MSFS flight model

[Bobsk8 12,944]

7 minutes ago, rka said:

Why not?

I have no idea why not, it just doesn't. 

[ha5mvo 262]

47 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Yes very true, of all the default aircrafts the C172 is the most refined flight model wise, especially after they implemented & enabled the new prop physics and CFD stuff. 

In what way? 

any facts or figures to support it? or just quotes from someone who happen to say so?

[lwt1971 7,517]

21 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

In what way? 

any facts or figures to support it? or just quotes from someone who happen to say so?

What I was trying to convey (and you might clue into that if you read again, slowly) is that among all the current *default* aircrafts in MSFS, the C172's flight model is the most fleshed out, *compared* to the rest of the default fleet. To the point that it flies acceptably in most cases (as jcomm said, and various other RW pilots have said on here, the MSFS forums, etc). That does *not* mean it is comparable to payware level aircrafts like the Milviz C310 which I think has the most realistic flight dynamics amongst GA birds currently available for MSFS with a very well implemented and fleshed-out flight model, or other ones like the Sting S4, FSW 414, etc. I'm sure the A2A Commanche will be up there with the C310 or beyond once it releases.

In any case, I'll let you get back to laying out "facts and figures" about default aircrafts such as the 747 and their poor flight models, the kind of breaking news we all needed :||

Edited September 3, 2022 by lwt1971

[jcomm 6,060]

I believe what @lwt1971 meant, just like me, was that it feels plausible, under various flight configurations / engine regimes, more than other defaults.

O have Also watched streams from youtubers with rw experience in the type who claimed it behaved rather well.

OFC being Bob a seasoned GA pilot I have to take is evaluation as a reference, although I'd rather see him praising the default 172 given ASOBO/Sébastien/their new test pilot that joined the team after the new CFD flight dynamics were further refined and even shown some test flights in a real 172 to validate the results in MFS, made clear it was the most "sophisticated" model in MFS...

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by jcomm

[Bobsk8 12,944]

11 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I believe what @lwt1971 meant, just like me, was that it feels plausible, under various flight configurations / engine regimes, more than other defaults.

O have Also watched streams from youtubers with rw experience in the type who claimed it behaved rather well.

OFC being Bob a seasoned GA pilot I have to take is evaluation as a reference, although I'd rather see him praising the default 172 given ASOBO/Sébastien/their new test pilot that joined the team after the new CFD flight dynamics were further refined and even shown some test flights in a real 172 to validate the results in MFS, made clear it was the most "sophisticated" model in MFS...

 

I flew it once about a year and a half ago when I first bought MSFS. 

[Tuskin38 6,710]

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I flew it once about a year and a half ago when I first bought MSFS. 

It's been updated a lot since then, and again in the SU10 beta.

I'm not an IRL pilot, so I can't say if it is accurate or note, but it certianlly feels different compared to how it does in SU9, and how it did a year ago.

I suggest trying to fly it again, either now or when SU10 comes out (or both)

Edited September 3, 2022 by Tuskin38

[Bobsk8 12,944]

1 minute ago, Tuskin38 said:

It's been updated a lot since then.

Just not into default aircraft, I have too many payware aircraft to fly. 

[Tuskin38 6,710]

I just meant your experience from 1.5 years ago wouldn't be the same today, so that observation is out of date.

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

Isn't there too much ground effect when trying to land still for any of this to be accurate?

Since I've never landed a small plane, dunno, maybe ground effect is that big of an issue.

It feels like the difference or sensitivity between the plane dropping out of the sky like a rock and darting back upward too fast is too narrow of a window. Hence, not enough headroom to find a decent landing slope, most planes just want to drop down fast or shoot back up like a rocket. 

Hence, I really have to slam some planes down to the ground, but it might be the weight settings or maybe just my bad piloting. I never mess with fuel as I have unlimited, who knows.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Alpine Scenery

[rka 916]

2 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have no idea why not, it just doesn't. 

You can't say why and tried it once almost two years ago? Okay...

[jcomm 6,060]

29 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Isn't there too much ground effect when trying to land still for any of this to be accurate?

That's a valid question I pose myself many times while flying various aircraft in MFS.

I just landed from a glider flight IRL and was talking about fligth simulation with other fellow glider pilots... And curiously I was commenting how much ground effect has never been that noticeable whenever I land a glider 😁

Of course if near ground I retract the spoilers, specially on some gliders I will surely experience a sometimes rather unwanted baloon effect, but in MFS there are just a few aircraft where floating on landing isn't kind of sacramental....

[Alpine Scenery 1,609]

4 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Of course if near ground I retract the spoilers, specially on some gliders I will surely experience a sometimes rather unwanted baloon effect, but in MFS there are just a few aircraft where floating on landing isn't kind of sacramental....

I'm too chicken to ever fly a glider, but I enjoyed a lot of Bruno's videos on Youtube. 

[ha5mvo 262]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I believe what @lwt1971 meant, just like me, was that it feels plausible, under various flight configurations / engine regimes, more than other defaults.

O have Also watched streams from youtubers with rw experience in the type who claimed it behaved rather well.

OFC being Bob a seasoned GA pilot I have to take is evaluation as a reference.

 

You might find a somewhat different reference here from the seasoned pilot:

MSFS has the most advanced flight model? - Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) - The AVSIM Community

Seriously though,

Being a IRL pilot, surely you'll agree that the "feeling" is what sets apart real flight from sim the most. Unlike the sim, you fly by the seat of your pants - an experience which no sim, good or bad, can convey.

Funny enough, many student pilots with some previous simulator experience are infected with "simmism" in that their head is constantly stuck in the instrument panel rather than looking outside because that's the one thing they can't (and not used to) be getting from a simulator. Otherwise, btw , they have a HUGE advantage over those coming with no sim experience at all.

So, once we understand that subjective "feeling" is well...subjective.. all that's left is numbers. Pitch/power that you learn from day one, roll rates , climb rates, stall characteristics , spins  and so on.

If all that data doesn't agree with published figures then the sim isn't much of a sim no matter how it may "feel" to one person or another. it doesn't have to be 100% as no two planes are alike but some acceptable margins of error have to be kept. Of all the planes that I have, be it default or reputable developers e.g PMDG or Fenix, NONE flies within what I can call reasonable margin off the published data.

I didn't check all the models available as I have only a few of them but those I do have and tested, failed to impress in that respect and the culprit are not necessarily just the developers. There are some major flaws in the physics engine itself and it is much more than the ground physics that are(?) going to get fixed, or so we're told.

Ironically enough, P3D, as an example,  which has a more simplistic approach does a better job at recreating those figures in the sim. Where it lacks, is depicting the environment effects on a plane (which was actually vastly improved with the addon "realturb"). Where p3d fails entirely, is the simulation of turboprops. This is why serious developers like majestic had to abandon p3d physics engine completely and come up with their own external one!

I feel that unless ASOBO is about to do a major overhaul of the physics engine, serious developers will have to follow majestics example and come up with an external engine of their own.

[F737MAX 5,785]

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

serious developers will have to follow majestics example and come up with an external engine of their own

And Fenix are doing just that with their engine modelling.

PMDG are limited by the sim's constraints since they cannot run any external calculations and be able to continue selling in the MSFS marketplace (with the goal to be eventually available for Xbox). This could be good news for us, as PMDG might put (more) pressure on Asobo to get the modeliing right. We'll see.

[jcomm 6,060]

2 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I'm too chicken to ever fly a glider, but I enjoyed a lot of Bruno's videos on Youtube. 

I feel the same about flying motorized aircraft ... specially ULM... I don't trust engines that much 🙂