18 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I just want to know I’m not investing money and time in an airliner with a flawed flight model. If the differences are really subtle shades of grey, then I guess flight model is not really a factor in the decision.  

 

The questions you have are completely legit question in my opinion, I have the same questions.  I only want aircraft that fly by the numbers and feel the most realistic.  Unfortunately there are a lot of developers that make planes that claim to be study level but yet have unrealistic performance and bad flight models.  This is true for every flight simulator ever made including FSX, P3D, X-Plane11 and 12 as well as MSFS.

Take Captain Sim for example, for FSX and P3D they made so called "study level" aircraft with all systems modeled but they use generic flight models for them so they fly terribly unrealistically, like their 737, 757 and 767 packages.  Now for MSFS they don't even make the systems anymore, nothing but pure eye candy and nothing else, like so many other MSFS aircraft.

Same goes for Flight Factor that makes 757 and 767 packages for XP11 and XP12 that can cost over $100 and the performance is way off from reality and yet both these developers charge a huge amount of money for their study level junk too.  Funny how on their store product description pages they show a big banner that says "As real as it gets".  If that is as real as it gets than that makes me extremely disappointed in the lack of developers and quality aircraft for all flight simulators that are willing to take the time and effort to make airplanes that fly similar to the real thing when it comes to study level airliners.  Who cares if the systems are all modeled if the airplane doesn't perform like or at least close to the real thing.

When it comes to real study level airliners that have all systems modeled and have real world performance/flight models there's precious few to choose from unfortunately.

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

But if you have real world flying experience why would you use a £50 sim? Go fly for real. And if you are a commercial pilot don't take your work home. It makes me nervous.

Well, to begin, the cost of an hour in a real aircraft is orders of magnitude higher than the cost of an hour on a desktop sim.

Back while I was actively flying, I was also an avid simmer, because although I was out logging real turbine time, I couldn't just go jump into a real 767, 747, or MD-88, etc.  I was lucky enough to fly a pretty wide cross-section of aircraft types in my r/w flying career--sailplanes, single-engine recips, supersonic jets, cargo ops in heavy 4-engine transports and VIP transport in luxury business jets--but even so, I only got my hands on a relative few aircraft types.  And along the way I also formed an appreciation for how many other interesting kinds of flying there are to explore--helicopters, bush flying, aerial firefighting, low-level navigation, cropdusting, aerobatics, vintage combat aircraft, ultralights/LSAs, VLJs etc etc.

So "go fly for real" won't even touch but a tiny slice of the vast spectrum of flying machines and flying activities--but simming can and does.  And as sd_flyer opined above, I agree that the best "realism" for me in a desktop sim is attained when I'm re-creating the kind of flying that I did in real life, as I can fill in the gaps with detail drawn from the memories of already having done something like that.  And for those flying activities I didn't have the opportunity to experience for real, the sim is the only way I'll ever get *any* idea of what that kind of flying might be like. 

I'm also fascinated by modern avionics--I think they're way cool, and I truly enjoy getting my hands on any good approximation of them on one of the sim platforms.  Whether it's mastering a Garmin GTN750 on an LPV approach, or programming the MCDU on a Scarebus, it's all very interesting stuff, and the variety of systems is so far-ranging as to make it impossible to touch on anything but a small percentage of them in real-world flying.

 

This thread has gone off the rails… it’s spiralled into “a sim cannot possibly be realistic” implying that any discussion of realistic flight models is a waste of time.

While a home sim may be far from realistic, it doesn’t mean we have to accept aircraft that have poorly implemented flight models. You can tell the difference between the flight model of many GA planes, right? In fact, If I asked about what GA aircraft has the best flight model, there would be a few great examples shared like the Kodiak, Comanche, even the 152. But you probably wouldn’t see the Caravan on that list. Certainly, you would not see the discussion devolve into one claiming that sims are so unrealistic it’s pointless to consider flight model when choosing an aircraft or that you’d never be able to tell a good flight model from a bad one. 

