To the point made by @Bobsk8 above, have a look at what FBW has accomplished with the MSFS "lousy" flight model

Too many developers were stuck in their own faulty model of low volume, high priced products and simply didn't have the pile of money required in order to create a competitive MSFS add-on when the time came. So now they have their niche products in niche sims and the world has passed them by. The made their money when the money was good and now have moved on to other endeavors. Thanks to them for the good times, but special thanks to those who are making today such an exciting experience for the flight sim community!

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

I'm certain that every single airliner dev looked at Asobo's balsa glider geometry and thought unkind things towards it. Some thought them out loud.

They were most likely holding out to see how well the CFD bandaids the 'force' elements.

You continue on with your chorus about "balsa glider geometry" based on your own readings and assumptions about the MSFS non-CFD aerodynamics model and missing info from the published docs from MS/Asobo, despite multiple attempts by @mrueedi and others to educate you otherwise (on avsim thread linked below).  If you insist on spreading this nonsense, don't expect to be taken seriously, no matter how many times you repeat it.

Developers like PMDG, Fenix, Milviz, and various others have delivered great flying aircraft for MSFS. Do you think they performed such magic based purely on "balsa glider geometry"? Lol.

Re: CFD, far from being a "band aid", the reality is developers like FSReborn, iniBuilds, and others are using CFD successfully in their FMs for their aircraft to deliver competent flight dynamics. The FSReborn developer even came on an earlier thread on my asking to explain to you about how exactly he developed using CFD and how useful it was for him (https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/626199-is-anybody-else-excited-about-the-new-20-km-cfd-in-su11/?do=findComment&comment=4872362).

Then there's iniBuilds' own words re: what they think of CFD and their use of it in the A310's FM:

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/972850172067459103
"Just to be fully clear, our flight model in MSFS is on par to XP
So those still wanting to negate MSFS as a viable sim solution based on those reasons - don’t speak too soon."

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/1047257395086233771
"The core flight model itself for the 310 is correct when it comes to roll rate and rudder limits. It can be a tricky aircraft to land in a crosswind many airlines even have a hard limit of 27kts x wind which is very low for an airliner. Also the CFD FM on the 310 will make it feel more dynamic."

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1046408220257833060/1046777533997265036
"The A310 is also one of the only airliners using the new CFD FM which gives it more accurate takeoff behaviour."

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1040653493914058873/1041129939333820477
"Yeah we're super happy with it, blessed be CFD"

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1031242737741217913
"The flight physics in SU11 are the same as XP now you know with CFD"

https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1017423315771596880
"Asobo are also making big strides in improving their physics with the new CFD simulations
X-Plane physics are very good. Every engine will have edge cases which that seems to be; and the sim is still in beta"


So in addition to us actually using great flying birds in MSFS currently, and also listening to these expert aircraft developers and their thoughts on MSFS's aerodynamics and FM capabilities ... versus listening to someone who doesn't even have/use MSFS yet makes wild assumptions about the core flight dynamics/physics of MSFS and just how difficult it must be for devs to implement aircraft FMs for MSFS ... gee, I'm at a loss, guess we better believe all your wise words and claims then!

 

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by lwt1971

24 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You continue on with your chorus about "balsa glider geometry" based on your own readings and assumptions

While the comparison made by someone earlier in this thread between those trying so hard to deny or provide a reductive image of the quality MSFS has reached and flat earthers may have sounded a little harsh, it's actually pretty much on the money. 

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by Abriael

@lwt1971 Nice one! In my books, you are the official “MSFS fact checker”. Or perhaps “developer fact checker”. Solid from start to finish!

22 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You continue on with your chorus about "balsa glider geometry" based on your own readings and assumptions about the MSFS non-CFD aerodynamics model and missing info from the published docs from MS/Asobo, despite multiple attempts by @mrueedi and others to educate you otherwise (on avsim thread linked below)

Mrueedi failed to educate anything. In fact, all we got in that thread was "I don't know" about a fundamental physical principle that remains unaddressed (forces and moments being solved simultaneously on the same element surfaces). This by itself raises all sorts of problems and questions when considering aerodynamics. I provided explanations of the physics and Mrueedi did nothing more than call me a child and shrug their shoulders.

Physics vs. name-calling. That one's all yours.

 

Let me be clear here. Again. 3rd parties deserve all the credit and adulation heaped upon them. What they've had to go through to get even to your self-proclaimed 95% of the competition sim's capabilities (not only a hot air number you invented, but still inferior), is worth the price.

 

I keep saying 'balsa glider' because that's exactly what the SDK describes. Plain and simple. With pictures, no less. One doesn't even NEED to have an understanding of physics to see pictures and know what they're talking about. Further digging into the text proves this out. I'm not wrong here, as much as you wish I was.

That said, you've repeatedly shown that some of these devs are using CFD to good effect. Warm fuzzies for all! What you're also insinuating then, is that the balsa glider geometry is insufficient on its own (ergo 'bandaid'). 

