1 hour ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

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. 

And you keep talking without a clue.. you claimed MS/Asobo have done nothing about ground handling, and as pointed out you are wrong. With SU10 MS/Asobo introduced new FM parameters that aircraft developers need to take advantage of and use to improve ground handling for their specific aircraft (i.e. the Fenix, PMDG, default C172, default CJ4, default E330, default Longitude, and various other aircraft do). Those parameters are ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed, ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed, ground_high_speed_steeringwheel_static_friction_scalar, ground_high_speed_otherwheel_static_friction_scalar (as defined in https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Content_Configuration/SimObjects/Aircraft_SimO/flight_model_cfg.htm). The larger re-work of ground handling is in the works as Seb detailed in previous Q&A streams, and likely coming with MSFS 2024. All of this has been detailed by MS/Asobo and discussed multiple times, even in this thread: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/639070-ground-physics-weird-behavior/?do=findComment&comment=5026437

Yes, not *all* the default aircraft in MSFS have been updated to use these new ground handling FM configs but a lot of the main ones have, and yes they have not updated the 1903 Wright Flyer (big whoopee doo). If you're claiming that *all* default aircraft in a sim should have correct behaviour then you haven't really used many flight simulators have you (since when have *all* the default aircraft in any sim had correct behaviour? hmm a certain A330 releasing with a Boeing MCDU comes to mind). That said, MSFS as it stands currently has one of the most realistic default fleet when it comes to FM, avionics (by far), systems compared to any sim out there. And you can try to claim that the high fidelity payware aircraft for MSFS are not up to par with equal aircraft in another sim, but that's just your opinion. A lot of us who've used multiple sims, including IRL pilots, and 3rd party devs who've developed for multiple sims would easily beg to differ.

Nice try though.
 

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

That said, MSFS as it stands currently has one of the most realistic default fleet when it comes to FM

Yes they probably even have the second or third best FM (if we count DCS) and keep improving it. I am curious to see how it will be with 2024 and I hope they will also improve these ground-physics.

4 hours ago, JBDB-MD80 said:

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.

It's the circle of updating argument that I've seen in racing Sims as well "why isn't all the default cars updated to the latest physics?", answer is it takes time to update every single car and in this case aircraft.

Fast forward a year and there's more physics updates, aircraft need updating again but some fall behind which whilst is a shame it isn't the end of the world. 

Fact remains, as posted by others, the Devs here are actively working on improving most if not all physical aspects of the flight simulation and ground physics are part of that. Whether we get that in MSFS2020 or MSFS2024 is irrelevant to me personally, it's just good to know they're working to improve it, which is better than doing nothing at all.

 

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by MarcG

14 hours ago, Daube said:

Setting the wind to 150 knots is just way to make the lack of effect more obvious and un-discutable.

This is not correct. An effect, that you can't demonstrate at realistic conditions, is not an issue. And the OP clearly failed to show any issue at regular conditions.

 

14 hours ago, Daube said:

If you believe it's perfectly ok and realistic to have no wind effects on ground, then good for you.

It is disingenuous to say that. MSFS does have wind effects on ground. Doing a quick try I get the same result as @orchestra_nl

 

14 hours ago, Daube said:

But please don't try to argue with the ones of us who are wishing for a realistic sim.

For a realistic simming experience, it is totally irrelevant how a C172 taxies on the surface of the moon, at the bottom of the Mariana Trench or at 40 knots crosswind. It's time you guys get that!

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

It's time you guys get that!

is that understood!

What will some of these guys have to live for if 2024 launches and ends up setting a new benchmark for realistic physics lol. Will they just go quiet? Will they go into denial? Aside from the better sim experience for me, I'm also really looking forward to the potential kicks and giggles lol. Roll on next year!

14 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Did you THOROUGHLY read my below post?

Yes, I have read it well enough to recognise, that there is no hint about any issue at regular conditions. You created simply have not provided evidence of any issue with ground physics at valid conditions. You just created a tremendous storm in a teacup.

Hey @flying_carpet still waiting on a reply to my question. 

or is it safe to assume by you actively (seeing as how you’ve been reacting to other posts and made another post) not acknowledging my previous questions that you’re simply here in bad faith?

have you yet done tests with more aircraft? Have you referred to the SDK regarding expanded ground modelling? Have you tested the modification of the expanded variables to further test the viability of the ground modelling?

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by Lucky38i

2 hours ago, fsiscool said:

And the OP clearly failed to show any issue at regular conditions.

Didn‘t he show that even at much lower „realistically“ strong winds the plane didn‘t move at all as well?

8 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Yes they probably even have the second or third best FM (if we count DCS) and keep improving it. I am curious to see how it will be with 2024 and I hope they will also improve these ground-physics.

I'd expect you to say that lol, and yet again that's subjective, but thanks for chiming in. What really makes or breaks an aircraft's FM is how it is implemented by the aircraft developer on top of the sim's core FDE. Apart from ground handling issues at present, MSFS's core FDE and the various tech/tools in the sim and SDK is easily as capable of *enabling* a solid FM as other sims are. Even for ground handling we have improvements in hand already as of SU10. But if it makes ones feel better and less insecure that their sim of choice is the "bestest" then by all means go ahead 🙄

In the meantime, we'll go by the words of various experts on MSFS's aerodynamics: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-4991341

And 2024 will indeed bring improvements, can't wait to see given what Seb teased at FSExpo: https://youtu.be/VPhScg_FINE?t=650 (one of the most requested features by aircraft devs have been to allow for more precise and varied aircraft geometry definition and that in itself is going to benefit both the regular and CFD based aircraft FMs).
 

