Inibuilds A310 to be released on November 2022 for free!

[ha5mvo 261]

.

Edited June 18, 2022 by ha5mvo
meh, never mind

[tweekz 2,165]

33 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Ok so that's more to do with core MSFS weather and atmospheric airflow than aircrafts' flight models or the core aerodynamics engine I guess. Are you talking about the often debated "it is too much" vs "it's just right" vs "it's not enough" turbulance effects?

Also, but not exclusively. Planes in MSFS really feel like being hung up on a thread at their CG. Maybe it's the devs fault, but it is noticable in so many planes that I wonder if this is not a general MSFS shortcoming.

Also the sensitivity overall is a bit too much. If you think about it, a 100% sensitivity should be the normal use case as it maps the movements of your yoke / stick 1:1 to the defleciton of the control surfaces. But good luck making subtle inputs with that sensitivity.

Same applies to ground handling. I've not seen a single takeoff-roll with smooth correction-inputs (laterally).

I know this sounds all negative, but I actually do enjoy MSFS - I just want it to get better. 😉

  

33 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

In terms of mass and inertia, properly implemented aircraft certainly do convey their proper characteristics, such as the Fenix A320, PMDG 737, Milviz C310, PMDG DC6, Kodiak, Maddog MD80, Bae 146, etc (unlike some of the default aircrafts).

Can't tell about the other aircraft in your list, but don't you got the impression, that even the Fenix flares a little too much. Last time I watched V1 (RL Airbus pilot), he was talking about how this high altitude (something around 9000ft if my memory serves well) won't result in a long flare. Then he went on to barely bring it down within the touchdown zone.

To be fair, I think the Fenix handles the wind a little better overall. But still a bit too sensitive.

Edited June 18, 2022 by tweekz

[lwt1971 7,457]

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

 Flight simulation, or the quality thereof,  can be roughly broken down several factors:

1) Flight physics (that includes weather and its effects ) - This is where MSFS still badly lags behind.

2) System simulation - This is up to 3rd party developers really. Again, at this point in time the "study level" (for the lack of a better term) addons on other platform still offer a more reliable and accurate representation of their RL counterpart.

Ya sorry that's just demonstrably wrong on all counts. Firstly, systems simulation wise, what we have available in all the new MSFS add-on aircrafts are very high fidelity and "study level", and are *not* less reliable than other platforms. They are definitely at par if not better and to suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

Flight physics... as always it comes down to how aircraft implementations flesh out their own flight models (per aircraft) based on the core aerodynamics/physics engines. And here too with all the new MSFS add-on aircrafts it has been shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that MSFS is very good... to say that "it still badly lags behind" is again ludicrous. But I guess you keep doing you.

For all others as a good refresher, here's the expert Matt Nischan of WT explaining it all in good detail (and this was even before the CFD and prop physics improvements came into play >=SU8):
 

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/more-physics-more-real-winds/372656/256

Quote

"There’s no conclusive observation that can be made by looking at one specific aircraft flight model configuration and then applying that conclusion to the entire flight simulation. How well a particular aircraft meets book values is entirely dependent on how well the flight model author adjusted the values to make the book values possible.

This is exactly the same in both MSFS and X-Plane. X-Plane only uses geometry to the same extent MSFS does, for the most part. All the complex study level flight models developed in XP heavily use datarefs to adjust various tables and scalars to modulate the output of the simulation, because all simulations are imperfect.

If the flight model designer has not input the correct parameters into the model, then you get a crappy simulation, both in MSFS and XP. It’s why the default 172 in XP flies like it has no idea what longitudinal stability is, while payware offerings are much better: that doesn’t mean XPs flight model overall is garbage, just that the configuration of it may be for a given airplane. Similarly, taking the default 787 which doesn’t match book and claiming it means something about the core of the MSFS flight engine is just misguided.

In the right hands, the MSFS modern engine is going to produce some seriously accurate aircraft. How do I know that? Because our Working Title CJ4 does actually hit those book values at all regimes, with correct N1s, fuel flow, climb rates, over various altitudes and ambient pressures. Not only that but we have stall speeds within a knot of two of book, proper approach angles, correct bank rates, etc.

