1 hour ago, Orlaam said:

....The ground handling is the only aspect that I wish could improve.  You  should be able to turn better.... Yet, when I spend the money to buy the Thrustmaster Boeing Yoke, it was like night and day.  All of the sudden I could hold an attitude with greater ease in a turn and wasn't so annoying by the flight dynamics.

Even 737NG Driver said, in one of his videos, that cadets training in a full motion Level-D sim can't land well in real life because it's just not the same.

Best new hardware for me, the TM Boeing Yoke!  Coming from a tired Saitek yoke it was a game changer.  Others have complained about ground handling but I find it (nose-wheel steering) to be highly plausible and desireable and can't imagine improving on it--go figure!   Old Cessna Trim Wheel is what I'm using to control steering with. 

Looks like the OP's question got answered

8 hours ago, Orlaam said:

I don't think MSFS handles much differently than FSX/FS9 era.  The default aircraft are indeed too twitchy, but we've always had to tone down our controls to compensate.  The ground handling is the only aspect that I wish could improve.  You  should be able to turn better.  It's not like previous sims weren't awful in terms of sensitivity or crosswind handling.  There will always be limitations to the flight model, unless the engine driving the game allows for better physics.  I often wonder how many people complain about the sim flight dynamics but use a peripheral with terrible driver inputs.  I had a CH Yoke for years and it was terrible for banking without diving all over the place.  You  couldn't keep a plane level in a turn to save your life.  The RealAir Duke was one of the few that wouldn't pitch all over the place with the CH Yoke.  The A2A, as great as they were, were very hard to hand-fly IMO.  Yet, when I spend the money to buy the Thrustmaster Boeing Yoke, it was like night and day.  All of the sudden I could hold an attitude with greater ease in a turn and wasn't so annoying by the flight dynamics.

Even 737NG Driver said, in one of his videos, that cadets training in a full motion Level-D sim can't land well in real life because it's just not the same.

There are many limitations that you can either notice even as just a sim pilot, because they appear too unrealistic or because you have flown the real type or have flight data and pilot flight reports...

It would appear that MFS with it's new CFD approach into flight dynamics modelling could turn the accuracy of the flight models more realistic but in the end it truncates a worth of fine tuning tools & tricks that developers were able to use previously...

examples are in my links above, among many others, such as:

How does the need for accurate geometry balance against the lack of adjustment? - MSFS DevSupport (flightsimulator.com)

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

From my RL experience I can tell you gliders are worst than the best available for fsx, and soaring weather very inconsistently modelled ... 

Check the bellow forum regularly to find out about it:

flightmodel - MSFS DevSupport (flightsimulator.com)

Some of the most active developers post there the quirks they smash into while trying to overcome the limitations of the ASOBO CFD...

For me MFS is just a rather sophisticated GOOGLE MAPS app, with an embedded sketch of "flight" simulation... Yes, if you don't mind the accuracy of the flight dynamics you can still use it for procedural training simulation...

In some way I still hope for a miracle by An Petrovich....

Edited April 4, 20233 yr by jcomm

OTOH:  changing from a "negative" to a "positive" sense of critics, there's some really GOOD HOPE for the future of MFS's flight dynamics as I just got aware of the first active participation of An Petrovich at the flightsimulator.com Dev Support forum !!!  This can make quite a difference, so I hope - at least now we have somenone in the Team who REALLY understands aerodynamics and it's modelling for a desktop flight simulator:

An.Petrovich - user overview - MSFS DevSupport (flightsimulator.com)

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

There are many limitations that you can either notice even as just a sim pilot, because they appear too unrealistic or because you have flown the real type or have flight data and pilot flight reports...

 

Sometimes I wonder whether flight simulation is the right hobby for you 🤣.

2 hours ago, Dominique_K said:

Sometimes I wonder whether flight simulation is the right hobby for you 🤣.isto 

Most of the time it is not, but there are some really nice exceptions . There's also always positives, like the mention to the new Dev in ASOBO, originating from 1C/777 and giving me good reasons to believe something better can result for the future development of MFS 's flight and systems modelling 😁

Edited April 4, 20233 yr by jcomm

48 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Most of the time it is not, but there are some really nice exceptions . There's also always positives, like the mention to the new Dev in ASOBO, originating from 1C/777 and giving me good reading to believe something better can result for the future development of MFS 's flight and systems modelling 😁

I suppose we need extremists like you to push the enveloppe 🤣 but don't let the trees hide you the forest. 

35 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

...but don't let the trees hide you the forest. 

The flight model is but one component of the total package of a robust flight simulation.  Focus on a few immature twisted trees and you're missing the rest which is nothing short of fabulous.  The entire out of the box presentation remains in its own class at the top of the heap.   In the course of a 3h flight in the mature airliners many of us use it is only a few seconds to a minute's worth of that where the FM really comes into play bigtime the rest is all procedure management.  This is why many are not obsessed with the current state of the funky FM, that and as the French say, "La Belle Indifference"-- very glad I'm afflicted by that 😉.  In fact, if I were to prioritize the order of where to focus major attention now, it would be in this order:

1. Refine ATC bigtime!
2. Increase cloud resolution then develop distinct cloud morphologies
3. Shader-based geolocation driven seasonal change
4. Refine the FM!

 

The CFD implementation is still in its infancy so I don't know why people in here are talking like it was supposed to be perfect overnight. Even worse is how some of you are talking like things could never get better. We're two years in, folks. The hiring of Mr. Petrovich should be enough to quell most concerns. Givings MSFS an excellent platform for great FMs is clearly a priority for MS. The CFD implementation changes the game and it has also hit the reset switch on how things are fine tuned. That will be sorted out in time.

Edited April 4, 20233 yr by Krakin