RW pilots giving the flight model the thumbs up

[KenG 492]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

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.

The problem with their report system is it does not go direct to the developers. i.e. It is not the development feedback system. It is basically a catch basin in which Microsoft marketing will consolidate and provide to Asobo. The second problem is it is based on mass of reports. So unless hundreds of pilots report the same issue then it will never make the cut for development time.

Asobo has their own hired on expert pilots who should be providing them all of this information. If the software engineers do not listen to them or they hired pilots with the wrong experience then that is on them.

I will not waste my time trying to push a wet noodle up a wall with Asobo. Many of these issues were identified during the Alpha / Beta process and they choose to ignore us then.

Edited August 24, 2020 by KenG

[RamonB 449]

27 minutes ago, Chock said:

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

Chock. Hook's comment is spot on. You wouldn't have liked the so called "Alpha/Beta". We were behind a(several) smoke curtain, IMO, it was just a PR exercise.

Then, there were clearly 2 teams of "testers" the PMDG like subjects and the ones who tried to report, test and contribute to make a better game. Guess which team won?. A: None.

And btw: The Zendesk system is a joke.

Edited August 24, 2020 by RamonB

[LHookins 3,103]

7 minutes ago, KenG said:

So unless hundreds of pilots report the same issue then it will never make the cut for development time.

And it doesn't matter how many hundreds of pilots report something if it doesn't fit what they're trying to accomplish with MSFS.  It has to be accessible to the masses.  The team reviewing the reports will simply discard what doesn't fit and the development team will never see it.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but not everyone is going to be happy with it.  

Let's see how the third parties do with better aircraft.

Hook

[shivers9 1,174]

1 hour 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.

First I have not downloaded this for now but in following the comments and viewing the clips over the past I wonder if this is not what many of us noticed well before release. I described it once as looking like a bird in heat shaking its tail trying to attract a mate. It seems odd that months ago the Dev's were often talking about the "1000 pressure points" and so on. Now that we have a release then no one is talking about it. Many seem to be saying now that the flight model is sort of faked or canned and not being influenced very much by the pressure points. The answer may very well lie some where in that area. It could be as simple as the Devs were so pushed that they sort of had to fake it a bit to get it out the door.

[LHookins 3,103]

1 minute ago, shivers9 said:

Many seem to be saying now that the flight model is sort of faked or canned and not being influenced very much by the pressure points.

That flight model won't matter much for modeling turbulence if the atmospheric effects do not exist.  Flying on rails isn't a flight model problem, it's an atmospheric problem.

Hook

[RamonB 449]

8 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Let's see how the third parties do with better aircraft.

I believe some 3PD partners can do wonders. If...... The simulation core is correct? . Given the way WebAssembly is designed no external dll's or exe's are allowed,  (although I believe they can do some plugins IMBW) so, 3PD's will have to work with what ever they get.

 

Edited August 24, 2020 by RamonB

[LHookins 3,103]

1 minute ago, RamonB said:

I believe some 3PD partners can do wonders. If...... The simulation core is correct.

It wouldn't surprise me if A2A simply replaced the entire flight model with their own.  This will take a while.

Hook

[abrams_tank 7,423]

9 minutes ago, shivers9 said:

First I have not downloaded this for now but in following the comments and viewing the clips over the past I wonder if this is not what many of us noticed well before release. I described it once as looking like a bird in heat shaking its tail trying to attract a mate. It seems odd that months ago the Dev's were often talking about the "1000 pressure points" and so on. Now that we have a release then no one is talking about it. Many seem to be saying now that the flight model is sort of faked or canned and not being influenced very much by the pressure points. The answer may very well lie some where in that area. It could be as simple as the Devs were so pushed that they sort of had to fake it a bit to get it out the door.

I don't know how you come away with that.  The feedback from real pilots was quite good in the MSFS forum cited by the first OP on GA planes.  While I'm not a real life pilot myself, I have asked a lot of other pilots on Twitch streams who have no bias for/against Microsoft, I have read feedback from real life pilots in various forums (MSFS forums, Reddit, real life pilot Youtube videos, etc), and the overwhelming majority of the real life pilots with GA flying experience have commented that the flight model is quite good for GA planes.

As for airliners, that is a whole different issue. None of the real life airliner pilots on Twitch have positive comments about the airliners.  So it looks like Asobo has work to do on the airliners (or perhaps the 3rd party developers will make good airliners).

So what you have is a pretty decent simulator for GA planes with more improvements to come in the future, but somewhat disappointing for airliners (which may be fixed when 3rd parties like PDMG release their airliners).

Edited August 24, 2020 by abrams_tank

[shivers9 1,174]

1 minute ago, LHookins said:

It wouldn't surprise me if A2A simply replaced the entire flight model with their own.  This will take a while.

Hook

My over all opinion right now is that this whole thing might have been designed like Carenado cranks out planes. They look beautiful But, until someone like Bert P. fixes them they they dont fly very good.

[LHookins 3,103]

3 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

don't know how you come away with that.  The feedback from real pilots was quite good in the MSFS forum cited by the first OP on GA planes.  While I'm not a real life pilot myself, I have asked a lot of other pilots on Twitch streams who have no bias for/against Microsoft and almost all the real life pilots I asked on Twitch with GA flying experience have commented that the flight model is quite good for GA planes.

I'm going to take their word for it.

The external view is artificial.  Do we see the same "shaking" in videos of aircraft flying in formation?

Hook

[FlyingInACessna 656]

3 hours ago, Chock said:

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.

I noticed this! The landing challenges are impossibly and unrealistically hard! The nose goes wherever it wants to and there’s no stability. Planes descend and climb all over the place. Even with a stable approach speed some are impossible to get down.

[LHookins 3,103]

51 minutes ago, Chock said:

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

Wrong or not, you'd still be pooping in stereo after they'd reamed you a new one.

I doubt Asobo cared what we thought.  Everything you see complained about since release was complained about during the Alpha.  We weren't there to drive the design process, we were there to stress test the servers and report on specific items every week.

I have joked that the testers should have gotten a special in-sim "mushroom award."  Kept in the dark and fed nothing but... well you know.

Hook

[LHookins 3,103]

5 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

Planes descend and climb all over the place. Even with a stable approach speed some are impossible to get down.

Sounds like turbulence to me. 🙂 I've encountered a bit of that in normal landings when there are obstacles to disturb the air flow.

Hook

[RamonB 449]

7 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

I noticed this! The landing challenges are impossibly and unrealistically hard!

I wonder who thought landing a King Air 350i into TNCS was a fun idea?

Edited August 24, 2020 by RamonB

[sd_flyer 6,042]

Here is another thing! To give an adequate assessment to the sim it is highly desirable  that real pilot has some good experience in PC simulators. I have many friends who are active or retired  airlines, corporate pilots who never tried tried my PC simulator before. There is no surprise they approach sim model as real airplane and since sim can't provide same physical feedback as they got to use to,  as the result they "crash and burn". But after few hours or so they got a grip on it. And start showing amazing skills. As they say: pro is pro.

 

Also it's ironic in real world certified pilots still argue who is "real pilot". Some military pilots think they are, some airlines thinks they are. And some GA pilots think neither military nor airlines  are "real pilots", but only those are why fly J3 Cub without batteries in class Golf.  Go figure! As one FAA inspector told once : private pilot is license to learn and CFI is a license to endorse, but neither are necessarily real pilots ! LOL