Bumpy Ride...Got Airsick

[cianpars 1,161]

17 hours ago, jwhak said:

0 wind = no turbulence.   I don't get it.  So If you have 0 wind you should not encounter turbulence?   So does a glider need wind to fly?

 

I didn't say you should encounter no turbulance.  I have flown hundreds if flights in RW gliders.  What I'm saying is that the turbulence seems to have been overdone a little in the update.  I've been thrown about all over the sky in gliders and even in C152s a little, but the 172 is somewhat heavier and quite a bit more stable in my experience.  

[robert young 2,897]

17 hours ago, jwhak said:

0 wind = no turbulence.   I don't get it.  So If you have 0 wind you should not encounter turbulence?   So does a glider need wind to fly?

 

I flew gliders for many years after I retired from flying power aircraft. The only significant turbulence I ever experienced was mid afternoon on a hot summer day, or taking off from a cliffside airfield with curl-over winds. When people say it is accurate according to their own RL experience, it absolutely depends where you live, the time of day, and the season. For that reason we need a slider that can range from turbulence on to completely still air.

Also the cross wind effect is ridiculously exaggerated. I have never experienced the need for sudden virtually full rudder when encountering a very mild partial cross wind on take off or landing, even when the landing requires a little crabbing on finals. It is WAY, WAY overdone, and no matter how many people tell Asobo to tone it down, they don't.

As marvellous as this sim is in many ways, I do not believe Asobo staff understand how aircraft actually fly. And aircraft do not violently bob up and down in pitch with the slightest stick input. They really don't. About the lightest aircraft I ever flew was a Rollason Beta which is a tiny tail dragger. It had a bakelite stick with a superb feel. When you pulled back it would smoothly go nose up. When you pushed forward it would smoothly go nose down. NOT ONCE have I experienced the pogo stick bobbing up and down you get in MSFS with light aircraft. Nor did any glider I flew ever act in such a way. They might have been sensitive, but were always eminently controllable.

Even an Extra 300 with its massive ailerons and 7+ G elevators could be flown with the most elegant control, almost like an airliner. The vast majority of default aircraft in MSFS, including the caravan and even Kingair, violently yo yo up and down in pitch with the slightest stick movement. Even the otherwise superb Kodiak does it. It's wrong, wrong, wrong and any pilot who really understands how aircraft fly will confirm this.

[LRBS 943]

5 hours ago, robert young said:

I flew gliders for many years after I retired from flying power aircraft. The only significant turbulence I ever experienced was mid afternoon on a hot summer day, or taking off from a cliffside airfield with curl-over winds. When people say it is accurate according to their own RL experience, it absolutely depends where you live, the time of day, and the season. For that reason we need a slider that can range from turbulence on to completely still air.

Also the cross wind effect is ridiculously exaggerated. I have never experienced the need for sudden virtually full rudder when encountering a very mild partial cross wind on take off or landing, even when the landing requires a little crabbing on finals. It is WAY, WAY overdone, and no matter how many people tell Asobo to tone it down, they don't.

As marvellous as this sim is in many ways, I do not believe Asobo staff understand how aircraft actually fly. And aircraft do not violently bob up and down in pitch with the slightest stick input. They really don't. About the lightest aircraft I ever flew was a Rollason Beta which is a tiny tail dragger. It had a bakelite stick with a superb feel. When you pulled back it would smoothly go nose up. When you pushed forward it would smoothly go nose down. NOT ONCE have I experienced the pogo stick bobbing up and down you get in MSFS with light aircraft. Nor did any glider I flew ever act in such a way. They might have been sensitive, but were always eminently controllable.

Even an Extra 300 with its massive ailerons and 7+ G elevators could be flown with the most elegant control, almost like an airliner. The vast majority of default aircraft in MSFS, including the caravan and even Kingair, violently yo yo up and down in pitch with the slightest stick movement. Even the otherwise superb Kodiak does it. It's wrong, wrong, wrong and any pilot who really understands how aircraft fly will confirm this.

Excellent assessment in all aspects.

What is amazing is how certain people can't accept that actually there is something wrong and some things can be improved and keep on denying and fighting over it. It really doesn't matter to them, it became like a cult sort of thing, like other forums where you cannot point out any obvious facts and everybody jumps on your back for daring to point out real issues that need to be addressed.

Like here, one is comparing apples with oranges,  gliders with airplanes, totally different animals, different wing designs, different flight characteristics, different aerodinamics,  etc. Yes, all are susceptible to thermals, turbulence as you mentioned related to geographical location, time of the day/night, etc but not as exaggerated as it is now for all airplanes.

Yes, we indeed need a slider to tone it down, and also for some people that think flying is just a constant rollercoaster drive to have it and enjoy a totally unrealistic experience. 

