First A2A Comanche preview

[UrgentSiesta 930]

5 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

How can you judge the A2A flight model in MSFS?

So far, all we have from A2A are imaginary aircraft.

Am I missing something?

Correct.

But we can certainly compare aircraft handling between A2A's current addons in P3D/FSX, similar high fidelity addons in MSFS & XP, and IRL aircraft.

[UrgentSiesta 930]

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I assume you have flown 172 IRL? How does it compare with A2A say for P3D?

Not sure why you're referencing the 172, but I'm glad you brought this up.

Here's the thing: too many people get all wrapped around the crankshaft on how exactly a particular addon "hits the numbers" vs IRL, and don't really pay attention to how the addon handles in, say, high & gusty winds, or how well ground effect is reproduced, or, the several nuanced behaviors described in A2A's post above. 

What ends up happening is that you end up with a "paint by numbers" flight model that is overall correct, but still moves the addon in a very mechanical, jerky, or even "on rails" manner, missing so many of the nuances of how IRL aircraft respond to the air masses through which they move.

And it's those transitions, or "gaps" if you will, in many flight models, that bug me the most.

Air is a fluid, and aerodynamic shapes moving through it should move & respond in fluid manner, and they slip, slide, skid, bump and jump around as they're both influencing and being influenced by that highly dynamic fluid.

Many addons just don't demonstrate those types of subtle but important detailed behaviors, for a number of reasons.

A2A's, and some others, do.

So if A2A's addons for MSFS are indeed "light years ahead" of what they were able to accomplish in the extremely limited FSX/P3D aero engine, we're all in for a genuinely enhanced simulation experience.

Edited December 12, 2022 by UrgentSiesta
grammar

[sd_flyer 6,045]

3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Not sure why you're referencing the 172, but I'm glad you brought this up.

Here's the thing: too many people get all wrapped around the crankshaft on how exactly a particular addon "hits the numbers" vs IRL, and don't really pay attention to how the addon handles in, say, high & gusty winds, or how well ground effect is reproduced, or, the several nuanced behaviors described in A2A's post above. 

What ends up happening is that you end up with a "paint by numbers" flight model that is overall correct, but still moves the addon in a very mechanical, jerky, or even "on rails" manner, missing so many of the nuances of how IRL aircraft respond to the air masses through which they move.

And it's those transitions, or "gaps" if you will, in many flight models, that bug me the most.

Air is a fluid, and aerodynamic shapes moving through it should move & respond in fluid manner, and they slip, slide, skid, bump and jump around as they're both influencing and being influenced by that highly dynamic fluid.

Many addons just don't demonstrate those types of subtle but important detailed behaviors, for a number of reasons.

A2A's, and some others, do.

So if A2A's addons for MSFS are indeed "light years ahead" of what they were able to accomplish in the extremely limited FSX/P3D aero engine, we're all in for a genuinely enhanced simulation experience.

Yep I'm all about hitting the numbers! LOL In my opinion Cessna 172 is hardest model to get right because it's easy accessible to anyone IRL to fly and evaluate. I can't say the same about PA24.

I was involved in MSFS beta  and among other evaluated  172 in all aspects of flight envelope. I'm not gonna touch controls set up and sensitivity tweak because it another big topic. But as for me 172 in MSFS is  not perfect but actually pretty good even default.. Lets say someone say 172 float too much. What does it mean? Let say I'm flying approach in 172S  at gross 2200 lbs  and hit 60kts over the fence. How long will 172 float if winds are variable at 5 kts? Who can answear that? I mean I can, I'm not sure other can even if the fly recreationally LOL Or for example I'm climbing out 500 ft at Vy.  I need to level of exactly at 2000ft and need to level off and get in max cruise speed. How exactly I will do it? When and how fast I push yoke over, how do I adjust power, when do I trim and etc.

