Turboprop logic - here we are again....

[ckyliu 1,749]

You think the PT6 simulation is bad, you should try the TPE331! (see how many of you sim AV geeks that)

[Tom_L 522]

15 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Those things have been reported in alpha beta numerous times

I'm reading that a lot. And it doesn't make me very optimistic as to "we listen to the community" and other obviously marketing driven statements. If it was "only" the turboprop model, but other than the Cessna 150/172 all planes seem to have serious issues. What is the point in Alpha/Beta for a Flightsim if reports to the inaccuracy of the flightmodel are ignored?

[ckyliu 1,749]

@Tom_L by all accounts the insider alpha testers were primarily there for server stress test fodder. Bug testing was an primarily an internal Asobo thing, so bugs reported by them had to be vetted by a "proper tester" before they even got passed on.

Edited August 24, 2020 by ckyliu

[tweekz 2,165]

3 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

And it doesn't make me very optimistic as to "we listen to the community" and other obviously marketing driven statements.

The solution to this topic is very simple:

If the people who are annoyed by this behavior are not just interested in complaining about it, go there:

https://flightsimulator.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

Fill out the form with:

Torque rises with altitude, ITT remains in lower ranges, Beta range doesn't seem to work.

The more people submit a problem, the more it will raise on the priority list.

 

If you think they don't care anyway, there are nice turboprops at X-Plane.

Problem solved.

 

[Slides 1,552]

10 minutes ago, Tom_L said:

Cessna 150/172 all planes seem to have serious issues.

Your definition of serious issues seems very different from mine.

[Tom_L 522]

2 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Fill out the form

Did that a few hours ago.

 

3 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Problem solved

Really?

[tweekz 2,165]

Just now, Tom_L said:

Did that a few hours ago.

Good!

Just now, Tom_L said:

Really?

What else do you want to happen?

[Paraffin 2,197]

1 minute ago, ckyliu said:

@Tom_L by all accounts they were primarily there for server stress test fodder

Primarily maybe, but there were a few things that seemed to be a response to the Alpha feedback. A big one was saved camera views per aircraft model as in XP, which the group asked for and it didn't seem to be in the original plans. Also I remember pointing out a problem with the Niagra Falls mesh that was fixed shortly afterwards. There were a lot of small fixes like that one.

Unfortunately the additions and bug smashing were mostly in the UI and world modeling, not so much the flight and systems modeling, which Asobo doesn't seem to have as good a handle on. That's an area that still feels like a port and not a "next gen" extension of what came before.

[taguilo 33]

Actually the default turboprop model is total or partially incorrect in all of the other popular simulators (FSX/P3D/XPLANE). However, there are close to real performing examples of PT6 (Milviz) and PW150 (Majestic) in P3D, that could be ported to 2020 in a - hopefully - near future, considering 2020 engine base parameters are similar.

Time will say.

 

Tom

[molleh 451]

8 minutes ago, taguilo said:

Actually the default turboprop model is total or partially incorrect in all of the other popular simulators (FSX/P3D/XPLANE). However, there are close to real performing examples of PT6 (Milviz) and PW150 (Majestic) in P3D, that could be ported to 2020 in a - hopefully - near future, considering 2020 engine base parameters are similar.

Time will say.

 

Tom

It would be nice to have it properly simulated in the base simulator, that way aircraft developers could make use of it and save a lot of development time. Less development time means more addons to choose from for the end user.

Pretty disappointing that "the third parties can handle it" is still an ever-present refrain even after MFS's release.

Edited August 24, 2020 by molleh

[snglecoil 1,828]

I'm not making excuses for the team at Asobo by saying this, but I think we all have to recognize that the team does not have a depth of aviation knowledge required to meet the breadth of expectations that a lot of us had when the sim was unveiled last year. Asobo, both internally and through partnerships, have in fact pushed the venerable flight sim series into a new era. It is clear, however, that the lion's share of innovation was invested creating the world outside of the flight deck. This thread alone provides ample evidence that a lot of legacy ghosts from the previous generation still haunt the house that Asobo have built. While i'm not happy with many of the shortcomings in the initial release, I do take their willingness to try to tackle a new approach flight modeling and weather (though immature in their current state) as a signal that they may be willing to revisit other longstanding issues, such as turboprop modeling, that have plagued FS in the past.

Rest assured that feedback from many, many experience pilots has been given pre- and post-release. I know it is easy to draw the conclusion that because good feedback was given and wasn't acted upon in time for this release, that the feedback was willingly ignored. I don't think that is the case at all. I hope that eventually the feedback will be acted upon at least in a way that makes it possible for default planes to get the basics right and for 3rd parties to address the fine details.

[b1bmsgt 206]

3 hours ago, Chock said:

Turboprop Logic. Sounds like Steely Dan album title. 🤣

Pass the Pretzels, Chock old buddy...