4 hours ago, Virtual-Chris said:

I get the point you’re trying to make. And agree, if the flight models are all at 98% we’re truly into diminishing returns and no one should be complaining.

My question in the OP was merely which airliner is the most realistic of the lot.  I gather you feel there’s not enough difference among them to be a factor?

Ps.  why can’t MSFS also strive to have the best flight modelling on top of its great graphics? 

 

If MSFS had "98%" correct flight/physics model, they wouldn't have touched it since launch instead of constantly tuning and outright updates (like NPS, then CFD, then SBS).

If it were 98% today, FM/physics wouldn't be such a huge focus for v2024.

"The Other Sim" also got / is still getting substantial FM/physics updates in the recent new version.

And there are plenty of anecdotes across multiple sims of how certain developers go the extra mile for FM accuracy (or NOT 😉 ), and they all kinda go about it in their own ways (some even have multiple methods depending on the add-on!).

E.g., even still the new fm/physics wasn't enough for A2A or FlyInside, who decided to to build their own External Flight Model / physics engines.

Devs like SWS & Just Flight do what they can with the traditional FM.

iniBuilds, FSW, Flying Iron and Asobo themselves make use of NPS/CFD/SBS to varying degrees.

MilViz is re-launching their Advanced add-on lineup with the pending release of the T-6A Texan II (in P3D, "Advanced" indicated an external flight model, among others). They haven't yet shared which route they're taking on this one, though...

All of which means your OP was entirely legitimate and understandable.

At the end of the day, you take all the feedback in and still end up having to make a judgement call in order to get what you want out of whatever sim/addon you might want to fly.

Like I'm never gonna go all-in on the iB A310 even though it has CFD simply because I prefer Boeing airliners, and PMDG have done a good job with their FM despite not using CFD (not to mention that the AAUs have improved the Default Boeings as well).

OTOH, I'll probably never bother with another Piston Engine Single now that A2A's Comanche is out. Well, at least until they release their P-51 😉 

All things being equal, a great FM will always tip the balance for me. But...it never seems to be that simple, does it? 😉 

Etc, etc.

 

34 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

 You can actually earn an ATP and type ratings in the appropriate level D simulator though, having never even seen the real airplane. 

I'm not sure about ATP, as per CFR 61.159 (3) out of 50 hours in airplane rating is sought, a maximum 25 hour if full flight simulator representing class of airplane for rating sought. Which leave 25 hours in airframe?

16 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Devs like SWS & Just Flight do what they can with the traditional FM.

iniBuilds, FSW, Flying Iron and Asobo themselves make use of NPS/CFD/SBS to varying degrees.

What does NPS/CFD/SBS mean?

20 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

I'm not sure about ATP, as per CFR 61.159 (3) out of 50 hours in airplane rating is sought, a maximum 25 hour if full flight simulator representing class of airplane for rating sought. Which leave 25 hours in airframe?

There are time requirements for an ATP that do include actual flight time, for sure.  But what I mean is, you can get an ATP in the level D sim in an aircraft type you've never flown.  The regional airlines do this regularly; as long as a candidate arrives for training meeting the requirements to hold an ATP, they'll get their ATP and type rating at the same time during sim training before ever seeing the airplane.  That's the definition of a level D sim, that it can be used for certification events.

Even if we have an "accurate" flight model the individual feel can change massively based on what peripheral you're using.

This is why, to me, having a plane that flies based on published numbers is most important.  Second to that is avionics.  There's plenty of SOP and flows that certain operators use for their operation but at the end of the day the published values are what everything is based off of.

If I can takeoff, climb and cruise at accurate/realistic book numbers while having accurate/realistic avionics an addon is usually an easy buy for me!  (Except those big scary airliners I try to stay away from those LOL)

53 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

What does NPS/CFD/SBS mean?

New Propellor Simulation

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Soft Body Simulation

they are the advanced flight model features Asobo added to the sim not too long ago. 
 

If you want the best flight model, you’ll want addons with these features. 
 

you can find a list of aircraft that have them here, along with links to more details on each. 
 

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/new-propeller-cfd-soft-body-simulation-aircraft-list/504719

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/tutorial-how-to-find-cfd-nps-and-sbs/582395

14 hours ago, jcomm said:

I really have to give that one a fair GO !

I found the new PDF tutorials (pined at the top of this Forum) but can you point me out to any other good sources for learning the Inibuilds 310 ?

Thx!

In addition to the MSFS-specific videos posted, there are also a series of real-world A300-600/A310 instructional videos about systems here:

AIRBUS 306-310 - YouTube

I find these pretty useful about each system and how it works, what it does, etc.

To be honest, given that airliners are never really handflown it is ILS and autopilot all the way - it is the accuracy of the ILS/FMS/MFD etc etc that really matters for an airliner.

Now a Tiger moth, that is a different situation.

