Since the dawn of the flight simulators there has always been a discussion about which sim has more realistic flight model and physics.

Is there really a possibility to have an objective comparison? What it would take to  produce some comprehensive benchmarks with data and charts?

I imagine  it can be done by flying a standard performance aircraft  equipped with some kind of FDR which would record control surfaces deflections, and engine parameters as input and

later injecting these parameters into sims to record their own output  (GPS position, altitude and attitude.)

Envelopes of both original and simulated aircraft would than be compared with some comprehensive 3D analysis software to visualize the differences and see who is the winner..

I guess the test could  be extremely expensive and maybe only the airframe manufacturer could really do it (real aircraft part).

 A cheaper way (but  non equally conclusive) would be performing a benchmark flight in a dedicated professional software like http://www.j2aircraft.com/  but this would leave loser with excuse that  this isn't the real deal.

Will we ever witness a believable comparison? Is there any preexisting data that could be used?

Within you tube there are already several real pilots who have expressed their own opinion on FS.... of course they appreciate the graphic but they also state it’s far from a simulation, that’s closer to an arcade 

I dunno.

I am afraid that the hard-and software demands for a ‘realistic’ flight model are still quite a bit beyond the average PC.

The gear that already hangs at a simple, but correct, instrument-simulator is hair-raisingly expensive, and the graphics are usually a joke. ( apart from the instruments of course) Even the graphics of official simulators are not really to write home about. It’s not their purpose.

So, for the foreseeable future, we’ll be stuck with arcade phyics. And a comparison would be like comparing 10 brands of ersatz coffee that are fine by themself, but are no-way near to an àctual cup of coffee.. 

Maybe, in due time, when physical feedback is realistic too, it would be nice to have a bunch of professional pilots test the different games. But for now, they ‘d probably categorise ALL available sims as ‘arcade’ or worse, ‘toys’ It’s just, whàtever sim for PC, they ALL lack the physical feedback pilots have learned to trust upon, together with what their instruments tell them. No substitute for feeling Your stomach go upwards when suddenly dropping hundreds of feet due to turbulence, or slipping sidewards during a  badly executed turn.. 

And as far as ‘feeling’ realistic for anaverage sim dabbler like me, there’s no substitute for X-Plane. That -somehow- ‘feels’ right. Especially because it misses the weird and twitchy character that planes in MS sims always had. Is it ‘realistic’ ?  No idea. Don’t have a PPL. And my experience is limited to sightseeing tours in a 172 and being bussed to holiday destinations... Oh.. and I once sat in an F16.. in a hangar when in the service. 😛 

Edited October 5, 20205 yr by stefbuik

More or less.  Never mind the fact we can have 100 people come and look at something and get 100 wildly different opinions unless something quite obvious is wrong like the plane can go from 0-78knots and take off in just 1 meter of runway when in real life it cannot I don't think there is a totally objective way to analyze the flight models.  People have tried they use the performance charts from the aircraft manufacturers and point to when things don't match up but I feel like that misses out on the whole airmass aspect of things etc.  But like above I have no personal point of reference i generally leave those battles for others to fight.  I just know I can go on youtube and forums and see wildly varying opinions on the flight models across all sims btw not just MSFS.

Edited October 5, 20205 yr by pjs37

Too early to evaluate exactly what the "Modern" FDM can bring in the future.

It appears to me it's still under development, and I look forward for more detailled documentation on upcoming versions of the SDK.

In just a prticular way it lags behind X-Plane and Aerofly FS2, like the two videos bellow allow to determine using a tool that records roll rates and stick deflections. 

Curiously I had posted about it today at another thread about the performance in aerobatic aircraft like the Extra and the Pitts, but this is one among many of aspects to compare, even at a superficial level...:

 

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/586141-properly-modelling-the-extra-and-pitts/?do=findComment&comment=4369673

As the saying goes, "Ask three CFI and you will get four different answers."

IMHO the small single engine piston airplanes are the better done airplanes as long as your intention is VFR and not modern IFR using RNAV/RNP procedures in a dynamic environment. The DA62 feels OK and is very predictable. Once you go much past that the airplanes seem to be less realistic. The G58 Baron rolls like a Pitts Special, the King Air has numerous engine issues, and the jets go from OK with the CJ4 to just plain wrong with the Longitude. I have not even bothered with the jetliners.

Considering a big "aircraft" update is in the works according to the Q&A this whole line may be best held until such time as Asobo releases this update and its major patch (since we all know they will break a bunch of stuff with an update.) 

1 hour ago, Mark VII said:

Within you tube there are already several real pilots who have expressed their own opinion on FS.... of course they appreciate the graphic but they also state it’s far from a simulation, that’s closer to an arcade 

And there are others on Youtube, including Flightchops whose opinions I tend to trust, who say it's very impressive and gets pretty close to the real behavior. 

