MSFS has the most advanced flight model?

[Chock 17,769]

2 hours ago, keithb77 said:

if MSFS FM is so good why do the planes fly so bad?

Since this is a picky thread, shouldn't that use the adverb: 'fly badly'? 🤣

On a more serious note, if the flight model of a particular sim is the one which floats your boat, that's enough of a reason for anyone to deem their own preference superior. Personally, I've never thought much of the BET system in XPlane in terms of convincing me, whereas I've usually been impressed with the one in MSFS.

And for completeness, I always thought ESP sims felt a bit too 'on rails' and the one in Aerofly was all over the shop. The one in DCS is pretty good in most respects, although it still suffers a bit from 'wandering nose, lack of inertia' syndrome. 

But any complaints I've had about realism in any sim in regard to how a specific aeroplane performs within the parameters of how that sim portrays flight overall, have usually been down to specific performance numbers of that particular aeroplane; that is to say I might find a Cessna in a particular sim may pass through the air and react convincingly to various situations, but might also not be on the numbers speed-wise for acceleration, or stall speeds or some such. Which is more a case of developmental errors for that particular aeroplane, rather than a fault with the way the sim's flight model can depict stuff, and this is an important distinction to be aware of.

My own opinion is that the MSFS flight model is potentially superior from a technical standpoint, but it won't be completely so until the actual air mass modeling of the sim is improved to the point that the air the simulated aeroplane is flying through is enough of a factor to add to the overall depiction of things, which is allegedly going to occur, but at the moment does not do so in an especially realistic manner, and nor does this happen in any other sim other than specific gliding sims such as Condor, Soaring Simulator and the new Aerosoft World of Aircraft: Gliding Simulator.

What any flight sim needs to really be good in regards to flight modeling, is stuff like ridge lift, wave lift, thermal activity etc. These things are of course what a glider relies on, but they don't magically disappear when you are in a powered aeroplane, they are there all the time, for every aeroplane, such that you could glide an airliner to higher altitudes even if it lost all power, if it got into a standing wave of sufficient vertical speed. This is the stuff which makes thunderstorm downdrafts and the lee side of hills near airports so dangerous, and it needs to be in a flight sim to make it a genuine simulation of the environment in which a flying machine operates.

When one of these mainstream sims has that stuff there realistically, then we'll be able to genuinely say its flight model is superior to others. In the meantime, they all have their plusses and minuses, so it's going to come down to which ever one floats your boat, if not necessarily floating your aeroplane on a thermal.

[HiFlyer 9,343]

17 minutes ago, styckx said:

But Let's not forget.. It wasn't always this way

The only real difference is that MSFS got too large, too quickly for the usual tendency to trample anything new into the dirt to have any noticeable effect.

Sites like Flightsim.to sprouted like weeds, (as we mumbled about rivet counts and filled zillions of pages with the usual complaints) while unknown freeware hero's flocked around the new entry to the point where its probably safe to say MSFS could now (thankfully) do just fine without us.

Edited June 7, 2021 by HiFlyer

[The Moose 1,177]

56 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

 

I am not a real life pilot so I am taking the opinion of real life pilots, and aerospace engineers, since those are the experts in this subject matter.

For the love of god don't listen to the opinion of pilots!    They can all have had exactly the same experience and will all give you a different opinion of it.😄

[styckx 1,870]

Just now, HiFlyer said:

The only real difference is that MSFS got too large, too quickly for the usual tendency to trample anything new into the dirt to have any noticeable effect.

Sites like Flightsim.to sprouted like weeds, (while we mumbled about rivet counts and filled zillions of pages with the usual complaints) while unknown freeware hero's flocked around the new entry to the point where its probably safe to say MSFS could now (thankfully) do just fine without us.

Oh no doubt. AVSIM and the "die hards" are a barely a blip on the radar at this point. I've fully accepted that and actually happy about it. Flight simming has finally FINALLY going mainstream and in a good way. Incredibly skilled developers have come out of the wood work to do things for the sim no one imagined.. WorkingTitle being one of the stand outs. Seriously.. WHERE DID THESE GUYS COME FROM? Who cares though! They are here and it's incredible. 

[GSalden 4,655]

Asobo has changed the flightmodel again with the latest update.

With my Prosim 737 I now need flaps 40 where before I did well with flaps 30.

 

[FlyBaby 659]

2 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

I bought the propaganda about the X-Plane flight model too.  A lot of the X-Plane advocates keep repeating it over and over again. 

If you repeat something over and over again, eventually people will start to believe it...

Despite the claims of the the XP fans...to me...MSFS has a better plane flight model and DCS has a better Heli flight model

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

X Plane never made me feel like I was flying a real aircraft. MSFS 2020, with the aircraft I have tried, the C 172, Mooney, JF Arrow and Seminole twin, feel to me just like what I feel flying a real aircraft. 