Yet here we are. I guess there’s just nothing to discuss when it comes to airliner flight models… As long as the systems are accurately modelled and it appears to fly, then it’s all good. 😝 

Back to your debate about sim realism…

57 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

This thread has gone off the rails… it’s spiralled into “a sim cannot possibly be realistic” implying that any discussion of realistic flight models is a waste of time.

While a home sim may be far from realistic, it doesn’t mean we have to accept aircraft that have poorly implemented flight models. You can tell the difference between the flight model of many GA planes, right? In fact, If I asked about what GA aircraft has the best flight model, there would be a few great examples shared like the Kodiak, Comanche, even the 152. But you probably wouldn’t see the Caravan on that list. Certainly, you would not see the discussion devolve into one claiming that sims are so unrealistic it’s pointless to consider flight model when choosing an aircraft or that you’d never be able to tell a good flight model from a bad one. 

Yet here we are. I guess there’s just nothing to discuss when it comes to airliner flight models… As long as the systems are accurately modelled and it appears to fly, then it’s all good. 😝 

Back to your debate about sim realism…

Generally, I think that currently, the relative few MSFS airliner add-ons that have reasonably good systems modelling also tend to have reasonable flight physics modelling.  That would be the PMDG 737s, the Fenix and FBW Scarebusses, the Leonardo Maddog, the iniBuilds A310, and the WT 787/747.  Once upon a time in a sim far, far away, I used to do extensive flight testing of add-ons against r/w data--time-to-climb trials, unreliable airspeed power setting profiles, fuel burn profiles etc.  I even re-wrote the FDE for a few add-ons that I particularly liked to get the physics more in line with real-world data.  That's the most definitive means I know of to validate major aspects of the flight physics modelling, but I haven't seen anyone doing that sort of third-party testing in quite a while.  There are also other considerations that are more difficult to measure, e.g. moments of inertia and related stability, control effectiveness across the airspeed envelope (especially roll/yaw behavior at high AoA in swept-wing aircraft).  I don't think any of them demonstrate the fidelity that would qualify them as an FAA-certified ATD, but most of them are close enough to be a reasonable approximation for our purposes.

I believe that "realism" at least as the term applies specifically to the flight model--which boils down to physics--is measurable, and evaluating it should be based on those metrics.  Any discussion that lacks data is just a comparison of subjective assessments, and will reflect the experience levels and the biases of the evaluators, and that's what makes a lot of these discussions devolve into something of a scatter plot, with opinions all over the map.  Hard data is hard to come by...

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

But if you have real world flying experience why would you use a £50 sim? Go fly for real. And if you are a commercial pilot don't take your work home. It makes me nervous.

I'd say  when a simmer asks such  question it should  make you more  nervous LOL

Back in my "private" years I had a buddy who I flown with a lot for fun and shared expanses on renter airplanes. Once we met his coworker who asked "why do you fly? it's not your job"? My buddy replied -  "because I can" 🙂

7 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

 Once upon a time in a sim far, far away, I used to do extensive flight testing of add-ons against r/w data--time-to-climb trials, unreliable airspeed power setting profiles, fuel burn profiles etc.  I even re-wrote the FDE for a few add-ons that I particularly liked to get the physics more in line with real-world data.  That's the most definitive means I know of to validate major aspects of the flight physics modelling, but I haven't seen anyone doing that sort of third-party testing in quite a while.  There are also other considerations that are more difficult to measure, e.g. moments of inertia and related stability, control effectiveness across the airspeed envelope (especially roll/yaw behavior at high AoA in swept-wing aircraft).  I don't think any of them demonstrate the fidelity that would qualify them as an FAA-certified ATD, but most of them are close enough to be a reasonable approximation for our purposes.

I believe that "realism" at least as the term applies specifically to the flight model--which boils down to physics--is measurable, and evaluating it should be based on those metrics.  Any discussion that lacks data is just a comparison of subjective assessments, and will reflect the experience levels and the biases of the evaluators, and that's what makes a lot of these discussions devolve into something of a scatter plot, with opinions all over the map.  Hard data is hard to come by...

Bravo! couldn't have said it better myself!

16 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

The real answer is, none.  Operating consumer or prosumer grade controls attached to a desktop computer is simply never going to feel like actually flying an airplane.  That's just reality.

