Just now, LHookins said:

That is adjustable.

Hook

Yup, to a degree, but if you drop the sensitivity, it present s another problem; then it suits one speed, but not another. Drop it a lot and  suddenly you don't have enough elevator authority to flare at all.

Has anyone ever gotten this right?  I don't recall extreme pullback on the stick in the A2A Cub to get it to flare, although it did exhibit less control at lower speeds.

I honestly don't understand all the animosity. If it's too inaccurate, let's get it fixed.  

Or maybe XPlane does it perfectly and we don't have to worry about MSFS.

Hook

2 hours 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. 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.'

Hi. Is there a way for you to provide direct feedback to Asobo?

I hope all real life pilots can provide feedback to Asobo, to help them adjust and tweak the flight model.  I'm sure if the real life pilots in the community continue to press Asobo, they will make the changes down the road.  It's a huge benefit to the community if the flight model can be made more realistic.

Just now, abrams_tank said:

I hope all real life pilots can provide feedback to Asobo, to help them adjust and tweak the flight model.

They do have real world pilots providing feedback, and have all through the Alpha and Beta.  They've also had members of the development team taking flight lessons and at least one has gotten a private pilot's license.

Hook

2 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Hi. Is there a way for you to provide direct feedback to Asobo?

Yeah, they could have invited me to the beta instead of one of the people who ignored the NDA. 🤣

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by Chock

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yeah, they could have invited me to the beta. 🤣

Well, for what it's worth, you can submit bugs to Asobo via Zendesk: https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360014232420-Zendesk-Bug-Reporting-FAQ

Since you already typed up the issue with turbulence, maybe you can copy and paste your turbulence findings and with luck, one of the Asobo developers may spend some time to read it.

4 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yeah, they could have invited me to the beta instead of one of the people who ignored the NDA. 🤣

If you think it's bad now, you wouldn't believe what it was like in the Alpha/Beta.  I doubt you would have stayed around.

Hook

2 hours ago, Chock said:

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

I think it rotates too much around a central point instead of flying out of the curve in a straight manner. 😛

2 minutes ago, LHookins said:

If you think it's bad now, you wouldn't believe what it was like in the Alpha/Beta.  I doubt you would have stayed around.

Hook

I probably would have, I know what they're like. If you think that was a PITA, I was in a beta for an Ariane Design 737. Yes really. I'm pretty sure it's easier to join the Illuminati and I bet they have less rules than Ariane did. 🤣

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by Chock

The motion effects that Ezdok created for FSX transformed that sim for me. Here's the quote from Ezdok's developer in response to the question about a MSFS 2020 release:

Hi! At the moment, the SDK of the new simulator is not sufficient to implement all the functions we need. Direct access to the simulator's memory is not possible, as it was with FSX and P3D.   But immediately after the new simulator is released and the full SDK is available, we will be able to answer your question exactly. We hope that EZCA will live on in the new MSFS as well.

Nick B. Ezdok Software

Hopefully, MS/Asobo will provide the 3rd-party developers with what they need soon so we can really start to see the potential of MSFS 2020 explode.

2 minutes ago, Chock said:

I probably would have, I know what they're like.

You have missed the point.  We had no communication from the development team, we had no idea what was going on, we had no idea if our bug reports were getting fixed or even looked at although some people reported some fixes were done.

There were just enough jerks to make things difficult.  You might think you're special, but they wouldn't have, and they would have let you know in no uncertain terms.  I'm not talking about bashing MSFS either.  It won't matter what you think you know, there will be people there who will call you on everything.  And they wouldn't be nice about it.

You're better off not getting into the Alpha.

Hook

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

You might think you're special

I most certainly don't think that. 🤣

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by Chock

26 minutes ago, Chock said:

Yup, to a degree, but if you drop the sensitivity, it present s another problem; then it suits one speed, but not another. Drop it a lot and  suddenly you don't have enough elevator authority to flare at all.

Ideally the "curve" should be a linear one. Therefore I agree with you guys that the control surfaces seem to be too effective for low speeds.

The sensitivities should just be there to adjust your hardware.

Lots of work ahead for ASOBO. I hope they take this serious, not just the world updates. 😉

3 minutes ago, Chock said:

I most certainly don't think that. 🤣

They most certainly would have believed you did.  

Hook

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

They most certainly would have believed you did.  

Hook

Well then that'd be two things they'd got wrong.