18 hours ago, jcomm said:

MFS is unquestionably consistent in terms of flight dynamics and even ground physics, damage model second to none ... And some try to call this sim an Arcade, a Game ! What a nonsense !!!!

Funny, but it has nothing to do with the flight physics model. That's an indication that the structural physics model is wrong, and I doubt there was ever a serious attempt to get it right, because why would they? The structural model appears to be "did the pilot hit something solid at greater than X-speed? Then the plane crashed." That's because this is a flight simulator, not a plane crash simulator.

The video's airplanes are clearly making arrested landings and using the catapult to take off - they aren't doing it all under their own braking and thrust. That indicates that it's some sort of system that ignores what plane you're flying, and just sticks an imaginary tail hook and launch bar on it for the purposes of carrier ops. In real life, you'd break the catapult and arresting gear if you tried to use it on a 747, and if you somehow managed not to, you'd rip the nose gear off on launch, because it isn't designed for those kinds of forces.

What that means is that the simulation of the carrier equipment isn't physics-accurate. Hardly a surprise - like I said earlier, it's a flight simulator, not a boat hardware simulator. Instead, once you hit the deck an automatic "decelerate at X rate" process takes over which completely ignores the physics regarding the aircraft's weight. Same with the launch. And that's why you don't break the plane when landing or launching from a carrier - physics essentially gets turned off so people can have fun with carrier ops without the devs having to sink tons of resources into making carrier ops work with actual physics. Once you're off the deck, the physics model takes over again.

That approach makes sense, because only a small percentage of us are interested in fooling with carrier ops in the first place, and I would bet the majority of us who are already have DCS and will do it there regardless of its availability in MSFS.

In short, people fooling around with something that clearly isn't part of the physics simulation is not evidence that the stuff that is part of the physics simulation is bad.

On 3/30/2021 at 7:11 AM, Ricardo41 said:

A cheap game where you push pixels around with a chintzy yoystick has a "physics model"?

Every game that involves movement has a physics model. Pacman has a physics model. If you press right, Pacman goes right. If Pacman hits an immovable object like a wall, he stops. It's not an accurate physics model, but it's a model nonetheless.

So by default, because things move in MSFS, it has a physics model. The debate is just about how close to reality the model gets. In some places it's pretty good - like flying through mountain waves. In others, it's horrible, like that hard sideways jerk when you land. But pretending it doesn't have one at all isn't accurate or particularly reasonable.

 

21 minutes ago, eslader said:

In others, it's horrible, like that hard sideways jerk when you land.

Uhhhh....spend a few days flight instructing. You’d be surprised just how accurate this is 😂😂😂

Edited March 31, 20215 yr by snglecoil

@amahran yes you’re right about flight training devices, however a FTD approved for instrument training doesn’t necessarily have to be a simulation of a specific aircraft, it can just be generic aircraft simulation. What’s important is the procedural elements of instrument training and the sole use of the instruments for navigation, ie it doesn’t even need visuals.

At the other end of the scale though are the simulators which are approved for zero flight time , ZFT training. Here the simulator has to be much more accurate to its counterpart and the sim instructors also have to be specifically approved to carry out ZFT training.

The end result is the simulation is so accurate that a pilot can be fully Base trained in the sim and the first time they see and  fly the real aircraft it’s a normal line flight full of fare paying passengers 

35 minutes ago, eslader said:

 

So by default, because things move in MSFS, it has a physics model. The debate is just about how close to reality the model gets. In some places it's pretty good - like flying through mountain waves. In others, it's horrible, like that hard sideways jerk when you land. But pretending it doesn't have one at all isn't accurate or particularly reasonable.

 

Would be great if their integrated weather model really modeled mountain waves ( I assume you're referring to gravitic waves ? ) but it's reeeeeally far from that 😕

Yes there are some hill effects being modeled, but there's also still a lot to be done to properly integrate model data with aerodrome observations and other reports... But this one it's an aera where they can proggress for sure - regretably they appear to have made clear they are closed to integration woth 3pd weather injectors ...

Then, regarding the physics model, ground physics leave a lot to be desired imo... They had to use a trick to allow for taxiing, taking off and landing under x-wind, even well within real operational limits for a given aircraft and... they are all so twitchy on ground that I really hope they can do something for that in the future.

Edited March 31, 20215 yr by jcomm

53 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

Uhhhh....spend a few days flight instructing. You’d be surprised just how accurate this is 😂😂😂

Lol. Well, yeah, heavy-footed students aside, if I'm landing into a straight-on headwind and the plane is flying perfectly straight, it should not suddenly yank itself to the right when I land unless I spasm and mash the rudder... Which I promise I'm not doing!   It's behaving as if the main gear is canted off to the side.

