Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
abrams_tank

New physics engine and improved systems/avionic in MSFS 2024

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, tweekz said:

Also real 3D trees - the only new feature from XP12 that I consider superior - will now also be in MSFS.

The 3D trees in XP 12 are nice up close. The problem is they are sparse and there is a lot of space in between the trees, so it doesn't quite look like a forest (when I think of a typical forest, I think of a lot of crowded trees). In addition, from high above, the trees don't look good, because LR cut down on the detail of them. I think the sparsity of the trees and the lower detail of the trees from high above, don't look good in XP 12.  Please note what I am referring to is the release of XP 12 with no mods - things might be different with mods.  I would not want MSFS to go down this road.

In MSFS, the forests are dense with trees. And from high above, the trees have enough detail that they look good.  Aside from close up which is where I give XP 12 the edge for trees, I like the rendition of trees in MSFS much more than XP 12 (FYI, this is my opinion, but people may have a different opinion).

Edited by abrams_tank
  • Like 2

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

In MSFS, the forests are dense with trees. And from high above, the trees have enough detail that they look good.  Aside from close up which is where I give XP 12 the edge for trees, I like the rendition of trees in MSFS much more than XP 12 (FYI, this is my opinion, but people may have a different opinion).

Yeah, but they said, they gonna implement real 3D trees. But fo the rest I agree. I'd prefer a lot of high detail sprites over sparse 3D trees. If you can have both - go for it.

  • Like 1

Happy with MSFS 🙂
home simming evolved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No use in trying to evaluate the physics involved with the various activities/missions based on the initial trailer (i.e. re: water physics, we don't know if they plan to improve that in v2024 and if that has even been implemented yet in v2024 as it stands). The little they chose to show at FSExpo, i.e. the balloon physics and how that's an example of a many-surface model interacting realistically in the larger physics sandbox was pretty darn impressive.

The ability to define more fine-grained geometry for the aircraft is going to be key, as that's always been something that's held back the true power of MSFS's current FDE tech. Even before CFD came along in MSFS, its discretized multi-surface airflow modelling is capable of very high granularity, where each discretized surface gets its own airflow simulation.. but all that works best only if the aircraft devs can define the geometry in as detailed a way as possible, to give them a good start on the particular aircraft's FM before fine tuning it. Matt Nischan explains the core FDE (pre-CFD) well in this old post: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/?do=findComment&comment=4549236 . So just with this improvement in v2024 the flight models of all aircraft can benefit a lot (of course also with re-work by the aircraft devs), and especially more so if they use CFD. I'm sure MS/Asobo have more than this planned for aerodynamics/physics improvements though, and especially with Seb and Andrey (Petrovich) Solomykin leading the effort some cool stuff is on the way.

As the FDE/aerodynamics currently stand in MSFS, the only area that is subpar IMO is ground handling and the ground<->air transition model.. given that MS/Asobo have stated multiple times this area is slated for rework, I think it's a safe bet that too will come in v2024. Also it's important to note that aircraft devs are just becoming more seasoned in developing and tuning flight models for their aircraft on the MSFS platform (i.e. PMDG with what they've learned from their development work on the DC6 and 737, Fenix V2, etc). So even before v2024, we'll hopefully see the fuller realization and what's capable of being built on top of MSFS in something like the upcoming A2A Comanche which is looking pretty impressive on the physics front, Fenix V2, PMDG 777, and others.
 

 

Edited by lwt1971
  • Like 10

Len
1980s: Sublogic FS II on C64 ---> 1990s: Flight Unlimited I/II, MSFS 95/98 ---> 2000s/2010s: FS/X, P3D, XP ---> 2020+: MSFS
Current system: i9 13900K, RTX 4090, 64GB DDR5 4800 RAM, 4TB NVMe SSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

No use in trying to evaluate the physics involved with the various activities/missions based on the initial trailer (i.e. re: water physics, we don't know if they plan to improve that in v2024 and if that has even been implemented yet in v2024 as it stands). The little they chose to show at FSExpo, i.e. the balloon physics and how that's an example of a many-surface model interacting realistically in the larger physics sandbox was pretty darn impressive.

The ability to define more fine-grained geometry for the aircraft is going to be key, as that's always been something that's held back the true power of MSFS's current FDE tech. Even before CFD came along in MSFS, its discretized multi-surface airflow modelling is capable of very high granularity, where each discretized surface gets its own airflow simulation.. but all that works best only if the aircraft devs can define the geometry in as detailed a way as possible, to give them a good start on the particular aircraft's FM before fine tuning it. Matt Nischan explains the core FDE (pre-CFD) well in this old post: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/?do=findComment&comment=4549236 . So just with this improvement in v2024 the flight models of all aircraft can benefit a lot (of course also with re-work by the aircraft devs), and especially more so if they use CFD. I'm sure MS/Asobo have more than this planned for aerodynamics/physics improvements though, and especially with Seb and Andrey (Petrovich) Solomykin leading the effort some cool stuff is on the way.

