8 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Still don’t got it…

Who cares how ground physics are simulated at conditions when a real pilot would be forced to stay at home? In these conditions, real GA planes remain in the hangar or tied to the ground.

Tell me why this artificially created, totally unrealistic excercise is proving anything for a sim pilot who aims for realism?

Try to shoot a video at regular conditions that documents and describes any misbehaviour regarding ground physics and then you have a point. It is easy to figure out that the OP's video is just a lame attempt to badmouth MSFS.

3 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

Who cares how ground physics are simulated at conditions when a real pilot would be forced to stay at home? In these conditions, real GA planes remain in the hangar or tied to the ground.

Tell me why this artificially created, totally unrealistic excercise is proving anything for a sim pilot who aims for realism?

Try to shoot a video at regular conditions that documents and describes any misbehaviour regarding ground physics and then you have a point. It is easy to figure out that the OP's video is just a lame attempt to badmouth MSFS.

It seems you still don't get it...

Of course setting a 150 knots cross wind is unrealistic, but you missed the point completely.

The thing is, if the wind doesn't affect the aircraft at 160 knots, it means it also doesn't affect the aircraft as it should at 0 to "any acceptable speed". You get it now ? Setting the wind to 150 knots is just way to make the lack of effect more obvious and un-discutable. If you believe it's perfectly ok and realistic to have no wind effects on ground, then good for you. But please don't try to argue with the ones of us who are wishing for a realistic sim.

12 minutes ago, Daube said:

It seems you still don't get it...

Of course setting a 150 knots cross wind is unrealistic, but you missed the point completely.

The thing is, if the wind doesn't affect the aircraft at 160 knots, it means it also doesn't affect the aircraft as it should at 0 to "any acceptable speed". You get it now ? Setting the wind to 150 knots is just way to make the lack of effect more obvious and un-discutable. If you believe it's perfectly ok and realistic to have no wind effects on ground, then good for you. But please don't try to argue with the ones of us who are wishing for a realistic sim.

What a ridiculous discussion. 👎

1 hour ago, Daube said:

The thing is, if the wind doesn't affect the aircraft at 160 knots, it means it also doesn't affect the aircraft as it should at 0 to "any acceptable speed". 

What the OP has "proven" is that the default MSFS Wright Flyer aircraft is poorly modelled for ground handling lol (let's all give a resounding applause).  See https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/639070-ground-physics-weird-behavior/?do=findComment&comment=5027680 above for how the default C172 behaves. MS/Asobo updated the default C172 to make use of the new SU10 ground-handling FM parameters related to wheel stickiness, crosswinds, etc, but guess they didn't update the Wright Flyer (oh well, I think I'll live).

 

 

Edited November 5, 20232 yr by lwt1971

31 minutes ago, Daube said:

It seems you still don't get it...

Of course setting a 150 knots cross wind is unrealistic, but you missed the point completely.

The thing is, if the wind doesn't affect the aircraft at 160 knots, it means it also doesn't affect the aircraft as it should at 0 to "any acceptable speed". You get it now ? Setting the wind to 150 knots is just way to make the lack of effect more obvious and un-discutable. If you believe it's perfectly ok and realistic to have no wind effects on ground, then good for you. But please don't try to argue with the ones of us who are wishing for a realistic sim.

As I tested in my version of the sim, with a default Cessna 172, the aircraft behaved as I would expected. at moderate crosswind the aircraft stays on the ground. Above 45kts the aircraft starts to weathervane into the wind as it should. It does not, as in the OP's video, stays glued to the ground.
Because the aircraft in MY version of MSFS weathervanes into the wind I cannot replicate the OP's video. I don't know how he got the result he wanted to show but he is clearly using a different sim than I.

Edited November 5, 20232 yr by orchestra_nl
language

8 minutes ago, orchestra_nl said:

As I tested in my version of the sim, with a default Cessna 172, the aircraft behaved as I would expected. at moderate crosswind the aircraft stays on the ground. Above 45kts the aircraft starts to weathervane into the wind as it should. It does not, as in the OP's video, stays glued to the ground.
Because the aircraft in MY version of MSFS weathervanes into the wind I cannot replicate the OP's video. I don't know how he got the result he wanted to show but he is clearly using a different sim than I.

