9 minutes ago, MikeT707 said:

What kind of weather were you in and also, were you around any mountains or buildings that could cause effects to the aircraft. I am just reaching here, but maybe there is something to do with external effects causing too much impact on the aircraft. Thought I would ask because you are an expert with this. 

Good question. I had no weather. No wind. Flat landscape and also over the sea. Low temperatures.

15 minutes ago, robert young said:

Ken, it's the coefficient of lift vs aoa tables that are wrong. In fsx you could define literally a hundred very detailed lift vs aoa points on a visible graph. I'm not sure it you can do this in FS 2020 as so far I've only seen a text format table with only a few entries. Maybe it is possible to add more. But the key bad param here is the top of the slope where the Y value is way lower than it should be at maximum aoa before the stall. So the wings are stalling probably before the proper angle of attack maximum.

Rob,

Thank you, here are the lines I was referring to. 

Quote

// stall
full_flap_full_weight_poweron_stall_speed = 49,0.1;
no_flap_full_weight_poweron_stall_speed = 52,0.1;
stall_aoa = 16.8,0.5;

I am finding that with full flaps I am well below the 16.8 degree plus or minus 0.5% that I should be getting.  Not to mention that 49 KIAS and 52 KIAS are well below 130 KIAS the airplane is stalling at.

I swear it looks like they just dumped the C152 or C172 numbers into this file as it makes absolutely no sense.

Quote

[DOUBLE_CHECKS]
wing_area=145.75,0.1;
wing_span = 39.17,0.1;
htail_area = 22.35,0.1;
htail_span = 10.82,0.1;
vtail_area = 22.28,0.1;
vtail_span = 3.6,0.1;
max_gross_weight = 2535,1.0;
empty_weight = 2200,1.0;
max_hp = 135,0.1;

Even these DOUBLE_CHECKS seem like they are pulled out of thin air. Maybe the software just ignores this file...

EDIT: I confirmed these are the exact same numbers as the C152. 

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by KenG
Confirmed C152 numbers.

2 minutes ago, robert young said:

Good question. I had no weather. No wind. Flat landscape and also over the sea. Low temperatures.

So what happens if you are in somewhat adverse conditions. Does the aircraft react much more than in stable conditions. If so, do you think it could be that the flight model is good but external things might be what is out of whack?

35 minutes ago, robert young said:

If I was to try to convert for example the RealAir Duke Turbine to this sim it would not really be possible at the moment.

Wow...As an old timer that really got my attention. The Duke is so good it works on an etch a sketch! It makes me wonder about what the guys over at A2A have run into. It will be interesting to see if they jumped on this train without knowing everything they needed to know. They too are pretty much pro's at making 0's and 1's fly. Going to be interesting.

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by shivers9

Just now, MikeT707 said:

So what happens if you are in somewhat adverse conditions. Does the aircraft react much more than in stable conditions. If so, do you think it could be that the flight model is good but external things might be what is out of whack?

There are three things. The first is the over-reaction of the aircraft to pilot input, and the second is the reaction to air mass changes. I haven't properly tested the weather yet as I'm still studying the first, but I will get around to it. As we already discussed, there appears to be a third, which is superimposed oscillation or so-called random, or perhaps even regular, movement that is artificial and outside any flight modelling or weather

6 hours ago, Chock said:

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

Any chance to boost the Miata 🤣

22 minutes ago, KenG said:

Rob,

Thank you, here are the lines I was referring to. 

I am finding that with full flaps I am well below the 16.8 degree plus or minus 0.5% that I should be getting.  Not to mention that 49 KIAS and 52 KIAS are well below 130 KIAS the airplane is stalling at.

I swear it looks like they just dumped the C152 or C172 numbers into this file as it makes absolutely no sense.

Even these DOUBLE_CHECKS seem like they are pulled out of thin air. Maybe the software just ignores this file...

EDIT: I confirmed these are the exact same numbers as the C152. 

Hi Ken,

I don't have the G58 as I only have the standard edition. Could you please  let me know which precise file you found those entries in? EDIT: It's in the Target Performance. cfg file, yes?

I have a feeling these files are not actually influencing the flight model but might be reporting params for use in debug mode. I can't be sure but it appears that way.

Edited August 24, 20205 yr by robert young

5 minutes ago, robert young said:

Hi Ken,

 

I don't have the G58 as I only have the standard edition. Could you please  let me know which precise file you found those entries in?

Rob,

 It is the target_performance.cfg file and I am looking at the CE 700 Citation Longitude. I did a line by line compare and it is the C152 file. I think for the sim to use the file it has to be renamed target_performances.cfg (with the s.) I am seeing what I can find for the Longitude performance wise, maybe just fill in the stall speeds and see if that helps commenting out the rest of the file.

-Ken

Just now, KenG said:

Rob,

 It is the target_performance.cfg file and I am looking at the CE 700 Citation Longitude. I did a line by line compare and it is the C152 file. I think for the sim to use the file it has to be renamed target_performances.cfg (with the s.) I am seeing what I can find for the Longitude performance wise, maybe just fill in the stall speeds and see if that helps commenting out the rest of the file.

-Ken

I think my edited reply crossed with yours above.

OK, found this in the SDK.(or the gist of it):

Target Performance files have no influence on aircraft flight behaviour. They are used to compare performance versus the "expected" performance that are found in Pilot Operating Handbooks. You can use the files to output a performance report in .csv format.