Exactly...its a subjective topic...but this is the conclusion that I, and many others have arrived at.

1 hour ago, Janov said:

Maybe...just maybe we can prove it to us and the mods that it doesn´t have to end this way? My contribution: I won´t contribute! 😁

Anyone can contribute to the comparison...but if you don't "own" both sims to see the difference for yourself, that comparison is usually heavily biased with ulterior motives...

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I think the XP folks see the writing on the wall, and they don't like what they see, if you catch my drift. 

The XP folks have some hope with the new series of teaser vids showcasing some future updates. For me, the question remains if it is too late for XP to really make advances with other aspects of the sim besides their flight model.

[sd_flyer 6,031]

30 minutes ago, mikegrr said:

So what actually constitutes a realistic flight model? Adherence to the POH, stall performance, sensitivity to controls, adverse yaw, turbulence effects, rudder effectiveness, ground handling  , etc? GA planes, airliners, gliders….

not easy to lump it all into one single thing  

 

There is very interesting question! Definitely perception vary between different people of different background such as simmer, pilots, aeronautical engineers and etc.

In this respect, I can only talk to myself. I have degree in science but not in aeronautical engineering! So my knowledge is limited by my personal amateur aerodynamic knowledge.. Note: even CFI often limited in aerodynamic knowledge because CFI certificate is not a science degree! So my background is a long time simmer eventually becoming pilot, airplane owner and finally CFI. I accept sim limitations as normal thing. But I can see as someone else who has started to fly IRL then go and then tries sim experience could be easily have completely different opinion. I think it's normal and accepted practice since even IRL CFI often employe slightly different methods to achieve the same goal. 

Personally for me flight model manifest reasonable copy of flight as I know it, i.e. close enough to POH, stall performance and etc. I do set my own sensitivity as I reflect my personal RL experience. I also clearly understand difference between control feedback IRL and the sim which I can easily adjust my senses to    (thanks for my long time simmer background). But I can imagine it would not be the same for another RW pilot. After all not every developer has custom code that resemble control feed back close to RL.  I know folks from  A2A do, but many don't and it's up for end user to figure this out! Unlike RL we don't have couple pound of force applied to rudder pedals some people may see  rudder as to sensitive! Here where shady area on how sims come to interpretations! There some things that  people can agree are definitely wrong. And there are also things that can be up to different perceptions! Those things could mean right and wrong for different group of people!

[Janov 2,383]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

However, the reason this debate still exists because often MSFS being put down by other fun group, and they don't hesitate to come and spill it here

I feel your pain! We also have a bunch of MSFS fans coming over to the X-Plane forums, trying to stir things up. Why can´t they use MSFS and be content with that?

[Janov 2,383]

I think the first grade a flightmodel needs to pass is "good enough". I believe that both MSFS and X-Plane have achieved that goal.

Once you get into actual training or high fidelity hobby application you will also look for realistic performance - short term like roll rates, pitch authority, damping and inertia - but also long term things like climb performance, glide ratio, range (all over a wide range of weights and environmental conditions). This is where our PC simulations usually hit the limit imposed by the technical possibilities of the flightmodel and the skill of the aircraft designer.

 

[mikealpha 266]

Interesting thread. I have real C152 and C172 experience myself. I'm always wondering about real pilots or anyone  making comments about flight models in Sims when using a cheap joystick or whatever sloppy controls. 

Don't believe any of those. My own judgement of flight models has drastically changed after getting a Brunner FF yoke, which is the closest to the real thing you can get. Expensive, but it's a world of difference. 

Edit : For me the A2A C172 in P3D comes the most close to the "yes, I'm in a C172" feeling. Right there the C172 is the stable and forgiving and predictable plane that has made it so famous among flight schools worldwide.  MSFS is also close, but XPlane is way off for my taste 

Edited June 7, 2021 by mikealpha

[cobalt 798]

A simple question: How does the concept of "realistic flight model" apply to the experience of someone sitting in a chair in front of a computer, both motionless and experiencing exactly 1G? Just asking -- maybe someone knowledgeable will tell me.

[sanh 823]

This could be heading south. Let me settle this. I have used X-Plane and MSFS and P3D and the flight model is largely irrelevant since they are not that different. Its the PLANE that matters. If the plane flight model/params are not good it just doesn't work. That's why there are some fairly accurate flight model planes for EVERY sim (including P3D and FSX) but also absolute rubbish planes for EVERY sim. 

Case in point. I was just watching someone on youtube take-off in a fully loaded default 747 with just 2 engines with ease - in MSFS. 

The plane matters more than the sim flight model.

Edited June 7, 2021 by sanh

[skully 1,045]

In my opinion, all the aircraft in the various sims fly about the same, DCS, X-Plane, MSFS, P3D etc.

Oh sure, there are nuances for each particular model, speeds weights etc, but at the end of the day- they're just airplanes and they all fly using the same principles. 