But here is philosophical question! Let say some developers decided to model 172S how exactly will they do it? Are they model factory new generic 172? Or they take real world counterpart and mimic it's behavior? Is real world counterpart has a new engine require engine break-in , or engine well worn and compressions are low? How is airplane controls rigged stiff or light? Does 172 has climb, cruise prop or midrange prop. Does it has standard or long range fuel tanks? Does 172 operated in club/flight school or in private ownership! Lots of variables to consider!

I think A2A strive to simulate particular airframe they have access to. Basically they develop a "serial number" airframe. So another similar airplane may have some discrepancies. Therefore when we evaluate FM in MSFS and compare with RL we would have assume reasonable approximation.  Same airframe fly by the same numbers but yet they don't fly exactly the same !

[SAS443 1,723]

9 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I assume you have flown 172 IRL? How does it compare with A2A say for P3D?

just for the sake of increasing my post count. But the A2A C172 in P3D, compared to the Cessnas I have flown, is more mushy and less responsive in slow flight regime and during the round out.

I checked my sensitivities and they were maxed (PFC yoke w. hall sensors). I just seemed to run out of elevator authority too easily,  leading to flat landings. IIRC, their Cherokee 180 (hershey bar wings) is also exhibiting this behaviour.

I get this is probably intentional, and could easily be an airframe specific trait. But still, I could not relate to that particular "struggle" when you land the real plane..

Post count increase = achieved. ✔️

[lwt1971 7,417]

More recent tidbits from A2A (Scott) from another thread on their forum: https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73656&start=165

"We have never followed the $, but rather follow our passion and the $ finds its way. At the same time we do have to make good choices with our time. It's been a long two years in the trenches but this is where a fresh and adaptable technology changes the outcome by opening up so many more possibilities. There will be a video demonstrating what our new Accu-Sim can do prior to the Comanche's release. It's pure power and adaptability that allows us to create as if our team expanded by a factor of 10. There is nothing out there like it.

Having said that, we still need our beta team to chew on this for a few weeks to truly know how release ready it is. We're just days from getting it to Dudley for a first test, then if nothing crazy comes up, it goes to our beta team."

----------

"Accu-Sim is mainly for anyone who wishes to own and operate a real airplane.

Just an example, the new system can experience fuel leaks in different areas. I had a fuel leak once in the Comanche, it was no fun. Some fuel leaks are detectable by a lower fuel pressure and/or higher / erratic numbers on the fuel totalizer. Leaks after the pump can get worse with higher pressure. Some may only leak with pressure. And some are silent, not showing up on any gauges except a fuel gauge that goes down quicker than expected. It's this sort of troubleshooting one has to do in the cockpit should something like this happen. "Hm, I'm normally not burning this much fuel at this power setting...." "Is that fuel level lower than expected?" This is for those who dream of the entire pilot experience.

However it's more than this. A developer fails getting ordinary people interested in their high end sim because they did lousy job making things real or right. I've said this a million times, "Real is fun." Place a kid in a real cockpit. Whatch his or her eyes open. This happens when the 3d model is beautiful. Now ask the kid to engage the starter, the engine cranks, sputters, then comes to life. That kid actually gets adrenaline. Why? Because it's real and he can feel the engine. Now ask to fly. Same thing, they can feel the wings floating on air. The same thing happens to any person when they step inside of this new Comanche. I know there are some that don't believe this. IMO it's only because they don't understand it. And I am good with that.

Accu-Sim appeals to both the in depth pilot and the ordinary person. That's because real airplanes are magical."

----------

AKar wrote: ↑ 05 Dec 2022, 13:26
"I'd go as far as saying that any fuel leak readily detectable on instruments is fairly significant leak."

Scott: "Yes, an we simulate something from the most minor to a fuel line bursting. Also, agreed, a bursting line is extremely rare in real life and likewise in Accu-Sim."
 