Is the MSFS simulation completely perfect and without limitations or quirks? No, but neither is XPs, by a long shot. These strange questions and tests are apples and parsnips."

 

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236

Quote

"Additionally, MSFS categorically _does not_ use Blade Element Theory. Blade element theory is the idea that you can slice an airfoil up into cross sections, evaluate those cross sections, and then come up with a single lift and drag component for each cross section. XP does this slicing across the defined lifting surfaces to generate a limited number of lift points. It is relatively coarse and doesn't generate different values across each individual surface cross-section, but nonetheless it is used to great effect and the work done with it is quite good, as I've said before.

MSFS also starts with a base geometrically defined lifting surface, but then goes a completely different direction and discretizes the lifting surface into a large number (comparatively) of grid samples. Each individual grid sample receives its own airflow simulation that gets input from the airflow model in true 3d space: i.e. the atmospheric model is also 3d and thus the air itself is not a just a single scalar contribution but instead a varying 3d contribution across each grid sample where the atmospheric model and grid intersect. This means that each grid sample on any lifting surface contributes its forces individually and is also affected by a 3d atmospheric model individually.

Whether or not one believes the current aircraft flight model configurations use this well or whether enough parameters are exposed, the base grid sampling of the MSFS flight model is of a much higher resolution and the atmospheric contribution in 3d is a consumer sim first (to my knowledge, anyway). It also has the benefit of generating different lift values across the surface from front to back, which can be critical value differences at the flight envelope edges."

 

https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-4549322

Quote

"Right now it uses a basic average airfoil for the base lift/drag contribution. The virtual wind tunnel process then uses the user supplied Cl/Cd to apply normalization scalars across each grid sample to get you to your desired target if the geometry alone is not getting you there. Often times you just don't have the actual airfoil shape on hand anyway for a given aircraft (these can be closely guarded bits of info, especially for modern aircraft), so this gives a way to get one in the very close ballpark of those supplied values a bit more quickly rather than through a ton of airfoil and geometry trial and error.

The fuselage is currently a very coarse shape and as such contributes somewhat more coarsely than desired; however, it is also subject to the same normalization process and so needing super specific geometry is somewhat less necessary. That being said, Seb has talked about wanting to increase the resolution and potential shapes of the fuselage anyway to take away some of the guessing. However, the science of what exactly a fuselage contributes to lift and drag is dramatically less well defined (outside of CFD, in generalized formulae) than that of airfoil based lifting surfaces, so this is where any simulator using a geometry based technique will invariably require some degree of fudging the actual shape to get the desired effect. The virtual wind tunnel normalization is intended to reduce the number of iterations one requires during that tweaking process, since every single change to any of the geometry has follow on effects."

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by lwt1971

[tweekz 2,165]

21 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have flown  over the mountains in Alaska, both in MSFS and in real life, and to me , the feeling I got in MSFS was pretty realistic compared to what I experienced in real life. 

Fair enough, impressions seem to differ. But in my oppinion, if I'd witness IRL what I witness in MSFS in terms of turbulence, I'd wet my pants. 😄

Edited June 18, 2022 by tweekz

[ha5mvo 261]

13 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Ok so that's more to do with core MSFS weather and atmospheric airflow than aircrafts' flight models or the core aerodynamics engine I guess

No, a 3 knot now wind is a 3 knot wind. If it has an exaggerated effect on all aircraft then there's something wrong with the dynamics of that aircraft or the dynamics engine if  you witness this  across the board.

[icewater5 181]

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

Popularity is not a valid criterion.

 

 

I think sometimes it is.

Britney Spears sold more than David Bowie ? you might be right but i am suprised.

After a quick look up you might well be right, credit where credit is due 🙂

That said i think msfs2020 sales are going exponential. It will be absolutely mega is my guess, not as big as the cellphone but only one level of sales below.

Edited June 18, 2022 by icewater5
stay on topic

[lwt1971 7,457]

28 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Also the sensitivity overall is a bit too much. If you think about it, a 100% sensitivity should be the normal use case as it maps the movements of your yoke / stick 1:1 to the defleciton of the control surfaces. But good luck making subtle inputs with that sensitivity.

Same applies to ground handling. I've not seen a single takeoff-roll with smooth correction-inputs (laterally).

