Interesting to read Dudley Henriques' post on https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73975 .. they've been lauding their new revamped accu-sim framework lately (and quite frankly seem very excited about it as seen on the other thread https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=73656&start=225) as they gear up for the Comanche going into beta, but they've have not gone into too much details of how it all works as a framework that sits atop the MSFS framework. He speaks of their "own flight model" so I'd be very interested to know how that works since from all what I've understood so far it's impossible to have aircrafts use flight models *completely* outside the MSFS framework (unlike say systems which is possible i.e. Fenix). I suspect it's an intermediate layer of code in their accum-sim engine that eventually interfaces with the core MSFS aerodynamics engine, that allows for all their aircraft to be mostly coded to the accu-sim engine only and also sort of be "sim platform independent". So I'm gonna guess when they say "our own flight model" it's no different from a Fenix or PMDG having their "own flight model" per aircraft. In any case, it's worthy to note how MSFS is now in a state to allow for frameworks like A2A's accu-sim to be properly realized per the developers' original intentions.

----------
<bolding my own>

Where I Believe Flight Simulation is headed into 2023
Dudley Henriques

I have been an advocate and enthusiast as well as an advisor and consultant to add on development for flight simulator since the year 2000. I’ve seen a lot of good and bad pass through my hands during this time. As a retired professional pilot having flown 72 different types of aircraft naturally the area of main interest for me has been immersion, as well as depth of fidelity in aircraft systems and aerodynamics as these factors affect realism. In this role I have served the industry officially with Microsoft during the FSX period as well as many high end add on developers.
As many of you know for many years now, twenty I believe, I have been exclusively involved here with A2A Simulations.

All this being said, I find myself now looking forward to flight simulator and where it might be headed in the future. I see a wonderful future for flight simulator.

Getting into specifics I am fully aware that every enthusiast has their own preference and choice of the simulations now available. Each simulation has its own following and picking out one simulation over the rest will naturally open a wide door for comment both good and bad as each simulator now in use has its positives and its negatives. When adding to this that many people have invested a great deal in specialized product and you have a community with widely spread opinion.

I can honestly say that over time I have tested in all the simulations currently available to the public. Each simulation has strong points and weak points, so where is the venue going as we move forward into 2023? In a world wide competition for first place, which simulation will emerge supreme?

Well, I can only speak from my personal experience but from what I have seem and from my exposure within the simulation community I see a bright future for Microsoft Flight Simulator.
Why, you may ask, do I feel this way?

Yes, I am fully aware of the problems within MSFS. I have considered these carefully believe me.
Taking a close look at what a good flight simulator must have, the first requirement isn’t what you might think. It’s a totally believable world in which to fly. And NO, this doesn’t mean the other components aren’t important because they are. Every single person who buys a flight simulator MUST believe when they see the program on the screen for the first time that they are looking at the real world. Microsoft has done that. That first all important factor is there. MSFS2020 is BELIEVABLE from a real world standpoint.

Of course there is still room for improvement and it’s getting better every day. It’s an active program involving working professionals and they are aware of their investment.
I realize that for every positive thing I am saying there are most likely a lot of people who will disagree. Everybody has an opinion when it comes to a subject as highly controversial as this one. Trust me, I’ve heard them all :-)
For negatives, I see huge problems existing now with the ATC interfacing. It’s being worked on. The weather could use some work. THAT’S being worked on.

Now for the meat of the subject………..the flight model !
Actually this is the area in which I see the most positives for the future. MSFS2020 will have its default aircraft and its flight model, and these will serve a certain level of the community quite well. But the real meat of this area will come from high end aircraft developers and A2A Simulations as far as I am concerned anyway is at the very top of that list. A2A will be supplying add on aircraft for use in FS2020 that use our own flight model. The first sample of this will be forthcoming with our release of the Comanche 250 for FS2020. I am testing this airplane as we speak and I assure you you will not be disappointed when we release it.

So there you have it, my opinion on where we are going in 2023. MSFS2020 will continue to improve. The world will get better. The weather will get better. ATC will eventually be what it should be, and A2A will be giving you aircraft you will enjoy flying like never before.

Dudley Henriques
 

Edited January 16, 20233 yr by lwt1971

Very interesting to read, and I'm very curious to see just what this custom flight model is. if it's just a flight_model.cfg then yeah it's "custom" but within the confines of MSFS. Not that it's a bad thing, PMDG, Fenix and various other well known devs use it, because why wouldn't you? it's extremely extensive and provides a lot of fine tuning of precise details. In combination of some WASM modules However MSFS's own flight model "engine", if that's the right phrasing, does have some issues that don't entirely allow an exact, spec for spec configuration to experience true-to-life flight behaviour, it's an ongoing trial-and error process. For example an elasticity table for elevator control might not be exactly the same as it's real life counterpart but those adjustments were made so the aircraft can behave like it's real life counterpart.