Edited December 12, 2022 by lwt1971

[lwt1971 7,417]

Getting closer 🤞

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73656&start=195

Just so everybody knows.........Scott and the team have been working their collective butts off every day to get the Comanche done.
I should have the plane most likely tomorrow. I'll be testing the flight model and reporting to Scott on my findings. We'll be tweaking things as we find them on my flight tests.
Then it will go to the best Beta team in flight simulation.
It won't be long so hang in. What will be coming out of these last steps will solidify the best Accusim aircraft we have ever released.
Dudley Henriques
 

[Pivot 153]

3 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Getting closer 🤞

https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73656&start=195

Just so everybody knows.........Scott and the team have been working their collective butts off every day to get the Comanche done.
I should have the plane most likely tomorrow. I'll be testing the flight model and reporting to Scott on my findings. We'll be tweaking things as we find them on my flight tests.
Then it will go to the best Beta team in flight simulation.
It won't be long so hang in. What will be coming out of these last steps will solidify the best Accusim aircraft we have ever released.
Dudley Henriques
 

Outstanding!!!

[bendead 1,085]

Any idea if the Comanche can accept a G1000 avionic? Space above the yoke seems short.

[s0cks 116]

Excited for this, but also expecting it to be expensive. Probably worth it though, as I found it difficult to fly anything but A2A in FSX. As he says; real = fun.

[bendead 1,085]

1 hour ago, s0cks said:

Excited for this, but also expecting it to be expensive.

I bought a lot of A2A when I was using FSX and the price was always great value for money. I expect the same for MSFS, something around 35-45$

[The Flight Level 2,114]

I haven’t followed this very closely. I gather the modelling and systems realism will be on par with the 310 MilViz/Blackbird quality. From quickly going through some of the posts in this thread, the flight modelling is expected to be a notch up from anything out there?
If I had to identify a departure from realism in the sim with GA aircraft in general it would be the landing characteristics and lack of the correct feel at touchdown and rollout. If the Comanche achieves that aspect of extra realism on takeoff and landing, I would purchase just for that reason.

[Mace 1,928]

1 hour ago, Doering said:

I haven’t followed this very closely. I gather the modelling and systems realism will be on par with the 310 MilViz/Blackbird quality.

Not on a par.  If the past is any guide...the better word is "surpassing"

[s0cks 116]

2 hours ago, Doering said:

I haven’t followed this very closely. I gather the modelling and systems realism will be on par with the 310 MilViz/Blackbird quality. From quickly going through some of the posts in this thread, the flight modelling is expected to be a notch up from anything out there?
If I had to identify a departure from realism in the sim with GA aircraft in general it would be the landing characteristics and lack of the correct feel at touchdown and rollout. If the Comanche achieves that aspect of extra realism on takeoff and landing, I would purchase just for that reason.

As Mace said. Should be even better. I'd argue that their old FSX planes are on par with Blackbird, let alone whatever they can do in MSFS (which judging by their press, is significantly more). Honestly, like I said, it was hard to fly anything but A2A in FSX for GA, once you'd flown one it was hard to go back to other planes. This should hopefully blow us away. It'll be a day one purchase for me, and I pretty much never do that normally - that's how much faith I have.

Edited December 23, 2022 by s0cks

[Glenn Fitzpatrick 3,798]

It is worth noting that very few, if any, real life aircraft, even brand new, exactly "match the numbers".

Also tweaking an FM is a bit of an arcane art. The flight mechanics in sims is nowhere near sophisticated enough to allow everything to be perfect. So it seems to be more a case of " currently yyy is unacceptable but if we sacrifice a bit of xxx we can get yyy pretty close -  then we can get xxx back a bit closer to where it should be if we allow zzz to be a touch high"  etc etc 

[bvdboomen 257]

8 hours ago, Doering said:

I gather the modelling and systems realism will be on par with the 310 MilViz/Blackbird quality. From quickly going through some of the posts in this thread, the flight modelling is expected to be a notch up from anything out there?

Accusim is not only this but also a quite comprehensive maintenance simulation of which I honestly do not know if the BB 310 has this.
If A2A say that this is the best Accusim ever, than it will be top noch.

Edited December 23, 2022 by bvdboomen