Not an irl pilot, but MSFS brings me closest to what I imagine it feels like to fly a plane of any sim I’ve tried. And it lets me do it to a very satisfying degree in most areas of the world.

(Apart from the odd stutter and blotchy cloud replacement texture) I’m as happy as Larry.

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

How much Real-life flying do you have?  I have been flying RL since the late 70's and was never impressed by X Plane. 

250 hours, mainly on Cessna

2 hours ago, Langeveldt said:

It still feels a bit like it's on rails.

MSFS on rails feelings? I have never felt that, in fact many times I find it comparable to XP and even better especially when you fly over cliff or over buildings, you feel the air turbulence. Never experienced that in any sim but I can't say if it IRL or not as myself not a IRL pilot lol 

4 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

That’s interest Chock.  Since you are a real life pilot, can you explain why you think the MSFS flight model is superior to XPlane? It would be interesting to read your reasons since I keep reading the opposite, that XPlane’s flight model is better than MSFS.

I don't tend to drink the Kool Aid where all that 'X-Plane has the best flight model' malarkey is concerned. I go off what I think and how it compares to my own experiences and how well a sim conveys something similar to that. Personally I think all that X-Plane's flight model is superior stuff is a lot of marketing speak combined with a case of the Emperor's New Clothes when you hear people repeat that stuff. I've never been all that impressed with X-Plane's flight modeling. If other people like it, then fine I'm not going to stop them from using it and nor will I criticise their decision to do so, but it's never really convinced me.

I've bought every version of it since I think X-Plane 5, but only because I like to support flight sims, not because I really like it that much, and I did give it a good chance in its latest versions 10 and 11, buying payware airliners for it and numerous add-ons to support those and add flight planning realism etc, but to be honest, it's not a patch on P3D for airliner ops and that's all there is to it, but I think the same is true where its flight model is concerned for light aeroplanes as well...

If you want an example of how it compares with some other flight modeling systems in other sims, this rather long video (below) which I made, comparing a number of different Boeing Stearmans for FSX/P3D, MS Flight, and XPlane (this was before MSFS was released) is a good indicator of that topic. Surprisingly, and considering it was totally free, I think the best one was the default one in MS Flight, since it was the only one of them all which could actually do a ground loop and it had a great model with superb detailing at a price which nobody could argue about. All these factors make it a great sim plane:

But I think MSFS has surpassed the above. and with a Stearman on the way for MSFS in a week or two, I may even redo that video shootout of various Stearmans, but before that...

The flight model in MSFS takes what I think is the best approach to creating such a concept, in that it uses a combination of empirical look up data for various things, but does not do this in isolation, instead simulating how this data behaves in a simulation of the airflow and the resultant changes and interactions which transpire from that, so everything reacts to everything else in a dynamic way. Conversely FSX, Flight, P3D and FSW (all being ESP-based sims) use pretty much a pure look up table approach and whilst that'll get you in the ballpark, there isn't the cross-referencing of effects to produce combined behaviours, nor as many action points as there are in MSFS, so with those ESP-based sims, you are often in the hands of someone who knows how to get the best out of such a method and can use some creativity to alter the book figures of a number of parameters in order to get a believable behaviour, sometimes even going outside of the sim to create additional parameters for behaviours, and this is where you can get some really good flight models from time to time on some add-ons for those ESP sims. 

Then you have X-Plane, which uses its much-vaunted Blade Element Theory-based flight model. I say much-vaunted because what a lot of people don't realise about B.E.T, is that it was originally developed as a theoretical model to test the efficiency of underwater screws for boats and ships at a time when there was still much discussion about whether paddles were better than underwater screws on steamships, so B.E.T. as a concept dates from 1878. Now it will not escape people's attention that the date of that theory's birth is a quarter of a century before the first manned powered flight even occurred, so as a theory it is hardly the futuristic magic bullet for flight sim modeling which the marketing department of Laminar Research would have people believe. That of course doesn't mean it cannot be used for flight modeling, since Laminar does use it, but the idea that you can knock up an aeroplane model shape and aerofoil in 3D for XPlane and it will fly just like the real thing will do when you combine all the elements using blade element theory, and providing you have all of the correct weights in there, is just simply not true, as anyone who has tried that with XPlane's planemaker will readily confirm. Like the lookup tables of those ESP-based sims, it will get you in the ballpark, and it is somewhat dynamic in terms of how it works, but it still requires a lot of knowledgeable tweaking to end up with a good flight model, and you can see that in the video I posted above, where the XPlane Stearman quite clearly is not behaving like a real Boeing Stearman despite being a very accurate, and pretty, physical model of one. and the problem with the fact that like ESP-based sims, it needs tweaking, is that the big guns of development were all doing that for P3D and FSX, not for XPlane, so even within the realm of what is possible, it wasn't really happening.

