737NG tries XP12 :-)

[mjrhealth 820]

Xplane used to have a long known issue that was finally resolved in 11. The downwash from the wing would pass through the ground instead of bouncing up delayed off the deck, which caused lots of heavy landings. So that is no longer in an issue in 12.

[Rimshot 1,143]

17 hours ago, blingthinger said:

contrary to your mumbling

And then:

3 hours ago, blingthinger said:

your batch of windbagging condescension

Wow, is it really that hard to cope with another persons opinion without these type of remarks? Talk about condescending...

Edited July 18, 2023 by Rimshot

[SAS443 1,727]

9 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Mmm, I'm not the one who tried earlier to lump a low wing into the same handling category as a high wing, trying to pass it of as if they all behave the same. That was you.

You think that is a controversial statement?

Two of the worlds most common basic trainers (PA28 Warrior vs C172), with similar engines and weights should not feel similar to the pilot? Oh my...I'm pretty sure switching car from Kia to Peugeot can be more "confusing" than PA28 to C172.

Read this opinion, ("I did all my training in low wing planes --Archers, and Cherokees.. I now fly a 172SP quite a bit and the transition was a non event")

or this opinion  ("Both fly basically the same, although the warrior is slightly more stable")
or this opinion ("I have several hundred hours in each, and as far as I'm concerned, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.")

or this opinion ("I'd take the C172 any day over the Warrior and I've flown and instructed in both plenty. Why? They're basically the same thing except the C172 has soul.") - whatever that means....

or this opinion  ("I dont care anymore which aircraft I fly - the Cherokee and the 172 are so very very similar, but the choice on the day should be dictated by the requirements of the flight, and the availability on the field")

But somehow to you my statement is completely illogical and I sort of made it up on the go? 

If you want difference. try idling the DA40TDI/NG at 50ft. That's a plane that will sink, agressive flap angle and a constant speed prop that gives you nothing but drag at near zero load.
Totally different than your Warrior or Skyhawk over the fence

Yes, I do not share 737NG views on how the noseheavy default C172 is as you come over the numbers reducing power. My opinion is it requires very little pressure initially to keep it stable  (especially since he never touches down below 53 knots, elevator is still effective) compared to the actual flare where you sometimes have the yoke in your guts and  a speed reading of at least 10KTS slower.  

(tease, just for Blingthinger)

This concludes my engagement in this matter. It's a treat - as always. 
 

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by SAS443

[Pe11e 812]

Sorry for interrupting the (as usual, heated) discussion, but A2A released the Comanche for MSFS today, and I hear the mermaid singing, again. How to resist? To put a noise canceling headset?

Sorry for offtopic, if it is at all. I know that A2A is using their custom physics engine, running external, as well as sound engine. It seems that is the only way to get the physics right in MSFS

Edited July 18, 2023 by Pe11e

[jcomm 5,939]

26 minutes ago, Pe11e said:

I know that A2A is using their custom physics engine, running external, as well as sound engine. It seems that is the only way to get the physics right in MSFS

Exactly, and benefit from MFS's scenery & functionality, or, use XP12 with stock XP12 aircraft and some of it's many excellent addons, some freeware, and have core flight dynamics that don't need external FM to outsource physics modelling ...

Edited July 18, 2023 by jcomm

[blingthinger 649]

10 hours ago, SAS443 said:

You think that is a controversial statement?

Controversial? No. But tossing it out there by itself without your above links to justify the comparison was certainly not flattering to your internet street cred point total (which is highly important in your neck of the woods). Comparing a low to high wing to justify flight dynamics of one or the other is rather silly regardless.

 

10 hours ago, SAS443 said:

where you sometimes have the yoke in your guts

That's what I figured. IRL yoke moves significantly more than what 2020 portrays at touchdown, especially given the speed at which the main gear squeaks. What might cause this? Weight/balance modeling is off? Elevator effectiveness is off? Pitching moments aren't modeled quite correctly? At least all of the above? Yup. All of the above are modeled in XP more correctly than in 2020? Yup. Yoke movement is but one of the indicators.

Your magnanimous benevolence is (finally) much appreciated.

