The behavior of aircraft in crosswind landing is strange to say the least.

5 hours ago, mrueedi said:

My full motion simulator experience is described here (let the browser translate it, as it is in German):

Erfahrungsbericht Swiss MD11 Simulator - Aviatik-Stammtisch - ILS Flightforum 

So your first impressionw as wrong, I had indeed a training event in such a simulator. Btw. one of the purposes of the session was to reverese engineer the flight performance of the MD-11 by flying some very specific and simple manoeuvres.

And by how much % did the two versions differ? And by how many % were the procedures different? How many menues were different between the two versions?

I can also find many pilots praising the flight model.

 

So from Gooogle translate I get the idea that you are a PC SIM Pilot and had an opportunity to sit in one session on an MD11.

 

I fully understand that it was a very pleasant experience, rightfully so.

 

This what you call a "training event" it was more likely a demo flight and an opportunity to be exposed to the airplane.

 

Not to be misunderstood, for us, real pilots, or pilots in training before we go in the sim we have a few months of ground school, take some exams before we qualify to start "a training event".

 

So, what you really had was more likely an observation flight, within your own limited knowledge and understanding of certain items.

 

You keep on asking how much % was different from the actual airplane.

 

Unfortunately, no matter the explanation it is I'm afraid that it might not be satisfactory for you, not enough space to list all the differences between the software versions and you might not be able to understand for obvious reasons. Let's be real, please.

 

And for the "I can also find many pilots praising the flight model." it is such a statement that it is not even worth it to entertain.

 

Apparently, we have a disagreement between a PC sim pilot and a real-world pilot and I will leave it as it is.

 

All the best.

On 3/29/2021 at 3:29 AM, tweekz said:

I agree with you. It's about time ASOBO brings serious changes to the flight model. It's not that the idea is fundamentally flawed IMO, it is just not done. There are many things to tweak or add before it will be fully satisfying.

If they can add world update after world update, they better put that effort in the flight model for once. I don't like the trend that sim updates have become bug fix colletions rather than adding new core content.

Agree 1,000%!!!

On 3/29/2021 at 12:13 AM, DrumsArt said:

Thank you very much. It puts the ideas in place and things in perspective...

This post should be pinned 😎

Richard.

Yet, we will still get World Updates over accurate flight modeling cause we know it’s all about the eye-candy for the upcoming Xbox sales!!!

1 minute ago, Kilo60 said:

Yet, we will still get World Updates over accurate flight modeling cause we know it’s all about the eye-candy for the upcoming Xbox sales!!!

it's made by different team and it's easier to fix scenery because they have this partner : Blackbox  AI. A lot of this work is outsourced. Talk about once talking out of your....

 

3 hours ago, killthespam said:

Unfortunately, no matter the explanation it is I'm afraid that it might not be satisfactory for you, not enough space to list all the differences between the software versions and you might not be able to understand for obvious reasons.

 

Between putting everything in a single number (85% accuracy) and not enough space to list every detail, there is the middle of the road, which could mean, you tell us in a couple of sentences in which way the full motion sim is so weak simulating the reality. Is it e.g. not simulating properly the flight performance (speeds, climb rates, fuel flows) or the flight handling or are e.g. the motion cues lacking? Or is it indeed the avionics part, which differs so much between real world and full motion sim?

Instead of providing us that, you primarily tried to judge my qualification and put me in some boxes. But based on completely insufficant information, you only could go wrong. Much more than a sim pilot, I am a software engineer, who has developped a FAR 103 type EFIS suite. A variation of the same software is also available in the Windows Store as Flight Simulator or as a drone ground station. So please trust me, I can follow you very deep into the details about avionics...

I find the turbulence buffeting and yaw effects in turbulence far more realistic than in P3D. Pretty sure this has to do with the flight modeling. 

2 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

I find the turbulence buffeting and yaw effects in turbulence far more realistic than in P3D. Pretty sure this has to do with the flight modeling. 

and if P3D and XP11 was so great why does all the payware have external flight dynamics ? There is this double standard of people trying to compare apple to oranges. As far as MSFS is concern, It does have issue with wind turbulences and excessive icing but beside that, It's better than XP11 and P3D vanilla.

Again. Comparing default aircraft that are supposed to be easy and accessible against millions dollar simulator...Good job Rob

36 minutes ago, SolRayz said:

I find the turbulence buffeting and yaw effects in turbulence far more realistic than in P3D. Pretty sure this has to do with the flight modeling. 

...More pleasant, more amazing, more enjoyable, more wonderful, more fantastic, more awesome..... or more realistic?

Richard.

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 !!!!

 

Edited March 30, 20215 yr by jcomm
typo

2 minutes ago, jcomm said:

MFS is unquestinably consistent in terms of flight dynamics and even ground physics, damage model second to none ...

 

lol

50 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

I guess we disagree ... P3D is from Lockheed Martin, it's a company that designs and constructs aircraft (mostly military now but they did dabble in commercial jets) ... you might of heard of them 😉  They also have a training facility for military pilots using their aircraft.  I am however impressed that you can design and entire aircraft simulation suite by yourself, impressive!

The physics of MSFS is great?

We can do silly things with our simulators (all of them), but I must admit, I've yet been able to land a 747 or A320 on an aircraft carrier in P3D or Xplane ... I have tried but I guess I lack the required skills 🙂

Cheers, Rob.

That is a modified aircraft.cfg  to resemble a cessna his videos proved that years ago in FSX. This video above should not be taken serious just check the 6:10 mark in this video by the same youtuber below.

 

Edited March 30, 20215 yr by jbdbow1970

42 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

but I must admit, I've yet been able to land a 747 or A320 on an aircraft carrier in P3D or Xplane ... I have tried but I guess I lack the required skills

Here is one dude doing the "impossible" in Prepar3d. And in a PMDG 747 (not a shoddy default acft) 😉

Edited March 30, 20215 yr by SAS443

On 3/29/2021 at 9:29 AM, tweekz said:

I agree with you. It's about time ASOBO brings serious changes to the flight model. It's not that the idea is fundamentally flawed IMO, it is just not done. There are many things to tweak or add before it will be fully satisfying.

 

I agree with your wish but I understand that an update on aerodynamics should come. 

Now, these days,  I do a lot of TnG in the pattern with the FI Spit, the play of the yaw and the torque roll , essential to master in a powerful aircraft as this one,  is not bad during takeoff, landing and rollout.  I've flown the A2A P-51 and P-40 for years. I do not feel that the FI bird is toyish. So the basic underlying architecture seems good.

 

Edited March 30, 20215 yr by Dominique_K