It's also worth pointing out that much is made of X-Plane being able to be certified to log flight training hours, but again whilst there is truth in that statement, what is often left out by the marketing people and those who like to repeat what the marketing people say by having taken it as gospel, is that in order to do that, you have to buy the considerably more expensive pro version and you also have to use the very considerably more expensive hardware too, so that includes having the frame rate be tested and certified by the FAA, and all the professional hardware has to be used and all of that has to be FAA certified hardware as well, so it's not as if you can plug your Saitek HOTAS into your typical hot gamer rig PC and then be logging hours in a Cessna, it just doesn't work like that. If you have the money you can indeed buy the gear to log hours in XPlane, but frankly, it's cheaper to log hours in a real Cessna which you've bought, than it is to buy all that hardware so you can do it in XPlane, which is why nobody does it.

So, in saying that MSFS has a superior flight model, what I really mean is that in comparing like for like (i.e. two fifty-quid flight sims) on average gaming PCs with reasonably affordable hardware, you're going to get a much more credible flight experience with the MSFS flight model and the visuals which support it and add to the perception of 'realism' than you are in any other genuinely comparable sim. 

But you don't have to take my word for all that stuff, and you can feel free to disagree with some or all of it if you like. However, it is worth noting that the above is why most of your high end flight sim developers have never really embraced XPlane too much, but are now all jumping on board MSFS and either already have announced their forthcoming products, or at least announced that they will be on them at some point in the not too distant future. It's because they know it can and will do what XPlane could not, and some of them even tried it, including PMDG with their DC-6 for XPlane, before stating that this had convinced them XPlane wasn't up to the task for their 747-400. This is in stark contrast to what they've said about MSFS, where they also made their DC-6 for it, but have found it is up to the task for their other big jetliners, with Aerosoft's CRJ having paved much of the way for that.

For me personally however, regardless of all the technical stuff behind the products we end up with, what sells it for me in the end, is simply the way the sim feels in terms of convincing me that I'm really flying, XPlane has never really done that for me, P3D and FSX have occasionally come close, but MSFS has managed to make me feel it numerous times. I'll be glad when all the other technical stuff and fancy jetliners show up for it, but what excites me more about that, is the notion that they will probably actually do a more convincing job of feeling like big heavy jetliners regardless of what system they are simulating.

Okay, now having dared to slag off Blade Element Theory (well, not really slag it off, just clarify it a bit and point out that it isn't magic), I'll put my tin hat on. Fire away chaps!

Edited May 31, 20215 yr by Chock

14 hours ago, Chock said:

Ooh, that's pretty final. Not quite ready to kiss P3D V.5 goodbye just yet myself; it still has much to offer in terms of most of us having a massive virtual hangar full of complex aeroplanes for it, although I suspect when that PMDG DC-6 comes out in a couple of weeks, there may well be another influx of Serious Simmers (TM). 

I can understand people who say that MSFS is a bit light and fluffy in terms of technical depth compared to P3D and FSX, but one thing which MSFS manages which even P3D with Active Sky and the Cloud Art add-on cannot pull off, is actually having a sky that genuinely does look threatening when those CBs start boiling up, which makes you genuinely consider diverting and actually believing that the sky can be as dangerous as it really is in reality when the lightning comes. Up until now, no other flight sim has managed that. 

Still, I'm not kissing P3D goodbye completely until all of the technical add-ons it has can be more closely matched by MSFS, which will happen eventually.

The newly patched Aerosoft CRJ will tide me over,that was the decision maker to retire P3D.

11 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Would love to know what you folks prefer:

Photogrammetry On or Off?

Cheers, Rob.

OFF 🙂

While there are cityscapes that look better with it on, most cities look worse IMHO.

And things like cranes at harbors look simply terrible..

6 hours ago, Chock said:

you're going to get a much more credible flight experience with the MSFS flight model and the visuals which support it

But this is not what the rest of us talk about when we say "flight model". It is not the "flight experience" - it is the way the aircraft behaves and reacts to control and environmental inputs.

You might get the very best flight experience in GTA V, because you have gangsters and cops chasing you and firing at you and it has great music and a much better flight experience than X-Plane and MSFS combined! 🙄

If anyone is genuinely curious about how X-Plane´s flight model stacks up: Download the free demo, set up your joystick and try for yourself. Don´t trust the word of "IRL" pilots, you will get widely varying testimony which depends on the reporters willingness to gloss over deficiencies in exchange for the better visuals (i.e. Chocks "flight experience").

Edited June 1, 20215 yr by Janov

17 minutes ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Would love to know what you folks prefer:

Photogrammetry On or Off?

Cheers, Rob.