I'm happy that you also mentioned the issue related to the x-wind effect (abnormal reaction/response) and this unsettled and abrupt response pitch up/down from the elevators.

I think that is somehow related to the same issue as the electrical trim, delay response that is carried over also to the elevators, not the ailerons that are smooth, fluid, and good positive response.

For the delayed elevator trim response actually, there is an adjustment in FSUPIC where you can eliminate that issue. Unfortunately, nothing for the elevator if that might be the case.

I also like and agree with your statement regarding the Extra 300.

For sure Asobo has some excellent aspects in design (no question about that) but in aircraft characteristics and behavior (which should be the core of  the flight simulation) they are way behind the curve, bad inputs, and quite stubborn.

Thank you for your post.

[robert young 2,897]

2 hours ago, LRBS said:

 

Thank you for your post.

And thank you for your kind response.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,819]

8 hours ago, robert young said:

And aircraft do not violently bob up and down in pitch with the slightest stick input. They really don't.

First time I flew a real aircraft after many years with FSX was how much easier it was to fly and trim accurately in the real aircraft, it was quite a shock!.  MSFS is nowhere near getting this right.

[flying_carpet 657]

On 4/29/2022 at 12:13 PM, robert young said:

I flew gliders for many years after I retired from flying power aircraft. The only significant turbulence I ever experienced was mid afternoon on a hot summer day, or taking off from a cliffside airfield with curl-over winds. When people say it is accurate according to their own RL experience, it absolutely depends where you live, the time of day, and the season. For that reason we need a slider that can range from turbulence on to completely still air.

Also the cross wind effect is ridiculously exaggerated. I have never experienced the need for sudden virtually full rudder when encountering a very mild partial cross wind on take off or landing, even when the landing requires a little crabbing on finals. It is WAY, WAY overdone, and no matter how many people tell Asobo to tone it down, they don't.

As marvellous as this sim is in many ways, I do not believe Asobo staff understand how aircraft actually fly. And aircraft do not violently bob up and down in pitch with the slightest stick input. They really don't. About the lightest aircraft I ever flew was a Rollason Beta which is a tiny tail dragger. It had a bakelite stick with a superb feel. When you pulled back it would smoothly go nose up. When you pushed forward it would smoothly go nose down. NOT ONCE have I experienced the pogo stick bobbing up and down you get in MSFS with light aircraft. Nor did any glider I flew ever act in such a way. They might have been sensitive, but were always eminently controllable.

Even an Extra 300 with its massive ailerons and 7+ G elevators could be flown with the most elegant control, almost like an airliner. The vast majority of default aircraft in MSFS, including the caravan and even Kingair, violently yo yo up and down in pitch with the slightest stick movement. Even the otherwise superb Kodiak does it. It's wrong, wrong, wrong and any pilot who really understands how aircraft fly will confirm this.

Guys, I'm a bit shocked that robert's post has less upvotes than this one. People inside terminals seem to be more important than the correct flight modeling. Honestly, I got MSFS because it looks nice. But ... I also want good flight dynamics - and finally that's more important to me. After all, it's called Microsoft FLIGHT Simulator. As history tells us, Asobo seem to break something with every update. Haven't they engaged some flight dynamics engineers recently?

[bean_sprout 1,201]

Looking for a great flight model?  Give the FSW 414 Chancellor a try.

At allttitude the ride can get a bit bumpy in weather but still believable.

ns

Edited May 1, 2022 by bean_sprout

[Bobsk8 12,492]

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Guys, I'm a bit shocked that robert's post has less upvotes than this one. People inside terminals seem to be more important than the correct flight modeling. Honestly, I got MSFS because it looks nice. But ... I also want good flight dynamics - and finally that's more important to me. After all, it's called Microsoft FLIGHT Simulator. As history tells us, Asobo seem to break something with every update. Haven't they engaged some flight dynamics engineers recently?

I fly several aircraft that I purchased in MSFS 2020, and since I have actually  flown aircraft in real life, I think the behavior of these aircraft are pretty darn good. Not claiming the default aircraft are OK, since the day I started flight simming in any sim, I got away from default aircraft as quickly as possible. The aircraft like the DC6, Kodiak, Seminole, that I have tried so far post SU9 are pretty realistic. 

[Cpt_Piett 4,511]

Been flying the Vertigo lately, and excess turbulence doesn't seem to be an issue. Been flying in all sorts of weather. 

[kerosene31 349]

One thing I've noticed in simming (and not just flight simming) is that there's this belief sometimes that "more difficulty" = "more realism".  I mean, you could model a 152 with no landing gear and all the weight on one side.  Would be a bear to fly, but wouldn't be realistic.  I've seen more than a few posts where people question if something is realistic only to be told to "learn to fly better".  If it isn't realistic behavior, we don't want to learn it.  We want realism and any real difficulty that brings, not artificial difficulty. 

