For you experienced simmers - do typical aircraft model add-ons address or improve the quirky/twitchy control inputs and responses (that are not really improved by the sensitivity sliders) that we seem to be stuck with in the stock AC? Or are the add-ons incapable of overriding the original code? Yes, I would also like to see more realistic behavior models, but mostly, for now, I would like to just fly aircraft that responded smoothly to the controls. Thanks

Years ago PMDG wrote in an article that they only use the sim code to display the scenery and that the entire plane is modeled by themselves from the ground up. PMDG may be unique in this regard but it demonstrates that it can be done if the developer happens to be dedicated enough to bother. Some like A2A are but others are not.

Previous sims defaults weren’t twitchy, but they had their share of other horrible flight modeling problems.  Some addon aircraft were significantly or totally independent of the sims basic flight model, some weren’t.  This sim is more locked down, with less ability to do things externally, but seems to have a more complex flight model internally, so we will see what can develop. 

One of the difficulties of 'going off the reservation' in terms of simulating a complex aeroplane for preceding sims such as FSX or P3D, has been that whilst it is possible to go 'outside' the main sim routines to make simulating stuff achievable, there is a down side to this. This being that it then makes it difficult for other stuff to interact with that simulated aeroplane using the standard methods when that would be desirable. 

A somewhat simplified example of this might be if we imagine a piece of hardware, such as a joystick controller which has a switch on it which emulates pressing the Z key to engage the autopilot. In a simply-simulated aeroplane which uses that default setting of pressing the Z to turn on and off the autopilot, then that's great, but if a developer jumps through some programming hoops in order to simulate an aeroplane such as a complex modern airliner, one which has twin autopilots, which would of course mean there were two autopilot activation buttons, that's the kind of situation where problems can start between default methods and fancier ways of going about things.

Having said that, pretty much anything is possible if you put your mind to it, and that's as true with software programming as it is with everything else, so I would not worry about anything being achievable too much, because where there is a will, there is invariably also a way.

A good example of how this sort of thing can be done, might be seen for example in perhaps a model of a C-47 where you want people to be able to press a key so it animates paratroops jumping out of it. Now there may be no assignable default 'drop paratroops' command in the sim to trigger an animation, but there is for example, a 'lower the water rudder' command which can trigger an animation. So it would be simple enough to assign the animation of paratroops jumping out of the plane to the sim's lower water rudder animation trigger for your model of the C-47, since it does not need to use a lower the water rudder command.

This is a really basic example of how developers have to think outside the box, but they are well used to this sort of problem and ways around such things. Nevertheless, what developers are mostly waiting on, is the base sim to be stable in the sense of the standards which the software development kit will follow, so they can stick to stuff they know will work down the line; until that happens, if they start jumping through hoops to achieve stuff, at present they will be taking a shot at a goalpost which might then move.

It'll all come good, but it's just going to take a bit of time.

Edited October 5, 20205 yr by Chock

I'm not so much interested in getting AC that model every switch and control. I'm more interested in control inputs and responses that feel more realistic (even if they aren't). I would assume that updates to the main software might constantly break some of those "perfect" add-on AC. Don't know yet if I want to deal that. I just posted elsewhere that putting those sensitivity sliders back to zero and being very ginger on control inputs has made AC behavior more acceptable for me  - much less twitchy and jerky.

Likewise Bosco, if it looks like a DC10, sounds like a DC10 and handles like a DC10 then I’m not too bothered whether you can fine tune the cabin airflow. A Perfect Flight or Just Flight level aircraft would more than suffice to keep me happy.

Now I’m a non technical person but I still forsee the biggest challenge for any developer is getting the Nav system incorporated. In earlier versions the devs could piggyback on the Acme GPS system, with FS20 you either have to use the twitchy Garmins, the even twitchier FMS or devise your own system and hope Asobo don’t change anything in the code that breaks it. Just ask the ProMods guys what they go through every time SCS update ETS2 and it kicks out their extended map for however many weeks it takes to fix.

About PMDG: As Robert says at PMDG Forum, due to incomplete SDK the release for MSFS will be expected til 2021. Other devs like FSlabs didnt make a statement when their planes will be useable in FS2020. Simply porting from another sim to FS 2020 is not possibly because of different programming. So is my understanding as simple user.

Therefore if you want to use planes as realistic as possible FS 2020 is no deal right now.