Of course, as others have said, it depends on what you're flying. The light singles are good. Most of the rest have bugs that are creating problems which will presumably get fixed at some point.

 

 

In my opinion, MSFS does a pretty good job at doing what it can to simulate real flight. There are lots of areas of improvement of course, but the reality is.. it is an unreachable goal. When VR arrives, just like in P3D, then it will be a huge improvement to the sensation of actually sitting in a cockpit.

The reality however is feel, if you spend $1000's of dollars buying decent control yokes/throttles/pedals then you will get a better experience no doubt... but if you are going to spend that money.. why not spend it on real flying.

There are certain things that simply can not be simulated.. aerobatic flight is the big one. Having spent many happy hours in real aerobatic types I just don't even touch aerobatics in a sim. It's these cases of flying in that 10% margin of the flight envelope that sims just can not represent realistically.

Personally I get a lot of pleasure from flying in MSFS, I accept it for what it is.. and if it's real enough then to me at least it's doing a pretty good job.

2 minutes ago, BusheFlyer said:

The reality however is feel, if you spend $1000's of dollars buying decent control yokes/throttles/pedals then you will get a better experience no doubt... but if you are going to spend that money.. why not spend it on real flying.

Some people can't for medical reasons. Some people also realize that a $1,000 yoke/throttle quad/rudder setup is a lot cheaper than a $5,000 minimum license plus plane purchase/rental and gas to maintain currency.

Aviation is bloody expensive, and there is no point at which you have spent all the money you need to and can stop spending money for several years. That's not true of sims.

 

Just now, eslader said:

Some people can't for medical reasons. Some people also realize that a $1,000 yoke/throttle quad/rudder setup is a lot cheaper than a $5,000 minimum license plus plane purchase/rental and gas to maintain currency.

Aviation is bloody expensive, and there is no point at which you have spent all the money you need to and can stop spending money for several years. That's not true of sims.

 

Yes, I am not knocking those devices or purchase decisions. If you can afford it then why not. The beautiful thing about a sim is the aircraft is always ready to fly, real world aircraft ownership can often be a case of opening your wallet and watching as many hands dip into it on a continuous basis until the day comes you sell it.

Private flying is and always has been impossible to reason financially.

2 hours ago, Mark VII said:

Within you tube there are already several real pilots who have expressed their own opinion on FS.... of course they appreciate the graphic but they also state it’s far from a simulation, that’s closer to an arcade 

The pilots I've seen videos of (flightdeck2sim, V1 and some others) have expressed quite the opposite. Plus, this matches my personal GA experience.

MSFS is off by the numbers as the default planes aren't really modeled well. There are also some specific issues in general. But the feeling of the plane moving through air is second to none. You feel all the little bumps and movements that you do in real life.

All it needs is some fine tuning and well modeled planes.

Edited October 5, 20205 yr by tweekz

38 minutes ago, BusheFlyer said:

Private flying is and always has been impossible to reason financially.

It's also a lot safer to use a simulator, as private flying has about the same dangers as riding a motorcycle statistically, at least for the first few years of a pilot's career which are often somewhat dangerous.

15 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

It's also a lot safer to use a simulator, as private flying has about the same dangers as riding a motorcycle statistically, at least for the first few years of a pilot's career which are often somewhat dangerous.

And a lot of that goes back to the money too. If you can only afford to fly just enough to maintain legal currency, you're not going to be a terribly proficient pilot.

 

36 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

It's also a lot safer to use a simulator, as private flying has about the same dangers as riding a motorcycle statistically, at least for the first few years of a pilot's career which are often somewhat dangerous.

Well, statistically most pilot error accidents are not by newly qualified pilots. New pilots are very much aware of their limitations and lack of experience and tend to be pretty switched on. The danger zone is something like 600 - 1000 hour pilots, who are experienced enough to feel confident which naturally can lead to complacency.

Although I am not sure on the statistics for deaths whilst using a simulator.. I am sure the blood pressure issues that software bugs can induce have claimed a few victims.

1 hour ago, tweekz said:

The pilots I've seen videos of (flightdeck2sim, V1 and some others) have expressed quite the opposite. Plus, this matches my personal GA experience.

MSFS is off by the numbers as the default planes aren't really modeled well. There are also some specific issues in general. But the feeling of the plane moving through air is second to none. You feel all the little bumps and movements that you do in real life.

All it needs is some fine tuning and well modeled planes.

There you go--the VERY HARD PART has already been done in spades.  Fine tuning is largely what's left so all of the incessant whining by naysayers like the one you just responded to is hardly worth a reply, but good for you for bringing out the other set of opinions.  As you say the feeling of the plane moving thru the air is second to none.