For me, the biggest issue with landing in MSFS is the lack of inertia. As the aircraft (any aircraft but particularly the A320) approaches touchdown and back pressure is applied to arrest the descent, the aircraft stops descending and immediately starts to climb. This is unrealistic and makes landing a complete dogs breakfast. Do you agree?

Edited November 21, 20205 yr by mdreyer

Approach speed too high?

18 minutes ago, cianpars said:

Approach speed too high?

Possibly.

One of the current issues is if you fly exactly by the numbers everything pretty much behaves as expected but if you are even a few knots faster or slower than the book says things can get out of shape quickly in some aircraft, in particular there seems too much elevator authority..

There are a few real world aircraft that have a reputation of actually being like that but they are usually things like a low wing laminar flow Mooney. (real world Mooneys have a reputation of floating the full length of a runway and into the bushes at the end if you are even one knot too fast)

The solution for the time being is come in at exactly the correct speed over the threshold and not one knot faster and be judicious with the back pressure. Fly everything like a Mooney.

Edited November 21, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

8 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Possibly.

One of the current issues is if you fly exactly by the numbers everything pretty much behaves as expected but if you are even a few knots faster or slower than the book says things can get out of shape quickly in some aircraft, in particular there seems too much elevator authority..

There are a few real world aircraft that have a reputation of actually being like that but they are usually things like a low wing laminar flow Mooney. (real world Mooneys have a reputation of floating the full length of a runway and into the bushes at the end if you are even one knot too fast)

The solution for the time being is come in at exactly the correct speed over the threshold and not one knot faster and be judicious with the back pressure. Fly everything like a Mooney.

Ah... yes, but what are the 'exact' numbers for this MS A320 airbus which can vary in landing weights by thousands of pounds thus should be producing Vref speeds between 112 and 156 knots?  Until this is resolved by third party aircraft late next year... all bets off.

"Where's the inertia?"

(Pantomime audience shout); "It's behind you."

Sorry.

 

4 hours ago, Mike S KPDX said:

Ah... yes, but what are the 'exact' numbers for this MS A320 airbus which can vary in landing weights by thousands of pounds thus should be producing Vref speeds between 112 and 156 knots?  Until this is resolved by third party aircraft late next year... all bets off.

 Are you implying that you are flaring a A320?  I thought one didn't flare an airliner because the approach is nose high already and the ground affect arrests the sink. 

Edited November 21, 20205 yr by frankla

8 minutes ago, frankla said:

 Are you implying that you are flaring a A320?  I thought one didn't flare an airliner because the approach is nose high already and the ground affect arrests the sink. 

Well you certainly do not transition to level flight and fly along the runway till she settles with a slightly nose up attitude  like you do in a Cessna either.

TBH the only thing I can think of that had serious flare on landing was the space shuttle, probably because the chances of a tail strike in a space shuttle are close to zero .

 

Edited November 21, 20205 yr by Glenn Fitzpatrick

20 hours ago, mdreyer said:

For me, the biggest issue with landing in MSFS is the lack of inertia. As the aircraft (any aircraft but particularly the A320) approaches touchdown and back pressure is applied to arrest the descent, the aircraft stops descending and immediately starts to climb. This is unrealistic and makes landing a complete dogs breakfast. Do you agree?

Please check here, I had the exact same problem, and I found the solution

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/589861-is-the-msfs-a320-an-ekranoplan/

7 hours ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

Well you certainly do not transition to level flight and fly along the runway till she settles with a slightly nose up attitude  like you do in a Cessna either.

TBH the only thing I can think of that had serious flare on landing was the space shuttle, probably because the chances of a tail strike in a space shuttle are close to zero .

 

Space shuttle is a glider! That why it uses AoA to control rate of descent 

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Space shuttle is a glider! That why it uses AoA to control rate of descent 

And, looking fwd to have one in MFS...

In a glider if you do not help with spoilers you may well leave through the opposite rw threshold without actually contact the ground 😕

Regarding the twitchiness of pretty much all aircraft, and in particular the prop ones, there's a set of variables one can try to play with ( always backing up the original and commenting the best we can along the way ) in "flight_model.cfg", namely:

pitch_moment_delta_elevator_propwash

pitch_moment_pitch_propwash

yaw_moment_yaw_propwash

yaw_moment_delta_rudder_propwash

yaw_moment_delta_rudder_trim_scalar

There is also and collection of "yaw_momment..." scalars tables that can be used to fine tune yaw moments, in any aircraft ( not only props ).

All of these variables, some inherited from the "old" MS FS flight model other new to MFS are not used / tweaked in a good part, but are there available for editing. 

Rob Youngs G36 Turbo V3 mod, among other MODs is an excellent example of how much much better the effects mentioned n the original post.

Edited November 22, 20205 yr by jcomm

23 hours ago, mdreyer said:

For me, the biggest issue with landing in MSFS is the lack of inertia. As the aircraft (any aircraft but particularly the A320) approaches touchdown and back pressure is applied to arrest the descent, the aircraft stops descending and immediately starts to climb. This is unrealistic and makes landing a complete dogs breakfast. Do you agree?

I think the subject is spot on. The physical laws do not change in "ground effect" and the force on the elevator surface should not cause faster rotation than in the free air; yet the response to the stick input during flare is extreme in the simulation. Not losing speed while gliding 10 ft above the runway is probably due to the same disregard of the physics.

It's either inertia or too much force on the control surfaces in relation to dynamic pressure at low speeds. Or a mix of both.

ASOBO tried to compensate this with changing the input sensitivity several times now - which does not tackle the real issue.

I know it's probably a tougher task, but they need to review their physics!!

Meanwhile - feel free to vote for the thread in my signature!

I fully agree. I have to force myself into not pulling back in order to start climbing again away from the runway. The good thing is that the ground effect is so exaggerated that in particular the airliners have to be pushed into the ground to land. Besides that I have the feeling that controls become much more sensitive when you are close to the ground and I even experience that on takeoff - the nose rises very quickly in my opinion, almost jumps into the air, when you slight pull it up only. On the other hand, after takeoff and a few feet in the air, the aircraft tends to level off again - up to now I blamed the strange ground effect implementation for that as well. Coming from P3D, I must be doing something completely wrong in MSFS or I forgot how to land.

Edited November 22, 20205 yr by martinr8

5 hours ago, martinr8 said:

Coming from P3D, I must be doing something completely wrong in MSFS or I forgot how to land.

Then I must have been doing it wrong IRL as well. 😄

No, there certainly is something wrong with the physics. I hope it will get fixed one day. But I've given up my hopes of this being soon.

Edited November 22, 20205 yr by tweekz