I'll disagree a bit with that that, though I know that's the cultural norm at some airlines.  I'll typically handfly the climb to 18k though, and click off the automation on base, unless there's a reason not to.  I mean, I got into this business because I like to fly.  😉

54 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

I'll disagree a bit with that that, though I know that's the cultural norm at some airlines.  I'll typically handfly the climb to 18k though, and click off the automation on base, unless there's a reason not to.  I mean, I got into this business because I like to fly.  😉

In my airline we’re certainly encouraged to hand fly where appropriate. I think both Boeing and Airbus are advising more hand flying after the Air France crash and other events where lack of familiarity with pitch power settings etc were possibly contributing factors. 
 

In FS2020 I’m less concerned with the actual nitty gritty of the ‘flight model’ than the systems and avionics accuracy (in the airliners like the 78) as I tend to use it to practice procedures for work so for me it’s more about whether I can replicate procedures and approaches etc in the sim,  which thanks to working title and their work on the 787 . . .  I can now. 
 

I have however given other sim pilots 787 ‘training’ in FS2020 and the WT 787 is certainly good enough now to replicate full flights using real airline and manufacturer procedures. 

Edited August 29, 20232 yr by g-liner

4 hours ago, Mace said:

In addition to the MSFS-specific videos posted, there are also a series of real-world A300-600/A310 instructional videos about systems here:

AIRBUS 306-310 - YouTube

I find these pretty useful about each system and how it works, what it does, etc.

Ah!  Thank you SO MUCH !

1 hour ago, g-liner said:

In my airline we’re certainly encouraged to hand fly where appropriate. I think both Boeing and Airbus are advising more hand flying after the Air France crash and other events where lack of familiarity with pitch power settings etc were possibly contributing factors. 
 

In FS2020 I’m less concerned with the actual nitty gritty of the ‘flight model’ than the systems and avionics accuracy (in the airliners like the 78) as I tend to use it to practice procedures for work so for me it’s more about whether I can replicate procedures and approaches etc in the sim,  which thanks to working title and their work on the 787 . . .  I can now. 
 

I have however given other sim pilots 787 ‘training’ in FS2020 and the WT 787 is certainly good enough now to replicate full flights using real airline and manufacturer procedures. 

How does the 787 in the sim fly in your view?

10 hours ago, ryanbatc said:

Even if we have an "accurate" flight model the individual feel can change massively based on what peripheral you're using.

This is why, to me, having a plane that flies based on published numbers is most important.  Second to that is avionics.  There's plenty of SOP and flows that certain operators use for their operation but at the end of the day the published values are what everything is based off of.

If I can takeoff, climb and cruise at accurate/realistic book numbers while having accurate/realistic avionics an addon is usually an easy buy for me!  (Except those big scary airliners I try to stay away from those LOL)

Agreed. I do think discussions about flight models often derail because people aren't talking about the same thing. The OP should have posted his definition of 'flight model'. I think most people are talking about the feel when they talk about flight models but that's indeed very dependant on your controller and also your settings (curves). Which makes a discussion about it a real problem since no one has the exact same setup. And even if people had similar setups... it would never ever feel like the real thing because of all the real world input you are missing. So a discussion about which addon plane feels most realistic is rather useless.

Which should lead to the conclusion that it's all about the numbers (which hardly anyone talks about). If the numbers are correct the flight model is correct too. That's simply a fact. Any discussion about flight models should be about the numbers and not the feel. And this should make it rather easy (and objective instead of subjective) to decide which planes are realistic and which aren't.

11 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

If you want the best flight model, you’ll want addons with these features. 

I think this depends on the aircraft. CFD is nice but the results vary from aircraft to aircraft. It’s more apparent in aircraft that utilise propellers as the turbulent air can have an effect on elevator and rudder control.

For airliners it’s a lot less pronounced. you don’t necessarily need these features to have an aircraft that flies by the numbers as outlined by don’s comment.

the soft body physics are also nice but you can also implement it yourself as we’ve done with the 380 to produce the specific results we need.

Also from your previous comment, JF has externalised certain portions of their FM to WASM modules, they aren’t entirely dependent on the globalised FM.

 Just wanted to clarify I bit more on those features to say they aren’t a requirement to have the “best” flight model. It’s contextual

20 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

As I finished the session, he said to me " How much turbine time" do you have?  I replied , "none", only in FSX with a Level D 767 aircraft on my PC at home....  He replied "Amazing". So you can't convince me that flying a home sim is a waste of time.

Precisely!

While the seat-of-the-pants sensation is missing from desktop flying, the same skills are easily transferred to the motion sim. And by that measure, to the real aircraft also.

FS9 + PMDG's OG 737 allowed me to fly multiple circuits at different airports and in various weather conditions in British Airways' Level D 737-400 sim.

After a very firm first landing, the rest were all "good", including a circle-to-land approach on RWY 08 at LOWI based on my memory/without the charts (as it wasn't a BA mainline destination at the time).

Like @Bob Scott said:

Quote

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.

Therefore a realistic flight model is one that comes very close to matching the real aircraft's published performance numbers.