We are here, we are real. We have already provided feedback and you guys still looking for internet sensation opinion! LOL

1 hour ago, Chock said:

appears to be modeled by pivoting the aeroplane from a central point,

 

1 hour ago, Chock said:

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.

Alan, this is the best description of the problem I've read so far.

1 minute ago, sd_flyer said:

We are here, we are real. We have already provided feedback and you guys still looking for internet sensation opinion! LOL

So, what do you think?  Is the random motion good or bad?  Are we flying on rails or have we gone off the rails completely?

Hook

Actually what would be a good compromise, is to make that shaky part of the modeling an 'AccuFeel' type option, similar the standalone add-on A2A make for FSX and P3D, whereby you can tick whichever boxes for the effects you want, move a slider for the magnitude, or turn it off completely. That way everyone would be happy.

Yeah right, who am I kidding, when has every flight simmer been happy? 🤣

I bet you if Asobo handed the problem over to A2A, they'd have it all sorted by teatime.

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by Chock

11 minutes ago, F737NG said:

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!

Thanks!

12 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Is the random motion good or bad?

I don't know if it is random or not. From the cockpit...sorry, I should have said flight deck (learned this weekend that cockpit is no longer PC 🤦‍♂️)  the randomness of the motion in the sim very much reminds me of what it feels like to pilot a light aircraft through turbulent summer afternoon air. I do think there is some legitimate air mass modeling going on as I swear I've hit turbulence on the leeward side of a ridge or hill. From the exterior view however, that movement is as Alan pointed out. It appears to jostle the plane very sharply around the CG point rather than the plane as a whole riding the moving air mass.

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by snglecoil

35 minutes ago, Chock said:

probably a 'canned effect' and not the actual, second-by-second flight model calculation from the individual aeroplane's stats

 Have a look at Flightchops' interpretation at about 18'

 

I don't really care much about the opinion of "real world pilots" because this is a $60 game and not a full motion simulator. It's like asking a Marine whether Call of Duty is an accurate representation of modern combat. 

7 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

the randomness of the motion in the sim very much reminds me of what it feels like to pilot a light aircraft through turbulent summer afternoon air. I do think there is some legitimate air mass modeling going on as I swear I've hit turbulence on the leeward side of a ridge or hill.

This is my impression as well.  And yes you do hit real turbulence near hills.
 

8 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

From the exterior view however, that movement is as Alan pointed out. It appears to jostle the plane very sharply around the CG point rather than the plane as a whole riding the moving air mass.

If it didn't jostle the plane around you wouldn't see it.  I don't necessarily agree that what you see from external view has any relevance.  People have been complaining about external views ever since the first leaked videos, but what you see from the "flight deck" looks natural.

Keep in mind that if the atmosphere is not inducing turbulence and you didn't have the random motion, you would indeed be flying on rails.  Dead steady all the time. I don't believe this is preferable.  I haven't encountered any turbulence in real world weather that wasn't caused by objects on the ground.  I don't think we're even getting gusts.  

In the best of all worlds, we'd be getting a better atmosphere model.  I'll be buying Active Sky as soon as it's available.

Hook

5 minutes ago, Bottle said:

 Have a look at Flightchops' interpretation at about 18'

Yes, but have a look at the landing. It's all over the place, with awful pitch sensitivity making holding off properly a near impossible task. That's nothing like what it is like to land an aeroplane.

At those kind of speeds, the elevator is far less effective and you actually need big deflections to make an impression on pitch; you do not have to be really careful about moving your control more than a millimetre for fear of sending the thing ballooning off, when you are landing a real aeroplane. If anyone is claiming they are a 'real pilot' and says this is how a real aeroplane handles, then they are clearly full of it.

Anyone who has ever landed an aeroplane knows this. Most of the time you have the stick right back near your b******* (rhymes with folics) at that point and you need d@mn-near full aileron to correct things, because the airflow over them is so slow.

6 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

I don't know if it is random or not. From the cockpit...sorry, I should have said flight deck (learned this weekend that cockpit is no longer PC 🤦‍♂️)  the randomness of the motion in the sim very much reminds me of what it feels like to pilot a light aircraft through turbulent summer afternoon air. I do think there is some legitimate air mass modeling going on as I swear I've hit turbulence on the leeward side of a ridge or hill. From the exterior view however, that movement is as Alan pointed out. It appears to jostle the plane very sharply around the CG point rather than the plane as a whole riding the moving air mass.

A lot of turbulence on small airframes presents itself as a vibration or at least a high frequency disturbance of the whole airframe. It very rarely affects pitch, but does affect yaw and roll, and in my view completely differently from the apparently randomised movements seen in MSFS 2020. As I said earlier, what I'm finding increasingly irritating is that it is becoming predictable in its "randomness" if you get my drift. It is just plain annoying, and even more so that it looks so artificial.

BTW totally agree about "flightdeck" and post modern altered descriptions of a perfectly appropriate work. George Carlin did a wonderful rant about aviation jargon in one of his infamous shows. I think the best was "Why do they call it a NEAR MISS? It isn't a near miss, it's a NEAR HIT!" Another was "why announce passengers are "Pre-boarding"? How can you board before you board?!

9 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

It's like asking a Marine whether Call of Duty is an accurate representation of modern combat. 

Funny you should bring that up.  I was a tank crewman as my first job in the US Army.  Later I worked with the guys who created Steel Beasts which is used for real world training in several countries.  I have a pretty good idea how tanks work and how it feels to be in one.

When I was playing Operation Flashpoint, I was surprised at how close they got to the tank experience.  Not super real, not good enough for "procedural training", but close enough.  

Of course the gamers had no idea.  I mentioned that one reason I liked OFP was that you could go prone.  One guy thought I was insane;  the way to avoid getting hit was to keep jumping.  Everyone knows that, right? 😄  Another guy thought he could wreck my tank by ramming with an M113 APC.  Guess who won that one.

Hook

 

6 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yes, but have a look at the landing. It's all over the place, with awful pitch sensitivity

That is adjustable.

Hook

1 minute ago, Chock said:

Yes, but have a look at the landing. It's all over the place, with awful pitch sensitivity making holding off properly a near impossible task. That's nothing like what it is like to land an aeroplane.

At those kind of speeds, the elevator is far less effective and you actually need big deflections to make an impression on pitch; you do not have to be really careful about moving your control more than a millimetre for fear of sending the thing ballooning off, when you are landing a real aeroplane. If anyone is claiming they are a 'real pilot' and says this is how a real aeroplane handles, then they are clearly full of it.

Anyone who has ever landed an aeroplane knows this. Most of the time you have the stick right back near your b******* (rhymes with folics) at that point and you need d@mn-near full aileron to correct things, because the airflow over them is so slow.

I confirm this is true for many small aircraft and particularly tail draggers, which were the only aircraft I flew when I was an ab initio student. I recall the stick right back in my "LAP" 😉 for a proper 3 point landing. Nose wheel aircraft not so much, but still a pretty hefty pull for a proper flare on most types.

I do find it remarkable how some of the YT video demos show the simmers/pilots making extraordinarily delicate adaptations to the bucking and yo-yo-ing. I suppose I could train myself to do that but it is so irritating it destroys the experience. In several decades I have never, ever, flown any aircraft that behaves like that. Not one.

29 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

From the cockpit...sorry, I should have said flight deck (learned this weekend that cockpit is no longer PC

If that's true and it upsets oversensitive snowflakes, then I'm going to go out of my way to use the word cockpit even more. Cockpit! Cockpit! Cockpit! COOCKPIIIIIIIIIT!

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by Chock