Is there additional work on the flight modeling planned?

[Cavemanhead 11]

In general, although the FS2020 FM has been improved, it just isn't as organic and representative of flight as it could be in several areas.  A few IRL pilots have pointed this out for several of the big commercial birds in particular where that "heavy" feeling of inertia just isn't there as it should be making landings feel off.  Does anyone know how much work Asobo is devoting to a continuing improvement of the FMs? 

[David Mills 4,774]

There are two additional Aircraft & Avionics updates scheduled by Asobo for 2023. The first AAU, which has already been released, made very significant changes to the flight models of several aircraft. My favorite plane to fly is the Cessna Longitude. I'll tell you -- and I think a lot of people would agree -- that the Longitude after AAU1 is a completely different aircraft than before AAU1 in the way it flies and handles, as well as in its avionics. So while the exact dates of release and specifics haven't yet been announced, lots of additional AAU enhancements are already in the works.

Edited March 18, 2023 by David Mills

[Muds 31]

1 hour ago, David Mills said:

There are two additional Aircraft & Avionics updates scheduled by Asobo for 2023. The first AAU, which has already been released, made very significant changes to the flight models of several aircraft. My favorite plane to fly is the Cessna Longitude. I'll tell you -- and I think a lot of people would agree -- that the Longitude after AAU1 is a completely different aircraft than before AAU1 in the way it flies and handles, as well as in its avionics. So while the exact dates of release and specifics haven't yet been announced, lots of additional AAU enhancements are already in the works.

well i don't think op is talking about default aircrafts, improved with AAU, but more about general FM improvment. i wish, but i don't think AAU will ever improve the general FM core.

I agree, there are good posts on the forum about some things that feels wrong like this one: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/all-that-is-wrong-with-the-msfs-flight-model-inertia-stalling-pitch-authority-trim-sensitivity/379936

to be honest it drives me nut seeing on the dev wishlist/buglist some bling-bling stuff, but things like ground physics + FM refinements that are core to a flightsim....going MIA ....

[sd_flyer 6,119]

You should try inbuild a310 or An-225 they both have enough inertia if that what you miss .

[JBDB-MD80 1,533]

Thought they hired someone "FM specialist" in the Fall of 2022, from one of the War/Combat simulators.?

Edited March 18, 2023 by jbdbow1970

[sd_flyer 6,119]

1 hour ago, jbdbow1970 said:

Thought they hired someone "FM specialist" in the Fall of 2022, from one of the War/Combat simulators.?

Yes Petrovich who used to work for 1C IL- Sturmovik

[martinboehme 586]

4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Yes Petrovich who used to work for 1C IL- Sturmovik

Hadn't heard about this yet - this sounds promising! 

[darshonaut 237]

Wouldn't the Flight Miodel be the job of the aicraft developer ?

All MS/Asobo can do is offer exact physics and atmospheric modeling and such.

 

[Lucky38i 1,169]

3 hours ago, darshonaut said:

Wouldn't the Flight Miodel be the job of the aicraft developer ?

All MS/Asobo can do is offer exact physics and atmospheric modeling and such.

 

It’s a bit of both really. Even then the entire discussion is extremely subjective and highly dependent on your hardware setup and reactivity and sensitivity curves. There’s some irl pilots who swear by its whereas others prefer xplane. There’s no concrete answer on this subjective matter imo.

 

to better answer your question yeah there is a lot of work that aircraft devs need to put it but on the other hand there’s some issues with the FM that requires aircraft devs to basically produce hacky solutions to get required results. There’s also that there’s only 2 airliners at the moment that utilise CFD which is ini, though it’s debated that CFD isn’t particularly impactful on airliner as it is on props for example.

[chapstick 2,769]

Asobo really needs to fix the broken transition between ground and flight on crosswind takes off. As currently modeled, it's the literal opposite of reality. 

[robert young 2,897]

1 hour ago, Chapstick said:

Asobo really needs to fix the broken transition between ground and flight on crosswind takes off. As currently modeled, it's the literal opposite of reality. 

I agree. The problem is that currently it is very difficult to tune in believable crosswind reaction on the ground at slow to mid runway speeds compared to slow speed ground handling and then higher ground speeds. There are params in the contacts section of the flight_model.cfg that can adjust this but they are essentially hacks.

Most aircraft are FAR too twitchy in steering on initial take off run and have way too little yaw inertia. But increasing yaw inertia makes most aircraft sluggish at slow speed turns with the steering front wheel "skidding" or at least not gripping. The solution is to separate front wheel steering friction from the general yaw inertia.

Also, to get realistic steering you often have to tune down rudder response at slow speeds which often leads to inadequate yaw authority when the speed increases. I feel that of all parameters currently in force it is yaw that needs the most attention. There are ways around everything of course (Elasticity settings which are also "hacks"), but solving one problem highlights another. And part of the yaw problem is actually not the aircraft themselves but a grossly excessive REACTION to crosswinds.

At the moment, without tweaking most flight models I find that there is a ridiculous amount of weather vaning into wind with even a tiny amount of crosswind on the ground. I'm talking as low as 2 - 4 knots crosswind component which in reality should barely disturb even small GA aircraft.

