I spent a couple of hours flying circuits at the newly released EGNX in the -8 last night using VR.

I was very pleasantly surprised at how well the FBW handled engine out flight, I did a couple of circuits with low go arounds with the left engine shut down and was impressed. The QW flight model literally flew sideways with an engine out.

A couple of niggles I spotted, on hitting TOGA the -8 pitch mode went to VS rather than TOGA, I’m sure in my brief time with the -10 it activated TOGA pitch. During a little cross country flying at 3000 , 230kts I decided to climb up to FL90, hitting FLCH resulted in a full on terrain escape manoeuvre with the pitch initially going all the way up to 20 degrees.

A few things to keep working on but overall this has to be the best recreation of the 787 I’ve seen in flight simulation so far.

Looking through the accurately reproduced HUD out on to the MSFS world at dusk is truly amazing and captures the feel of the real aircraft so well. That combined with the accuracy of the PFD and ND displays really did fool my brain into thinking I was in the real thing while in VR on a couple of occasions.

1 hour ago, jon b said:

I spent a couple of hours flying circuits at the newly released EGNX in the -8 last night using VR.

I was very pleasantly surprised at how well the FBW handled engine out flight, I did a couple of circuits with low go arounds with the left engine shut down and was impressed. The QW flight model literally flew sideways with an engine out.

A couple of niggles I spotted, on hitting TOGA the -8 pitch mode went to VS rather than TOGA, I’m sure in my brief time with the -10 it activated TOGA pitch. During a little cross country flying at 3000 , 230kts I decided to climb up to FL90, hitting FLCH resulted in a full on terrain escape manoeuvre with the pitch initially going all the way up to 20 degrees.

A few things to keep working on but overall this has to be the best recreation of the 787 I’ve seen in flight simulation so far.

Looking through the accurately reproduced HUD out on to the MSFS world at dusk is truly amazing and captures the feel of the real aircraft so well. That combined with the accuracy of the PFD and ND displays really did fool my brain into thinking I was in the real thing while in VR on a couple of occasions.

Well,

the 787 was the main reason I upgraded to Premium Deluxe. 

Seeing reading jon b's positive comments means a LOT to me - know him from quite a good time as a former 744 driver and also Aerowinx simmer 🙂

I particularly emphasize this sentence: "the best recreation of the 787 I’ve seen in flight simulation so far."

And... Thank You for the precious feedback John !!!

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by jcomm

I mean it’s not perfect by any means, waypoints sequence incorrectly, autopilot behaviour is too aggressive at times etc etc, there’s lots that can be improved if you want to start going deeper into the aircraft’s operation, which I’m sure will come .

But putting it into context, what I mean by “the best recreation of a 787 I’ve seen in flight simulation so far” is flying an approach at night in VR the cockpit lighting  PFD,ND and HUD look identical to what you’d see in the real aircraft and it captures the feel perfectly. I can’t think of anything that needs improvement on that visual side of things ( except the FO outboard DU should have the flight information screen , which contains the flight number , transponder info etc outboard of the PFD , here it’s just a replication of the captains display.

Certainly QW had more depth to some of the systems , although I have seen some interesting EICAS messages pop up the MSFS 787 which shows there’s certainly a lot more going off behind the scenes than perhaps first meets the eye.

However this MSFS version just gets the basics, the visual appearance of the instruments and ambience of the flightdeck lighting spot on, and as a base product on which to improve through further development of the systems and FMC it’s a very robust base, and as a freeware/ default aircraft it’s just incredible.

Perhaps this is just my personal preference but I’d rather have it this way round, fool my brain into thinking I’m in a real aircraft with it’s superbly accurate visual representation of the flight deck and instrumentation , and then work around the inaccuracies and limitations of the systems until they improve. Rather that for me than having more accurate and in depth systems only to have the illusion of reality broken by the things you look at most , PFD,ND and HUD being off colour with jerky low refresh rates.

 

1 hour ago, jon b said:

I mean it’s not perfect by any means, waypoints sequence incorrectly, autopilot behaviour is too aggressive at times etc etc, there’s lots that can be improved if you want to start going deeper into the aircraft’s operation, which I’m sure will come .

Jon, 

with all of the even if unwanted bias, caused by the lack of proper force feedback which Boeing, contrarily to Airbus, still recreates in it's control columns, using C*u Law. 

One of the main quirks for me in MFS is that all aircraft, from a simple trike to the An 225, all exhibit a lack of "feel of weight / inertia"...

