3 hours ago, asanosho said:

Indeed!

Testing XP12 with the SR-22 in the traffic pattern at KPDX under real world weather conditions I was surprised (or should I have said: shocked?) how „on rails“ this airplane felt.

Every XP I have tried felt that way. No surprise. 

32 minutes ago, jcomm said:

IMHO it's a bit useless for now to compare XP12 to MFS in terms of Flight Dynamics because while X-Plane 12 is more finished in that area, probably getting some fine tuning here & there along this 12 version, but not requiring much updates / further development, MSF still needs a lot of attention from ASOBO to get to the same level of stability and only then being somehow comparable to X-Plane in this area.

I honestly think MFS will get better, but I am tempted to believe that just as I can't expect XP12s scenery to become as lively/amazing as MFS's, the flight dynamics in MFS will probably never reach the level of detail and complexity put into X-Plane's flight model.

They're similar in their approach in some aspects, but MFS still limits and simlifies some aspects of aircraft design, and I do not see mention to this being thought for future updates. I am talking about some aspects of aircraft geometry like those of aircraft with multiple wings or asymmetric wing shapes, mutlple tails, etc...

I should say that I will not be able to get my hands in Xp12 until next week, so I really do not know yet how it feels compared to XP11..

MFS OTOH is going to receive important updates with SU10 and SU11, including new soaring flight features and the already announced and even a bit detailled rotary wing flight dynamics.

 

Such a crock, "Xp's flight dynamics are good". I have never flown an aircraft in XP that felt like a real aircraft, and I have many hours flying IRL> Just word not allowed yada yada nothing more. 

4 hours ago, espent said:

After testing XP12 I will laugh out loud to anyone claiming MSFS is on rails compared to XP12. That is clearly not the case.

Nah, MSFS is pretty much the opposite of on rails. FSX was. MSFS does a good job of simulating airflow... sometimes a bit too good. Too much tilting around the CG for my taste.

7 hours ago, Fielder said:

The video shows how to correct floaty planes. Also gyrating auto pilot effects. I pray each SU for the ability to alter .cfg files of marketplace purchased planes. This works on Standard default planes, and planes purchased outside the marketplace. He just halves the value of the number in one line of the file. It's really fast cure.

No, this video does not show how to fix floaty planes. It shows how to fix a bug that was introduced in one of the early sim updates that was fixed fairly quickly by Asobo.

21 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Such a crock, "Xp's flight dynamics are good". I have never flown an aircraft in XP that felt like a real aircraft, and I have many hours flying IRL> Just word not allowed yada yada nothing more. 

I can say the exact same too... regarding gliders, but it applies equally to FSX / P3D / XP / FG.... They're all miserable in terms of glider flight dynamics or, let's put it that way, being able to replicate glider flying.

Flight simulators are mostly a delusion 😕  You're absolutely right on that one, regarding replicating the feel of flight... at least in as far as gliders go...

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

I am talking about some aspects of aircraft geometry like those of aircraft with multiple wings or asymmetric wing shapes, mutlple tails, etc...

I don't get why you're saying this because there was a time when the SDK could only account for 4 engines but we are now getting the Spruce Goose. They hired a full time test pilot who flies planes with all sorts of monitoring instruments strapped to them. A 20 km CFD is serious business. MS as the resources to do whatever they want and the can do it in less time than what it took LR to do. that is just the reality. The difference is LR said they have no interest in providing an accurate world. They are going for a plausible one. MS have stated over and over again that they are committed to getting the FM right and they are clearly heading in that direction. That is the difference.

 

 

Edited September 7, 20223 yr by Krakin

6 hours ago, scotchegg said:

I have the technical smarts of a 1970s PhysEd Teacher, but I do get the impression that a lot of very strong opinions about flight models are too fuzzy, if not nakedly unscientific. Given we’re all using imperfectly calibrated hardware with very little in the way of basic haptics, let alone more fundamental physics like gravity, how can it be helpful to say ‘it feels floaty’, especially when you haven’t even flown that plane irl…?

I’d give a lot more credence to comparisons showing how sim behaviour deviates from published numbers, and they’d probably be more helpful to the devs as well. Who knows, maybe we’ll find that actually look-up tables and their ‘rails’ experience were the most accurate model all along.

 

This statement couldn't be more accurate. Unsubstantiated statements are exactly that! And by substantiated, I certainly don't mean "he said/she said", regardless of who he/she might be.

Data and figures against real world values is the only thing that counts.