[lwt1971 7,340]

3 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Guys, I'm a bit shocked that robert's post has less upvotes than this one. People inside terminals seem to be more important than the correct flight modeling. Honestly, I got MSFS because it looks nice. But ... I also want good flight dynamics - and finally that's more important to me.

 

On 4/29/2022 at 6:13 AM, robert young said:

 The vast majority of default aircraft in MSFS, including the caravan and even Kingair, violently yo yo up and down in pitch with the slightest stick movement.

 

MSFS's flight dynamics should be judged by the quality of properly simulated/implemented add-on aircraft, and not by the sim's *default* aircraft (but even then, from what I've heard from many are that some of the default aircraft are considerably better than other sims' default aircraft, the pre-SU9 C172 for example, and now the post-SU9 C172 with CFD, etc).  The key is that the sim facilitates and provides a core flight-model physics and aerodynamics framework that *competent* aircraft developers can make use of to properly simulate and implement their birds ... and from all what I can see, MSFS does that handily and continues to enhance, case in point being the recent focus on prop physics, CFD, aircraft debugging tools, etc. 

And from all what we're seeing with the previously released DC6 and FBW A320, recently released Maddog MD80 & Bae 146, the coming Milviz C310, PMDG 737, etc, the flight dynamics are pretty darn good ... this is the opinion of various IRL pilots, whose opinions I value much more than anyone else, even more so when those IRL pilots are also veteran simmers. Apart from IRL pilots who are simmers, there are others like Rob.R from PMDG saying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sG5IiTlD3Y&t=1891s : "... just how much more real, more fluid, and more dynamic the flight model feels in MSFS ..." (in comparison to P3D). I know some love to take Rob's negative opinions of MSFS as gospel, so by the same measure the positives such this statement also need to be taken seriously.

Quite frankly this constant chorus of bashing MSFS's aerodynamics by equating its entire set of capabilities in that area to how its default aircraft perform is now just silly, considering we have actual high fidelity birds that exhibit sound aerodynamics in the sim.  And that along with its world & weather simulation that is way ahead in its own league, MSFS is *the* sim at the moment with nothing currently out there (or coming soon) that even comes close, IMHO of course.

Edited May 1, 2022 by lwt1971

[robert young 2,897]

27 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Quite frankly this constant chorus of bashing MSFS's aerodynamics by equating its entire set of capabilities in that area to how its default aircraft perform is now just silly, considering we have actual high fidelity birds that exhibit sound aerodynamics in the sim.  And that along with its world & weather simulation that is way ahead in its own league, MSFS is *the* sim at the moment with nothing currently out there (or coming soon) that even comes close, IMHO of course.

So you are implying that despite MS/Asobo's very early claims that this sim was going to do away with flaws in default aircraft aerodynamics, hinting that MSFS was a perfectly viable sim without any need except optionally to embrace and purchase addon aircraft, that doesn't matter because there are lots of current addons which fill the gaps. While that is partly true there actually are not that many addon aircraft (particularly light aircraft) that fly properly either. Many current addons display exactly the same twitchiness in pitch control as most of the default aircraft, even though they have other qualities which are ok. You are right that these can be ironed out through modding, but there is a problem with this highlighted in the next paragraph

If MS hadn't insisted on encrypting every single addon aircraft available in its marketplace that might not matter, as that means others with experience could iron out the flaws with mods. But they are encrypted as are the default premium aircraft in the marketplace. So we have a lot of addon aircraft that in my opinion are impressive in many ways but which do not fly very well. Of course this too is my personal opinion but I know many experienced pilots who are also savvy with sim aircraft who agree with me.

This then is the complete opposite of all the publicity generated by Asobo about how they were going to radically improve default aircraft, especially regarding aerodynamics. Actually almost all of the claimed innovations they have come up with were available to a skilled flight modeller well over a decade ago. Moreover I disagree that in current times it is ok to publish a simulator where it is taken for granted that you need large numbers of addon aircraft to make the sim viable. That is absolutely not what MS and Asobo consistently implied when the sim appeared.

But it is not just the default aircraft flight models that are the main subject. The constant updates to air mass, turbulence and other air flow related issues are also in the opinion of many not at all correct, and for me the worst of this is the ridiculous over reaction to even a mild cross wind. On larger aircraft this is far less noticeable but on GA aircraft it sticks out like a sore thumb. If there were user options/sliders to adjust these aspects then it would not matter but there are no such controls.

When I used to co-produce aircraft, our aim was always to give the user as many options as possible. We even went as far as to give the option of grass/concrete tire sound effects so the user could get authentic sounds when landing on grass strips vs tarmac airports. You cannot offer too many options for the experienced simmer. Maybe in future the number of user-options will increase. I do hope so.