I believe A2A by running their flight and systems modelling outside of MFS managed to, for the very first time, recreate n sim the feel expected, but I have been playing with the PMDG 737, Fenix A320, FBW A320N, ATR 72, and even took the default 781 for a ride and find them all feeling too light, almost weightless at times, specially when interacting with the overdone turbulence model.

What can you tell us regarding this "feel of flight" when manually handling the 787 Jon ?

P.S.: I believe we're necessarily always biased after having tasted the "almost true to real" feel of the 744 in PS1 and then PSX... It's really difficult not to make it pop out of our memory when playing MFS 2020...

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by jcomm

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

I believe A2A by running their flight and systems modelling outside of MFS managed to, for the very first time, recreate n sim the feel expected, but I have been playing with the PMDG 737, Fenix A320, FBW A320N, ATR 72, and even took the default 781 for a ride and find them all feeling too light, almost weightless at times, specially when interacting with the overdone turbulence model.

Hmm you keep saying the MSFS turbulence is "overdone" yet A2A says otherwise, given that they fully use the MSFS weather and atmospherics data (including turbulence) for their Comanche FM to interact with, and said this: https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=74701

Hello,

We'd recommend the realistic turbulence setting in Microsoft Flight Simulator itself. In the tablet, the default setting was chosen to represent a good balance between realism and user comfort. It can get really bumpy in the real Comanche, so moving the slider slightly right of default may actually be more authentic.

Thanks,
Nick

20 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Hmm you keep saying the MSFS turbulence is "overdone" yet A2A says otherwise, given that they fully use the MSFS weather and atmospherics data (including turbulence) for their Comanche FM to interact with, and said this: https://a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=151&t=74701

Hello,

We'd recommend the realistic turbulence setting in Microsoft Flight Simulator itself. In the tablet, the default setting was chosen to represent a good balance between realism and user comfort. It can get really bumpy in the real Comanche, so moving the slider slightly right of default may actually be more authentic.

Thanks,
Nick

They modulate it, and, above all, they are not sing MFS's FM, which itself deals strangely with turbulence and shear...

18 minutes ago, jcomm said:

They modulate it, and, above all, they are not sing MFS's FM, which itself deals strangely with turbulence and shear...

And you know that how about them "modulating" it? 🙂 (can you point to where they said this?). Also, if they really felt it was too much that it needed modulation, why would they even recommend using the realistic setting? (easier to recommend "medium" setting which is MSFS's default btw, or lower setting, and not do modulation versus recommending realistic and then doing intentional modulation of it isn't it... in fact, they recommend for full realism to set MSFS turbulence on realistic, and to slide their EFB turbulence setting *past* their own default too)

Yes yes we know they are using their own FM, and they are also using MSFS's weather and atmospherics including turbulence.. and your point about MSFS's turbulence model being overdone is completely countered by what A2A says (oh and also by what I see, and others see with the aircraft we fly). Perhaps certain aircraft's FMs you fly are not dealing with MSFS's turbulence properly (and yes it all comes down to each aircraft's FM and not "MSFS's FM"), but this sweeping statement about it being "overdone" is bullocks I'm afraid. Perhaps if one is used to the on-rails FDEs of legacy sims (or legacy sims that didn't even simulate turbulence before) one might feel that way.
 

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by lwt1971

6 hours ago, jon b said:

 

 

the cockpit lighting for kuro 788 v2.1.1 needs a small fix (should be released next), and if you're using the 78x and 748, here are the cockpit lighting mods.  

https://flightsim.to/file/52209/asobo-aircraft-dimmable-vc-flood-light-mod-3-pack

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by kdfw__

24 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

And you know that how about them "modulating" it? 🙂

Modulating: I guess they access data from MFS's weather model, namely the variables that express accelerations in the various axis, due to gusts, shear, updrafts, and (not that much under most circumstances) downdratfs too...

They then compose that data with their FM, which apparently ends up computing resultants that are re-injected in MFS (this is my guess).

If they decided to design their model to go with turbulence set at a given level, I assume REALISTIC, then they will surely recommend that MFS users stay with that setting while flying their aircraft.

In a way their flight model isn't affected, as the core MFS 2020 FM is, buy these accelerations, thus providing a more plausible response of the aircraft to weather.

I personally think that MFS has both a problem with it's core flight dynamics, and I guess ASOBO for some reason decided to go MFS 2024 probably sooner than expected because the amount of fixes, updates or even, maybe full redesign of some areas of the FM would be too expensive to be supported by the continuation of the FS 2020 series with it's AAUs... 

OTOH while I find their innovative view of weather modelling really interesting in some aspects, I also see it being  unrealistic in most areas, including for instance those that are sources of turbulence too IRL.

