8 hours ago, Ricardo41 said:

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

Let me go into a corner and collapse with laughter.

May I politely ask why you waste your time pushing pixels around your screen?

Or, if you don't fly at all:

May I politely ask why you waste your time pushing ASCII characters on OUR screens?

Thank you

A.

On 3/28/2021 at 2:34 PM, ADamiani said:

Anyway, regarding the flight model, we have two choices.

1) Look at numbers, formulas, drawings, whistles and bells, and conclude that with all that effort the model MUST be right. Same approach as those engineers that assume they can tell you if an amplifier sounds good or bad just looking at the numbers. Maybe even worse than that, because not even I, as a professional mathematician, would be able to do that. I understand the formulas, I know physics, I am not afraid to study a problem in depth; but all I would be able to say is that what I see is formally right or wrong. That it actually reproduces the actual behavior within a given approximation is another story, This is the first lesson for my students when I introduce mathematical modeling in my courses.

2) Ask a real pilot to give it a try and judge if what they see is close enough to reality. Of course, we have to factor out of the equation all the motion stuff, which means a lot. This is the same as inviting a musician to my house, asking him/her to listen to their own songs through my stereo set and say whether it sounds the way they meant it*.

...

*when I actually did that, this friend of mine said that my stereo set sounds wonderful, but also said that, first of all, he could hear some subtleties that they hadn't actually thought about during production, so they were there more or less by chance. Second, that audiophiles like me look for things like purity of the sound, dynamics, depth, quickness, that are not top of the list for professional musicians, who are more worried about armony, rhythm, voice impact, pitch, punch and others. After all, they have to sell their music, right? So is what we listen to "real"? Probably not, under the point of view of the musician who actually wrote, sang and produce that song 🙂.

A.

This long thread is much better than advertised. Listening to a thoughtful discussion by pilots, aerodynamicists, and avionics experts makes for an informative exercise. We can probably all agree that it would be terrific to see Asobo take on some of the shortcomings in MFS flight dynamics. (Among others: stalls, spins, inertia, drag, transonic and supersonic flight. You know better than do I.) And we can probably agree that their serious efforts will make a real difference and yet are unlikely to satisfy everyone.

Maybe the most interesting, and profound, point so far was made on Sunday by @ADamiani. The last paragraph of the post seems especially rich with meaning. Worth contemplation on our part.
-M

5 minutes ago, MM said:

This long thread is much better than advertised. Listening to a thoughtful discussion by pilots, aerodynamicists, and avionics experts makes for an informative exercise. We can probably all agree that it would be terrific to see Asobo take on some of the shortcomings in MFS flight dynamics. (Among others: stalls, spins, inertia, drag, transonic and supersonic flight. You know better than do I.) And we can probably agree that their serious efforts will make a real difference and yet are unlikely to satisfy everyone.

Maybe the most interesting, and profound, point so far was made on Sunday by @ADamiani. The last paragraph of the post seems especially rich with meaning. Worth contemplation on our part.
-M

 

I think I will have this quote on standby at all time. this is from RSR from PMDG. The issue has nothing to do with the sim but the aircraft developer. It's on them to model all the short coming you guys are talking about. 

I have been mostly-mis-quoted ten thousand times this week as having said something along the lines of "the MSFS SDK isn't capable of supporting what we do" or "MSFS isn't capable of supporting what we do." I want to be very clear in stating that this new sim is highly dynamic and changing continually. What may have been true in June of 2020 is not necessarily true any longer. From the standpoint of development, we are not currently seeing any major limitations to prevent us from bringing our product catalog into MSFS.

2 hours ago, SAS443 said:

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

 

Another perfect example of how good are flight physics model in MSFS or P3D and how the PMDG is within 5% of the real stuff when clearly you can see from the video the -8 speed is 105 KTS and pfd shows 13 degrees deck angle without any tail strike or stall the airplane stops on a dime on the air-carrier when actual data and performance shows that for about 200T landing weight for a 748 with flaps 30 v ref is about 121 and landing roll is about 5,000 FT.

And we still have people saying that " the basic underlying architecture seems good." or that the physics of MSFS are great and despite all the facts and documentation we still are unwilling to admit that something might be wrong.

But again, if people are happy to find their houses and this is the only difference they can see (not that the airplanes have bad flight physics and is called flight simulator) let's call it "house finder simulator", a more appropriate name than anything else. 

I really hope for Asobo to get their stuff together and fix the major problems.

1 hour ago, fogboundturtle said:

I think I will have this quote on standby at all time. this is from RSR from PMDG. The issue has nothing to do with the sim but the aircraft developer. It's on them to model all the short coming you guys are talking about. 

I have been mostly-mis-quoted ten thousand times this week as having said something along the lines of "the MSFS SDK isn't capable of supporting what we do" or "MSFS isn't capable of supporting what we do." I want to be very clear in stating that this new sim is highly dynamic and changing continually. What may have been true in June of 2020 is not necessarily true any longer. From the standpoint of development, we are not currently seeing any major limitations to prevent us from bringing our product catalog into MSFS.

BS. Not every aircraft developer should be forced to create their own flight dynamics engine outside of the sim (which is what PMDG does).

9 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

BS. Not every aircraft developer should be forced to create their own flight dynamics engine outside of the sim (which is what PMDG does).

What do you think has been happening for years in XP11 and P3D ?

4 hours ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

The physics of MSFS is great?