The other big problem I see is that (in my opinion) almost all default AND addon aircraft are way too touchy in pitch control. Unless adjusted most aircraft bounce up and down with the slightest pitch input. This is really not how aircraft are. I routinely reduce (by a big factor) pitch sensitivity on nearly every default and addon aircraft. A good case in point are some of the recently released small and corporate jets. They are WAY, way too twitchy in pitch. That for me takes away any pleasure in flying them. Part of that is poor adjustment by developers but it is also affecting most default GA aircraft (Kingair, Baron, Caravan, etc).                                                                                                                                                                                                               

[irocx 297]

On 3/18/2023 at 10:09 AM, robert young said:

.......

Most aircraft are FAR too twitchy in steering on initial take off run and have way too little yaw inertia. 

.... And part of the yaw problem is actually not the aircraft themselves but a grossly excessive REACTION to crosswinds.

 .....ridiculous amount of weather vaning into wind with even a tiny amount of crosswind on the ground. 

........ way too touchy in pitch control. Unless adjusted most aircraft bounce up and down with the slightest pitch input. This is really not how aircraft are.

 .......They are WAY, way too twitchy in pitch.

That for me takes away any pleasure in flying them.                             

Summarized and highlighted for posterity.

They refuse(d) to address these fundamental issues and then, chef's kiss, hastily added more overbaked, unrealistic turbulence/gusts/environmental "effects" on top of things.....only to now counter with another planned "assistance" setting in SU12 to further muddy the waters........down the slippery slope we go.

Edited March 21, 2023 by irocx

[jcomm 6,087]

So far MFS's FM has been a big disappointment overall to me, to the point of having shelved it as a flightsim...

There are just too many problems, inaccuracies and unrealistic aspects both on ground and in the air.

Then we see some "patches" being thrown to the amalgamated CFD FM, like for instance:

Flaps 'add incidence' setting - MSFS DevSupport (flightsimulator.com)

I was waiting, first for the gliders then for the helicopters, but both disappointed me so much that the only use I could give to MFS the last times I used it was for PMDG 737 sessions... or sometimes the Fenix A320, although I found some of it's bugs irritating 😕

From one of 737NG's videos I see that just as I do, he also thinks there is probably not going to be much more development with the FM... Petrovich was never mentioned again, but the IL-2 by 1C/777 is so hugely superior in the end results to MFS that I believe he can't do miracles, unless he rewrites the whole FM...

I think, honestly, that bringing back to use the Legacy FM would be their best choice, making available some of the updates that ASOBO did, like no silly limit to roll rates, etc... But that Legacy FM, and most of the variables that were truncated, would surely allow to have a much better experience in MFS.

Heck, Robert Young's creations for FSX did stall and Spin like real aircraft, and he didn't have any of that CFD...

Then there's the weather modelling and the inconsistent way some features like convection / thermals are added. Better make it editable and easy for 3pds to inject some sort of thermal lift than to create a model of soaring weather that is far from RL and makes it so useless that I stay away from it.

Edited March 21, 2023 by jcomm

[Bosco19 198]

I just returned to MSFS after a long hiatus, because of the lack of convincing flight characteristics, as you describe. It was the appearance of the helicopters that brought me back. I have never flown a helicopter, but I have built and flown a gyroplane, and do have some experience of what it feels like to fly under a rotor blade. I have spent several years flying helo's in Arma 3. There are two modes, standard and advanced. Both modes do an excellent job of giving the feeling of the physics of rotary flight - even in the very simplified standard mode. The advanced mode is unbelievably good (and difficult). MSFS's helo's have really disappointed me. The controls have too much delay and when the reactions to inputs do come in, it feels like they're just running away - thus starting an almost uncontrollable input chase that easily ends up in disaster. No amount of curve adjustment alters the core failures. The helo's also twitch around in flight in a most unrealistic manner - even with zero wind. I suspect I will soon be turning my back on MSFS once again. After I retired from real aircraft building and flying I had hopes that the much-touted MSFS 2020 that was soon to appear, would allow me to stay in touch with my 30 former years as a pilot (within reason). So far it's a pretty poor substitute for the real thing, and really isn't holding my interest.

[jcomm 6,087]

1 hour ago, Bosco19 said:

I just returned to MSFS after a long hiatus, because of the lack of convincing flight characteristics, as you describe. It was the appearance of the helicopters that brought me back. I have never flown a helicopter, but I have built and flown a gyroplane, and do have some experience of what it feels like to fly under a rotor blade. I have spent several years flying helo's in Arma 3. There are two modes, standard and advanced. Both modes do an excellent job of giving the feeling of the physics of rotary flight - even in the very simplified standard mode. The advanced mode is unbelievably good (and difficult). MSFS's helo's have really disappointed me. The controls have too much delay and when the reactions to inputs do come in, it feels like they're just running away - thus starting an almost uncontrollable input chase that easily ends up in disaster. No amount of curve adjustment alters the core failures. The helo's also twitch around in flight in a most unrealistic manner - even with zero wind. I suspect I will soon be turning my back on MSFS once again. After I retired from real aircraft building and flying I had hopes that the much-touted MSFS 2020 that was soon to appear, would allow me to stay in touch with my 30 former years as a pilot (within reason). So far it's a pretty poor substitute for the real thing, and really isn't holding my interest.

I feel your pain @Bosco19. It looks so great, but feels so bad 😕

Didn't know ARMA3 had such nice rotaries? I only tried rotaries in XP and DCS World, with DCS UH-1H being by far my choice for the best ever heli experience I had among various sims, but I should probably give ARMA3 a try 😉

Edited April 2, 2023 by jcomm