Taxi, takeoff and climb, trim, cruise, trim, descend, trim and land all the while managing the systems and weather variables encountered.

Only when we get a sim that actually simulates the air molecules movement over wings and control surfaces, parasitic and induced drag, wing washout, density altitude, gravity, momentum etc, we're about as good as one can get using a motionless desktop simulator. Would also need to have the airfoil shapes interact with this simulated air.

A designer that made a 3D model of an Extra 300 using the actual aircrafts airfoil shapes and aircraft overall design could expect the aircraft to behave as its real world counterpart.

It would perform like the real aircraft being able to perform maneuvers such as knife edge flight etc.

Let's take an example using X-Planes vaunted flight models and dynamics.

The Rockwell Aero Commander has a reputation as an evil handling aircraft when loaded in a tail heavy condition and uncontrollable when loaded past aft CG.

"An FAA study of structural failure accidents between 1966 and 1975 showed that the Commander twins had the second worst record among 11 classes of twins, second only to the Piper Twin Comanche. And the accident numbers weren't exactly low, either.

The FAA discovered that the stability of the original Commanders had a fatal weak link, a dangerous instability when loaded near the aft CG limit. No fewer than 22 cases of in-flight structural failures were blamed on extreme pitch sensitivity at aft CG.

However, the problem was corrected in 1975 by Airworthiness Directive 75-12-9, which required installation of bob weights in the control system of all 500, A, B, U, S and other models. Buyers should double-check that this AD has been complied with. Since the AD, there have been few if any structural breakups."

https://www.aviationconsumer.com/aircraftreviews/twin-commander-500-series/

This is due to the aircrafts very long and narrow tapered wing.

I see this behavior in my RC Aero Commander aircraft also and it is extremely sensitive handling at aft CG, the minimal wing washout doesn't help matters either.

The B-26 Marauder also exhibits this CG sensitive behavior as it is very similar to the Aero Commander in general layout.

All aircraft are extremely pitch and roll sensitive when loaded past aft CG, real life and RC.

I took an Aero Commander in X-Plane and loaded it way past aft CG to where the aircrafts tail sat on the ground.

I expected it to fly like an out of control bottle rocket but surprisingly it actually flew quite well...

Or take IL2 Sturmovik, another simulator that has vaunted flight dynamics, but I don't know why.

I found it to be the most unrealistic of the sims I've flown in 22 years.

If the real worlds warbirds flew as badly as IL2's do, there never would have been an airwar as all the pilots would have all been killed on takeoff or shortly thereafter and the reaming aircraft would be on the ground because no one would be willing to fly them.

We have a long way to go but I'm enjoying what we have now and besides, I'm just here for the eye candy- bare metal rules!

 

[Janov 2,383]

8 minutes ago, cobalt said:

How does the concept of "realistic flight model" apply to the experience of someone sitting in a chair in front of a computer, both motionless and experiencing exactly 1G? Just asking -- maybe someone knowledgeable will tell me.

I will try - when flying a real plane, the motion of flight (here: acceleration forces) can both help and deceive you. One of the more difficult things to learn when flying on instruments is to NOT trust your senses of motion.

In general, accurate instrument flying is a tad more difficult on a PC simulator, as the slight "cues" (aka seat-of-the-pants) are missing that the aircraft is experiencing an upset from a 1g flightpath.

The "flightmodel" as we discuss has nothing to do with those sensations, it will simply govern how the aircraft will react to inputs from both the pilot (via the controls) and the environment (usually the air impacting it). A "good" flightmodel will mimick the response of the real aircraft for the same given inputs - no matter if you sit in front of your PC, in a multimillion dollar Level-D simulator ... or are actually flying the real thing 😉

 

[mazex 419]

I dunno. I think that MSFS gets it pretty OK and has a more "organic" feeling compared to X-Plane, probably due to having some feeling of the AC moving through air that is a bit turbulent. What I think spoils the illusion most right now is the under modeled prop drag when you cut the throttle. A real plane really kind of "brakes" when you do that. And in a real plane on final in the turbulent air at lower level you are moving the stick pretty much as a wing drops suddenly even in rather calm air but you really do not think about it. It would be rather annoying in a simulator if you would have to wisp around the stick like you do IRL all the time without thinking as that is also connected to pressure or non-pressure in your lower regions that gives you an indication that now I need to push the stick forward a bit before the nose goes up a bit etc...

For me - the flight models in DCS for fighter jets and the FM in IL2 BoX feels a lot more credible. But there you are flying on the edge of the envelope all the time so it is necessary... But my only military jet experience is in the Saab SK60 and my only warbird experience is the Tiger Moth, so what do I really know about how an F-18 or Spitfire really behave that are quite different beasts 🙂 The F18 in DCS is fun just to fly full throttle with 20 degree alpha in circles and then release the back pressure a bit and see the speed build up...