On 9/2/2022 at 6:35 AM, Christopher Low said:

This issue was not present in the version of FSX that I used. It is almost certainly an "MSFS only" problem.

I agree, this issue does not exist in FSX.

Zachlog

18 minutes ago, zachlog said:

 

FSX was a train track just like P3D. pure 1990's flight model.

2 hours ago, F737MAX said:

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.

Agreed about Fenix. That said, the differences in coding/API implementations that PMDG and others are doing (i.e. being tied to WASM like PMDG vs Fenix not) is immaterial when it comes to flight dynamics... although systems and engine modelling can be implemented and run fully externally of MSFS, anything flight dynamics related cannot be run externally and *has* to be a specific implementation of MSFS's modern aerodynamics engine, with of course countless parameters and configurations that expert aircraft developers can tune to flesh out good flight models for their particular aircrafts. If anything serious was lacking in the aerodynamics engine as it stands now, PMDG/Milviz/Fenix/others would've surely not released their birds.

Again I'll point to Matt Nischan who explains all this rather well here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236, and in particular here: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/more-physics-more-real-winds/372656/256 (bolding my own)

"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."

Once the planned ground handling/physics improvements are fully implemented in MSFS's aerodynamics engine by Asobo, along with the coming improvements in SU11 w.r.t atmospheric airflow & helis/gliders, I'd say the core aerodynamics engine will be complete enough (IMHO of course).. certainly for developers to continue to put out their aircrafts with great flight models. Even as of now we have great examples in the Fenix, PMDG, Milviz C310, coming A2A Commanche, iniBuilds A310, etc.. so it can only get better going forward as these developers get to know the core MSFS platform better, and the platform itself gets better. Now when it comes to the current default aircrafts developed by Asobo, I'm not holding my breath.. but thankfully MS/Asobo have deep enough pockets to beef up their default fleet by contracting out to the likes of iniBuilds and their A310 that have high-fidelity systems and flight models.
 

 

Edited September 3, 20223 yr by lwt1971

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

If anything serious was lacking in the aerodynamics engine as it stands now, PMDG/Milviz/Fenix/others would've surely not released their birds.

These are businesses not charities.They've all been very quiet (or rather silent!) about the in-built bugs within the MSFS flight dynamics engine.That's because they wouldn't sell as many aircraft if everyone knew the full limitations of MSFS as it stands currently. Obviously most people won't notice or care. They're happy "flying" their Airbuses and Boeings with full assists switched on. They just want to sit there and press buttons. Each to their own. Others (like me!) are looking for a Flight Simulator which can model basic flying stuff like stalling, ground effect and weather. Just like FSX and P3D used to (with third party help from talents like Hi-Fi Sim, Just Flight and Real Air Simulations).

At the moment any aircraft you attempt to fly in MSFS will suffer from the same serious flight dynamic bugs. Just look at the images from the post by ha5mvo to see how wrong the flight dynamics are. As far as I am aware there is nothing developers can do until Microsoft/Asobo etc release details of their latest SDK implementations. As an example I see on the Just Flight forums that there are issues with their Piper Warrior caused by changes in the core MSFS engine a while back. This is not the fault of Just Flight - it appears to be due to Asobo updating MSFS without providing details  to developers about what they've done. So then all the developer can do is send a polite email to Asobo asking them what they've done. As far as I can see from the Just Flight forums - they're still waiting for an answer.

It's been two years or so since release and I see little being done to fix the original bugs. If anything I think MSFS is worse than it was when it was first released. Just look at the awful weather graphics. It wouldn't be so bad if there actually WAS some weather in those pretty images but so far nothing apart from baked in turbulence and gusts which isn't fooling any serious simmer or GA/professional pilot.

 

7 minutes ago, TrafficPilot said:

to fix the original bugs. If anything I think MSFS is worse than it was when it was first released. Just look at the awful weather graphics. It wouldn't be so bad if there actually WAS some weather in those pretty images but so far nothing apart from baked in turbulence and gusts which isn't fooling any serious simmer or GA/professional pilot.

 

You sound lika a pretty P3D'er spreading rubbish. Show us how good 2002 simulation works today?

Edit MSFS is a entertaining product why would try to compete with that.

Edited September 3, 20223 yr by jbdbow1970

1 hour ago, TrafficPilot said:

These are businesses not charities.They've all been very quiet (or rather silent!) about the in-built bugs within the MSFS flight dynamics engine.That's because they wouldn't sell as many aircraft if everyone knew the full limitations of MSFS as it stands currently. Obviously most people won't notice or care. They're happy "flying" their Airbuses and Boeings with full assists switched on. They just want to sit there and press buttons.

