Relative newbie to civilian sims - comparisons to other Sims

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

4 hours ago, Bigbluss said:

I mean things like electrical systems, hydraulics, computer systems etc.

Many of the GA aircraft in MSFS are quite simple "under the hood" in real life.

If you buy the Aviat Husky as an example, it has no hydraulics, simple electricals, and lots of wires and pulleys.

So, one could argue that the sim version is "study level" as far as systems go..

Lots of fun to fly BTW, especially the amphibian version 🙂

Edited August 21, 2021 by Bert Pieke

[sd_flyer 6,072]

48 minutes ago, shadow133 said:

Some people have MSFS installed but can't play since the forced update 5.

Stock fs airplanes are a joke, on par with the worst sim planes ever created with very low fidelity. Avionics, systems in general, atc and realtime weather are abysmal. However, through mods and third party one can experience a good simulation. But this seems to get borked after every update. Aerodynamics are good, crosswinds etc although I feel like xplane 11 was better on some aspects.

Until MS either relinquishes mandatory updates or allow for a rollback it will never be satisfactory. Imagine paying hundreds for a pmdg that you can't play for months due to an update? It is happening to many that bought the Aerosoft crj at this time.

I own, flew, and instructed in some stock MSFS airplanes. Those that I familiar with are actually pretty good for default aircraft. Steam gauges are pretty accurate. Yes G1000/GNS come  out with  in a bad shape  but have been going through improvement. ATC is not perfect, but way better than stock XP11. Real time weather has improved  significantly  since release . Yes there is still room for improvement but  I wouldn't call it bad.  There are some problems of aircraft behaviour on the ground during crosswind but Asobo aware and fixing in it. 

 

I don't have to imagine anything I flew PMDG DC-6 before update V and right after V. There few bugs that has been fixed by PMDG very quickly and other by hot fixes I can't really complain.

 

 

[Ricardo41 5,958]

4 hours ago, Janov said:

Not trying to start another sim-war here and since I don´t own MSFS I can´t form my own opinion

And we have lift off!

[Ricardo41 5,958]

4 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

. MSFS 2020 flight model is very bad (according to my research and survey)

Data?

[JBDB-MD80 1,478]

Yawn, just another weekly BS "my game has better physics than yours" thread. Just fly what like without the BS drama. The OP asked about the complexity of the 3rd party aircraft and the tread went to word not allowed right on post #2. I'll check back tomorrow to see how long this one stays open before its locked.

[VFXSimmer 1,310]

36 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Data?

Don’t bother he lacks the …  cough … “Evidence” …
 

sorry sorry sorry … couldn’t help myself on a Saturday morning, it was just a softball hanging over the plate …

[Korbat 2]

3 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

This has been known and well-documented for over a year, and can happen in any aircraft in MSFS 2020, be it default, modded or 3rd party. Absolutely nothing has been done about it. Really hate to put it this way but sometimes it seems to me as if they copied the flight model of a cheap Mickey Mouse game and pasted it into MSFS 2020.

In a live Q&A, the devs stated that the ground interaction is in large parts still legacy FSX code. It's like a binary switch, you're either on the ground or in the air, and that's why people feel this sudden jerk to the side when the wheels touch down or on liftoff. Weathervaning on the ground seems to be off, too, as has been stated. Sometimes you need considerable rudder to the left when there is a crosswind from the right.

The devs, however, said they will rework the whole ground interaction part of the flight model in the future. Let's hope they do it right when they get to it. I think many people are forgetting that in many aspects the flight model is actually a lot better than the old FSX one (and that's where they started), and in some aspects, it seems to be just on par with it.

I'm currently training for my PPL and flying a C172. In my opinion, overall the MSFS version is decent for a default plane. However, I have noticed some changes to the C172 flight model over time. Some improved things, some actually made it worse.

For example, the floating of the plane on the runway and induced drag feels about right now (as far as I can say with my limited experience). After release of MSFS, all the planes used to float down the runway like crazy. On the negative side, right now I need considerable power just to even get the airplane moving on ground. On approach etc. I also need a lot more power than I would in real life.

This was different in the beginning. Plus, last time I tried to do a simple power off stall in the sim I had a violent wing drop which usually doesn't happen that easily in a C172. I have the feeling whenever they improve one thing (like higher induced drag), it leads to a degradation in another aspect. Don't know if that's a general limitation of the flight model, that you can't get all the aspects right at the same time, or the planes are just missing some "fine tuning".

