Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 - Announce Trailer

[Franz007 505]

2 minutes ago, Krakin said:

You're talking a heap of nonsense. Spend more time simming and less time displaying your ignorance. None of those listed planes use external inputs for flight performance. The Fenix engine is not about the FM and their big rework is using the MSFS sdk. Insecure folks who enjoy a certain sim always like to accuse the A310 of lacking inertia because they know it flies really well in MSFS and oh boy they just CAN'T have that now, can they? Lol

Can you read? You seem very offended lol.

I said that this is what i understood from Cpt-Blackbox (beta-tester for the Fenix) and has been in contact with (and heard from) many other developpers. He was heavily criticising Asobo for their faulty flightmodel and was very concerned about many developpers having obviously to tweek a lot of stuff to get their model flying right. And can you explain how the A310 is supposed to fly really well, when it totally lacks any inertia? And sorry, i do have the A310, so no reason to make stuff up. Talking about insecurity, your agressivness seems to confirm that.

[lwt1971 7,441]

42 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Yes indeed. As far as i understood Cpt Blackbox 711, who seems to have been in touch with developpers, at least some of them are. He was worried about exactly that, because the devs struggle to get their addons working as they should, since they have to override the base-model. Just look at the difficulties Fenix had with their engine-modelling and that is still not fixed yet. I don't know about the iniBuils A310 but if it uses the base-mndel, no wonder it is totally lacking any inertia-simulation.

Ya file that under nonsense as Krakin says above, or maybe Blackbox 711 was talking about early-days SDK struggles some developers might have had. The PMDG 737, Fenix A320, Milviz/Blackbox aircraft like the C310, FSReborn Sting S4, FSW C414, iniBuilds A310 and their other birds all are built on top of the core MSFS flight dynamics engine with extensions, tunings, tweaks, etc specific to their own birds. There is no way to override or bypass the core flight dynamics engine in MSFS unless almost everything including weather is simulated external to MSFS. What can be overridden or run externally to the sim is systems stuff, engine modelling, etc which of course the likes of Fenix are doing. If these supposed struggles are a reality, then how are all these big name aircraft developers implementing their aircraft and continuing to improve them? Oh let's not forget the Working Title improvements to the Citation Longitude, CJ4, 787, etc... they are struggling too?

As for the iniBuilds A310, I certainly can feel the heft of the big aircraft and difference in inertia compared to other tubeliner aircraft. iniBuilds are making use of the core MSFS flight dynamics engine, as well as CFD for which they've had nothing but praise. They have also stated multiple times how their MSFS iniBuilds A310 flight model is at par with their XP version of the aircraft. Always useful and illuminating to go by the actual devs' and experts' words/opinions.
 

Edited June 21, 2023 by lwt1971

[Franz007 505]

16 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Ya file that under nonsense as Krakin says above, or maybe Blackbox 711 was talking about early-days SDK struggles some developers might have had. The PMDG 737, Fenix A320, Milviz/Blackbox aircraft like the C310, FSReborn Sting S4, FSW C414, iniBuilds A310 and their other birds all are built on top of the core MSFS flight dynamics engine with extensions, tunings, tweaks, etc specific to their own birds.

That's exactly why they have so many problems. Because the base model is just bad. And the devs indeed have to tweek a lot of things  to overcome the base model. The atmosphere for example is quite unrealistic (even PMDG admitted that officially a few months ago), that's why they have to compensate. I am not saying that the whole flightmodel happnes outside of MSFS.

And no: try to fly the A310 with empty weight and then with full weight. On the Runway it will feel different, but as soon as the aircraft will be in the air, it feels exactly the same! That's not at all how it is supposed to be.

Edited June 21, 2023 by Franz007

[Bdub22 1,616]

4 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

On the Runway it will feel different, but as soon as the aircraft will be in the air, it feels exactly the same!

That has not been my experience with that plane. 

[Franz007 505]

5 minutes ago, Bdub22 said:

That has not been my experience with that plane. 

I assume because you simply didn't pay attention. You can try it right now. And tell me what you find out. Thanks.

[Fiorentoni 4,288]

Maybe we can all agree the flight model in MSFS has still some way to go before it becomes really good? Also I want to point out that "feeling" and "numbers" can be very different. E.g. P3D's custom aircraft like FSL or PMDG had flight performance exactly by the numbers, like literally to the last digit in many cases. Still P3D felt "on rails" and therefore somehow not right.
For MSFS it's a bit the other way around. Many numbers are just off or variables straight out missing (cloud turbulence anyone?!), especially in the Fenix. However it feels much more dynamic. I think what you like more depends on your background. An A320 pilot will be annoyed by the difference to his real life performance experience while others expect other things.
Tldr: There's no objective "right" or "wrong", because feelings and numbers don't necessary agree.

