How far can a2a surpass Asobo?

[tommy10101 67]

Taking the Cessna 172 for example, I am struggling to see how a2a can improve on it in some aspects. The head movement effects from the bobbles in the air as the aircraft sways around are, to me, almost perfect at the moment - this used to be a big selling point for a2a in p3d - I feel asobo have matched and exceeded what a2a managed.

Also the aircraft model fidelity, can a2a actually improve on this? Asobo have done an incredible job, the default 172 is higher fidelity than the a2a p3d to me. Sure a2a can make the doors and windows open, give us the maintenance hanger, with modifications etc, but things like creaking sounds, knocks while taxing, all the little immersion adding things are already here and are brilliant. These are the things accusim used to bring to p3d 

then on top of this, I have the worry that a2a will use more legacy code than the default aircraft. The Aerostar 600 they have announced will also be released for p3dv5.. 

I’m just hoping a2a have enough access to the sdk to FULLY utilise all the new features mfs2020 has brought us. Otherwise I will feel they are always a step behind the default aircraft. 
 

 

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

I haven't flown the A2A stuff in a while, but I remember landing in one of their small planes and thinking "well that was definitely as real as it gets". I don't think the Cessna's are all that close to be honest, they fly ok right after take off, but there are several types of maneuvers you can do in almost any plane in this game that are not realistic. I can float at 5mph without stalling sometimes, I can bank + rudder and spin almost any plane around way too fast and still control the plane, and some other stuff... I am sure a lot of it is just bugs, but its still there.

The landing feels a bit soft and jerky at the same time, jerky in the sense that some planes tend to jerk right or left right after landing, and soft in the sense that it lands too softly for the corresponding vertical descent rate, I mean you can really drop some of those planes without it crashing you, where in real life you'd explode into flames.

Edited August 24, 2020 by SceneryFX

[tommy10101 67]

I do agree. Maybe I am forgetting how good a2a was. 
 

I just hope a2a will be able to improve upon the short comings in the flight model you mentioned and are not tied down by a global issue not fixable with the sdk. Also have to take full advantage of the new air mass simulation and all the next gen stuff we heard about in the discovery series. 

I look forward to giving them my money either way 
 

 

[captain420 3,099]

I really hope any 3rd party aircraft dev can up their game when it comes to the modeling and textures. The default aircraft are the most beautiful and most realistic aircrafts I've ever seen in a sim. They look better than real life. Every time I hop into a cockpit of lets say the DA40, C172, TBM, etc. my jaw just drops at how stunning the details are.

I love A2A and I really hope they can meet or exceed Asobo in this department.

[julietsierra46 5]

I get your meaning, it the asobo 172 seems work very well. But I just took it to 1500 feet and started to cut the mixture. Went all the way to 5% mixture and no rpm drop. Wonder if the a2a under the hood simulation may be superior to asobos approach....maybe not.

[ShawnG 1,823]

You can’t foul your spark plugs in the Asobo version

[LHookins 3,103]

7 minutes ago, julietsierra46 said:

I get your meaning, it the asobo 172 seems work very well. But I just took it to 1500 feet and started to cut the mixture. Went all the way to 5% mixture and no rpm drop.

Next time, go to external view while adjusting the mixture and watch the digital RPM display under the tach.

I've found that I get peak RPM at around 70% mixture on the ground, down to about 55% at altitude.  I adjust mixture for peak RPM during runup, then again at cruise.

Mixture isn't exactly well modeled. 🙂 

Hook

[julietsierra46 5]

Interesting, thanks for the heads up!

 Mixture isn´t well modelled true, maybe were in for an update sometime in the future in that regard. 

Not that default aircraft worry me much anyways, the future is in aircraft add ons and I´m sure better mixture physics are on the list.

Cheers.

JS

edit; clarification

Edited August 24, 2020 by julietsierra46

[snglecoil 1,828]

Where A2A really shines is in more complete systems modeling. You are never going to flood the default plane, nor run down the battery...nor foul the spark plugs as already mentioned.

Taking the C172 as an example, the default version’s flight characteristics are pretty good. I have no doubt A2A could work out the remaining inaccuracies, however. 
 

 

[FlyingInACessna 656]

2 hours ago, tommy10101 said:

 

Also the aircraft model fidelity, can a2a actually improve on this? Asobo have done an incredible job, the default 172 is higher fidelity than the a2a p3d to me. Sure a2a can make the doors and windows open, give us the maintenance hanger, with modifications etc, but things like creaking sounds, knocks while taxing, all the little immersion adding things are already here and are brilliant. These are the things accusim used to bring to p3d 

 

For sure they will greatly improve the flight model and systems fidelity. So many things the current C172 is missing / has messed up.

- No simulated fouled spark plugs from what I can tell

- Ampmeter reverses discharge and charge for some reason - and it's likely not tied to anything systemic like A2A's would be - more a "if the alternator is off, show discharge!" and that's it

- No maintenance / maintaining state between flights - you act like this is a small thing A2A brings to the table, but it's a HUGE factor in realism

- No battery drainage from overuse without being charged

- Fuel flow inaccurate and doesn't match real life - also makes the start procedure somewhat off - also, engine always starts no matter what - no sort of variability on the condition etc.

On top of that, A2A's model will likely be superior and have more realistic performance and handling.

Edited August 25, 2020 by FlyingInACessna

[Jetman67 517]

23 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

For sure they will greatly improve the flight model and systems fidelity. So many things the current C172 is missing / has messed up.

- No simulated fouled spark plugs from what I can tell

- Ampmeter reverses discharge and charge for some reason - and it's likely not tied to anything systemic like A2A's would be - more a "if the alternator is off, show discharge!" and that's it

- No maintenance / maintaining state between flights - you act like this is a small thing A2A brings to the table, but it's a HUGE factor in realism

- No battery drainage from overuse without being charged

- Fuel flow inaccurate and doesn't match real life - also makes the start procedure somewhat off - also, engine always starts no matter what - no sort of variability on the condition etc.

On top of that, A2A's model will likely be superior and have more realistic performance and handling.

Heaps of scope for a2a

[snglecoil 1,828]

59 minutes ago, FlyingInACessna said:

- Ampmeter reverses discharge and charge for some reason - and it's likely not tied to anything systemic like A2A's would be - more a "if the alternator is off, show discharge!" and that's it

 

I reported this in Zendesk yesterday. Could find anyone else mentioning it here or on the official forums. Glad it is not just me. 

[FlyingInACessna 656]

1 hour ago, snglecoil said:

I reported this in Zendesk yesterday. Could find anyone else mentioning it here or on the official forums. Glad it is not just me. 

I did too. I’m surprised too... most people here aren’t doing run ups / even looking at their instruments? 😕

[VIPERGTSR01 22]

3 hours ago, snglecoil said:

Where A2A really shines is in more complete systems modeling. You are never going to flood the default plane, nor run down the battery...nor foul the spark plugs as already mentioned.

Taking the C172 as an example, the default version’s flight characteristics are pretty good. I have no doubt A2A could work out the remaining inaccuracies, however. 
 

 

I have actually run down the battery in the default 172 G1000, just left the engime cranking and the voltage will drop until everything goes black and the starter stops.

[snglecoil 1,828]

9 minutes ago, VIPERGTSR01 said:

I have actually run down the battery in the default 172 G1000, just left the engime cranking and the voltage will drop until everything goes black and the starter stops.

Well ok then. I happily stand corrected!