Lot of hypocrisy/irony in this thread, some of you are just as big MSFS gatekeepers/acolytes as there are XP gatekeepers/acolytes of the holy church of flight model.  I do not care about, nor fly XP but listen to yourselves(!) -- it is all of no purpose, because this thread is about to go obsolete as SU10 will seemingly change a lot about the flight model.  And SU11 also with more scheduled CFD enhancements.

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Such a crock, "Xp's flight dynamics are good". I have never flown an aircraft in XP that felt like a real aircraft, and I have many hours flying IRL> Just word not allowed yada yada nothing more. 

Whenever I read that, and it has been said many times before, I ask for details. Mostly, the claim is based on the obvious fact that a PC simulator is not full motion, and, moreover, has visual limits and different flight controls.

So, is that your view point or do would you say there are serious defects in the way the dynamics of the planes and their reaction to flight inputs is simulated both in either XP or MSFS? And if, which ones?

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

I don't get why you're saying this because there was a time when the SDK could only account for 4 engines but we are now getting the Spruce Goose. They hired a full time test pilot who flies planes with all sorts of monitoring instruments strapped to them. A 20 km CFD is serious business. MS as the resources to do whatever they want and the can do it in less time than what it took LR to do. that is just the reality. The difference is LR said they have no interest in providing an accurate world. They are going for a plausible one. MS have stated over and over again that they are committed to getting the FM right and they are clearly heading in that direction. That is the difference.

 

 

I am well aware of this, hence my idea that it's still early to make any assumptions about MFS's FM.

What we know for sure is that ASOBO is up to the challenger of making it better, and for me that's more than good reason to look forward into an even better experience, but only after su11, maybe su12, will we really be able to get a better idea of it's effective potencial.

Edited September 7, 20223 yr by jcomm

1 hour ago, flyingpauls said:

So, is that your view point or do would you say there are serious defects in the way the dynamics of the planes and their reaction to flight inputs is simulated both in either XP or MSFS? And if, which ones?

I'm afraid you're unlikely to get an answer as this might require at least some basic knowledge of aviation principles

3 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

P.S. Withing a week I had alternator failure and partial engine failure follow by emergency landing. Be happy that in a sim your blood pressure and heart rate won't jump in any emergency. You won't die and still enjoy flying LOL

In one of my first flights in MSFS I found myself VFR in IMC I flew above mountainous terrain and did not know if I could safely descend nor was my C152 able to get on top. After desperately trying to keep the aircraft straight and level I eventually lost situational awareness. The panic I felt was quite real, knot in stomach and all. My crash into the mountains was virtual though😌.

MSFS might not be the best procedural simulator (yet) but before MSFS no flightsim has ever frightened me so much. I loved it.

 

 

 

I guess that I'm a MSFS grandstander because I like the flight models as they have the right feel from a PC standpoint.  The big benefit with MSFS of couse is how closely it approximates the real world visually.

sp

My opinion, and it may be only mine, is that if/when Asobo can nail down the atmospheric effects properly then they should vary dependent on temperature, cloud cover, terrain changes and topography, with correct modeling of the effects on every portion of a body moving through them, based on their weight, cog, and aerodynamics. If they accomplish this, there should be no need to tweak an individual plane to meet the numbers. Whether they are powered, Non-powered, or helicopters, they should properly exhibit their correct tendencies. 

This is how it occurs in real world. Ambitious? Indeed. But from the takeaway I get, this is the end goal. 

19 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

I sense an increase in the chorus of usual talking points against MSFS being spewed by stalwarts and acolytes of legacy sims recently, and it really is laughable that they try so hard

I don't have to prove my points, you can find extensive documentation about the lack of load factor realism. Just try some steep turns. About thermals, why don't you fly near thunderstorm cells - or even inside cumulonimbus clouds lol.... and check for yourself. 

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.

 

Now about me, I'm not trying anything, look at my history I am not here to bash MSFS. I told you, as soon as I got MSFS I was so thrilled I uninstalled absolutely everything else. I spent hours flying in MSFS and having a lot of fun but I progressively grew bored and disappointed. The eye candy effect that almost made me cry of joy at the beginning wasn't enough and I didn't find it challenging and fun anymore. It was just completely ridiculous on so many levels and I kept thinking "well that's because it's new, it's still kind of a beta, let's wait for A2A to release something and let's hope the promised flight model will get out in a big revamp". After years of constant flight simming I stopped launching MSFS because of how boring and frustrating it was getting. I didn't have time to reinstall P3D and re-create my perfect setup so I made a very long break. I have now installed XP11 a few months ago and finding some fun and challenge again. 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.