41 minutes ago, jcomm said:

but there's also still a lot to be done to properly integrate model data with aerodrome observations and other reports

Completely agree. The weather in MSFS sucks, and honestly we kinda knew it would because Meteoblue sucks. I too wish they'd allow for 3pd weather injection. Maybe they'll change their mind in the future, or at least integrate Activesky into the sim itself. I much prefer that weather generator.

41 minutes ago, jcomm said:

they are all so twitchy on ground that I really hope they can do something for that in the future.

Yeah, I agree with this too. I often look like a drunk when I'm starting a takeoff roll. If I look at the rudder axis too hard the plane veers off.

 

Edited March 31, 20215 yr by eslader

12 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

Diversion, fun factor, learning about aviation. I pretty much divide my time available for gaming equally between MSFS, OMSI, and Eurotruck-Simulator. Also, some time is devoted to working through my steam backlog.

So even though technically it's just pixels on a screen, to you it means a lot more.

The illusion of reality some of us try to pursue is part of their definition of "diversion, fun factor, learning".

It's part of the game, it's important, because the ability to keep playing even when we get older (I am 55, some people here are over 70 years old) is a fundamental component of our mental health.

I am an extremely rational person, sometimes too much, but I have to admit that every chance to let our inner self come out is important, so, even if my Maths and Physics knowledge, my age and experiences tell me that it's just pixels on a screen, I'd rather have the small kid in me sit in front of my Airbus panel and pretend to be captain of an airliner, if only for an hour.

Reality can wait until tomorrow: I have two phd students who want to know about a covariance matrix that is not coming out right from a procedure we have written together.

Tomorrow. Now I have an aircraft to land!

Andrea

KillTheSpam said :"Coming back to the MSFS "physics model" there is a total disconnect and not even close to a realistic aircraft behavior, the airplanes are not so twitching up and down, so unstable at only 2 KTS wind changes with such an unrealistic air mass reaction, bad ground effects in many aspects...."

IMO this really nails it. As a flyer of mainly lightweight factory aircraft and home-builts, I'm used to getting direct feedback from real physics. The effects of air mass against control inputs, and the ever-present effects of gravity on the body and on aircraft performance can not be simulated (at present). THE PHYSICS ARE MISSING! It's the part you can never really explain to those who have never been real pilots. I am now retired from active flying, and am patiently waiting to see where MSFS goes in the future. At present it's pretty good at bring back my memories of flight, but this is still far from simulating any real aircraft I have flown. I'm having some good experiences, but they could be better.

13 hours ago, Bosco19 said:

 I'm used to getting direct feedback from real physics.

Well that won't happen in a fully realistic way without at minimum force feedback controls, and really it needs a motion system. There's only so far a desktop sim can go on its own. 

8 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

My request to MSFS (per my post) was to have the ability to go outside MSFS flight physics and do our own physics ... that needs to be a core part of the MSFS SDK.  But somehow that request for an "option/feature" got warped into a "requirement" that all aircraft DLC must create their own flight physics?  Again, NOT what I suggested at all.  But people read what they want to believe vs. what was actually said and it goes thru the word shaker of alternate reality.

The only "agenda" I see here is from you and your persistence in trying to deny the obvious and paint an alternate reality.

Guess that the aircraft carrier video you posted with your snarky comment about MSFS.... It's detecting the coordinates of the aircraft and then going "outside of the physics engine" to accelerate and decelerate the aircraft.

All of the SimVars are present to read the relative wind direction on the aircraft, environmental conditions, etc and then apply arbitrary translational and rotational accelerations to the aircraft.

That's also how the "flight recorder" apps work, which was also pointed out to you.

There is nothing keeping anyone from making a totally custom flight dynamics engine, and I'm pretty sure that the freeware helicopter does just that. 

What I don't want to see is people using this as an excuse to clear Asobo from their responsibility to deliver the next-generation flight model that was promised as part of the base sim, because "3DPs should just go code their own FDE".  Only the upper echelon of 3DPs do that, and the rest of the developers deserve to have a system that works.

I bet there's folk around here - AND I WAN'T TO MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR; I'M NOT MENTIONING ANY NAMES - who tout the whole P3D thing being "more real" (Lockheed Martin blah, blah, blah) than MSFS2020. But who in reality, haven't been near P3D for a good few weeks/ months and instead find themselves flying around in MSFS2020 muttering to themselves; "OMG, look at the visuals, OMG look at that, this is incredible, OMG I'm really flying! why can't LM do that?"

And sobbing quietly in to their glass of rhetoric.

At best P3D was FSX on steroids. And we all know what happens if you abuse steroids. You end up a puddle on the floor of the gym, which, I believe is the general consensus of P3D V5.1

Not that I'd know - I bailed round about V4 - when it seemed the only options were to buy here, there and everywhere - much of the time in AUS dollars - to put lipstick on the pig.

