Propwash physics. The best ive seen in a sim!

[ryanbatc 12,854]

I too have looked at the flight model and there is a LOT that is based on legacy code.  That's not a bad thing!

FSX had some of the best FDEs of any sim I've used when done right.

Asobo previewed a lot of items that simply are non existent in the current build.  Like weather...live weather and winds are basically INOP in the USA.

I'm not saying the flight model isn't more advanced - it is....  But it seems like some people are bothered by the fact that so much legacy code exists.

[jon b 2,047]

9 hours ago, BrianW said:

So I know even without propwash you can keep the nose up till you get pretty slow in a 172.  Ironically not getting the nose down is the thing I get nagged about most whenever I get a chance to use the 747,777,787 full motion sims. 

Well this is good news then as it points to the 172 behaviour being reasonably authentic.

The thing to remember when landing the big jets is that there are always 2 landings. First the mail wheels , then you  have to fly the nose wheel onto the runway🙂

[virtuali 4,421]

15 hours ago, Paraffin said:

For example, the sim does not appear to model adverse yaw with one engine failure in a twin. Cut the fuel for one engine in an XP11 twin, and you'll need a strong rudder input to maintain heading. Especially if it's the "critical" engine. Doesn't happen in MSFS. You can maintain heading straight and level with one engine out, and no rudder input at all.

So I tried that and no, it doesn't do that.

Here a quick test, with no wind, and being sure I turned OFF Auto-coordination, which MSFS confusingly calls "Rudder assistance on take-off", so I won't be mislead thinking the sim flies straight with no rudder correction required, just because I forgot I had auto-coordination enabled...
 

 

It surely doesn't fly straight and level with one engine off, and at 00:34 in the video I started to apply rudder ( I had almost full right deflection ), to fly straight.

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by virtuali

[d.tsakiris 418]

8 hours ago, MattNischan said:

But the strange misinformation and misunderstanding being peddled really has no place. There is an objective truth here.

The objective truth is that while many config parameters are the same, the flight model is nothing like the tabular model of yore.

I don't believe that is what he (Robert) has been saying.

[jcomm 5,930]

Well, but the last patch didn't bring feathering - props still do not feather in any of the "featherable" aircarft...  Maybe on next patch...

[vortex681 806]

20 hours ago, Bert Pieke said:

Sorry, but quoting a Tweet from the CEO does not trump a proven track record in the flight modelling business IMHO.  I'll add my voice to trusting Rob Young on this.. 

If I recall correctly, there was a whole video that Asobo produced where they talked about this - it wasn't just a tweet. Whilst I have a lot of respect for Robert, personally I'd rather trust the devs who actually designed and programmed the sim. Why would they lie about this? Just in case I'm out of the loop and have missed it, is there a definitive statement from Asobo (with a link) where they state that the multi-point flight model isn't being used?

[L3m0n 56]

13 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

I too have looked at the flight model and there is a LOT that is based on legacy code.  That's not a bad thing!

FSX had some of the best FDEs of any sim I've used when done right.

Asobo previewed a lot of items that simply are non existent in the current build.  Like weather...live weather and winds are basically INOP in the USA.

I'm not saying the flight model isn't more advanced - it is....  But it seems like some people are bothered by the fact that so much legacy code exists.

And again, as stated in the SDK docs it was a requirement from MS for the new flight model to be as backwards compatible with the old one as possible. There is a whole section that talks about this and this is why the new FM is using the same parameters, quirks and all, as the old one. It even explains almost all of the math behind the new FM.

5 hours ago, d.tsakiris said:

I don't believe that is what he (Robert) has been saying.

In this very thread he went from "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." to, just a few hours later "The multiple lift points do exist, but are currently expressed (as documented by the SDK) in debug mode and as reference."

I think that is quite a big leap, from claiming lift points dont exist in-game to well actually they do but just in debug.

And on that later point about lift points being used only for reference he is incorrect. The SDK actually says quite the opposite, that the old FSX FM should be used for reference when porting an aircraft and tweaking the new FM. There are even several debug options centered around doing just that.

[robert young 2,897]

23 minutes ago, L3m0n said:

And again, as stated in the SDK docs it was a requirement from MS for the new flight model to be as backwards compatible with the old one as possible. There is a whole section that talks about this and this is why the new FM is using the same parameters, quirks and all, as the old one. It even explains almost all of the math behind the new FM.

In this very thread he went from "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." to, just a few hours later "The multiple lift points do exist, but are currently expressed (as documented by the SDK) in debug mode and as reference."

It's not a big leap at all. I said "implement".