Accusim 2 level of flight dynamics in MSFS 2024?

[JBDB-MD80 1,487]

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

 

I'm still waiting for the developer capable of pulling a similar stunt with an airliner.

How many years or a decade do you want to wait for that, at least on a A2A simulation level? As far as I know no real world A320 or 737 pilot owns the aircraft they fly and are capable of replicating in the same sense  with coding and be as accurate.

Edit my post but put it out there A2A basicly took a dump on every other developer out there who thinks they can actually replicate the same thing same close to the RW counterpart as possible in a flight sim and they did not use any assets from MSFS on systems or flight model either and made it work. Other developers out there take notice.

Edited July 20, 2023 by JBDB-MD80

[Lucky38i 1,107]

57 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

Also, i never ever, EVER said they only cater for the casual flyers, they just prioritize them

Weird. I guess the Sim Updates and AAUs were all about catering to casual flyers. Or how the World updates provide landmarks and more recognizable ground terrain that is pretty much a requirement to VFR flight, that's also for casual flyers too I'm guessing? Wait a minute, isn't the Comanche.. a primarily VFR GA aircraft?

1 hour ago, leprechaunlive said:

devellopers of hardcore addons tend to loose way more hair than us

I can guarantee you that's the case in any sim. Xplane, P3D, DCS etc. This stuff isn't easy and just because developer program something to spec, doesn't mean it always works out that way. It's months of trial and error to produce a result that's consistent with references on-hand and with advice from pilots. I'm not really sure where you were going there.

58 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

But answering the question, is 2024 gonna have an A2A like FM, the answer is still NOPE.

Have you by chance been able to test FS2024 before the public? Can you tell more about it's feature set and what we can expect? We're all really eager for waiting on more details as Asobo hasn't given us much.

[Lucky38i 1,107]

29 minutes ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

and they did not use any assets from MSFS on systems or flight model either and made it work.

 

Might want to double check that statement. They externalised the flight model. However there is still a lot of other things running natively in-sim

[JBDB-MD80 1,487]

5 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

 

Might want to double check that statement. They externalised the flight model. However there is still a lot of other things running natively in-sim

Model check

Weather check

a basic cfg file for the aircraft check

everything else is runs outside of MSFS  systems and flight model etc in slew mode basicly the same thing they did in FSX/P3D. Its called Accusim for a reason.

Edited July 20, 2023 by JBDB-MD80

[Lucky38i 1,107]

Just now, JBDB-MD80 said:

Model check

Weather check

a basic cfg file for the aircraft check

everything else is runs outside of MSFS  systems and flight model etc in slew mode.

Firstly, the external FM doesn't slew the aircraft. This is problematic and you can recognise this with aircraft like PSWINX as both MSFS and PSWINX FM are fighting each other and dealing with simconnect latency. Give it a try (if you own it) and watch the aircraft during a takeoff. Accusim's approach, which is used by a number of devs, is to apply speed and accelerations accross various the XYZ components to provide a more natural effect.

However, I'll correct myself, Accusim 2.0 externalises the engine, sound and flight modelling.

The rest rest resides within MSFS through WASM modules and the good ole HTML for the tablet. Weird that you say the CFGs are basic, they're not. For example, You can observe the different bus switches that it's using and which circuits thoses buses are connected to that are natively used by MSFS.

[JBDB-MD80 1,487]

23 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Firstly, the external FM doesn't slew the aircraft. This is problematic and you can recognise this with aircraft like PSWINX as both MSFS and PSWINX FM are fighting each other and dealing with simconnect latency. Give it a try (if you own it) and watch the aircraft during a takeoff. Accusim's approach, which is used by a number of devs, is to apply speed and accelerations accross various the XYZ components to provide a more natural effect.

However, I'll correct myself, Accusim 2.0 externalises the engine, sound and flight modelling.

The rest rest resides within MSFS through WASM modules and the good ole HTML for the tablet. Weird that you say the CFGs are basic, they're not. For example, You can observe the different bus switches that it's using and which circuits thoses buses are connected to that are natively used by MSFS.

Sorry but what part I don't understand that MSFS has the read the info because its the sim its is feeding to (aircraft.cfg), I actually stated that the systems are done on a on a outside source and nothing to do within the core of the sim. Am I missing something here MSFS is the visuals and not the actual simulation source.? A2A can probably confirm this better.

Edited July 20, 2023 by JBDB-MD80

[Krakin 5,850]

9 hours ago, leprechaunlive said:

But answering the question, is 2024 gonna have an A2A like FM, the answer is still NOPE.

Talk about low effort...