If you've never flown the type of aircraft being simulated, you'll never know any better and so it's irrelevant.  For instance, I enjoy the Hornet flight model in DCS very much.  It feels something like a 40,000lb jet to me, but while I've flown a few of those in the bizjet world, I've never flown a Hornet.  So while former hornet pilots are critical of the FM, it makes me happy.

I do fly 737s.  How does the PMDG FM compare?  I guess about as well as it can on a desktop computer.  Does it feel like flying a 737?  Of course not.  Is it good enough to sometimes remind me of how the real airplane would feel?  Yes.  That, coupled with the immersion of highly accurate systems and autoflight behavior, in a spectacularly modeled 3d world, maybe with Vatsim, achieves a suspension of disbelief that is pretty enjoyable.

But c'mon... "flying" a computer in your desk chair is never, ever going to feel like flying the real airplane.  I'd say all you can ever hope for in the sim world is "close enough to be enjoyable", and I'm guessing all the big name devs deliver a product in that realm.

So my advice is to focus a little less on hyperrealism which simply isn't achievable, and instead pick the airplane that interests you most.  That way you'll at least be learning something that interests you.

If you want to learn how to actually fly a plane, invest the money in a discovery flight and start taking lessons.  It's the only real option.

You are, overall, correct. However, your perspective as an experienced IRL commercial pilot is unavoidably biased.

Essentially, you're like a Super Bowl NFL veteran lecturing the Middle School team about "real football".

Honestly, it's comes off as rather condescending...

So, the original question concerned "most realistic", not which are "true to life simulations".

My IRL experience is limited to bug smashers, but it is EXACTLY that experience that drives me to choose only addons that have real-istic flight models.

It's the primary reason that I no longer fly the JustFlight Pipers (though I earned my IRL wings on the Warrior), and now exclusively fly the A2A Comanche for GA (and had in P3D, as well).

Very similarly with the F-14 for MSFS vs the HeatBlur Tomcat.

And though the "...airplane that interests me most..." in MSFS is the Pilatus PC-21, it gets virtually no time from me. Because the level of realism vs the alternative High Fidelity addons is quite low.

It's not because we're deluded that any addons are "As Good As IRL...", it's because we're seeking "As Good As It Gets..." for desktop simming.

Edited August 27, 20232 yr by UrgentSiesta

3 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

This thread has gone off the rails… it’s spiralled into “a sim cannot possibly be realistic” implying that any discussion of realistic flight models is a waste of time.

Chris, I was the one who wrote a sim cannot be realistic, but it wasn't an effort to shut down the discussion; it was to suggest that RL pilots might misjudge a plane that flies by the numbers as being wrong because of the differences inherent to simming.

A real World pilot who is asked if the Fenix flies right isn't going to pull out book numbers; They're not going to check to see if (and I am making up numbers) it decelerates at 2.9 knots/sec on max brake, or if the roll rate is 8 degrees a second at full deflection at 50 tonnes, or if the flare mode pitches at the proper rate at different snapshot attitudes. They'll just say "It feels really nice."

So what I was trying to say was that RW pilots might not be as valuable as someone who provides accurate numbers and how the sim aircraft in question meets those numbers, which I think is what you're really asking for. Sorry if that seems off the rails, but it seemed like a fair opinion to throw into the pot. I also shot a reply a few pages back with the most realistic airliners for MSFS. Happy flying!

 

Edited August 27, 20232 yr by WestAir

Go take your car or motorcycle for a ride on a country road with hills and curves. Then tell me if you think a car or bike simulator would be able to duplicate that experience. It may 'hit the numbers' by hitting similar speeds vs throttle and so on, but it will not be the same as the actually driving. The feeling of the acceleration, the wind, the sense of the vehicle's handling going around curves.

You could drive 2 different makes of cars that have nearly identical power and acceleration and one may seem to handle great to you while the other just doesn't feel right. You can't simulate that on a computer screen.

Much of what people 'think' is an FS plane's accurate flight model is actually their imagination as they/we make believe we are flying a real airplane. The simulator suggests we are flying and our imagination fills in the rest. Any 'feel' of the plane is illusion as a computer screen can't relay that information. That is OK because that is exactly what the 'simulator' is... a simulator. Of course, the plane has to be somewhat reasonable in it's performance to sell the illusion.

