MSFS flight model

[Karelpatch 29]

8 hours ago, OneOfMany said:

If they accomplish this, there should be no need to tweak an individual plane to meet the numbers

Absolutely. That's actually how they sold it before release : physic should define how the plane flies, not numbers in a config file. I remember the creator of X-Plane saying that their plane editor was a red flag if it promised you could tweak the values to make it realistic. And I thought he was just jealous, but he was so right...

[jcomm 5,929]

Easyjetsimpilot video on a comparison between XP12 and MFS, including the flight dynamics ....

X-Plane 12 vs MSFS 2020 Comparison Flight | Full Circuit - Flight Dynamics & Graphics - YouTube

I am looking fwd into trying this latest iteration of XP, and I am sure I will Love It , but at the same time I don't think my interest in MFS and in it's future and the rewarding experience I have been getting from it will vanish wih XP12.

I'd say I will have to gladly alternate between the two platforms, taking the best out of each one, and those best moments will surely come from the best addons available for each one, like the Fenix A320, the FBW NEO and even ( I have to admit ) the PMDG 737-700 as well as a couple GA in MFS, and the Tolisses in XP, with maybe an investment on some addons from X-Aviation / Hotstart...

The Future Looks BRIGHT !!! for open minded simmers 🙂

Edited September 8, 2022 by jcomm

[flying_carpet 657]

44 minutes ago, jcomm said:

The Future Looks BRIGHT !!! for open minded simmers 🙂

Indeed!

However - in this subforum, (only) MSFS users are regarded as open minded, wheras "the other ones" as stubborn. What about people who started (earlier) with FS9/FSX and now with MSFS 2020, but then switched over to (or at least installed also) "the other" simulator? Are they stubborn or open minded because they looked beyond their current horizon? 😊

 

[abrams_tank 7,409]

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Easyjetsimpilot video on a comparison between XP12 and MFS, including the flight dynamics ....

X-Plane 12 vs MSFS 2020 Comparison Flight | Full Circuit - Flight Dynamics & Graphics - YouTube

Thanks for posting this video.  That video by easyjetsimpilot is interesting. As easyjetsimpilot said in the video, he has real life experience flying the Cessna 172 so his opinion on how the 172 flies in both XP and MSFS is valid. The overall takeaway I got from this video is that easyjetsimpilot is inferring the 172 in MSFS flies slightly better than in XP.  There are some things that XP does better, and some things that MSFS does better, according to easyjetsimpilot in the video.  But my overall takeaway from that video is that easyjetsimpilot is inferring the 172 in MSFS flies just a little bit better.

 

[jcomm 5,929]

21 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

But my overall takeaway from that video is that easyjetsimpilot is inferring the 172 in MSFS flies just a little bit better.

 

That's the impression I got too.

Will be able to test the K-21 next week and will do my best to report at the xp fórum my findings...

[CaptainNick 575]

And that was with the analog msfs 172 which I believe does not have the newer CFD model used on the g1000 version (could be wrong..)

[scotchegg 4,186]

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

inferring

*implying

[lwt1971 7,402]

5 hours ago, Karelpatch said:

I havent flown in MSFS for a long time now so maybe they did fix the broken weather model and the thermals. Maybe they added real stalls? I only remember the team saying in various Q&A that they had to "tweak" realism because some people were complaining that it was too complicated.
...
Basically, MSFS put an end to 6 years of flight simulator passion for me. Maybe it will get better but I don't trust their interest in aviation anymore. To each their own. MSFS is revolutionary in many ways, I only believe their team wants to satisfy a very large audience because that's where the money is. Maybe (I'm almost certain, actually) third parties will progressively find their way to make it the ultimate flight sim. Currently it's just a big joke.

Firstly you didn't really answer my question about what exact aircrafts you are/were flying in MSFS, but from the sounds of it they were default aircrafts and also an early version of MSFS. A lot of things have changed since the initial releases, especially since May'22 when aircraft developers like PMDG/Fenix/Milviz/etc released their high fidelity birds.  Since the SU9 release of MSFS the default C172 is also very plausible now compared to before. The G1000 in the core sim is by far the most complete/realistic default avionics system in a sim, ever. Using something like MSFS SU9 or the soon-to-be-released SU10 along with a Milviz C310 and one or both of PMDG 737& Fenix A320 gives you a flight simulation package and experience that is compelling unlike any other currently out there for covering both GA and tubeliner needs. After the the 40th-anniv SU11 releases in November, it is going to be even more compelling with all the advanced helicopter physics, CFD-driven atmospheric airflow simulation, gliders, high fidelity birds like iniBuilds A310 included in the core sim, etc etc. By then they'll also continue to rework/improve the ground handling which we all agree is sub-par currently. Add to that the next iteration of high fidelity birds from PMDG/Fenix/A2A/Milviz/JF/FSW/etc coming soon, the MSFS+addons experience becomes that much more compelling.