And then, the repeated feedback in these forums is that even after all this work, it's still not quite there.

Airliners and autopilots are going to get there for the most part. Props to those devs for that effort.

1 hour ago, jrw4 said:

have a look at what FBW has accomplished with the MSFS "lousy" flight model

Are they actually using it without injecting their own modeling? PMDG isn't, to name just one.

7 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Mrueedi failed to educate anything.

"I know better!"  😂

13 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Mrueedi failed to educate anything. In fact, all we got in that thread was "I don't know" about a fundamental physical principle that remains unaddressed (forces and moments being solved simultaneously on the same element surfaces). This by itself raises all sorts of problems and questions when considering aerodynamics. I provided explanations of the physics and Mrueedi did nothing more than call me a child and shrug their shoulders.

No, all you're doing like he already rightly observed is making wild assumptions in the absence of some info in the published MSFS docs. But you keep doing you.
 

13 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Let me be clear here. Again. 3rd parties deserve all the credit and adulation heaped upon them. What they've had to go through to get even to your self-proclaimed 95% of the competition sim's capabilities (not only a hot air number you invented, but still inferior), is worth the price.

Let me be clear again, until and when these 3rd parties themselves say what exactly they've had to go through, and if it's as difficult for them as you try so hard to make it out to be, all you have is conjecture. Speaking of hot hair, you keep doing you :) I get it, you and other umm "fans" and leadership of that other sim are really really irked that MSFS has competent aerodynamics since it's the one thing y'all keep harping as the superior differentiating factor.. but reality is reality, and here we with MSFS in its current state delivering on all fronts including flight dynamics, and 3rd party aircraft devs agreeing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

13 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

That said, you've repeatedly shown that some of these devs are using CFD to good effect. Warm fuzzies for all! What you're also insinuating then, is that the balsa glider geometry is insufficient on its own (ergo 'bandaid'). 

And then, the repeated feedback in these forums is that even after all this work, it's still not quite there.

Nope, that's not what that means.. but your entire premise is based on your own assumptions that you try so hard to pass off as fact.  Keep repeating it, and we'll still not take you seriously. And we'll continue instead to take the actual words of actual aircraft developers way way more seriously :) warm fuzzies indeed!
 

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by lwt1971

1 minute ago, lwt1971 said:

Nope, that's not what that means

Sorry...you're not making any sense here. They can't get to the current state of existence without CFD. I'm actually just repeating you. And quoting your "95% of the competition" value. But we all know that still means 'inferior'.

Just now, blingthinger said:

Sorry...you're not making any sense here.

The Fenix A320, PMDG 737, and Milviz C310 don't use CFD so are just based on the "balsa glider geometry" based aerodynamics framework as you call it... so therefore, *your* insinuation that the non-CFD aerodynamics platform is insufficient on its own doesn't make sense, because they all fly great. CFD is another tool in the big toolbox MSFS provides, and it could be the better path or not depending on the kind of aircraft the developer wants to develop and how they want to do it.. to use something like MSFS's SU11 helicopter physics any 3PD aircraft would have to use CFD. But aircraft devs are also free to not use CFD, obviously.
 

9 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Are they actually using it without injecting their own modeling? PMDG isn't, to name just one.

Does it really matter?

The point is that several companies have created and sold (or released in the case of the freeware devs) some very good, and very successful add-on aircraft, and there's plenty more in the pipeline.

20 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Mrueedi failed to educate anything.

At least you had to your correct your initial claims every single time after I provided some reading comprehension to you.

1 minute ago, lwt1971 said:

Fenix A320, PMDG 737, and Milviz C310 don't use CFD

Yes, and in that list I'm aware that at least PMDG bypasses the balsa glider:

https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/172449-use-of-new-msfs-flight-model-features

 

3 minutes ago, FishBowlMan said:

Does it really matter?

It does to some. Actually, I recall someone recently telling me that those who do are not 'normal' :). I'll own that jab too!

 

But how about that survey...Asobo has taken over the world! Congratulations!

1 minute ago, mrueedi said:

At least you had to your correct your initial claims every single time after I provided some reading comprehension to you.

Forces + moments on the same elements. Still waiting for some fundamental physics from you.

6 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Yes, and in that list I'm aware that at least PMDG bypasses the balsa glider:

https://forum.pmdg.com/forum/main-forum/general-discussion-news-and-announcements/172449-use-of-new-msfs-flight-model-features

There's no way to bypass the core MSFS aerodynamics model and be completely external of it, that's just impossible with MSFS. When PMDG speaks of a "custom" flight model they must mean it's their customized implementation of the FM on top of the MSFS core aerodynamics platform, and they also responded with that in response to questions about whether they plan on using newer MSFS features like CFD and soft body physics. Obviously they'll need to reveal more for us to know more, but at the very least their FM is not completely separate of the MSFS core FM.

Edited December 23, 20223 yr by lwt1971