I don’t think the question is invalid nor is the desire for a well modeled plane in both physics and systems. What I hate to see, though, is someone whose enjoyment of the flight sim is somehow diminished by the fact that a flight model may not be the absolute most accurate experience possible. 

Personally, as many bugs and inaccuracies as there are with the Aerosoft CRJ (both systems and flight model), it was still good enough to help me through some of the places with which I was struggling transitioning into the real thing.

I will say that there is a ton of validity to the argument that consumer hardware makes subtleties in flight models somewhat less impactful. Never in my dreams would I have imagined the force required to move control surfaces at flying speeds. The relative ease with which you can move the average home yoke or stick allows you to throw around a plane in the sim in a way that you would never do in real life…or maybe you can with the fly by wire in an Airbus. Maybe I’ll find out some day in the next couple of years. 😁

I think a distinction can be made between "accurate" and "realistic" in a sim flight model, and maybe that's where the disagreement lies.  

You can have sim flight models that are more accurate than others.  An aircraft in the sim that bleeds energy at the same rate as the real thing, under similar power and load factor, for instance, has an accurate drag model.

But that's not really the same as "realistic".  To me, that means it feels something like flying the actual airplane, which a desktop sim isn't really going to do.  Again, can it get close enough to feel familiar, to achieve that suspension of disbelief that provides some of the enjoyment of actually flying? Absolutely.  The PMDG does achieve this and I'd assume most other reputable devs do to.

My point was just that there's no need to focus on every single aspect of a sim flight model and whether or not they're all perfect, because you'll never find one that is.  Focusing too intently on it therefore runs the risk of spoiling what enjoyment you could otherwise get from a sim aircraft.

I also really enjoy the A2A Commanche, as I find it to feel more like an airplane than most anything else I've tried in the sim.  It's been years since I flew a Commanche but I'm going to assume, given A2A's attention to detail, that it has a pretty "accurate" flight model as well.  But .. that doesn't mean it actually feels the same as flying.  You're not going to learn to land a real airplane with it, for instance.  It can help someone understand HOW to land, but the doing is a different thing.

Hope that makes sense.  There is one other thing to consider, when talking about airline flight models in the sim: airline flying is the simplest stick and rudder flying in existence.  This is by design.  I should clarify, because people tend to get upset when I say this, that I'm only talking about the act of actually driving the airplane.  Actually *operating* an airliner safely is not simple at all.  But the act of putting your hands and feet on the controls and making it go where you want - simplest flying around.  Nothing but standard rate turns and gentle climbs and descents.  

This - to me - would be another reason why it's not worth obsessing too much about airliner flight models in the sim.  It's a case of "close enough really probably is close enough" since you're not going to be doing any complicated maneuvering flight.  No one's doing rolling circles in an Airbus.  😉

None of this is meant to be condescending; the intent is to be helpful in enjoying what we have in the sim world these days.  Over-obsession on exact by-the-numbers accuracy because a person thinks that with it, they're feeling what it is to really fly the airplane... Well, that has potential to ruin the enjoyment a bit, since it won't ever really be true either way. 

I still think, when it comes to choosing an airliner in the sim, you're better off choosing a plane that you LIKE, that you're interested in.  If one doesn't jump out at ya that way... I would say, why bother with airliners at all then?

1 hour ago, WestAir said:

A real World pilot who is asked if the Fenix flies right isn't going to pull out book numbers; They're not going to check to see if (and I am making up numbers) it decelerates at 2.9 knots/sec on max brake, or if the roll rate is 8 degrees a second at full deflection at 50 tonnes, or if the flare mode pitches at the proper rate at different snapshot attitudes. They'll just say "It feels really nice."

 

 

One definitely does....

14 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

It can help someone understand HOW to land, but the doing is a different thing.