Saying things like MS/Asobo's "interest in aviation" is not to be trusted, or that it's a "big joke" is extreme conjecture at best, and leads one to not take you very seriously I'm afraid. It's clear to many of us, that given the passion for *all* things aviation that the team at MS/Asobo shows constantly (read: "all" here means flight dynamics, visuals, weather, earth representation, systems, etc.. not just one or two from that list), the current and future state of MSFS is looking pretty alright.

Edited September 8, 2022 by lwt1971

[mrueedi 702]

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

That's the impression I got too.

That's an understatement imho.

He says pretty condemning things about allegedly better XP flight model like: 

• "The movement of the aircraft in XP was too instantaneous ..."
• "it was almost arcady ... <- that one is pretty surprising vs a MSFS default plane!
• "it was more of a jet fighter response than a Cessna response..."
• "I actually found that the lower video (=MSFS) looked a bit more true to life, its bouncing around a little whereas XP seemed really rather standard and was far easier"
• "but from memory they (= real cessnas) do bounce around quite a bit they certainly don't fly level straight all the time (like the XP one)"

Basically MSFS wins in every departement, including flight dynamics. This is the second video in this thread, which shows the more static and unrealisticly stable XP behaviour side-by-side. So I do wonder, why the "XP has a better flight model"-claim is held up like a dogma by so many still?

I do like the moving trains in XP12 though...

[abrams_tank 7,409]

20 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

So I do wonder, why the "XP has a better flight model"-claim is held up like a dogma by so many still?

Unfortunately, MSFS earned a pretty bad reputation on release, and Austin is very good a marketing the flight model of XP (which baffles me why Austin always focuses on XP being "realistic" but he released XP 12 with a Boeing FMC in the A330, which is hardly "realistic").

Reputations and initial impressions are pretty hard to change.  You can spend 20 years building a reputation and ruin the same reputation in 20 seconds.  I hate to say it, but even if the MSFS flight model were equal to XP at the moment, it's hard to change people's initial impression of MSFS.  Thus, Asobo/Microsoft has to make a vastly superior flight model to XP, before people take notice, especially the XP users who don't use MSFS taking notice, and even consider that MSFS's flight model has matched or exceeded XP's flight model (ie. I am saying when MSFS's flight model is vastly superior to XP's flight model, some XP users may finally acknowledge that MSFS's flight model is equal to XP's flight model, that's how far a hole MSFS has dug itself into on release). 

Edited September 8, 2022 by abrams_tank

[Bobsk8 12,706]

19 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

That's an understatement imho.

He says pretty condemning things about allegedly better XP flight model like: 

• "The movement of the aircraft in XP was too instantaneous ..."
• "it was almost arcady ... <- that one is pretty surprising vs a MSFS default plane!
• "it was more of a jet fighter response than a Cessna response..."
• "I actually found that the lower video (=MSFS) looked a bit more true to life, its bouncing around a little whereas XP seemed really rather standard and was far easier"
• "but from memory they (= real cessnas) do bounce around quite a bit they certainly don't fly level straight all the time (like the XP one)"

Basically MSFS wins in every departement, including flight dynamics. This is the second video in this thread, which shows the more static and unrealisticly stable XP behaviour side-by-side. So I do wonder, why the "XP has a better flight model"-claim is held up like a dogma by so many still?

I do like the moving trains in XP12 though...

In my opinion, if someone flies the C 172 in XP and says it is realistic, they have probably never flown in real life in a C 172. 

 

[jcomm 5,929]

27 minutes ago, mrueedi said:

That's an understatement imho.

The bouncing aircraft in MFS look, most of the time, way overdone to me, and believe me my 42 yrs of soaring have given me quite a good idea of what bouncing can be...

Anyway, do not mix weather effects with FM. The bouncing on ground in MFS is due mostly to a still incomplete ground physics model, and in the air to some effects that I also feel are too intense at times...

But in xp probably the way real world weather data is translating into sim weather, and particularly turbulence and shear is probably not so intense - just that...

If you manually set turbulence on xp12 I would bet it'll feel differently.