Regarding the potential of making a decently flying aircraft and PMDG comments about this, among others, I do agree that potentially there is possibly more scope for detail in aerodynamics just starting to be developed, although it is actually much easier to tweak for larger aircraft than for smaller ones, because light aircraft need much more care and adjustment as they are so much more sensitive to flaws that can be more easily masked in a high inertia aircraft.

So while you make some good points, and I agree with some of them, my perception at the release of MSFS was that Asobo claimed to have all but revolutionised the flight modelling of default aircraft. That is quite obviously not the case. And I have already pointed out that many of the announced innovations were perfectly doable many, many years ago, even with the seemingly more restrictive potential of eariier sims.

Finally, although there might well be promising progress in aerodynamics potentially, Asobo have actually taken away quite a lot of parameters that were available in FSX. If you wish I can list them but it is a long list. That won't matter if the alternatives developed prove to be as good or better but so far I'm not convinced that the practical results are discernably superior. I hope they will be in the near future.

[bean_sprout 1,201]

On the other hand, the OPs title could be taken as the sim is working perfectly fine as anyone who got sick in a GA plane will tell you.

ns

[lwt1971 7,340]

1 hour ago, robert young said:

.....
But it is not just the default aircraft flight models that are the main subject. The constant updates to air mass, turbulence and other air flow related issues are also in the opinion of many not at all correct, and for me the worst of this is the ridiculous over reaction to even a mild cross wind. On larger aircraft this is far less noticeable but on GA aircraft it sticks out like a sore thumb. If there were user options/sliders to adjust these aspects then it would not matter but there are no such controls.
.....
So while you make some good points, and I agree with some of them, my perception at the release of MSFS was that Asobo claimed to have all but revolutionised the flight modelling of default aircraft. That is quite obviously not the case. And I have already pointed out that many of the announced innovations were perfectly doable many, many years ago, even with the seemingly more restrictive potential of eariier sims.
.....

I'll have to go back look at the initial videos Asobo put out, but if they were promising default aircraft with sound aerodynamics then yes, that is a promise not as yet delivered (with the exception of their C172 maybe).. but I took it as them showcasing the core flight sim engine capabilities more so than how their default aircraft would implement and take advantage of said capabilities.  And I certainly don't think MS/Asobo were trying to convey that MSFS will negate all need for add-on aircrafts and such, those were all proclamations from initial over-eager fans of MSFS.

And I agree re: the physics/aerodynamics being quite doable from many years ago, as I was a big fan of Flight Unlimited back in the day... This is also why I like to keep repeating that the real revolutionary tech MSFS puts forward is its use and combination of technology stacks like cloud, AI, satellite terrain, weather etc.  I think MSFS's core engine having the capability to model more discrete portions of the aircraft, and other improvements they spoke of in their aerodynamics video series might've been conveyed (and rightly so) as something new vs existing sims... but again, it is going to come down to aircraft developers properly implementing and taking advantage of these core capabilities... I don't expect MS/Asobo to deliver such refinement and fine tuning in their default aircraft.

Also in terms of the latest world airflow and turbulance simulation in SU9, there are many (including IRL pilots) who think that's realistic, along with perhaps equally many who feel it is too constant and "always on" and want options/sliders to manually override turbulance that the sim serves up depending on time of day, seasons, and kind of terrain (water vs land) being flown over. At least Asobo is now considering such overriding sim settings/sliders.

The over-reaction in light/GA aircraft you speak of is once again I think the fault of MSFS's default GA aircraft implementation, and not necessarily the world airflow simulation.

In terms of properly simulated GA/light aircraft, if you're able to assess the Milviz C310 or FSW 414, then perhaps you can get a better feel for what the core sim is capable of facilitating, or not. Maybe @Dutch727 if you care to chime in on this discussion from the perspective of your C310 that'd be much appreciated :)

Edited May 1, 2022 by lwt1971

[snglecoil 1,828]

I’m still feeling out the changes in the 172 with the new CFD enabled. IRL I have just under 1000 hrs in the 172…mostly in the last 15 months so I’m pretty in tune with the flight characteristics. The CFD implementation has significantly improved the handling IMO. Stall and spin characteristics are much more familiar with the new CFD. It’s still far from perfect. For instance, I’m unable to coax a proper power-on stall out of the airplane. Full power, with the elevator full up, all of the warnings of the stall are present but the plane happily maintains altitude and even climbs 1-200 fpm in some instances. It also seems a little floaty again in the landing flare. It does appear to be significantly better overall in terms of the feeling of mass and inertia. So I think Asobo is definitely on the right track. 

Criticisms of the original flight model are definitely valid. But I’m pretty happy with what they’ve done with the 172. Hopefully that’s indicative of the trend going forward. 

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by snglecoil