[blingthinger 649]

18 hours ago, jcomm said:

737 NG's latest video on the Zibo 738

I was particularly intrigued with his statement about flap pitching moments. If Zibo is using the default FM, I'm not totally surprised. I'm pretty sure default XP doesn't have quite as much flexibility in the flap modeling as what Asobo permits.

If Zibo's injecting his own FM additions like PMDG does, he should be able to fix it, including the 1-2 degrees of shallow pitch angle at flaps 30. I wonder how many pixels of the AH that took up on his screen! Such eagle eyes ;)

I was also amused with his complaint about the nose-down moment at 40ft. In comments, Flightdeck2sim claims it's where XP's ground effect model kicks in. I've never really noticed it but that might be my joystick talking.

 

18 hours ago, jcomm said:

Might the difference be in the propwash?

Propwash on the C172 horiz stab keeping the nose afloat in 2020? An interesting idea. Didn't he also say that the roll inputs required in XP to counter p-factor felt more realistic? 2020's 172 supposedly has all the latest FM bells and whistles (per urgentsiesta earlier) including the improved propwash.

[SAS443 1,727]

8 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Controversial? No. But tossing it out there by itself without your above links to justify the comparison was certainly not flattering to your internet street cred point total (which is highly important in your neck of the woods).

I think I can afford to lose some points. Especially if it's only in your eyes. 🤡

Now go fetch that sparklingly rainbow experience the C172 delivers (that apparently the PA28 can't)

 

[blingthinger 649]

11 hours ago, SAS443 said:

(that apparently the PA28 can't)

I'm not saying that it can't or doesn't (now that you've finally dropped some substantiation), now did I? No, didn't think so. I simply said your direct comparison of low vs high wing without any backup was silly.

Current count is still 2.5 folks comparing IRL experience to say XP is generally correct (snglecoil saying it's possible) vs your opinion that it isn't. The significant miss in yoke movement in 2020 doesn't curry any favor there either.

So, thou who hast regular airframe access, let us know when you've got more stable camera rolls that include the windscreen view and instrumentation panel. Save us from our ignorance. The more touch and gos, the better.

Edited July 19, 2023 by blingthinger

[snglecoil 1,828]

Just to clarify, I’m not agreeing nor disagreeing with either of you. I just said that there could be a plausible explanation as to why you both are seeing things differently.

Constructive discussion is always welcome, but micro-analysis of a sim’s entire underlying flight model based of one guy’s YouTube video is futile…at best. (But it does make for some entertaining reading 😁) 

[blingthinger 649]

This is more than just one guy's video. The behaviors are actually fairly distinct between the sims. Mr youtube ATP seems quite excited that XP behaves the way it does after shooting more than just a couple approaches. I'm excited as well, when comparing to quite a few IRL landings of my own, but we all know my opinion is worth a hill of beans in this scenario.

Now, if one of you folks could generate some flight test data that we could look at....

EDIT: ha!!... should be 2.5 for the drop and 1.5 against....tell me I'm biased without telling me I'm biased...

Edited July 20, 2023 by blingthinger

[Aglos77 170]

On 18/7/2023 at 19:35, Pe11e said:

Perdón por interrumpir la (como siempre, acalorada) discusión, pero A2A lanzó el Comanche para MSFS hoy, y escucho a la sirena cantar nuevamente. ¿Cómo resistir? ¿Poner unos auriculares con cancelación de ruido?

Lo siento por fuera de tema, si es que lo es. Sé que A2A está utilizando su motor de física personalizado, que se ejecuta de forma externa, así como un motor de sonido. Parece que esa es la única forma de obtener la física correcta en MSFS

Torquesim sr20/22

[Pe11e 812]

29 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

Torquesim sr20/22

Not a fan of SR20/22 to be honest. 

[jarmstro 2,405]

He's got a new vid out. Ive bought this plane and to me it reminds me of how nice planes fly in XP. Seems as though that you can now indeed have the best of both worlds. It's down to the developer and the effort they are prepared to put in.

 

 

Edited July 20, 2023 by jarmstro

[oldflyguy70 41]

I agree with @jarmstro.  Everything important - flight model, systems - is built "outside" of Asobo (my limited understanding of modeling prevents a better description 😁). And it shows.  None of the payware I've purchased so far - except for PMDG (and that's a different animal) comes close to this.  To the point I don't really enjoy "flying" them.