this artificial twitchiness is to vastly increase the inertia in some flight models, especially in roll and yaw, of the smaller aircraft. To some extent this is not such a bad solution as I think the core inertia values (or at least the result of them) are way, way too low on the smaller aircraft in any case. But the better solution is just to get rid of the effect altogether and let the weather engine provide the solution by itself.

17 minutes ago, Chock said:

[...]

Personally, I don't care if hundreds of 'real pilots' are blowing sunshine up Asobo and MS's @ss about the flight model. The amount of people saying something has no bearing on whether they are correct.

Can you two please stop talking so much sense?
I'll end up giving myself whiplash from reading your posts and all the nodding of my head along!