If not, then I'm really really excited to see what they're doing. Is it just slewing the aircraft in accordance to their own engine? how do they retrieve current environment behaviour from the sim in their engine to actualize the aircraft's own behaviour? None the less, we all know what A2A puts out, and it'll be exciting to dig in to just how in-depth this comanche will be and how it's all done.

I assume they're doing external flight model via their own updated accusim software.

2 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Very interesting to read, and I'm very curious to see just what this custom flight model is. if it's just a flight_model.cfg then yeah it's "custom" but within the confines of MSFS. Not that it's a bad thing, PMDG, Fenix and various other well known devs use it, because why wouldn't you? it's extremely extensive and provides a lot of fine tuning of precise details. In combination of some WASM modules However MSFS's own flight model "engine", if that's the right phrasing, does have some issues that don't entirely allow an exact, spec for spec configuration to experience true-to-life flight behaviour, it's an ongoing trial-and error process. For example an elasticity table for elevator control might not be exactly the same as it's real life counterpart but those adjustments were made so the aircraft can behave like it's real life counterpart.

If not, then I'm really really excited to see what they're doing. Is it just slewing the aircraft in accordance to their own engine? how do they retrieve current environment behaviour from the sim in their engine to actualize the aircraft's own behaviour? None the less, we all know what A2A puts out, and it'll be exciting to dig in to just how in-depth this comanche will be and how it's all done.

Yup exactly my questions too! ... Slewing the aircraft and just using MSFS as a visual viewport is about the only way an aircraft can be completely independent of MSFS's flight dynamics platform I believe, but then yes as you say it loses the tight coupling to the weather/atmospheric-airflow/etc within MSFS. Maybe @GSalden can chime in here since I believe he has a system setup where P3D (or other) "backends" control the aircraft flight and MSFS is used essentially just as a visuals provider via simconnect/simvars? How does this setup work with MSFS weather etc?

I'm still inclined to believe A2A is not doing anything anything radically different than PMDG or Fenix, just that their accu-sim framework sits in the middle between all their aircraft implementations and the MSFS aerodynamics framework... so yes, there is still bound to be a flight_model.cfg but with a lot of heavy customizations and hooks into their accu-sim layer. Unless A2A provides a complete flightsim backend in their accu-sim where it's running externally as a separate program(s) outside of MSFS, I just don't see how else their flight model can be "external".
 

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I'm still inclined to believe A2A is not doing anything anything radically different than PMDG or Fenix, just that their accu-sim framework sits in the middle between all their aircraft implementations and the MSFS aerodynamics framework... so yes, there is still bound to be a flight_model.cfg but with a lot of heavy customizations and hooks into their accu-sim layer.

Yep for example for FBW, our Fly-By-Wire uses a combination of WASM modules and the flight_model.cfg as a source of configuration for the fly-by-wire module, mostly for dev purposes. I'm guessing they're doing to the same to actualize the control surfaces, a sort of in-lieu fly-by-wire?

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Unless A2A provides a complete flightsim backend in their accu-sim where it's running externally as a separate program(s) outside of MSFS, I just don't see how else their flight model can be "external".

There;s still the issue of deriving environment data from msfs.

Edited January 16, 20233 yr by Lucky38i

it is interesting to see a subject from a developer (or one of it's advisers/beta testers) talking about a break through that allows them to utilize the most of MSFS and adding some needed accuracy to it via their own software then the discussion turns to questioning the ability of that company/developer to achieve something like that while no other company dared to do or achieve before them.

 

we shall wait and see the outcome of both parties.

3 minutes ago, penta_a said:

it is interesting to see a subject from a developer (or one of it's advisers/beta testers) talking about a break through that allows them to utilize the most of MSFS and adding some needed accuracy to it via their own software then the discussion turns to questioning the ability of that company/developer to achieve something like that while no other company dared to do or achieve before them.

I believe you're misinterpreting the questions being made here. We're not questioning their ability, if they've done it they've done it, simple. I'm just eagerly curious how, it's fascinating.

Yes, 

provided an external FM is used, MFS is great because it offers "the Looks" which is the only thing it does very well indeed, I'd say better than any other civil sim I have tried in the last 2 years (haven't been able to try AEFS4 though...).

I am in the process of using it with Aerowinx PSX, just for the visuals OFC. Flight dynamics and weather ( other than the visuals ), as well as all of the systems simulation will run from the PSX side...

That's about all that I can successfuly use MFS for. I reached this conclusion, after these 2 years. Other than that I simply can't use it for more than a couple aircraft ( PMDG 737 and Fenix A320) and that's only because I close my eyes to the innacuracies weather effects and flight dynamics wise and restrict my entertainment to the "procedural" operations...

So, he - Dudley - writes a lot, but the core conclusion is here:

" But the real meat of this area will come from high end aircraft developers and A2A Simulations as far as I am concerned anyway is at the very top of that list. A2A will be supplying add on aircraft for use in FS2020 that use our own flight model."

