2 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

The data speaks for itself.

Im not an aerodynamics engineer nor do I have any credentials making me an expert of simulation aircraft design, but I concur that basic knowledge of physical correlations is sufficient to know that no aircraft in the world would show a graph like that of the MSFS C172. And the OP over at the MS Forums pointed out that the much heavier TBM shows the exact same behaviour. And the obvious lack of inertia has been mentioned quite a bit since the release of MSFS. And since the quality of the flightmodel is of essence for the quality of any third party development I hope there will be improvents.

4 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

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. 

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.

 

My answer is I don't know if any Asobo engineers has aeronautical degree or experience. But it doesn't invalidate my original statement.

Yes data can tell you yes data speak for itself, but it also important that data is extracted and interpreted correctly. My first job was to build models airplanes for aerodynamic tubes. But why bother doing that if theory and calculation always correct. Well they do look great n the papar until they meet reality! And all of the sudden things are not perfect. That why there are test pilots and test engineers that work to correct shortcoming that exposes during "stress test". It's very similar process with software modeling. 

My argument here is not to protect Asobo or criticize Alexis finding! My point is that that evidence is presented should be well validated and understood. I respect Robert Yang and Pam Bookers and I agree with a lot of points they made. I also completely understand that flight modeling has huge room for  improvement! Yet because someone presented some finding doesn't necessarily mean it's scientifically correctly presented. I personally have tons of question regarding Alexis work. But I don't want to appeal to emotion or believe here. Just because someone post  alight with my desire to improve FM, it doesn't mean I have to automatically agree with it.       

1 hour 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.

with fast i meant; there are sim out there with better flight dynamics;  other than the graphics; you can feel something is not right when you fly with sensitive yokes ; pedals etc etc; 

how this can be the best experience ever ? of a flight sim ? if it can not handle flight correctly ?

2 hours ago, flyforever said:

It's also clear to me that Asobo has decided to stick with the general outline of a flight sim and some of the real stuff to outside developers.

I have a comment to make about this by giving an example. (Disclaimer: I'm totally not qualified at all to make comments about flight model because I'm not a real world pilot. The following is simply a description of what I've observed).

I find that in MSFS all default GA prop aircraft have little to almost no adverse yaw during turns. It's like you have absolutely no need to touch the rudder pedals at all after take off.

But in Carenado's PA44 which I bought and used, you must apply sufficient pressure on the rudders to keep the plane coordinated and keep the ball centered during turns. I tested both default MSFS planes and Carenado's PA44 in various speed configurations. In both cases I not only observed the Turn Coordinator's ball but also the nose of the aircraft and its relation to the horizon while banking left or right. 

Carenado's M20R, on the other hand, is a different case, and exhibits the characteristics of the default MSFS flight model when it comes to adverse yaw. That is, again: absolutely no rudder pedal input required at any time while it's in the air.

My personal opinion is this (and it kinda matches what you said): The capability needed to produce realistic flight model in MSFS is there, but some or most default aircraft in MSFS don't have them for reasons unknown to me, although a third party developer can tweak this very same flight model and add/remove features to/from it if he wants to, and then release his plane with the updated/new flight model for use. 

 

18 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

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?

Yes, in the base flight sim app I'd definitely like to have a lower number of aircraft with realistic flight model rather than a large number of planes that behave comically when in the air. I wouldn't be bothered at all if MSFS came with just one c172, one multi-engine prop trainer (like the seminole), one business jet like the CJ4 and one airliner such as the a320 neo with realistic flight model and fully functional avionics. This is just my personal wish and others don't have to agree 😛

Hello all! First, thanks Jose for sharing my Post here at Avsim!!

Now, I read the Posts, and there seems to be a lot of debates over the Data, how valid is it to the situation, etc. I invite those who have questions to ask them over the MFS Forums. I want to Concentrate the effort there, since it's the Home of Asobo, and the place more likely for Asobo Devs to be following the discussions.

And please, don't transform this into a Simulator War. It was never my intention to say MFS is bad, Other sim is better, etc. All I'm interested in is to Improve MFS. The same would happen if I were using any other Sim, just happens I'm a MFS User now, so that's where I'm putting my efforts.

Thank you all for the kind words!

Indeed very nice post, good analytical approach.

Another topic, damping in MSFS:

As it would result in a flat endless straight line, I think this is better way for a visual representation of damping forces in MSFS:

As I am finally able to test the Prosim 737 NG I can say that the MSFS flight model needs some work and that a more enhanced SDK would also be very welcome.

The ac feels like a small light plane when flying manually. In P3D it “feels” heavy and reacts according to that.

For the X Box players it is probably not of great importance ; they might even try to fly under bridges with the 320 NEO. But for more serious desktop flyers it is. 

We will see this year what Asobo/MS will or not will do about it.....

1 hour ago, marsman2020 said:

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.

Let's be realistic here, they weren't exactly promises. It's not like they signed a blood ritual in front of us and claimed we could strike them down in their stride if they didn't hold to it. As far as I'm aware, what they said on the matter was a combination of projections of what they were hoping/aiming for within the constraints of producing a nice flying game, combined with a bit of marketing speak.