1 hour ago, robert young said:

OK, found this in the SDK.(or the gist of it):

Target Performance files have no influence on aircraft flight behaviour. They are used to compare performance versus the "expected" performance that are found in Pilot Operating Handbooks. You can use the files to output a performance report in .csv format.

Thanks... We will have to wait then for Asobo to make the adjustments for the Longitude or someone else who has CE 700 data. 

2 hours ago, Slides said:

Does anyone have a real life video example of a light GA aircraft which is perfectly still while flying? So far I have not been to find one.

It was pretty still on this morning in 2018...flying into airventure...

 

2 hours ago, Slides said:

Does anyone have a real life video example of a light GA aircraft which is perfectly still while flying? So far I have not been to find one.

Very short video where a sailplane comes out of turbulent air into smooth wave lift...

 

Yes, I wouldn’t get too carried away by the definitive opinions of “real world pilots”  commenting on flight models.

I’ve had some experience of this ,having had a foot in both real and simulator testing camps at a reasonable level for many years  (see signature).

This is not an easy task, in fact it’s a lot harder to compare  objectively on flight models than you’d imagine. 
Certainly for testing aircraft systems this is much easier to be objective, you press button A and the following will happen .. unless button B is also pressed then it won’t , lose hydraulics on system 4 and this won’t work, etc.

Commenting on flight modelling is much more subjective. I’m always amused  whenever  I read articles in aviation magazines from fellow 747 pilots claiming  the 747 actually, much to everyone’s surprise is  “Easy to fly” .....it’s not! 
It might be easy enough, relatively speaking, to leave the auto throttle in and just follow the flight director parrot fashion, but take all the automatics out and switch off the flight director and actually fly the thing like you would a Cessna and she’s hard work, with a shed load of  inertia and a mind of her own. I’ve been flying it for over 20 years and I can tell you it needs respect and a firm hand,anyone who thinks it’s easy to fly is going to get bitten sooner or later.

I don’t think you’re going to get an accurate appraisal from a “ real” pilot who just comes along and fires up a simulator for the first time in their life and starts declaring what’s right and wrong. Sure there’ll be some blindingly obvious inaccuracies, way too much thrust for example which can be commented on , but to get down to the nuances of the flight model will actually need some experience of flying simulators, not just aeroplanes made of metal. PC simulation is different.

If I were somehow able to attach my thrustmaster HOTAS to a real 747 and then fly it remotely by only looking at a 40 inch 4K , it sure wouldn’t feel like a 747.

What might be 100% correct behaviour and modelling according to the laws of aerodynamics might feel complete rubbish in the simulation. As has been mentioned here, the simulator can achieve an accurate feeling by using smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand , the end results may be much nicer , and FEEL more accurate although not actually an accurate representation of the physics involved at that particular moment.

PC simulation isn’t really  about making an exact 100% accurate carbon copy of a real world aircraft and its handling , it’s more about making a version of an aircraft which can be flown in our virtual world using Scaled down controls and almost non existent physical feed back, the so called seat of the pants. There has to be compromise in the flight modelling to achieve the latter.

There are a handful of sim aircraft which achieve that rare sensation of convincing you that you are actually flying a real aircraft. Amongst others this list would include the entire A2A fleet, most of DCS and the JRollon SF260 & JF/TD PA38 tomahawk in x-plane.  What the developers secret is with those models I don’t know, accurate physics or sleight of hand tricks? Either way they just work.

So, I would suggest the comments from “real” pilots who are now piling onto YouTube and other media to pass judgement on the realism or otherwise of this new simulator need to be taken with a pinch of salt. Much better I feel to listen to pilots who are also keen simmers, of which there are many here on avsim, because they will know what to look for, and appreciate the inevitable subtle differences that are to be expected between flying an aircraft on a PC simulation and one at their local airport.

It should also be noted that even the level D full motion sims that I’ve used in my career differ in handling and feel to the real aircraft.
 

 

From my own perspective, I was on the alpha but I didn’t really do a great deal testing due to the distractions of real world aviation going into meltdown. I spent my time keeping my hand in on my existing platforms not downloading new builds.And has been mentioned the feeling was the alpha was mainly for testing servers and usage not actual product testing.

I thought I’d give some qualified input once the 747 model was released to alpha but it soon became apparent that the aircraft was not intended to be an accurate study example so feeding back it’s obvious but deliberate shortcomings would be pointless. It’s a default airliner designed for the beginner, it would be foolish to make it too realistic because as I mentioned it’s not that easy to fly. Though I have to say they’ve nailed the feeling of the takeoff roll on the 747 model !
 

I purchased the standard edition of the sim as I wasn’t expecting much from the defaults and wasn’t blown away by the flight handling in the alpha aircraft I tried. However having spent time with the 152 I really started to enjoy it and was so impressed I have since upgraded to premium deluxe as I wanted to get my hands on the 172 and the 152 aerobat especially , as I did my ppl on one of those.

Though admittedly not perfect the  GA aircraft flight modelling is very good and they’re a joy to fly. My only real negative observation is whenever I look down for a couple of seconds to study a VFR chart on my lap to navigate by the time I look up again the aircraft is invariably in a spiral dive. It can happen on real aircraft but perhaps not as readily as it is in the sim right now. I quite enjoy the constant small corrective inputs required to fly the 152 around.

1 hour ago, jon b said:

I quite enjoy the constant small corrective inputs required to fly the 152 around.

Wow. No wonder Asobo is not making changes to the flight model immediately following other contradictory opinions.

It's really very subjective and not that easy to pin down on what's right or wrong. Minus performance data.