Pick an airfield with reported gusting winds or convection in the vicinity... I don't know because I haven't yet tried xp12, but I honestly believe it'll feel more shaky 😁

 

Edited September 8, 2022 by jcomm

[ricka47 611]

On 9/2/2022 at 9:39 AM, tgsweat said:

One of the things i hate in the sim.  Also have the same effect during initial rotation on take off, more than 50% of the time, the plane is all over the place until you are a few feet in the air.  I understand its something they are going to work on, but i think it should be done immediately because landing, taxiing, and takeoff is something you do every flight.  The touchdowns absolutely suck to control.  

This is my biggest frustration with MSFS. There is often a struggle during the take off roll to keep it on the runway and, even worse, for me, is after landing.

I'll have a perfect flight, a great touchdown and then the plane is all over the runway until I can finally stop it and get off the runway. It certainly breaks the level of immersion.

Thank goodness that Apps like Volanta and NeoFly just track the touchdown rate and not the gymnastics that take place afterward!

Edited September 8, 2022 by ricka47

[lwt1971 7,402]

20 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Unfortunately, MSFS earned a pretty bad reputation on release, and Austin is very good a marketing the flight model of XP (which baffles me why Austin always focuses on XP being "realistic" but he released XP 12 with a Boeing FMC in the A330, which is hardly "realistic").

Reputations and initial impressions are pretty hard to change.  You can spend 20 years building a reputation and ruin the same reputation in 20 seconds.  I hate to say it, but even if the MSFS flight model were equal to XP at the moment, it's hard to change people's initial impression of MSFS.  Thus, Asobo/Microsoft has to make a vastly superior flight model to XP, before people take notice, especially the XP users who don't use MSFS taking notice, and even consider that MSFS's flight model has matched or exceeded XP's flight model (ie. I am saying when MSFS's flight model is vastly superior to XP's flight model, some XP users may finally acknowledge that MSFS's flight model is equal to XP's flight model, that's how far a hole MSFS has dug itself into on release). 

Fair points... the thing I always say (on repeat lol) is how default aircrafts should never be used to speak to the capabilities of a flight sim's core aerodynamics (be it MSFS or XP or whatever).. in MSFS's case, given that it was a brand new sim platform many years after FSX, the default aircrafts were the only ones available to fly in MSFS for the first year+ until good 3rd party aircrafts started to drop. As Matt Nischan and others have said, it all comes to down to how each aircraft's flight model is implemented and tweaked to take advantage of the core sim's FDE.

Now for the sake of good first impressions, perhaps MS/Asobo should've only focused on releasing a couple of GA aircrafts and tubeliners with more fleshed out flight models on initial release (along with tapping into aircraft developers who know their specific planes best)... but that's just my opinion.

Like you say, Austin and his following (along with the other MSFS detractors) also like to push the narrative that MSFS is all about visuals while XP is all about flight dynamics.. again they did/do this using MSFS's default aircrafts as proof and then projecting that to say MSFS had a crappy flight model (when, like I also keep saying on repeat, there is no *one* "flight model" in a sim 🙂 as flight models are *per* aircraft). I must admit how ironic it is that XP12 is now getting the same treatment where its default aircrafts are being evaluated to represent the sim's flight dynamics in general. That said, Austin & co always go out of their way to brag about their flight modelling so one would think they'd do a better job with at least some of their default birds ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Edited September 8, 2022 by lwt1971

[ricka47 611]

23 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Like you say, Austin and his following (along with the other MSFS detractors) also pushed the narrative that MSFS was all about visuals while XP was all about flight dynamics.. again they did this using MSFS's default aircrafts as proof and then projecting that to say MSFS had a crappy flight model (when, like I also keep saying on repeat, there is no *one* "flight model" in a sim 🙂 as flight models are *per* aircraft). I must admit how ironic it is that XP12 is now getting the same treatment where its default aircrafts are being evaluated to represent the sim's flight dynamics in general. That said, Austin & co always go out of their way to brag about their flight modelling so one would think they'd do a better job with at least some of their default birds ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

It's somewhat of a persistent myth that XP has such a better flight model than MSFS. But, that's their story and they are sticking to it. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed XP11 until moving over to MSFS.

MSFS' model does need some work to be sure. For me, flying mostly GA and business jets and props, it's the ground effect being overdone and the difficult handling during both take off and landing. But, these things can be fixed.

The other myth that persists is that XP is for serious simmers and MSFS is for those who want an arcade experience. This is not the case. Both are very good sims and we can choose the one that we like the best.

We're fortunate to have that choice or don't make a choice and use them both!

Edited September 8, 2022 by ricka47