8 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Enlighten us to what is "Fast" the next few day? within a week? within a month? becasue anything more than a month is not "Fast" and just what is going to happen if in your opinion its not fixed "Fast" does everyone go back to P3D or Xplane? within the next month at best?

So please let us what is "Fast"

The amount of people with glasss half full in the topic is funny, all doom and gloom. lol.

Also people totally forget that P3D has realizam sliders and like MSFS, rfactor does, if you want to "play" any as a game you can. But best to gloss over that to suit your needs! Becasue if MSFS is not fixed "fast" we are all off......what a joke! well I hope some of you would go off to that better sim! 

O, one last thing, how old is MSFS? Think! People who want to be constructive, great, but some are just are just laughable.

If the basic flight model of the sim is totally wrong, it's a big problem no matter what the Asobo sycophants  who flood every thread on this forum with "BEST SIM EVRASSS@!" think.

Edited January 19, 20215 yr by marsman2020

3 hours ago, marsman2020 said:

If the basic flight model of the sim is totally wrong, it's a big problem no matter what the Asobo sycophants  who flood every thread on this forum with "BEST SIM EVRASSS@!" think.

Why dont you go fly another sim, it will save you countless hours moaning on this forum. You clearly dont like it, delete it find something that makes you happy. Think, if all MSFS does is makes you come here and moan, go find somehting that makes you happy. You need to think about your mental health.

Edited January 19, 20215 yr by Nyxx

I'm going to take my clues as to what the sim can and cannot do from the guys at FlyByWire and WT and not from some random post on a message board.

12 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

I'm going to take my clues as to what the sim can and cannot do from the guys at FlyByWire and WT and not from some random post on a message board.

The data collected there is the exact same data that NASA uses to asses the stability of GA aircraft and represents basic flight model parameters of inertia, dynamic stability, and damping.

19 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Why dont you go fly another sim, it will save you countless hours moaning on this forum. You clearly dont like it, delete it find something that make you happy. Think, if all MSFS does is makes you come here and moan, go find somehting that makes you happy. You need to think about your mental health.

Why don't people stop flooding every thread that expresses even the smallest amount of criticism with a litany of posts about how it's the best sim ever, they deleted all their other sims, it looks so awesome? I'm not over in the '500 hours completed' thread filling that thread with complaints about the flight model, if you don't have any issues with the sim then stay out of this thread thank you very much.

This is supposed to be a word not allowed simulator forum and not one seems to give two hoots about if this is actually an accurate simulator as long as it has nice eyecandy.  It boggles my freaking mind. 

Edited January 19, 20215 yr by marsman2020

It is an interesting observation. But why is everyone so convinced that this comparison (between 2 different airframes...a 177 is not a 172) on one input invalidates the entire flight model? I think expectations are wildly out of touch with reality. It is a $60 desktop sim. There are plenty of other things that can be enhanced that will add significantly more utility and enjoyment. The perfectly recreated desktop flight model is a unicorn.

Above all, it would be great if those who read this posts, and for sure the initial post at the MFS Official forum by Alexis, don't see it just as bashing but rather as a concern regarding aspects of the simulation that we really want to get addressed, not for the sake of not receiving critics from those who prefer other platforms but rather because we who like MFS and want it to continue to evolve in a fruitful way find important that such quirks get noticed, reported to the Dev Team and, eventually, addressed...

I like MFS since day one, but I don't like to find and feel quite a few glitches. I am thankful for those who take their time to put it down in a more well documented / scientific way than simply writing, as I do most of the time: "this doesn't feel well ... "

Please let's not drive this thread into the usual fate ...

3 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

It is an interesting observation. But why is everyone so convinced that this comparison (between 2 different airframes...a 177 is not a 172) on one input invalidates the entire flight model? I think expectations are wildly out of touch with reality. It is a $60 desktop sim. There are plenty of other things that can be enhanced that will add significantly more utility and enjoyment. The perfectly recreated desktop flight model is a unicorn.

Not to say that different years different Cardinals have different empty weights. Also empty weight would still little vary depending on equipment installed or removed. If we go santific we gotta be precise 

6 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Above all, it would be great if those who read this posts, and for sure the initial post at the MFS Official forum by Alexis, don't see it just as bashing but rather as a concern regarding aspects of the simulation that we really want to get addressed, not for the sake of not receiving critics from those who prefer other platforms but rather because we who like MFS and want it to continue to evolve in a fruitful way find important that such quirks get noticed, reported to the Dev Team and, eventually, addressed...