As the FDE/aerodynamics currently stand in MSFS, the only area that is subpar IMO is ground handling and the ground<->air transition model.. given that MS/Asobo have stated multiple times this area is slated for rework, I think it's a safe bet that too will come in v2024. Also it's important to note that aircraft devs are just becoming more seasoned in developing and tuning flight models for their aircraft on the MSFS platform (i.e. PMDG with what they've learned from their development work on the DC6 and 737, Fenix V2, etc). So even before v2024, we'll hopefully see the fuller realization and what's capable of being built on top of MSFS in something like the upcoming A2A Comanche which is looking pretty impressive on the physics front, Fenix V2, PMDG 777, and others.

Yup. I look forward to see what Sebastian can do with Petrovich.

What I like about the MSFS team, especially the top heads like Jorg and Sebastian, is that they seem like pretty decent guys.  Specifically, they are not publicly arrogant and dismissive of the work of the competition.  Jorg and Sebastian just put their head down, and do the work to make MSFS better.  They seem pretty humble, IMO.

Edited by abrams_tank
  • Like 9

i5-12400, RTX 3060 Ti, 32 GB RAM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jcomm said:

Honestly, based on videos it's really difficult to evaluate how near to RL operations the simulations are...

Then, it's a bit useless to try to point out inaccuracies in the flight dynamics model of:

.) a simulator which hasn't been released;

.) total lack of information regarding, for instance the weather conditions under which the videos were taken.

For me what these videos on FS 2024 shown me is that the upcoming version of what is probably he most successful release of the MS FS Franchise, includes features I have long been dreaming about having in a flight simulator, and the present version,, even as much as I am usually much more concerned about the consistency of overall physics modelling, from flight dynamics to weather, as conquered my enthusiasm, and with all of it's pros & cons truth is that MFS turned into the only flight simulator I really dedicate time to and play these days...

US Coast Guard MH-65 Dolphin Rescue Operation on a Cruise Ship @Defxofficials - YouTube

Overall agreed- and I said as much in my first post. 🙂

However, there will always be some pendular movement during winch / sling operations, especially relative to ships at sea as the ships themselves are always heaving unless it's truly flat calm (a rarity).

And even helos with SAS can't remain perfectly motionless in a hover - again unless it's flat calm air - also a rarity, esp in mountainous regions. And indeed, the relative movement of the helo & the winch load is exactly where the pendular motion comes from. It's simply inevitable...

Anyhow, I'm confident that between now and the release date Asobo will improve the mechanics and deliver a satisfying experience. They've established a very good track record with all the improvements in v2020, so no reason to doubt them on v2024 🙂

 

Edited by UrgentSiesta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Overall agreed- and I said as much in my first post. 🙂

However, there will always be some pendular movement during winch / sling operations, especially relative to ships at sea as the ships themselves are always heaving unless it's truly flat calm (a rarity).

And even helos with SAS can't remain perfectly motionless in a hover - again unless it's flat calm air - also a rarity, esp in mountainous regions. And indeed, the relative movement of the helo & the winch load is exactly where the pendular motion comes from. It's simply inevitable...

Anyhow, I'm confident that between now and the release date Asobo will improve the mechanics and deliver a satisfying experience. They've established a very good track record with all the improvements in v2020, so no reason to doubt them on v2024 🙂

 

OFC at it's present state MFS's rotary wing FM lags way behind XP's... That's for sure, and I never pick a chopper in MFS 2020 although I own the two Flyinside, and all of the default coming with Premium Deluxe.

It's simple for me since I no longer use DCS World. If I want to simulate rotary wing, XP12 is my choice.

  • Upvote 1

Main Simulation Rig:

Ryzen 5600x, 32GB RAM, Nvidia RTX 3060 Ti, 1 TB & 500 GB M.2 nvme drives, Win11.

Glider pilot since 1980...

Avid simmer since 1992...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

 

Quote

No use in trying to evaluate the physics involved with the various activities/missions based on the initial trailer (i.e. re: water physics, we don't know if they plan to improve that in v2024 and if that has even been implemented yet in v2024 as it stands). The little they chose to show at FSExpo, i.e. the balloon physics and how that's an example of a many-surface model interacting realistically in the larger physics sandbox was pretty darn impressive.