I think this is quite well said and makes a great deal of sense. There is a continuum between understanding something abstractly and its actual practice. To really understand something you need to transverse that continuum over and over again.  Spend too long at that abstract, generalized level or too long in the practical, doing level and your understanding will be superficial. So, yea, discerning between accurate and realistic is helpful. I think I have learned a great deal about so many aspects of aviation and I really enjoy that. And I enjoy pretending to work through the process of carrying out a flight mission successfully, from planning to execution. But I have never once thought that my experience on my desktop computer -- sitting in my comfy office chair, in my HVAC controlled office, with a nice cup of coffee -- is anything like reality or realistic, in fact it is pretty far from realistic.

27 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

I will say that there is a ton of validity to the argument that consumer hardware makes subtleties in flight models somewhat less impactful. Never in my dreams would I have imagined the force required to move control surfaces at flying speeds. The relative ease with which you can move the average home yoke or stick allows you to throw around a plane in the sim in a way that you would never do in real life…or maybe you can with the fly by wire in an Airbus. Maybe I’ll find out some day in the next couple of years. 

This is spot on. There are so many different combinations of hardware around and everyone more or less has different sensitivity or reactivity settings it's only logical the same flight model will feel at least somewhat different to everyone. Speaking of sensitivity - that's where the trouble begins since a real airplane's flight controls are linear, and NOT a curve, so that one parameter alone will skew things.

I got myself a gift a few years back and bought a full replica 737 standing yoke. I never imagined it would require the force it does to move it, especially full deflection. That's a completely different feeling flying in the sim compared to everything I had before, regardless of using the same plane with the same flight model. That alone makes a huge difference.

As for the Airbus, what I do know is that the sidestick in the real plane is way stiffer than the vast majority of consumer hardware joysticks, including my VKB. I think the Warthog comes close, but most joysticks would give you the wrong impression, even for a FBW aircraft.

2 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I think a distinction can be made between "accurate" and "realistic" in a sim flight model, and maybe that's where the disagreement lies.  

You can have sim flight models that are more accurate than others.  An aircraft in the sim that bleeds energy at the same rate as the real thing, under similar power and load factor, for instance, has an accurate drag model.

But that's not really the same as "realistic".  To me, that means it feels something like flying the actual airplane, which a desktop sim isn't really going to do.  Again, can it get close enough to feel familiar, to achieve that suspension of disbelief that provides some of the enjoyment of actually flying? Absolutely.  The PMDG does achieve this and I'd assume most other reputable devs do to.

My point was just that there's no need to focus on every single aspect of a sim flight model and whether or not they're all perfect, because you'll never find one that is.  Focusing too intently on it therefore runs the risk of spoiling what enjoyment you could otherwise get from a sim aircraft.

I also really enjoy the A2A Commanche, as I find it to feel more like an airplane than most anything else I've tried in the sim.  It's been years since I flew a Commanche but I'm going to assume, given A2A's attention to detail, that it has a pretty "accurate" flight model as well.  But .. that doesn't mean it actually feels the same as flying.  You're not going to learn to land a real airplane with it, for instance.  It can help someone understand HOW to land, but the doing is a different thing.

Hope that makes sense.  There is one other thing to consider, when talking about airline flight models in the sim: airline flying is the simplest stick and rudder flying in existence.  This is by design.  I should clarify, because people tend to get upset when I say this, that I'm only talking about the act of actually driving the airplane.  Actually *operating* an airliner safely is not simple at all.  But the act of putting your hands and feet on the controls and making it go where you want - simplest flying around.  Nothing but standard rate turns and gentle climbs and descents.  

This - to me - would be another reason why it's not worth obsessing too much about airliner flight models in the sim.  It's a case of "close enough really probably is close enough" since you're not going to be doing any complicated maneuvering flight.  No one's doing rolling circles in an Airbus.  😉

None of this is meant to be condescending; the intent is to be helpful in enjoying what we have in the sim world these days.  Over-obsession on exact by-the-numbers accuracy because a person thinks that with it, they're feeling what it is to really fly the airplane... Well, that has potential to ruin the enjoyment a bit, since it won't ever really be true either way. 

I still think, when it comes to choosing an airliner in the sim, you're better off choosing a plane that you LIKE, that you're interested in.  If one doesn't jump out at ya that way... I would say, why bother with airliners at all then?

Well said, sir, and agreed.