I like MFS since day one, but I don't like to find and feel quite a few glitches. I am thankful for those who take their time to put it down in a more well documented / scientific way than simply writing, as I do most of the time: "this doesn't feel well ... "

Please let's not drive this thread into the usual fate ...

Its not you or the link to the post it just the same people that have nothing ever to say positive they just moan and moan and moan.....and moan. Its very Sad.

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Worth giving a look, and commenting so that it might get a chance of being noticed by Dev team ...

  Thanks for highlighting the post - hopefully Asobo can work with the points raised so that the flight dynamics can be improved.
 

18 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

I'm going to take my clues as to what the sim can and cannot do from the guys at FlyByWire and WT and not from some random post on a message board.

There was analysis provided that compared real world flight characteristics to what happens in the sim.
Just because it's "some random post" doesn't make it any less correct.

Someone has put the time and effort to describe how an important part of the sim experience could be fixed for everyone's benefit.

Seriously, the pile on from the uber fans regarding any sort of criticism is nausiating.
 

7 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Not to say that different years different Cardinals have different empty weights

...Different engines, RG or Fixed. The list goes on and on.

I'm glad that people digging into FM. But before we start embracing someone opinion we need two things:

1. Alexis credentials  (aeronautical engineering)

2. Peer review from fellow aeronautic engineers who can validate his finding   

If we were talking about some kind of flight testing analysis software, then I'm sure comparing it to NASA data would be of critical importance. It's interesting to see a comparison of behaviour with some detailed analysis of the real behaviour of an aeroplane of course, but it isn't what the product is aimed at doing; it isn't some analytical training simulator, it's a fifty quid flying game, although having said that, if it was a more realistic fifty quid flying game this wouldn't be a bad thing. 

I notice that the analysis descends into opinion rather than remaining entirely objective, for example with the comment: 'When I saw the Graph, I immediately understood why everyone complains on MFS Flight Model having Arcade Feeling'

Really, does everyone complain? I've seen plenty of comments which say it conveys the feeling of flight better than any other sim. Now comments of that nature are of course not objective either, but they are nevertheless relevant to the discussion if people feel that way.

13 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I'm glad that people digging into FM. But before we start embracing someone opinion we need two things:

1. Alexis credentials  (aeronautical engineering)

2. Peer review from fellow aeronautic engineers who can validate his finding   

I wonder how many aeronautical engineers Asobo has on staff?  Maybe we can get them to tell us what their qualifications are.

It's a post with data in it.  Data from a NASA paper, and data from the sim.  The data speaks for itself. 

1 minute ago, Chock said:

it isn't some analytical training simulator, it's a fifty quid flying game, although having said that, if it was a more realistic fifty quid flying game this wouldn't be a bad thing. 

Asobo made a lot of promises regarding the new flight model and I very much am interested in if they were telling the truth or just blowing smoke at us.

If everything in the flight model is supposed to be based on "emergent behavior", then things like response to a disturbance need to be correct, or all of that falls apart and it becomes a huge mess to even tune aircraft to "desktop flight sim" tolerances - which is exactly the feedback from people who have made great aircraft for prior sims like Robert Young (in many posts here) and Pam Booker (commentary in the manual for the Wings42 Bleriot on difficulties in tuning MSFS aircraft).  It's also visible in things like the autopilots being really hard to tune - because the aircraft they are driving are missing the inertia/damping that a real aircraft would have, which makes the AP PID values much more sensitive.

 

Speaking of credentials, IMO the best flight modeling is found in XP11 and various 3rd party aircraft from APA and PMDG for P3d5. I always attributed that to the developers having extensive first hand experience in flying those specific aircraft IRL. Some of those same developers also have a working knowledge of aerodynamics. It's unreasonable to expect Asobo to have that same experience with a wide variety of aircraft. They often stated that they  had pilots on their development team, but that's not the same thing.

The analysis presented by Alexis makes sense to me, but it actually illustrates how difficult it is to simulate aircraft dynamics. I guess the question is, would you rather have a limited stable of aircraft with realistic aerodynamics or a large collection of aircraft that may not handle realistically but provide a wider variety of experience?

11 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

The data speaks for itself.

Meh...data without adequate context can say whatever you want.