Well said, and as originally & repeatedly stated, I'm sure they'll improve the physics between now and release day. However, we can plainly see that there is much work to be done in the meantime.

 

Agree entirely with Par 2.

 

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

As the FDE/aerodynamics currently stand in MSFS, the only area that is subpar IMO is ground handling and the ground<->air transition model

This is simply not true. Please watch these two videos which contrast the aerodynamic behavior of multiple Default aircraft in both sims. This is far more than just ground handling and transition - it's fundamental aerodynamics:

Also, 737NG's video has an unintentional oversight:

the 172 compared is the CFD-enabled Asobo Reference Model. I.e., it's the best that even Asobo can do with aeros right now.

If one compares the current majority standard of non-CFD flight models (as with PMDG, SWS Kodiak, MilViz/BBS C310, most of the Defaults, et al), the differences are readily apparent across the board.

So even with the CFD-enabled 172 which flies far better than most MSFS addons, 737NG still recommends XPs FM as the most realistic, and the "obvious choice" for IRL students.

Now, please, don't take this as trashing MSFS. It's simply honest objectivity. v2020 is far and away better in all regards than when it launched, and I'm confident that Asobo will ensure v2024 will be another giant step up in fidelity upon release.

But for now, XP is still the reigning champ when it comes to aeros.

Quote

Also it's important to note that aircraft devs are just becoming more seasoned in developing and tuning flight models for their aircraft on the MSFS platform (i.e. PMDG with what they've learned from their development work on the DC6 and 737, Fenix V2, etc). So even before v2024, we'll hopefully see the fuller realization and what's capable of being built on top of MSFS

Absolutely correct and agreed (especially hoping Nemeth fixes their Bell 407...)

 

Quote

in something like the upcoming A2A Comanche which is looking pretty impressive on the physics front, Fenix V2, PMDG 777, and others.

Comanche does NOT use MSFS flight model - it uses a proprietary EXTERNAL aerodynamics engine (a la the original AccuSim in FSX & P3D, and Fly Inside's helos).

We've no idea how Fenix v2 will fly, though no doubt improved as they have stated the FM has been re-written based on constructive criticism from IRL type rated pilots. In the meantime, it's not fantastic.

I'd honestly use iniBuilds as more of an example (esp since they've transitioned almost completely from XP to MSFS development).

PMDG have some sort of highly customized flight model which they will not discuss other than to say it's not the "buzz word" CFD. They haven't ruled out moving to CFD, but they have stated they are satisfied with their current FM and not in any hurry to re-engineer to CFD.

That said, Flightdeck2Sim readily acknowledges the high fidelity of PMDG's custom 737 FM, but as an IP, still gives the nod to Zibo in XP, and continues to primarily fly the Zibo. Gotta be a reason for that...

Finally, and as always, I think it's GREAT that the flight model is turning into a horse race between XP & MSFS. It was never the case pre-MSFS...

Very much looking forward to seeing what further improvements Asobo (and Laminar Research) continue to make - it's ALL good for us. 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

PMDG have some sort of highly customized flight model which they will not discuss other than to say it's not the "buzz word" CFD. They haven't ruled out moving to CFD, but they have stated they are satisfied with their current FM and not in any hurry to re-engineer to CFD.

it's just a customised flight_model.cfg just like every other dev out there with the exception of the upcoming A2A, that I'm guessing just slews the aircraft. PMDG have left some really interesting comments in the file that show they're still learning MSFS's FM which is entirely normal cause it's a much much more granular level of configuration than from the P3D configs. Our devs spent a year or so fine tuning it cause a certain variable that it set like it would be in real life doesn't always produce real life results.

Also your first video describes exactly what @lwt1971 said needs work on lol.

We also need to acknowledge there's two parts to making a realistically flying plane. The simulator's own flight model and the developer who configured they're aircraft in said FM. Yes MSFS' FM has it's flaws but they're not entirely to blame, there's a lot of configurable parameters that some devs just don't touch which can lead to some less than desired results. For those that do touch most of the parameters, find themselves spending thousands of man hours trying to get it right because of my earlier comment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

50 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

it's just a customised flight_model.cfg just like every other dev out there

appreciate that clarification, thank you!

47 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Also your first video describes exactly what @lwt1971 said needs work on lol.

Nope - not really. MSFS sucks in terms of wheels on the ground at any speed, un-stick/re-stick, tail dragger, prop torque, rudder effect, etc. 