[leprechaunlive 1,861]

9 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

Weird. I guess the Sim Updates and AAUs were all about catering to casual flyers. Or how the World updates provide landmarks and more recognizable ground terrain that is pretty much a requirement to VFR flight, that's also for casual flyers too I'm guessing? Wait a minute, isn't the Comanche.. a primarily VFR GA aircraft?

Again, not what i said, but be my guest and extrapolate. 

 

9 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

I can guarantee you that's the case in any sim. Xplane, P3D, DCS etc. This stuff isn't easy and just because developer program something to spec, doesn't mean it always works out that way. It's months of trial and error to produce a result that's consistent with references on-hand and with advice from pilots. I'm not really sure where you were going there.

True, and to my point exactly, some development tools and mechanics are still lacking behing a lot, to be able to "easily" and natively devellop very high and detailed simulation. I know a good few devs that are ranting day and night about it behind closed doors.

 

9 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

 

Have you by chance been able to test FS2024 before the public? Can you tell more about it's feature set and what we can expect? We're all really eager for waiting on more details as Asobo hasn't given us much.

 Then why engage in a topic called "Accusim v2 FM in MSFS2024" AT ALL then if thats the requirements needed to say something. 

[leprechaunlive 1,861]

10 hours ago, Krakin said:

Well that explains a lot.......

wich is what exactly?

[leprechaunlive 1,861]

8 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

Sorry but what part I don't understand that MSFS has the read the info because its the sim its is feeding to (aircraft.cfg), I actually stated that the systems are done on a on a outside source and nothing to do within the core of the sim. Am I missing something here MSFS is the visuals and not the actual simulation source.? A2A can probably confirm this better.

One could argue everything is actually handled by MSFS, its just that A2A feeds it infos and datas externally, rather than having MSFS doing the calculations itself. But its basically a mix of native and external "simulations".

[abrams_tank 7,474]

Best is to reference Scott from A2A on what A2A did to achieve their flight model:

Quote

Hi Len,

Our flight model aerodynamics are 100% outside MSFS including wind physics (we read the weather conditions reported by the simulator). This is why the airplane feels different as it flies through the air. We started developing this system three years ago, and this has been a dream of ours for some time so I hope everyone enjoys it.  It should feel very fluid and natural.

Scott

 

[ErichB 3,651]

11 hours ago, leprechaunlive said:

So im not saying at all its a problem, i actually think its pretty great. But answering the question, is 2024 gonna have an A2A like FM, the answer is still NOPE.

I am obviously not a developer, but  yes I would agree with that.  And that would be a logical conclusion in the main.  But no base sim does that.

 

[Aamir 2,907]

This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. 

A2A had to go external in places to build it to their standards, which is understandable, because they're brilliant and build a brilliant product. What I don't get is people taking that and spinning it into "Asobo sucks!", yeesh. We had to go external on our engines and a portion of our flight model too, in this next update. It doesn't mean Asobo sucks. It means we, as developers, have specific needs and requirements from our product that we want to see - and that we can go build it ourselves. I don't think anyone railing on Asobo understands what a monumental task it is to have an FDE that is just bang on perfect for every single type of aircraft out there - including helicopters, gliders, etc, out of the box by default, and globalised. Insanity. 

p.s if anyone manages to do the above, perfect globalised modelling, and it's capable of running on anything less than a super-computer in real time, you're probably sat on a few billion dollars in training contracts - forget the piddly consumer market 🙂

Edited July 21, 2023 by Aamir

[jarmstro 2,405]

16 minutes ago, Aamir said:

This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. 

A2A had to go external in places to build it to their standards, which is understandable, because they're brilliant and build a brilliant product. What I don't get is people taking that and spinning it into "Asobo sucks!", yeesh. We had to go external on our engines and a portion of our flight model too, in this next update. It doesn't mean Asobo sucks. It means we, as developers, have specific needs and requirements from our product that we want to see - and that we can go build it ourselves. I don't think anyone railing on Asobo understands what a monumental task it is to have an FDE that is just bang on perfect for every single type of aircraft out there - including helicopters, gliders, etc, out of the box by default, and globalised. Insanity. 

p.s if anyone manages to do the above, perfect globalised modelling, and it's capable of running on anything less than a super-computer in real time, you're probably sat on a few billion dollars in training contracts - forget the piddly consumer market 🙂

The whole argument is essentially driven by the X-Plane users claim that their universal flight model is perfection itself. I doubt it personally.

[Bobsk8 12,863]

6 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

The whole argument is essentially driven by the X-Plane users claim that their universal flight model is perfection itself. I doubt it personally.

And I have always thought that statement was a bunch of BS. I have hundreds of hours in SEL aircraft, and I have never flown anything in XP that felt like a real aircraft.