When on the ground with parkbrake on, apply full throttle on the cessna and watch the aircraft shake because of the propwash winds. Thats awsome. Xp11 dont have those physics. I tested both. Flightmodel in my opinion is also better then xp11, specialy on the cessna's.

Well,

while I do love MFS, I have to point out that XP11 does have the exact same effects... You should eneble the "Experimental" FM in XP11 to have even more interesting results...

Both great sims, IMO they're on par...

2 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Well,

while I do love MFS, I have to point out that XP11 does have the exact same effects... You should eneble the "Experimental" FM in XP11 to have even more interesting results...

Both great sims, IMO they're on par...

I did enable the experimental flightmodel. The aircraft didnt shake at all. Its so funny to see all people think Austin Meyers flightmodel cant be beaten. Austin is not the only man in the world that know how a aircraft should behave.

3 minutes ago, Cyrex1984 said:

Austin is not the only man in the world that know how a aircraft should behave.

Try telling him that. 🤣

Agreed on the base flight model and it's abilities. A big improvement over FSX/P3D.

But of course there are some stuck in the past who can't accept the new reality and want to go back to the config files they're only familiar with. Some others are even in denial that the new FM is even different.

To me the new MSFS FM is in some ways very similar to the DCS External Flight Model, which uses a combination of lookup tables, parameterized equations and moments on the primary air foils.

 

Edited September 3, 20205 yr by Slides

19 minutes ago, Slides said:

Agreed on the base flight model and it's abilities. A big improvement over FSX/P3D.

But of course there are some stuck in the past who can't accept the new reality and want to go back to the config files they're only familiar with. Some others are even in denial that the new FM is even different.

To me the new MSFS FM is in some ways very similar to the DCS External Flight Model, which uses a combination of lookup tables, parameterized equations and moments on the primary air foils.

 

I'm not going to disagree with your views. But I have to point out that prop wash, prop torque and rudder prop wash was always possible in FSX and some devs did implement it. The new cfg files are not much different from the old air files. In fact they are largely the same parameters.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Both great sims, IMO they're on par...

Both are great, I agree. Not sure about "on par" because the strengths and weaknesses are in such different areas with each sim. 

MSFS has a lot of catching up to do with avionics, engine modeling (turboprops) and the lack of a default rotary wing flight model. XP has a lot of catching up to do with scenery and weather. 

 

12 minutes ago, robert young said:

I'm not going to disagree with your views. But I have to point out that prop wash, prop torque and rudder prop wash was always possible in FSX and some devs did implement it. The new cfg files are not much different from the old air files. In fact they are largely the same parameters.

Whether or not the input parameters are the same means very little as to whether or not the underlying model is anything close to the same. Which it is not.

20 minutes ago, robert young said:

I'm not going to disagree with your views. But I have to point out that prop wash, prop torque and rudder prop wash was always possible in FSX and some devs did implement it. The new cfg files are not much different from the old air files. In fact they are largely the same parameters.

Sure, anything is possible if you script it. That's not what's happening here.

Like every sim scripts wing flex based on lookup values. If a new sim came out that actually modeled wing flex based on moments, environmental factors, aircraft parameters etc, you can't just claim that it's been done before.

And as others have stated, CFG files being the same is pretty meaningless.

 

18 minutes ago, robert young said:

I'm not going to disagree with your views. But I have to point out that prop wash, prop torque and rudder prop wash was always possible in FSX and some devs did implement it. The new cfg files are not much different from the old air files. In fact they are largely the same parameters.

The new flight model shares the cfg structure for providing a few parameters to the new model, for the autopilot and for the legacy model. The modern flight model only needs a few of those parameters, the actual modeling is based on the geometric 3D mesh of the aircraft (also providing the legacy parameters).

Which is a good approach to provide a aerodynamically versatile approximation with reasonable amount of input data needed.

Here another thing that work in MSFS like in real life. If during taxi in tricycle gear I add power and bring controls aft it decreased load from the front wheel and aircraft can overcome  certain  reasonable size bumps, big grass and other unpaved areas

1 minute ago, Slides said:

Sure, anything is possible if you script it. That's not what's happening here.

Like every sim scripts wing flex based on lookup values. If a new sim came out that actually modeled wing flex based on moments, environmental factors, aircraft parameters etc, you can't just claim that it's been done before.

And as others have stated, CFG files being the same is pretty meaningless.

 

I don't have any prejudice or bias either way. If a flight physics system was invented in 1950 or 2050 it doesn't really matter to me. Your earlier post hinted that anyone not on board with the "new" physics is some kind of old fashioned stick in the mud, unwillling to change. 90% of the params in the "new" cfg files are just the old air file presented in a text form. There honestly is nothing much new at the moment. There might be in the future but there is really nothing that stands out as different - it is the individual tuning of each aircraft that is different. 

Wing flex is a graphical/3d animation and not (as yet) part of any flight model. That might change in the future and if it does that's excellent news.

At the moment you can tune both the Legacy and "Modern" flight models almost identically and no-one would see the difference. The modern version handles similar params in a slightly different way, so you need somewhat different values between the two to get a similar effect. I think if Asobo do implement their multiple lift points in the future then that's a different matter, and I'm all for that if it offers more scope.

1 minute ago, robert young said:

I think if Asobo do implement their multiple lift points in the future then that's a different matter, and I'm all for that if it offers more scope.

You keep basically calling the CEO of Asobo a liar and then act hurt and surprised when people ask for proof.

Shockingly, the rest of your comment tells me that you don't actually understand the basics of inputs and outputs from a model.

4 minutes ago, robert young said:

Wing flex is a graphical/3d animation and not (as yet) part of any flight model.

Everything in a flight model is a 3D animation based on inputs and outputs. Some more simpler than be others.

44 minutes ago, robert young said:

I'm not going to disagree with your views. But I have to point out that prop wash, prop torque and rudder prop wash was always possible in FSX and some devs did implement it. The new cfg files are not much different from the old air files. In fact they are largely the same parameters.

The flightmodel in mfs is closer to blade element theory than lookup tables, but its neither.