In contrast, most of what's in the first vid is pure airflow - which affect aircraft regardless of whether their tires are on the ground or not. 🙂 

54 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

We also need to acknowledge there's two parts to making a realistically flying plane. The simulator's own flight model and the developer who configured they're aircraft in said FM. Yes MSFS' FM has it's flaws but they're not entirely to blame, there's a lot of configurable parameters that some devs just don't touch which can lead to some less than desired results. For those that do touch most of the parameters, find themselves spending thousands of man hours trying to get it right because of my earlier comment.

Yes, and I've stated exactly this many times in the past. There is no "magic pixie dust" as it were, even in X-Plane. Garbage In, Garbage out...

The issue at hand, I suppose, is that many ESP devs are sticking with the traditional FM (for now, at least...). And notable devs like SWS have said that though they're experimenting with moving to CFD, they will likely have to start over as it (naturally) conflicts with the original FM in many regards.

And we have others, like Just Flight, who can't get certain aero effects (like spins) to work with CFD, so that makes them bin the entire option.

And there are some devs who are simply "turning on" CFD and hoping for the best. It results in a more fluid flight model, but not a more convincing one. Which places their work rather in purgatory, I suppose

In any case, Asobo have laid the ground work and continue to improve. And v2024 appears to be tackling the ugly issues head on, so the future is bright across the board 🙂

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

However, we can plainly see that there is much work to be done in the meantime.

We have already proven that you have presented no evidence to arrive at such a claim. None of the videos you posted gave any weight to what you're asserting. I don't know for sure just how good 2024 will be but I'm making a guess based on what I've seen and heard. There is nothing in the trailer that anyone can look at to say with certainty that there is much work to be done. None. 

  • Like 2

5800X3D. 32 GB RAM. 1TB SATA SSD. 3TB HDD. RTX 3070 Ti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

However, we can plainly see that there is much work to be done in the meantime.

 

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

This is far more than just ground handling and transition - it's fundamental aerodynamics:

Also, 737NG's video has an unintentional oversight: ... the 172 compared is the CFD-enabled Asobo Reference Model. I.e., it's the best that even Asobo can do with aeros right now. ... If one compares the current majority standard of non-CFD flight models (as with PMDG, SWS Kodiak, MilViz/BBS C310, most of the Defaults, et al), the differences are readily apparent across the board. ... So even with the CFD-enabled 172 which flies far better than most MSFS addons, 737NG still recommends XPs FM as the most realistic, and the "obvious choice" for IRL students.

But for now, XP is still the reigning champ when it comes to aeros.


Going have to disagree here, and easily... Apart from ground handling, given well developed aircraft like the PMDG 737, Fenix A320, Milviz C310, FSW C414, Sting S4, iniBuilds A310, etc etc the fundamental aerodynamics are quite sound in v2020 (certainly doesn't feel like "there is much work to be done"). And of those, the Sting S4 and iniBuilds A310 use CFD, and according to iniBuilds themselves the flight model of their MSFS version is at par with their XP version. Obviously the realism of the flight models of each aircraft is ultimately determined by the aircraft developer and how they have developed and tuned the FMs on top of the sim platform.. so just because an aircraft uses CFD doesn't mean its FM is going to be automagically better than one that doesn't.

I didn't really care to wade into XP but you brought it up so I'll just say this: I've used XP a lot pre 2020, and as much as its umm "fans" might try to push the narrative that its aerodynamics are so much better than MSFS, the difference is not as great with MSFS 2020 as it stands currently and the aircraft available for it (especially when considering everything outside of ground handling).

You cited 737 NG Driver's recent comparison, and well, he compared the default Cessnas in both the sims.. and this was his exact summary starting at this timestamp: https://youtu.be/a6FzWbUHgd0?t=1271
".. the question is how much superior. If I'm totally honest, seeing all comments I got previously before I installed X-Plane, I expected a little bit more. So I honestly have to say I didn't find the difference to be too much, there is a noteable difference, it can be felt that X-Plane FM is a bit more spot on, but overall the flight models aren't so much apart ...". Once again, this is based on his comparison of the default Cessnas. Waiting to see if/when he does the comparisons of high fidelity aircraft equivalents from each sim platform. Similarly, when flightdeck2sim compared the PMDG 737 just after its initial release a year ago to the Zibo 737, he basically concluded they are close, with the PMDG being slightly better in systems, and the Zibo being slightly better in the flight model.

In any case, just given the as-of-now stated improvements for v2024 in the aerodynamics area, I think MSFS 2024 is going to make good improvements in order to take full advantage of both its already existing multi-surface modelling and CFD aerodynamics technologies.. and I eagerly await more details on that and all the other aerodynamics/physics improvements they are yet to speak on, especially ground handling.