[lwt1971 7,441]

57 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

That's exactly why they have so many problems. Because the base model is just bad. And the devs indeed have to tweek a lot of things  to overcome the base model. The atmosphere for example is quite unrealistic (even PMDG admitted that officially a few months ago), that's why they have to compensate. I am not saying that the whole flightmodel happnes outside of MSFS.

Once again, I'll choose to listen to the actual devs and than your overdramatic conjecturing here.
 

[Franz007 505]

29 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Once again, I'll choose to listen to the actual devs and than your overdramatic conjecturing here.
 

I was simply answering a statement you made. Backed up with the explanations of an Airbus-instructor being involved in the developpment of addons (Fenix being one oif them) and having a neutral view on all simulators (not biased to sell products). Now you are of course free to choose your camp and ignore what you prefer not to hear.

 

[lwt1971 7,441]

25 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

I was simply answering a statement you made. Backed up with the explanations of an Airbus-instructor being involved in the developpment of addons (Fenix being one oif them) and having a neutral view on all simulators (not biased to sell products). Now you are of course free to choose your camp and ignore what you prefer not to hear.

 

No, you were making grandiose claims like how MSFS add-on developers are "struggling" a lot, and that "the flight model is still so bad developers need hacks or external modeling to create realistic addons"... And I'm stating what those devs have actually said. If you're now trying to imply that blackbox 711 was claiming Fenix was having such struggles, what Aamir has spoken about are their problems with the default engine management/model which they are overriding and making a much more detailed simulation of for their v2 release... but that is *not* about the core FDE or flight model (and a flight model cannot be made external). So rather than "choosing your camp" or "ignore what one prefers not to hear", let's actually go by facts, what has been disclosed by devs, etc... novel concept isn't it?
 

Edited June 21, 2023 by lwt1971

[Franz007 505]

14 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

No, you were making grandiose claims like how MSFS add-on developers are "struggling" a lot, and that "the flight model is still so bad developers need hacks or external modeling to create realistic addons"... And I'm stating what those devs have actually said. If you're now trying to imply that blackbox 711 was claiming Fenix was having such struggles, what Aamir has spoken about are their problems with the default engine management/model which they are overriding and making a much more detailed simulation of for their v2 release... but that is *not* about the core FDE or flight model (and a flight model cannot be made external). So rather than "choosing your camp" or "ignore what one prefers not to hear", let's actually go by facts, what has been disclosed by devs, etc... novel concept isn't it?
 

Don't forget that you were the one stating "So the default birds like the Citation Longitude, iniBuilds a310, upcoming 787, etc, and the various 3rd party birds with great flight models like the Fenix A320, PMDG 737, Milviz C310, and so much more... are all built on "hacks"?, Ok sure lol". Or perhaps i missunderstood you and you were just implying that not every one of them are built on hacks? Because some of them are, that was the reason for disagreemnt with your claim. And i backuped my disagreement with what Blackbox (a very respetced and experimented Pilot and betatester, having many insights) told us about these problems. I was not implying that they had to program another flightmodel but to compensate some sides of it for their aircraft to behave as it should.

Even PMDG themselves communicated their delay by pointing out to the "unrealistic atmosphere". This is for me part of the flightmodel, since it directly affects the aircraft's behaviour.

I suggest you to watch one of the streams i was talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfFJ6YU9cH8 (starting at 1h21Min17s and you have to watch for at least 20 min, he explains his viewpoint very well). And please don't be surprised if he is using another sim on that stream. As you may know he is flying all kind of sims (MSFS, XP, P3D and DCS).