At no point do I recall them saying anything resembling: 'we're gonna make something which is so close to the scientific aerodynamic data you can pull from of the Dryden Flight Research Center, that you'll not be able to tell the difference.' Now of course we'd all love it to be that realistic, but again I think we need to be aware that it's a fifty quid game where you fly toy aeroplanes around.

We could start saying that Laminar Research's usage of blade element theory is some perfect replication of flight modeling too, but we all know it isn't. These are first and foremost games; it's why you can buy them on Steam. don't get me wrong here, I love flying aeroplanes as much as anyone, but I don't expect a fifty quid game to perfect replicate it, and nor whould anyone else, because if it could, the airline training centres wouldn't be paying 15 million quid for their flight simulators.

Edited January 19, 20215 yr by Chock

I think my argument here would be that one yaw response graph is hardly a complete picture, nor can it possibly represent an irrevocably broken flight model. Even if the data is indeed NASA recorded airframe data, that's just one inertial moment among many in the envelope of the full flight model.

The inertia values in the shipped default planes are all very low, so it's nearly impossible to say if what is being seen there is just a badly configured individual plane FM or a systemic issue with the Modern flight model. I would heavily lean towards the former, in my experience thus far. But certainly no definitive conclusions can be drawn by just the presented information.

-Matt

7 minutes ago, Chock said:

Let's be realistic here, they weren't exactly promises. It's not like they signed a blood ritual in front of us and claimed we could strike them down in their stride if they didn't hold to it. As far as I'm aware, what they said on the matter was a combination of projections of what they were hoping/aiming for within the constraints of producing a nice flying game, combined with a bit of marketing speak.

At no point do I recall them saying anything resembling: 'we're gonna make something which is so close to the scientific aerodynamic data you can pull from of the Dryden Flight Research Center, that you'll not be able to tell the difference.' Now of course we'd all love it to be that realistic, but again I think we need to be aware that it's a fifty quid game where you fly toy aeroplanes around.

We could start saying that Laminar Research's usage of blade element theory is some perfect replication of flight modeling too, but we all know it isn't. These are first and foremost games; it's why you can buy them on Steam.

Go play some Fortnite or something.

Even if inertia is set to zero that graph doesn't make sense given that the sideslip is integrated twice from the yaw acceleration produced by the control surface deflection. 

Edited January 19, 20215 yr by marsman2020

Just now, marsman2020 said:

Go play some Fortnite or something.

I'm not interested in playing Fortnite, and clearly with a comment like that, you're not interested in having an intelligent discussion about things which takes into account the reality of the target market for MSFS for the budget it has.

1 minute ago, Chock said:

I'm not interested in playing Fortnite, and clearly with a comment like that, you're not interested in having an intelligent discussion about things which takes into account the reality of the target market for MSFS for the budget it has.

The cost of an individual copy of the sim is red herring argument, because they sell multiple copies.  Yet you keep beating it like a dead horse.  I expect that in 15 years since FSX, I get a significant improvement in all aspects of the sim and not just pretty eyecandy graphics.

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

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?

Yup, modeling the turbulence per real-to-life makes things a bit hard on the eyesight too, as in the real world your eyes have a tendency to move with your head, but in a Flight Sim the screen is moving to turbulence while your head remains unmovable and your eyes are only darting back and forth. I guess TrackIR or maybe VR mode makes that less of an issue (but only if it were real accurate), and since I think it's so difficult for them to get this part super accurate, I'm not expecting it ever to be near-perfect. So there are a lot of variables when it comes to modeling turbulence in a SIM I suppose. 

My issue is the landings and the flaps, it seems like the numbers are off for most planes and that the drag/lift components don't seem very realistic compared to Xplane or P3D 3PD aircraft, but I'm not a pilot so hard to say. I think I like what SD flyer says in general about it, but yah could always be improved a bit. We will need a major release from some of the more renowned developers to see how they tweaked it. That said, I'm not too worried about large airliners like the 737 or the 787, because I think the 3PD can find a compromise, but it will be harder with the smaller planes that tend to bob a bit more as they are landing.

Edited January 19, 20215 yr by Alpine Scenery

6 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

The cost of an individual copy of the sim is red herring argument, because they sell multiple copies.  Yet you keep beating it like a dead horse.  I expect that in 15 years since FSX, I get a significant improvement in all aspects of the sim and not just pretty eyecandy graphics.

I made one comment about it, then a further reply to a comment after you quoted me. This is hardly beating a dead horse.

This is a game which is being developed for the XBox as well as the PC, it's never going to have a flight model you can start logging time on. That's the reality of it. Now this doesn't mean you can't have some reasonably realistic airliners with good systems replication, or some pretty good GA stuff, because we know that you could have that in P3D and FSX, which it shares the legacy flight model with if one chooses to use that as an option, and it doesn't mean they won't improve the flight model either, maybe they will, but like FSX, which came in a box with Games For Windows on it, it is a game. They're not gonna be cranking it up at Dryden to use it to test the aerodynamic loads on the next space shuttle.

Edited January 19, 20215 yr by Chock