This video is probably using Kinetic Assistant, which provides catapult and arresting hook functions.   Either that or, as @jbdbow1970 suggested, it's modified aircraft configurations.     Either way, attempting to use what is very obviously a video of intentionally absurd non-stock configurations to snark about the physics of MSFS says to me that either you're not arguing with good faith here, or you're willing to grab any video that supports your case without thinking critically about it.

Either likely says more your particular agenda -- let's not kid ourselves, your antipathy to MSFS is probably apparent to anyone who frequents these boards -- than about MSFS itself.  It's not a good look.

Edited March 30, 20215 yr by kaosfere

8 hours ago, killthespam said:

 

Another perfect example of how good are flight physics model in MSFS or P3D and how the PMDG is within 5% of the real stuff when clearly you can see from the video the -8 speed is 105 KTS and pfd shows 13 degrees deck angle without any tail strike or stall the airplane stops on a dime on the air-carrier when actual data and performance shows that for about 200T landing weight for a 748 with flaps 30 v ref is about 121 and landing roll is about 5,000 FT.

And we still have people saying that " the basic underlying architecture seems good." or that the physics of MSFS are great and despite all the facts and documentation we still are unwilling to admit that something might be wrong.

But again, if people are happy to find their houses and this is the only difference they can see (not that the airplanes have bad flight physics and is called flight simulator) let's call it "house finder simulator", a more appropriate name than anything else. 

I really hope for Asobo to get their stuff together and fix the major problems.

Could you use standard fonts, please?

I do not understand why someone uses a video from P3D for an unfounded rant about MSFS flight physics.

Killthespam has proven in several threads now that he is not interested in constructive criticism but pure bashing and unfounded claims. Just ignore him.

10 hours ago, ADamiani said:

May I politely ask why you waste your time pushing pixels around your screen?

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.

18 hours 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.

I never claimed I did any of that solo...might want to consider your critical reading strategies.

 

P3d is just MS's product polished and LM name slapped on, you know that as well as everyone else, it's not even their sim. 2nd...Id bet money they don't use p3d in any defense flight trainers...lol. the functionality of these sims is woefully inadequate for custom contracted training devices.

 

You can't seriously think that lockheed's name on p3d has any relation to the real training devices they build or that there is any crossover with engineering between their real products and p3d

7 hours ago, crimplene said:

Could you use standard fonts, please?

I do not understand why someone uses a video from P3D for an unfounded rant about MSFS flight physics.

Killthespam has proven in several threads now that he is not interested in constructive criticism but pure bashing and unfounded claims. Just ignore him.

And @crimplene,

 

Regarding my font, I used my mobile when I sent the message and I see that is different but if you pay attention there are at least 10 fonts to choose from the menu. You don't like it "just ignore".

 

If you read carefully my "criticism" was not only about MSFS (look at the other movie clip showing Airbuses and others doing carrier operations), P3D etc.

 

And what I said in my previous threads about weaknesses and bugs of the MSFS are not unfounded claims, many people with basic knowledge complain about it on the internet, and is all out-here for you to search if you wish or just pretend that everything is all good.

Edited March 31, 20215 yr by killthespam

4 minutes ago, killthespam said:

And @crimplene,

 

Regarding my font, I used my mobile when I sent the message and I see that is different but if you pay attention there are at least 10 fonts to choose from the menu. You don't like it "just ignore".

 

If you read carefully my "criticism" was not only about MSFS (look at the other movie clip showing Airbuses and others doing carrier operations), P3D etc.

 

And what I said in my previous threads about weaknesses and bugs of the MSFS are not unfounded claims, many people with basic knowledge complain about it on the internet, and is all out-here for you to search if you wish or just pretend that everything is all good.

Sure

45 minutes ago, sluflyer06 said:

I never claimed I did any of that solo...might want to consider your critical reading strategies.

 

P3d is just MS's product polished and LM name slapped on, you know that as well as everyone else, it's not even their sim. 2nd...Id bet money they don't use p3d in any defense flight trainers...lol. the functionality of these sims is woefully inadequate for custom contracted training devices.

 

You can't seriously think that lockheed's name on p3d has any relation to the real training devices they build or that there is any crossover with engineering between their real products and p3d

Dont you know Rob has stocks in LM? lol Dude posted a video of carrier landings in msfs, when there are hundreds of the same type of videos for fsx and p3d

I don’t think the video showing a load of Airbus landing on a carrier is very realistic at all....

A few years ago we were invited for an exchange to RAF Lyneham for the Hercules squadron’s Christmas “ Guinness and mince pies party”

There was a mix of Boeing 747 and Airbus A340 pilots, We all had a go at landing the C130-J full motion simulator onto an aircraft carrier in the Bristol Channel.
Only the Boeing pilots managed to land on the carrier, all the Airbus guys ended up in the sea 😂😂

Edited March 31, 20215 yr by jon b

I’d like to contribute to this discussion! The flight training device (aka simulator) I trained in for my instrument rating has a physics engine that feels a lot like FSX. Yet it’s Transport Canada certified as a flight training device.

I’m sure anyone with a type rating for any transport category aircraft will also note that the physics modelling in their simulators that they use at work are also wildly subpar.

So although physics engine improvements are always welcome, just remember what you’re flying in has a better representation of reality than what the FAA considers acceptable for flight crew training.

Of course, computers also have limits; they’re not designed to simulate fringe cases (like someone pulling the controls to the extremes and kicking full rudder at Mach 2), those regimes aren’t modelled very well for obvious reasons...