Based on this stream, what do you think frustrates Blackbox that much? Do you think that his criticisim is unjustified? And if in your initial post you were only stating that "not all of the addon-developppers have to do hacks" then i missunderstood your claim and would have nothing to disagree with 😀

 

Edited June 22, 2023 by Franz007

[lwt1971 7,441]

5 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Don't forget that you were the one stating "So the default birds like the Citation Longitude, iniBuilds a310, upcoming 787, etc, and the various 3rd party birds with great flight models like the Fenix A320, PMDG 737, Milviz C310, and so much more... are all built on "hacks"?, Ok sure lol". Or perhaps i missunderstood you and you were just implying that not every one of them are built on hacks? .... Based on this stream, what do you think frustrates Blackbox that much? Do you think that his criticisim is unjustified? And if in your initial post you were only stating that "not all of the addon-developppers have to do hacks" then i missunderstood your claim and would have nothing to disagree with 😀

 

Well so that's Blackbox's opinion, there are many respected and expert simmers and IRL pilots who have lauded the birds I listed in MSFS in terms of their realism and flight models. iniBuilds themselves who are experts in development of aircraft for both the sims have said the flight models are at par. I realize this is a common talking point about MSFS flight dynamics from acolytes of the other sim, but repeating them over and over again does not make them true 🙂, especially to those of us who have used both sims extensively over the years.

And yes I definitely did mean not all add-on developers have to do hacks, and I certainly also am saying that you're trying to make it out to be that many of them are having to do hacks for which there is no evidence. Yes Fenix decided to overwrite the engine stuff, etc but overriding of certain aspects of the base sim (those that are actually overridable that is) has been very common in all sims for years. Blackbox 711 is also making these sweeping claims there about PMDG taking so long due to core sim issues, whereas PMDG have said the longer dev time was due to their decision of using their existing C++ codebase and also supporting both the PC and XBox which then confined them to the WASM framework which they faced issues with, and also they had to learn a whole new sim which they had no experience with... many other reputable devs didn't take as long as PMDG. So ya, Blackbox 711 can keep making his claims, but that's all that they are. Sorry, still only going to believe what I actually hear from the devs when it comes to the topic of how their development experience has actually transpired. In any case, their finished end products in MSFS speak for themselves running on top of the core MSFS flight dynamics engine, regardless of talking points that try desperately to cast MSFS in certain ways 🙂 

And I make a distinction between the core flight model & FDE, vs systems & engines, vs the weather/atmospherics, etc (obviously they all contribute to the overall flying experience for us, but I am talking in terms of sim architecture).
 

Edited June 22, 2023 by lwt1971

[KL Oo 705]

Do you guys enjoy yelling at each other?

[scotchegg 4,207]

18 hours ago, Franz007 said:

And can you explain how the A310 is supposed to fly really well, when it totally lacks any inertia?

Don’t have it installed, but will it stall? I’m guessing it’s pretty hard to model a stall with no inertia modeled.

[Franz007 505]

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

Well so that's Blackbox's opinion, there are many respected and expert simmers and IRL pilots who have lauded the birds I listed in MSFS in terms of their realism and flight models. iniBuilds themselves who are experts in development of aircraft for both the sims have said the flight models are at par

Well, of course a develpper has to say that. And ask one of these other IRL pilots if they feel that inertia-differences is being simulated accurately according to them? Ask them this specific question and i would be happy to read their reactions. Otherwise you can also try it by yourself. But i have no clue if you have real-life experience or not because most of "standard" users don't even know and/or are expecting the aircraft to behave differently according to the weight, hence they don't see any problem (like @scotchegg)

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

And yes I definitely did mean not all add-on developers have to do hacks, and I certainly also am saying that you're trying to make it out to be that many of them are having to do hacks for which there is no evidence.

"Many" is relative. I never said all of them did. And here a statement by PMDG themselves on the 18th nov 22:

"The main focus has been continued tuning of the control law for the automated flight control system in pitch, roll, yaw and thrust. The previous update had a few scenarios which were still problematic for under-thrust and over-thrust conditions. These conditions come about because the atmospheric stability in MSFS is significantly unrealistic, and we have had to build additional logic into the control law for these channels that is capable of dealing with situations that are thoroughly inconceivable in the real world".

And I think that Blackbox is in the best position to speak about that, since he has the privilege as a betatester to be in regular contact with all of these developpers. Of course they won't tell it to their customers and will try to be as positive as they can without revealing too much details about their internals. I have no reason to disbelieve BB, since he is one of the only ones i know that not only has a privilege access but who is also is dealing with many other sims and developpers of those. And he is not only an Airbus pilot but also an instructor. And his frustration seems to confirm what PMDG communicated. I don't want to do semantics here and/or overdramatize. So let's all hope that MSFS will keep improving that part as well in the future 🙂

Edited June 22, 2023 by Franz007

[Stoopy 1,574]

3 hours ago, KL Oo said:

Do you guys enjoy yelling at each other?

I wonder what it's gonna be like when MSFS 2028 is announced.