Can't tell about the other aircraft in your list, but don't you got the impression, that even the Fenix flares a little too much. Last time I watched V1 (RL Airbus pilot), he was talking about how on this high altitude (something around 9000ft if my memory serves well) won't result in a long flare. Then he went on to barely bring it down within the touchdown zone.

To be fair, I think the Fenix handles the wind a little better overall. But still a bit too sensitive.

Yes default sensitivities are a bit much but they can be adjusted. And ground physics/handling definitely needs improvement (which I identified earlier in my list where MSFS still lags) and thankfully Asobo have identified this as a focus area with some improvements coming in SU10 and then beyond.

As for the Fenix flaring a little too much, that means either some tweaking needed in the Fenix flight model itself, or the ground effects/physics needing improvement (above) in MSFS, or a combination of both.

Edited June 18, 2022 by lwt1971

[jarmstro 2,405]

1 minute ago, ha5mvo said:

No, a 3 knot now wind is a 3 knot wind. If it has an exaggerated effect on all aircraft then there's something wrong with the dynamics of that aircraft or the dynamics engine if  you witness this  across the board.

You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone that uses a simulator MUST aspire to be a real world pilot and that a simulator MUST only cater for professional pilots. In fact I would guess that actual pilots make up just as small fraction of the MSFS user base. To me the effect of a 3 knot crosswind is neither here nor there. It's the whole experience that matters and I would place visual fidelity at the top of my list. Other platforms may agree with you but they will fail.

[Bobsk8 12,856]

I just landed at KLGA in the Fenix A 320 on runway 31. The approach was Rnav 31X -Varaz-Benng-Pachu-Gacar-DRRYL -KEYTH- DCTRK   The last waypoint before turning to final and disconnecting the AP,  was 420 AGL.   I have flown in airliners, many times on this exact same approach, and the Fenix flew it spot on, even over the apartment buildings  at around 600 feet in real life. BTW my landing was 60 FPM.  The Fenix is like flying a real aircraft. I think handling problems are usually the result of the PF on the flight deck. 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Bobsk8

[ha5mvo 261]

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

You are making the mistake of assuming that everyone that uses a simulator MUST aspire to be a real world pilot and that a simulator MUST only cater for professional pilots. In fact I would guess that actual pilots make up just as small fraction of the MSFS user base. To me the effect of a 3 knot crosswind is neither here nor there. It's the whole experience that matters and I would place visual fidelity at the top of my list. Other platforms may agree with you but they will fail.

That's perfectly fine! 

Perhaps I am indeed mistaken thinking this is more of a simulator than a game....

[jarmstro 2,405]

2 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

That's perfectly fine! 

Perhaps I am indeed mistaken thinking this is more of a simulator than a game....

Explain the difference. 

[tweekz 2,165]

17 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Yes default sensitivities are a bit much but they can be adjusted.

Yeah, but that's my point. That should not be necessary as any degression in sensitivity leads to an exponential response curve - which is actually unnatural. Only thing I could imagine to lessen the severity of my observation, is that IRL (except on the Airbus) you'd have force-feddback on the stick, which would make inputs "feel" greater than they actually are.

19 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

As for the Fenix flaring a little too much that mean either some tweaking needed in the Fenix flight model itself

My guess is the general flight model, as it applies to almost all aircraft.

[tweekz 2,165]

14 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

That's perfectly fine! 

Perhaps I am indeed mistaken thinking this is more of a simulator than a game....

Both is equally important. Flight physics for obvious reasons. Visual fidelity because... it's a home sim - I want to reproduce RL experiences!

[airlinejets 709]

6 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

That's perfectly fine! 

Perhaps I am indeed mistaken thinking this is more of a simulator than a game....

Nothing is actually stopping you from returning to your sim of choice, if this one doesn't meet your expectations. That's also perfectly fine.

 

 

[lwt1971 7,457]

6 minutes ago, tweekz said:

My guess is the general flight model, as it applies to almost all aircraft.

If it is indeed widespread across all aircraft (and I'm not seeing that myself to conclude confidently one way or another) then most likely it is the ground effect being too excessive.

Anyways this thread has once again gone beyond the iniBuilds A310 🙂

Edited June 18, 2022 by lwt1971