Edited April 1, 20215 yr by Will Fly For Cheese

23 minutes ago, Will Fly For Cheese said:

I bet there's folk around here - AND I WAN'T TO MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR; I'M NOT MENTIONING ANY NAMES - who tout the whole P3D thing being "more real" (Lockheed Martin blah, blah, blah) than MSFS2020. But who in reality, haven't been near P3D for a good few weeks/ months and instead find themselves flying around in MSFS2020 muttering to themselves; "OMG, look at the visuals, OMG look at that, this is incredible, OMG I'm really flying! why can't LM do that?"

And sobbing quietly in to their glass of rhetoric.

At best P3D was FSX on steroids. And we all know what happens if you abuse steroids. You end up a puddle on the floor of the gym, which, I believe is the general consensus of P3D V5.1

Not that I'd know - I bailed round about V4 - when it seemed the only options were to buy here, there and everywhere - much of the time in AUS dollars - to put lipstick on the pig.

There are probably some who are exactly as you describe in paragraph 1.  As well as some who have left MSFS back to p3d/xp saying something like, "Well it doesn't look as pretty as the new sim, but..".  Then of course there are others who are using multiple sims.  

 

regarding the physics.  I have a decent amount of real world experience.  I do not think MSFS feels real at all in that department.  But I'm hopeful in a few years it will mature into something that feels more real.  

2 minutes ago, micstatic said:

There are probably some who are exactly as you describe in paragraph 1.  As well as some who have left MSFS back to p3d/xp saying something like, "Well it doesn't look as pretty as the new sim, but..".  Then of course there are others who are using multiple sims.  

 

regarding the physics.  I have a decent amount of real world experience.  I do not think MSFS feels real at all in that department.  But I'm hopeful in a few years it will mature into something that feels more real.  

Well, that's cool and I don't know what real world experience you have (could be you have thousands of hours on complex types with type ratings, etc) but I have real world experience too in SEP aircraft and, I don't think any of them (P3D, XP, MSFS2020) feel remotely like the real thing because I can tell you one thing; none of them can reproduce or simulate this;

and that's when you come in on short final, let her down gently, flaps out, come down to 10' or so and you see that runway flattening out around your shoulders and I tell you; every time - just for an instant - you feel the devil bite your behind as the stall horn sounds and then you touch and rollout.

Closest I've got so far to that; sweaty palms, held breath, is MSFS 2020. It used to be P3D and before that FSX.

Asobo and MS are on track. 

A little aside for those of you who aren't real world pilots: Pilots rarely agree on anything. Great way to start a fight is to go into a crew room, or if you don't feel like getting hired by an Airline to do that, visit Pprune forums, and ask if you use pitch or power for speed. Bring popcorn.

Every pilot has a different overall opinion of MSFS, and that's okay. Personally, I think more pilots like MSFS than they do the competitors, but that's just opinion.

I have used p3d xp11 and msfs2020 . The reason i used p3d and xp11 was to get myself back into flight simming having left it behind over 10 years ago in preparation for msfs2020 . As soon as i heard about it and saw that announcement video that came out of the blue for msfs2020 I knew I wanted back in . Having used all three sims p3d and xp11 were used as prep for 2020 ,  however I was aware that I might get attached to one of them and not use msfs2020 that much when it came out.

One flight in msfs2020 confirmed instantly to me that my choice of using p3d and xp11 merely as stop gaps was 100% correct . I havent flown the other two since and wont be doing anytime soon . During my years in pasture I was very aware of of xp11 and p3d but neither of them inspired me to even have a go at them . Msfs2020 as already stated reignited a fire in me that had burned out years ago and im glad it did . 

As for the flight model rivalry I couldnt care less . Fly what you like best and enjoy it , because as recent world events have highlighted you only get one go at life and it can be taken from you in a heartbeat . MSFS2020 can only get better so thats where Im staying . Happy flying boys and girls . 

 

Dazza

25 minutes ago, Dazzaboy said:

I have used p3d xp11 and msfs2020 . The reason i used p3d and xp11 was to get myself back into flight simming having left it behind over 10 years ago in preparation for msfs2020 . As soon as i heard about it and saw that announcement video that came out of the blue for msfs2020 I knew I wanted back in . Having used all three sims p3d and xp11 were used as prep for 2020 ,  however I was aware that I might get attached to one of them and not use msfs2020 that much when it came out.

One flight in msfs2020 confirmed instantly to me that my choice of using p3d and xp11 merely as stop gaps was 100% correct . I havent flown the other two since and wont be doing anytime soon . During my years in pasture I was very aware of of xp11 and p3d but neither of them inspired me to even have a go at them . Msfs2020 as already stated reignited a fire in me that had burned out years ago and im glad it did . 

As for the flight model rivalry I couldnt care less . Fly what you like best and enjoy it , because as recent world events have highlighted you only get one go at life and it can be taken from you in a heartbeat . MSFS2020 can only get better so thats where Im staying . Happy flying boys and girls . 

 

Dazza

Well said Dazza!