I use it for VR flights because of the great realistic graphics and good immersion. Could even recognize my parents house ! For in deep simulation  I use P3D.

Yes, we who like highly realistic planes unfortunately apparently are a bit of a secondary market for the new sim.

For me MSFS is just eye candy. The scenery is awesome, I think we all can agree but the lack of realistic 3rd party aircraft like PMDG and A2A for example is a show stopper for me. I upgraded to Prepar3d V5 and will keep both sims on my computer. Time will tell if MSFS becomes the new standard sim or will Prepar3d and Xplane  live on?

I believe Robert Young (of former RealAir) is working on such a plane (flight model outside of MSFS) I remember him injecting that fact in a non-remembered thread and was asking for 4 or 5 testers. Probably within the last couple of weeks.

I quite like how the controls feel. I use 1:1 scaling and it doesn't feel twitchy, the small inputs work really well. Until force feedback makes a proper return it will be really hard to feel the controls. In a normal aircraft that operates the controls via cables, as airspeed increases the controls become more effective and the force required for full deflection increases. Whereas in our sims we can literally apply full deflection with the same effort that's required at all times. It can be very deceiving when going from flying slow, to flying fast where the same deflections suddenly does a whole lot more. Hence it all comes full circle and I make my point - can we get some new force feedback stuff that won't make us bankrupt. Cheers.

3 hours ago, Falconflyer said:

For me MSFS is just eye candy. The scenery is awesome, I think we all can agree but the lack of realistic 3rd party aircraft like PMDG and A2A for example is a show stopper for me.

While I absolutely agree that we need some good third party aircraft, MSFS is a lot more than just eye candy.  When the only way you have to navigate is a wet compass, a clock, skyvector.com charts and the view out the window, it isn't just eye candy, it's how I navigate. 😄 

You have your SIDS and STARS, I have my Ranches and Racetracks, my Prisons and Power Lines, my Schools and Stadiums, and on my last flight I even had tollbooths as a check point.  It's all there.  Yeah, there's some eye candy too, stuff not on the charts that's interesting;  I've seen a couple of obvious junk yards, some trailer parks (some are marked on charts), recreational areas, an RV park, campgrounds, golf courses (always marked on charts) and so forth.  I've seen several trains, one long one with five locomotives, and from 2500 feet it's hard to tell they're baked into the scenery.  Now if we just had radio towers, water towers, lighthouses and 3D nuclear power plants, we'd be all set. 🙂  I hope they're provided by Asobo and not just third parties, but I'll buy them if I have to.

Hook

27 minutes ago, LHookins said:

While I absolutely agree that we need some good third party aircraft, MSFS is a lot more than just eye candy.  When the only way you have to navigate is a wet compass, a clock, skyvector.com charts and the view out the window, it isn't just eye candy, it's how I navigate. 😄 

You have your SIDS and STARS, I have my Ranches and Racetracks, my Prisons and Power Lines, my Schools and Stadiums, and on my last flight I even had tollbooths as a check point.  It's all there.  Yeah, there's some eye candy too, stuff not on the charts that's interesting;  I've seen a couple of obvious junk yards, some trailer parks (some are marked on charts), recreational areas, an RV park, campgrounds, golf courses (always marked on charts) and so forth.  I've seen several trains, one long one with five locomotives, and from 2500 feet it's hard to tell they're baked into the scenery.  Now if we just had radio towers, water towers, lighthouses and 3D nuclear power plants, we'd be all set. 🙂  I hope they're provided by Asobo and not just third parties, but I'll buy them if I have to.

Hook

Absolutely.  This sim is the first time that you can fly the way most of us learnt to fly. Probably a little less so for younger pilots used to relying on a GPS but not everything has a GPS.

Whilst I do not begrudge anyone that wants to simulate micromanaging a 737 right down to juggling the power demands of the cabin A/C whilst on autopilot at FL300 mid Atlantic it is not the way your average person with a PPL flies IRL.

Ironically, even 30 years ago when I first started training and was toying with the idea of going on to a commercial licence I envisage myself as a bush pilot in outback Queensland or flying a float plane in Alaska not rostered on to fly commercial flights for an airline 😄  That probably is because my instructor was a 70 year old ex bush-pilot with all sorts of stories to tell. He would even teach us stuff like "eventually you will get an engine failure in area with a lot of trees, if that happens line up between two trees and take the wings off because if you hit  a tree with just one wing you will wrap around it and be dead" .