 

On topic: I think you'll be happy with the level of detail of the PMDG planes and the JustFlight Arrow I have in the sim seems to be nice, too, albeit not that complex. If you belive Fenix, their A320 will be at least on an equal level as PMDG planes, complexity wise. Let's wait and see. 🙂

Edited August 21, 2021 by Korbat

[ryanbatc 12,930]

1 hour ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Yawn, just another weekly BS "my game has better physics than yours" thread. Just fly what like without the BS drama. The OP asked about the complexity of the 3rd party aircraft and the tread went to word not allowed right on post #2. I'll check back tomorrow to see how long this one stays open before its locked.

The thread was totally fine....people steer it downhill, but others like myself, try to keep it productive.

[RandallR 446]

MSFS is a work in progress, but there are a number of aircraft that fly very well (for me, a couple of them unmodded and several modded) that are close to real world performance figures - when I use settings from their official POHs they work well and handle well - their interaction with the "air" is some of the best I've experienced in a sim (except for prop torque and crosswind handling near the ground).

Two of them that I've flown in the RW (C152 and C172) are close to my actual experience and are certainly closer than any other consumer sim I've used that included those aircraft.  I know that there are custom versions of these aircraft that have been produced by 3rd parties for other sims, but I don't have experience with them.

In a flight today with an excellent modded aircraft I experienced weather that was spot-on for my entire route and the updated Garmin guided me through an excellent approach (including a proper hold entry and procedure turn).

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,799]

My impression is the flight part of the sim works mainly with the 3D geometry of the airframe with some  limited ability to fudge that with tables. The ground roll aspect does not work that way, hence the oddities when they transition.  Not all aircraft suffer from it, for example the Cessna c140 is an absolute dream to take off and land even though it is a tail dragger.

The default c152 is pretty close to what I remember a C152 was like and the c140 is just fun to fly - however the standout for me in terms of feeling and sounding like actually flying the real thing is the Just Flight Warrior II.

Of course if your into button pressing and procedures the PMDG DC6 is hard to beat.

JF Warrior II struggling with some inclement live weather.

 

Edited August 21, 2021 by Glenn Fitzpatrick

[neil0311 366]

4 hours ago, shadow133 said:

Some people have MSFS installed but can't play since the forced update 5.

Stock fs airplanes are a joke, on par with the worst sim planes ever created with very low fidelity.

And some people have had virtually no issues at all with SU5. I flew for 4 hours yesterday in the NY and Boston areas in the G1000 equipped C172 and got avg of 40 fps with zero crashes of any kind and no scenery issues. It was amazing actually, with a little cloudiness.

And come on…the planes aren’t A2A quality, but “a joke” and “the worst sim planes ever created with low fidelity?”

Sorry but that kind of hyperbole sounds ridiculous. If that’s your opinion on the planes, then I guess that’s your opinion, but you and I must be playing two different versions of Flight Simulator. 

Edited August 21, 2021 by neil0311

[neil0311 366]

Oh…and since SU5 I’ve been able to move my options to the “Ultra” preset values. So I’ve improved my experience while maintaining my performance or degrading very slightly in some areas.

And I don’t use the NXi beta G1000, because I don’t want to beta test and leave myself open to bugs, but I imagine that would make the experience even better. 

[SAPilot 213]

9 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

MSFS 2020 flight model is very bad (according to my research and survey) and so is their default weather modelling. Therefore if you buy and put a Justflight or PMDG product in it, there will be times when the end result will be inaccurate, whereas in X-Plane 11 the same Justflight GA plane will be more accurate flight model wise. Of course if you don't care about accurate flight model then ignore this part of my post.

Can you back that up with evidence ?  please ...

[Bert Pieke 7,585]

23 minutes ago, neil0311 said:

I don’t use the NXi beta G1000, because I don’t want to beta test and leave myself open to bugs, but I imagine that would make the experience even better. 

You are missing out on a much improved experience... try the Rob Young Turbo Bonanza with the WT G1000 nxi... really nice!

[Bobsk8 12,794]

4 minutes ago, SAPilot said:

Can you back that up with evidence ?  please ...

His research , apparently..... LOL