Time, upcoming AAUs and above all MFS 2024 will tell how they deal with it. 

OTOH their base concept is somehow "revolutionary" and IMO has a lot of potential to become a very good weather engine for the future.

I still have strong hope that MFS 2024 can bring better flight dynamics and overall core systems modelling. ASOBO, among other features, mentioned a more detailed fuselage model, which is great to know.

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by jcomm

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

If they decided to design their model to go with turbulence set at a given level, I assume REALISTIC, then they will surely recommend that MFS users stay with that setting while flying their aircraft.

Well, thanks for explaining the assumptions/guessing you took/did about what A2A is doing, and also your opinion of MSFS's flight dynamics (which you curiously but perhaps unsurprisingly seem insistent on injecting in all threads that speak well of it i.e. helisimmer's recent comparison), but I'll just say this again: If A2A felt that MSFS's turbulence was overdone, then it makes no sense they chose the "realistic" setting of MSFS turbulence to calibrate their FM on, and then also recommend users to dial up the in-aircraft EFB past their own default setting, in order for users to get the most authentic turbulence modelling (in their own words). Regardless of what A2A is telling us (and they sure seem to think MSFS's turbulence is realistic per their own words), a great many of us including me feel that MSFS's turbulence is not overdone, and at times is maybe even toned down a bit... so, agree to disagree I guess.
 

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by lwt1971

9 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

me feel that MSFS's turbulence is not overdone, and at times is maybe even toned down a bit... so, agree to disagree I guess.
 

Almost for sure after they were asked to tune it down after the initial comments from most users scarred by the effects of flying across convection... I miss those effects I experienced in the early versions.

And I also feel that the main problem lays on the core FDM and the way it get's affected by those weather variables.

This being said, as a long time glider pilot and, by force of my day (and sometimes night) job, very familiar with the theme - Meteorology - I have to insist that convection modelling is still in need of dedication, and redesign of some of the effects modelled in MFS to become a serious base for instance in the simulation of Soaring and Soaring Weather...

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by jcomm

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

Almost for sure after they were asked to tune it down after the initial comments from most users scarred by the effects of flying across convection... I miss those effects I experienced in the early versions.

There was a poll done with 848 voters, including many real life pilots in that poll, and 94% in the poll liked the new and more turbulent weather effects: https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/thanks-asobo-this-turbulence-is-absolutely-spot-on/544851/57.  You can see in that poll, 66% voted "like it but would like to see turbulence improved, including interaction with clouds" and 28% voted "Keep turbulence model as it is, I like it." Collectively, 94% liked it.

Only a 6% of voters said they didn't like the new turbulence model.

Because that 6% of users didn't like the new turbulence model, Asobo added a slider to allow people to tone down the turbulence.

I can only assume turbulence is different around the world so perhaps it explains why the turbulence model didn't fit with what everyone preferred. CandianCaptainMoustache (CCM), who streamed on Twitch and was a real life aerial firefighting pilot in Canada, BC, (and CCM is famous because he made the mod for the Twin Otter that Aerosoft asked flightsim.to to take down, which was a huge controversy at the time) said he was disappointed when Asobo originally turned down the turbulence, but liked it when Asobo turned the turbulence back up. I can only assume that CandianCaptainMoustache experiences more turbulence around BC, Canada, where he normally flies, compared to other pilots from different parts of the world.

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by abrams_tank

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

I can only assume that CandianCaptainMoustache experiences more turbulence around BC, Canada, where he normally flies, compared to other pilots from different parts of the world.

For sure, even more being a firefighter... I can imagine...

I once flew my glider in the vicinity of a forest fire and... I still recall the sensation...

Actually in "convective days" we experience it quite dramatically, as well as in mountain flying.

So, turbulence is not strange to me. OTOH I've flown in a few GA aircraft and airliners, and seldom experienced turbulence. But I am well aware of what it can be and do...

My soaring club has some good "signatures" of turbulent encounters - like broken canopies by "skull incursions" 🙂

Edited July 27, 20232 yr by jcomm

22 hours ago, jcomm said:

What can you tell us regarding this "feel of flight" when manually handling the 787 Jon ?

It’s ok, but as always could be better. 
I suspect that better will indeed come with the launch of 2024, as I know like you I found that flying the IL2  simulation does actually feel  incredibly like a real aircraft.

So with their flight model specialist now on board with MSFS… I think that MSFS2024 with its further enhanced visuals and an IL2 grade of flight model will be something truly magical to experience. 

Edited July 28, 20232 yr by jon b