 

6 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Comanche does NOT use MSFS flight model - it uses a proprietary EXTERNAL aerodynamics engine (a la the original AccuSim in FSX & P3D, and Fly Inside's helos).

That is absolutely not known at all currently. The only way to do external flight models in MSFS is to do everything but the visuals externally by just using MSFS as a display port to slew the aircraft from outside the sim. So that means weather/etc has to be simulated outside the sim too, along with the FM (in MSFS for weather to interact with the aircraft the core FDE has to be used). I highly highly doubt A2A is doing this, and in any case we should know soon. All 3rd party aircraft developed for MSFS up until now use FMs built on top of the MSFS FDE. I *am* pretty certain however that A2A's systems and physics related to systems are being done external of the sim, as that's always been possible (i.e. Fenix).

 

4 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

We also need to acknowledge there's two parts to making a realistically flying plane. The simulator's own flight model and the developer who configured they're aircraft in said FM. Yes MSFS' FM has it's flaws but they're not entirely to blame, there's a lot of configurable parameters that some devs just don't touch which can lead to some less than desired results. For those that do touch most of the parameters, find themselves spending thousands of man hours trying to get it right because of my earlier comment.


Absolutely agree! And you would know best given that you're part of the FBW team 🙂
 

 

Edited by lwt1971
  • Like 3

Len
1980s: Sublogic FS II on C64 ---> 1990s: Flight Unlimited I/II, MSFS 95/98 ---> 2000s/2010s: FS/X, P3D, XP ---> 2020+: MSFS
Current system: i9 13900K, RTX 4090, 64GB DDR5 4800 RAM, 4TB NVMe SSD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Please watch these two videos which contrast the aerodynamic behavior of multiple Default aircraft in both sims. This is far more than just ground handling and transition - it's fundamental aerodynamics:

Honestly, that tailwheel video shows the ground handling sucks in XP just as it does in MSFS. At 2:57 in the video, they're landing with a right sideload, which should have pointed the nose to the left when the mains touched down... instead it goes to the right a few seconds later? At 3:13 they're landing with left sideload and the plane does the exact same thing, no friction when the mains touch down and the plane randomly veers to the right a few seconds later. Also, I'm not sure about the Porter, but it's definitely possible to raise the tail of a taildragger with the brakes pegged and full throttle, and it's the short-field takeoff procedure for many smaller planes.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2023 at 12:50 PM, Krakin said:

We have already proven that you have presented no evidence to arrive at such a claim. None of the videos you posted gave any weight to what you're asserting. I don't know for sure just how good 2024 will be but I'm making a guess based on what I've seen and heard. There is nothing in the trailer that anyone can look at to say with certainty that there is much work to be done. None. 

"We", who, kemo sabe?

Just because YOU can't perceive the contrasts doesn't mean they don't exist. It's plain as day in the vids.

I find it hard to believe that you've drunk so much of the Kool-Aid that you vehemently object to even constructive criticism - supported by video evidence, no less!

What we saw is a pre-alpha of software that is 12 months from release. Do you actually believe that Asobo ISN'T going to improve these features between now and then?

LoL - lighten up, man. It's gonna be a GREAT, vastly improved release. But it ain't done cookin' just yet. 🙂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/16/2023 at 7:50 PM, Krakin said:

I don't know for sure just how good 2024 will be but I'm making a guess based on what I've seen and heard. There is nothing in the trailer that anyone can look at to say with certainty that there is much work to be done. None. 

Did you watch the presentation from FSExpo?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Did you watch the presentation from FSExpo?

Of course. As I said, there is nothing in the TRAILER one can point out to deduce that there's a lot of work to be done. The trailer cannot be used to deduce the opposite either. Of course I know there's a lot of work to be done. I don't think Seb, Andre and the rest of the team have finished doing the work needed. Urgent posted a lot of videos that provided no evidence to support his claims. He shouldn't post videos of ships moving through the water when the one in the trailer is stationary and his videos of the helicopters actually proved my point. 

@UrgentSiesta you were right about the stabilizer spinning in the wrong direction tho

Edited by Krakin

5800X3D. 32 GB RAM. 1TB SATA SSD. 3TB HDD. RTX 3070 Ti.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Tom Allensworth,
    Founder of AVSIM Online


  • Flight Simulation's Premier Resource!

    AVSIM is a free service to the flight simulation community. AVSIM is staffed completely by volunteers and all funds donated to AVSIM go directly back to supporting the community. Your donation here helps to pay our bandwidth costs, emergency funding, and other general costs that crop up from time to time. Thank you for your support!

    Click here for more information and to see all donations year to date.
×
×
  • Create New...