On, love it.  When everything is a matter of trade offs, I pick the ability to recognize the real buildings I know (down to logos on the brickwork) even with the shortcomings of things looking a bit off when you actually reach ground level.

For me, the best cities in the sim are PG with custom built iconic landmarks.  The landmark buildings look great, but you ALSO get to see all of the other buildings (like apartments I’ve lived in, or places I’ve shopped at) that would never get a hero treatment and thus never be included in an autogen system.

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Would love to know what you folks prefer:

Photogrammetry On or Off?

Cheers, Rob.

It depends on the quality of the photogrammetry.

New York looks good

Paris looks horrible

London looks not good

Marseille looks good

Barcelona looks good

Madrid looks good

So there are cities which look better then other cities.

But I still would prefer the bad quality above autogen (if not flying directly above ground level but 2000 feet or above).

Marcus 

1 hour ago, Rob_Ainscough said:

Would love to know what you folks prefer:

Photogrammetry On or Off?

Cheers, Rob.

ON for sure.

But I have a 250Mb fibre internet connection and live in a timezone where most of the servers are pretty quiet when I am online.

I do agree that it depends on the city. When it is good it is stunning, when it is bad it can look apocalyptic.

The Aussie Gold Coast looks amazing for example ...

 

I have to agree. The past two sim updates have gone a long way to improving the game and now with the turboprop fixes they are actually halfway decent to fly. Kudos to Asobo. I find myself spending the majority of my screen time in MSFS vs P3Dv5 now.

7 hours ago, Chock said:

That of course doesn't mean it cannot be used for flight modeling, since Laminar does use it, but the idea that you can knock up an aeroplane model shape and aerofoil in 3D for XPlane and it will fly just like the real thing will do when you combine all the elements using blade element theory, and providing you have all of the correct weights in there, is just simply not true, as anyone who has tried that with XPlane's planemaker will readily confirm

I doubt there is anything that could just take a random 3D model and generate realistic flight dynamics in real time.

Mike Patey on just what is involved:

 

9 minutes ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

random 3D model and generate realistic flight dynamics in real time

Correct - this is the realm of some supercomputers, and they are not doing it in real time and certainly also with some "approximation".

What X-Plane does is approximate the shapes - i.e. a fuselage will be turned into a 2D "sideview" and a 2D "frontview". Unless the creator puts in an accurate coefficient of drag in planemaker, this frontview is combined with an "average" Cd for fuselages to approximate the drag. Same for all other relevant surfaces - except for the wings and stabilizer.

For wings and stabilizer X-Plane uses the "airfoil", a file that specifies drag, lift and pitching moment for every angle of attack. This is not much different from a "look up table". You can use real airfoils (NACA) or make your own with the included "airfoil maker".

X-Plane then takes the sum of all "bodies" (like fuselage, gear, weapons, external tanks, etc) and all "flight surfaces", applies the current "relative airflow" and calculates the resultant force on every body - adds those forces up and applies the resultant moments (against the radii of inertia, i.e. how the mass is distributed in the plane).

The resultant flightmodel is usually "close", but not perfect, especially for unusual aircraft configurations. Here the creator needs to "tweak" the model in planemaker to get really close, just like in every other simulator.

Edited June 1, 20215 yr by Janov

2 hours ago, Janov said:

Correct - this is the realm of some supercomputers, and they are not doing it in real time and certainly also with some "approximation".

What X-Plane does is approximate the shapes - i.e. a fuselage will be turned into a 2D "sideview" and a 2D "frontview". Unless the creator puts in an accurate coefficient of drag in planemaker, this frontview is combined with an "average" Cd for fuselages to approximate the drag. Same for all other relevant surfaces - except for the wings and stabilizer.

For wings and stabilizer X-Plane uses the "airfoil", a file that specifies drag, lift and pitching moment for every angle of attack. This is not much different from a "look up table". You can use real airfoils (NACA) or make your own with the included "airfoil maker".

X-Plane then takes the sum of all "bodies" (like fuselage, gear, weapons, external tanks, etc) and all "flight surfaces", applies the current "relative airflow" and calculates the resultant force on every body - adds those forces up and applies the resultant moments (against the radii of inertia, i.e. how the mass is distributed in the plane).

The resultant flightmodel is usually "close", but not perfect, especially for unusual aircraft configurations. Here the creator needs to "tweak" the model in planemaker to get really close, just like in every other simulator.

Janov, just FYI, MSFS has all of the mentioned in your post above and even more! And don't forget, you are not the only one man on the Earth who has XP11!!! 😄😄😄

17 minutes ago, OSM said:

you are not the only one man on the Earth who has XP11!!! 😄😄😄

But sometimes it feels like I am the only one who knows how it works 😄😄😄