Edited January 16, 20233 yr by cagarini

9 minutes ago, cagarini said:

Yes, 

provided an external FM is used, MFS is great because it offers "the Looks" which is the only thing it does very well

This is where you lost me 😏

The core point is if indeed A2A's flight model is actually external, then like PSX it has to provide all the non-visual aspects including weather too.  I highly doubt A2A's accu-sim is doing this (i.e. weather) so that's why I'll tend to lean towards this being another customization of the core MSFS aerodynamics framework for their Comanche's flight model (just like PMDG, Fenix, Milviz, iniBuilds, etc). If they actually moved all the flight dynamics completely outside of the sim and still are able to interact with the sim's weather and atmospherics in a first class manner then I'd be *very* interested to find how they managed that technical feat.

What is certain however is that their accu-sim also simulates a lot of the intricacies of the systems, engines, hydraulics, etc which as we know can be completely external of the sim.

The MSFS base platform paired with properly implemented flight models in the hands of expert aircraft devs (like A2A and others), can deliver a compelling flight sim experience ranging from flight dynamics to weather to systems to visuals AFAIAC, as Dudley also observes. It's a conclusion I've reached after seeing and flying these fine birds since the latter half of 2022 (including some of the latest default ones in AAU1), versus what we had in 2021 and early 2022 which were just the initial default aircraft implementations that left a lot to be desired.
 

Edited January 16, 20233 yr by lwt1971

32 minutes ago, cagarini said:

innacuracies weather effects and flight dynamics wise and restrict my entertainment to the "procedural" operations...

I don't think so. Flight dynamic wasn't that bad from the beginning. Of course as any sim MSFS flight dynamic no perfect , but it gives one basic understanding of stick and rudder. In MSFS is the first sim were concept "power for altitude, pitch for airspeed" can be demonstrated!

Too add, in FSX and prepar3d, I never had to use ailerons during takeoff in crosswind. Didnt even know that was a thing before I started using xplane and had to research why I could not takeoff properly by just using rudder... MSFS also made it neccesary. 

Dunno anything about aerowinx, and only comment that the flight dynamics for me is way ahead of old fsx and prepar3d, it feels more close to xplane. Just my opinion offcourse:) 

Edited January 16, 20233 yr by Kaboki

@lwt1971, thank you for posting this!  It looks like A2A thinks very positively of MSFS!  This is great, that the pinnacle of flight developers, such as A2A, see a very bright future with MSFS.

1 hour ago, cagarini said:

Yes, 

provided an external FM is used, MFS is great because it offers "the Looks" which is the only thing it does very well indeed, I'd say better than any other civil sim I have tried in the last 2 years (haven't been able to try AEFS4 though...).

I am in the process of using it with Aerowinx PSX, just for the visuals OFC. Flight dynamics and weather ( other than the visuals ), as well as all of the systems simulation will run from the PSX side...

That's about all that I can successfuly use MFS for. I reached this conclusion, after these 2 years. Other than that I simply can't use it for more than a couple aircraft ( PMDG 737 and Fenix A320) and that's only because I close my eyes to the innacuracies weather effects and flight dynamics wise and restrict my entertainment to the "procedural" operations...

So, he - Dudley - writes a lot, but the core conclusion is here:

" But the real meat of this area will come from high end aircraft developers and A2A Simulations as far as I am concerned anyway is at the very top of that list. A2A will be supplying add on aircraft for use in FS2020 that use our own flight model."

I guess I know nothing about flyiing or sims, because  I think that MSFS and some of the aircraft I fly like the Fenix, C 310, and Kodiak, fly very well, and make me feel like I am flying a real aircraft.  I have been simming for 3 decades, and a pilot in real life for about 4 and a half decades, and every home sim I have flown so far isn't even close to what MSFS is today. I owned all the A2A aircraft in P3D, and I prefer flying the C 310 in MSFS to any of them. 

13 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I guess I know nothing about flyiing or sims, because  I think that MSFS and some of the aircraft I fly like the Fenix, C 310, and Kodiak, fly very well, and make me feel like I am flying a real aircraft.  I have been simming for 3 decades, and a pilot in real life for about 4 and a half decades, and every home sim I have flown so far isn't even close to what MSFS is today. I owned all the A2A aircraft in P3D, and I prefer flying the C 310 in MSFS to any of them. 

That's great information Bob, coming from a real life pilot!

In the Navigraph survey, "27.3% (of Navigraph survey takers) have some sort of pilot license." This is on page 81 of the Navigraph survey.

And Navigraph survey takers in 2022 overwhelmingly preferred MSFS, with MSFS gaining in the "most of the time" category in the Navigraph survey, between 2021 and 2022 (page 40 and page 41).  To me, that's a huge endorsement of MSFS by real life pilots.

This is probably the best source we have as to what a lot of real life pilots think of MSFS, since Navigraph is the only one doing such a detailed survey of the home flight simulation market, with the most participants from the flight simulator market.  I guess another informal source would be Avsim.  Avsim is littered with real life pilots, and MSFS is the most popular flight simulator in Avsim, with the MSFS forum being the most active.

 

Edited January 16, 20233 yr by abrams_tank