@hobart escin,

Then I suggest you stick with P3D or X-Plane, where any problem code is fixed instantaneously by the developers -- especially their up-to-the-minute, state-of-the-art world scenery. Here on the MSFS forum, we sometimes have to wait an entire week! -- seven whole days -- to receive the latest communique from Asobo about bugs and fixes and sim updates and world updates. (I bet I can guess whether you're coming from P3D or XP.)

Edited August 9, 20223 yr by Ray Proudfoot
Quoted message removed.

@hobart escin,

Wow, so this is what we have come to😬. I'm not knocking you, just using the message as a Segway to an interesting experience I had in a level D sim.

So this one time I was scheduled for a recurrent sim and I was asked by the company to take a reject and upset recovery course while down at FSI. I was the head of our flight standards office and they wanted me to see if the courses were worth sending everyone through. So after my recurrent was done, the other guy and I rolled into the reject course. The course was really about having a go mindset. They threw a lot of statistical data at you to prove that you are better to just take it in the air and bring it around. They gave us various failures with fires at V1 and demonstrated the different ways you can stay configured and get the jet back on the runway quickly. I got the point they were making, but made me feel its a rush to get back to the runway. I mean, when the flames are licking your collar, you might not have a choice. I didn't like the idea of turning super tight patterns and tear drops at 700ft agl. The point I made was if you did that at an unfamiliar field, you have a high risk of hitting something. But again, its just a concept of taking it in the air and proving that you can get it back on the ground with a major cabin fire going on. Before we ended the course and started upset recovery, I wanted to try something. I asked the sim instructor if we could reject at V1 so that we could compare the stopping distance to charted distance. He said it would be cool, but the sim did not represent accurate braking performance and friction😶. He said it did some factoring and that's it. He then said, "that's why you have to work and dance harder on the rudder in sim vs the real jet". All this time I thought ground physics was highly accurate and the rudder thing was by design to make the jet easier🤣.

I just mentioned this to say that even in a level d sim, the ground physics may not be as good as you think they are. Nor do people complain about the sim's low graphics quality and lack of realistic scenery unless you are flying in areas where FAA has high emphasis. Even then, it's just the  terrain and airport lighting depictions so you can circle accordingly. Level D sims are more about procedures than anything else.

Rick     

Edited August 9, 20223 yr by Ray Proudfoot
Quoted message removed.

I wonder how X-Plane 12 will handle this issue.  The public beta should be out soon.   They are supposed to be more focused on physics than MSFS.  Also, no x-box gamers to cater too 😁

Edited August 9, 20223 yr by sim4good

there seems to be a coordinated troll invasion going on.

1 hour ago, Krakin said:

there seems to be a coordinated troll invasion going on.

Lol - it just means that MSFS is getting under the skin of the naysayers.

Seb has been talking about ground physics so probably a done deal soon.

sp

Can we vote on the issue in the official forums?

A question was asked then answered. Thereafter it went downhill with personal insults. Take it to the official forum if you wish to discuss it further. Topic locked.