So a lot of Fenix A320 and PMDG 737 users in MSFS are "flying with full assists on", just sitting there "pressing buttons", and are oblivious to these supposed serious issues in the flight dynamics engine? (all those actual RW pilots praising the handling and aerodynamics of these two birds must've been seeing things I suppose).. what other deep insights do you have lol?
 

1 hour ago, TrafficPilot said:

Each to their own. Others (like me!) are looking for a Flight Simulator which can model basic flying stuff like stalling, ground effect and weather. Just like FSX and P3D used to (with third party help from talents like Hi-Fi Sim, Just Flight and Real Air Simulations).

To each their own indeed. If you're saying that FSX and P3D had/have better flight dynamics than MSFS then it's very hard to take you seriously. If with lots of 3rd party help P3D or FSX gave you a seemingly better flight sim experience, then best to keep flying those rather than trying to make farcical claims about MSFS's inferiority isn't it.

Just picking one example 3rd party aircraft developer from my list, Milviz, and how they developed their C310 (oh look, that's not a "button presser").. I'd say that's pretty good flight dynamics for a GA aircraft in MSFS. We'll go by what we actually see for ourselves in flying these aircrafts, and by the various RW pilots who speak highly of their flight dynamics, and what the various developers themselves say about MSFS's flight dynamics and platform capabilities (especially those developers who're experienced on and have developed for multiple flight sim platforms). The same ones btw who were vocal about shortcomings in the early days of the platform/SDK. Once again, if there were serious shortcomings, we'd either be hearing loud and clear from PMDG, A2A, Fenix, iniBuilds, Milviz, etc .. OR we'd not be seeing them release their aircrafts which they put a lot of pride in. Trying to brush them all off as just "businesses" who all have managed to fool the entire world of MSFS users, reviewers, RW pilots, etc is once again... farcical.
 

1 hour ago, TrafficPilot said:

Just look at the images from the post by ha5mvo to see how wrong the flight dynamics are.

ha5mvo's recent images and musings were about the *default* aircrafts in MSFS.  Newsflash, they're never any good in any sim, nor should they be used to measure a sim's core aerodynamics capabilities... though I completely understand how they can be of use to push certain narratives and misinformation about MSFS by certain stalwarts of legacy sims.  Narratives and misinformation that falls flat on their face btw, no matter how many times it's repeated. 
 

1 hour ago, TrafficPilot said:

It's been two years or so since release and I see little being done to fix the original bugs. If anything I think MSFS is worse than it was when it was first released. Just look at the awful weather graphics. It wouldn't be so bad if there actually WAS some weather in those pretty images but so far nothing apart from baked in turbulence and gusts which isn't fooling any serious simmer or GA/professional pilot.

Various serious simmers and GA/professional pilots would beg to differ... including those at A2A who're about to release their renowned Commanche for MSFS. Your "At the moment any aircraft you attempt to fly in MSFS will suffer from the same serious flight dynamic bugs" statement is rather bold and trying very hard to be definitive (it's far from)... one wonders what exact aircrafts you are flying in MSFS, if at all.
 

Edited September 3, 20223 yr by lwt1971

I'm very disappointed. MSFS ist out more than 2 years (incl. development time probably 4 years) and they still don't get the core purpose of a flight sim right - namely correct simulation of flight. Development seems to go very slow in this regards, possibly even backwards, or at least with new updates they are breaking stuff.

It was said already earlier that flight modeling is broken, but for such statements you were (virtually) hung, stoned to death, and to be on the safe side, additionally burned. Now, even lots of MSFS users are acknowledging that fact. And it's actually a good thing that it is acknowledged, as finally people can put pressure on Asobo to fix this. However, I'm not too optimistic - photogrammetry et al are selling better, like with a colorful wrapping of candy, even if the candy is sour.

Edited September 7, 20223 yr by flying_carpet

On 9/2/2022 at 2:39 PM, sd_flyer said:

This is actually correct behavior with cross winds. Nose point into the wind and airplane drift . Take a look

That video shows just how far the MSFS flight model has to go!

42 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

I'm very disappointed. MSFS ist out more than 2 years (incl. development time probably 4 years) and they still don't get the core purpose of a flight sim right - namely correct simulation of flight. Development seems to go very slow in this regards, possibly even backwards, or at least with new updates they are breaking stuff.

It was said already earlier that flight modeling is broken, but for such statements you were (virtually) hung, stoned to death, and to be on the safe side, additionally burned. Now, even lots of MSFS users are acknowledging that fact. And it's actually a good thing that it is acknowledged, as finally people can put pressure on Asobo to fix this. However, I'm not too optimistic - photogrammetry et al are selling better, like with a colorful wrapping of candy, even if the candy is sour.

100 percent agree with you.  The flight model in MSFS is lethargic to say the least.