You also didn't get the point. You should read and watch thoroughly my posts/videos. Some default planes are glued to the ground, others like the C172 indeed weathervaned into the wind from around 45 kts on. But slightly below 40 kts (see e.g. from 4:50 min on) it gets sucked into the wind.

2 hours ago, fsiscool said:

Who cares how ground physics are simulated at conditions when a real pilot would be forced to stay at home? In these conditions, real GA planes remain in the hangar or tied to the ground.

Tell me why this artificially created, totally unrealistic excercise is proving anything for a sim pilot who aims for realism?

Try to shoot a video at regular conditions that documents and describes any misbehaviour regarding ground physics and then you have a point. It is easy to figure out that the OP's video is just a lame attempt to badmouth MSFS.

Still don't get it...sorry!

If the purpose of this discussion is to try and improve the sim, isn’t it better to have it done on the MSFS developer forum and submit a ticket that can be looked at the Asobo team and other developers (even though there’s like 20 instances of the same discussion)? Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall the Asobo team posting in these forums. 
 

Also I think if you’re going to try and test the base behaviour of something, it may be better to test numerous aircraft, as each aircraft have varying levels of depth with regards to the usage of the flight model. Look at the ground modelling section for the FBW compared to the Wright flyer in their respective flight_model.cfg. Personally I tend to not use default planes as a testament of the FM with the exception of 1st party devs. Wright flyer and c172 isn’t some kind of basis.

Also it’s already known ground modelling is a weak point of MSFS, that Seb has said already, they’ve been working to rewrite. Not sure what OP is looking for here when the problem has long been identified, acknowledged and being worked on.

Devs for the time being spend weeks through trial and error to get useful results like FBW (I know there’s other devs) or externalise the ground modelling like JustFlight (I know there’s other devs).

 

19 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

If the purpose of this discussion is to try and improve the sim, isn’t it better to have it done on the MSFS developer forum and submit a ticket that can be looked at the Asobo team and other developers (even though there’s like 20 instances of the same discussion)? Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t recall the Asobo team posting in these forums.

It's not my job to pinpoint Asobo the shortcomings of their job*.

* These aren't my words, but I have copied them from a member of this very subforum, but the "other way round".

28 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

It's not my job to pinpoint Asobo the shortcomings of their job*.

* These aren't my words, but I have copied them from a member of this very subforum, but the "other way round".

So.. what exactly is your aim here ? 
 

you also didn’t respond to the 3 other paragraphs I wrote…

Edited November 5, 20232 yr by Lucky38i

45 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

So.. what exactly is your aim here ? 
 

 

He's bored with the other forum but he has a point MSFS physics needs improvement by a default standard.

Edited November 5, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80

39 minutes ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

He's bored with the other forum but he has a point MSFS physics needs improvement by a default standard.

...I didn't deny that? I explictly acknowleged that.

My point, is what purpose does it serve to have this discussion (In an unrelated forum) when the Asobo team in question is well aware and have acknowledged the issue. I said this in my original post.

10 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

...I didn't deny that? I explictly acknowleged that.

My point, is what purpose does it serve to have this discussion (In an unrelated forum) when the Asobo team in question is well aware and have acknowledged the issue. I said this in my original post.

The point is yes Asobo acknowledged the issue but that was a while ago and so far no actions has been taken from the development team. Talk is cheap, action speaks louder than words and at some point have to prove the doubters wrong.

Edited November 5, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80

16 minutes ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

and so far no actions has been taken from the development team.

False.If you had been paying attention, you would have realized that Seb has infact done work in the interim to improve ground handling and dev like Fenix and PMDG have already taken advantage of it. Poor gound physics  used to want to make me tear my hair out but I haven't had that issue with the ATR.

3 hours ago, Krakin said:

False.If you had been paying attention, you would have realized that Seb has infact done work in the interim to improve ground handling and dev like Fenix and PMDG have already taken advantage of it. 

You're talking about High Fidelity payware aircraft and not the default in the sim and even their FM is not up to par with equal aircraft in another sim, nice try though. All aircraft should have correct behavior by default in MSFS. A2A don't even bother with the default FM and is the most accurate in the sim.

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by JBDB-MD80