On 9/4/2022 at 12:43 AM, lwt1971 said:

 If you're saying that FSX and P3D had/have better flight dynamics than MSFS then it's very hard to take you seriously. If with lots of 3rd party help P3D or FSX gave you a seemingly better flight sim experience, then best to keep flying those rather than trying to make farcical claims about MSFS's inferiority isn't it.

Without proper load factor simulation, nor proper stalling, nor weather simulation whatsoever (no thermals, no turbulences, unrealistic winds simulation, and so on...), I consider MSFS flight dynamics worse than P3D. As soon as you get out of the enveloppe in MSFS, you can fly almost as if you were playing in GTA. In MSFS anyone can unrealistically STOL land a XCub in ridiculous crosswinds and terrains after a few hours of "training" and it's the same with all the planes. Planes look on rail, a bit like in FSX/P3D and most of the movements are fake to give an impression of realism. Of course you have to tweak and install way too many plugins and quality airplanes in P3D to achieve an acceptable simulation level, but it's not possible yet in MSFS. Maybe when A2A finally release their first product for MSFS we will finally see something worth it (for me). For now, I have switched to XP because I unfortunately uninstalled my perfect P3D setup as soon as I got MSFS and getting everything back would take days of tweaking. MSFS looked so amazing in the first few hours...

Of what I recall from fsx/p3d FM, which are exactly the same, MFS is clearly an improvement on various aspects.

The only "problem" is actually an advantage - the fact that it is still evolving towards an even better/more detailled model, including fresh new rotary flight dynamics.

Same regarding weather. Saying fsx/p3d weather modelling is better than MFS's reveals lack of knowledge or some sort of agenda... So many improvements and even more comming with SU10 and 11 that the only possible comparison will be with XP12's weather. I haven't yet been able to try xp12 but intend to as soon as possible. Then I can have a fair base for comparison with MFS...

Edited September 7, 20223 yr by jcomm

 You guys have to admit though that Asobo did absolutely nail it with the Halo Drop Ship in terms of flight dynamics.   This thing flies awesome with my XBox controller.   Who cares about all this other stuff, aerodymamics, blah, blah, blah.   Like most flight simmers, If you can't explain to me with a box of crayons, I'm not interested.   

13 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Same regarding weather. Saying fsx/p3d weather modelling is better than MFS's reveals lack of knowledge or some sort of agenda... 

Yup, I agree with you. I don't know why someone would say FSX/P3D has better weather modelling than MSFS. It comes across as word not allowed, IMO.

On 9/2/2022 at 8:02 AM, tweekz said:

I got my first solo under my belt already, thanks. 🙂

MSFS is just too floaty. You could flare forever.

I pray each sim update for access to the configuration files of premium and marketplace airplanes.

In the video below, you don't have to drill down folders to find flight_model.cfg files. Just DL any of a half dozen freeware search utilities (apps). Point it towards the C:\ root drive and type in flight_model and you will get a list of 50 to 100 flight_model.cfg files and their paths. The path names tell you which plane each controls. (this takes about 15 seconds at most).

You don't have to change a flight_model.cfg file to flight_model.txt to use notepad to edit it, unlike how the guy in the video does it. Notepad can edit .cfg files.

// marks before any line in a .cfg file makes it non effective. So just put // marks in front of the attribute you want to modify and add a an identical line below it without // marks, and modify it. The // line will let you remember the original value.

Halve the number value and the plane won't float on landings much anymore.

I was editing these files one week after I first got MSFS, after seeing all planes float on landings. It also quiets down oscillating effects from an autopilot.

 

 

25 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

It was said already earlier that flight modeling is broken, but for such statements you were (virtually) hung, stoned to death, and to be on the safe side, additionally burned.

Because it is not true.

Here is a real world pilot, saying "I would say thats a pretty close to the real thing landing, floats like a Cessna does, all in all ... I am pretty impressed for a default aircraft":

Another video about the SU9 changes in the default C172. He had none of the mentioned problems when landing and says "not bad though, everything about flying this aircraft has definitely changed ... major difference":

 

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Development seems to go very slow in this regards, possibly even backwards

Updated propeller physics in SU8, updated soft body physics in SU9. During the same time, for other sims five PR videos were published. If at all...

 

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Now, even lots of MSFS users are acknowledging that fact.

First exaggerate the problem, then lay the words of a few in the mouth of a lot. The flight model is not broken if some aspects continue to be improved. To me it seems, that users of other simulators are putting all their hope in a somehow inferior flight model in MSFS. But you are lying to yourself, if you think that line of reasoning is holding water....

In the following video we can hear the reviewer says things like: "it has come a long way, the flight model in MSFS", "especially in the dirty config, the aircraft behaved exactly as it should according to the pilot operating handbook", "its really a next generation sim", "MSFS is a revolution in flight sim technology in all respects":

https://youtu.be/fcewZ2iv9nQ?t=1816