 

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

I'd expect you to say that lol, and yet again that's subjective, but thanks for chiming in. What really makes or breaks an aircraft's FM is how it is implemented by the aircraft developer on top of the sim's core FDE. Apart from ground handling issues at present, MSFS's core FDE and the various tech/tools in the sim and SDK is easily as capable of *enabling* a solid FM as other sims are. Even for ground handling we have improvements in hand already as of SU10. But if it makes ones feel better and less insecure that their sim of choice is the "bestest" then by all means go ahead 🙄

You are suppose to say exactly that., aren't you? And I notice that you guys are still stucked (like your aircraft's being stucked in the winds...) at the level of "my sim is better". I have been using sims since over 35 years, have used a lot of different ones and will simply choose the one i feel the most adapted to my needs. Perhaps it makes sense for you but I struggle to understand that concept of Only-sim-A or Only-Sim-B since all of them have pros and cons. ANd i point out to things I don't like about other sims I am using as well. But such arguments will help you feeling good or better, where there wasn't even a need to answer. Talking about insecurity....

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

In the meantime, we'll go by the words of various experts on MSFS's aerodynamics: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/page/5/?tab=comments#comment-4991341

Many "experts" like iniBuild who have to sell a product and didn't tell users that their aircraft is lacking inertia compared to another platform. Btw. this can be easily verified by yourself (flying empty or with full weight: acf behaves exactly the same). And many neutral experts who will all or the big majority of them come to another conclusion as the one you want to hear. Not sure why this is such a big deal for you, since other platforms are lacking on different aspects (too) and most of users won't deny it. I have noticed that in the MSFS-community there is this strange belief that the sim is superior or at least equal to all others. And this is not the case. Just not sure why you have difficulties admitting that. FActs being: the only aircrafts that all agree is behaving very well is the Comanche A2A having been simulated with its won Flightmodel and not Asobo's one. Perhaps you could think a bit about that and why this is if Asobo's FM is supposedly capable of such great things.

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Didn‘t he show that even at much lower „realistically“ strong winds the plane didn‘t move at all as well?

You mean, that the plane did not move at wind speeds, at which it should not move? If intelectual honesty has not completely gone out of the window, you have to admit that this is not an issue.

Also, the OP does not provide the most basic information: is the parking brake on or off? What are all the other sim settings? What are the runway conditions? With parking brakes set, it is expected that the aircraft does not move up to pretty high wind speeds. If the parking brake does simulate the aircraft being tied to the ground (which could be a sensible design decision from Asobo's side), it is even completely pointless simulating ground physics with the brakes set.

I can get the 172 weathervaning at 10 knots crosswind on a snowy runway. Which debunks anything the OP reported as "issue".

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

You are suppose to say exactly that., aren't you? And I notice that you guys are still stucked (like your aircraft's being stucked in the winds...) at the level of "my sim is better". I have been using sims since over 35 years, have used a lot of different ones and will simply choose the one i feel the most adapted to my needs. Perhaps it makes sense for you but I struggle to understand that concept of Only-sim-A or Only-Sim-B since all of them have pros and cons. ANd i point out to things I don't like about other sims I am using as well. But such arguments will help you feeling good or better, where there wasn't even a need to answer. Talking about insecurity....

Oh good you're finally getting it.. was exactly my point about the "best" and "second best" etc nonsense you posted earlier. Yes we have used multiple sims (myself since the 80s per my sig) and will continue to use multiple at times if that makes sense, and at times only one if that's the only that meets our needs, etc etc.

 

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

Many "experts" like iniBuild who have to sell a product and didn't tell users that their aircraft is lacking inertia compared to another platform. Btw. this can be easily verified by yourself (flying empty or with full weight: acf behaves exactly the same). And many neutral experts who will all or the big majority of them come to another conclusion as the one you want to hear. Not sure why this is such a big deal for you, since other platforms are lacking on different aspects (too) and most of users won't deny it. I have noticed that in the MSFS-community there is this strange belief that the sim is superior or at least equal to all others. And this is not the case. Just not sure why you have difficulties admitting that. FActs being: the only aircrafts that all agree is behaving very well is the Comanche A2A having been simulated with its won Flightmodel and not Asobo's one. Perhaps you could think a bit about that and why this is if Asobo's FM is supposedly capable of such great things.

Also exactly what I'd expect you to say 🙂 Not sure why it irks you to hear what experts (not just iniBuilds) have to say about MSFS aerodynamics..  well I actually know why lol. And not sure who you're talking about, but I don't care to claim MSFS as superior, or care to speak about other sims since I don't use any other at the moment. What I am maintaining however is that MSFS's aerodynamics are not as bad as those the likes of you seem to be intent on spreading a narrative about, and more importantly how FMs are ultimately determined by the aircraft implementation. And re: A2A, that very thread I linked about the FM in A2A vs MSFS's FDE that needs to cater to all types of aircraft explains it well, with actual experts chiming in (from Fenix's Aamir to FBW's Lucky38i to Matt Nischan etc), but of course you'll have difficulties in understanding that wouldn't you.

Re: the A310 specifically, it certainly shows enough heft compared to other birds, as it should given its size.. but yes it has a *fixed* inertia that does not vary by aircraft weight, as opposed to *no* inertia as you keep trying to imply. Inertia not varying with aircraft weight speaks nothing about MSFS's FDE capabilities and very likely specific to the aircraft implementation itself.


 

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by lwt1971

20 minutes ago, fsiscool said:

I can get the 172 weathervaning at 10 knots crosswind on a snowy runway. Which debunks anything the OP reported as "issue".

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by flying_carpet

39 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Of course they need to tell that to the people, otherwise questions would arise ...

And of course you'd dismiss their statements like that, for all the obvious reasons lol. But when you've stopped getting triggered perhaps you can think about why even if it were true they're lying in order to not spark "questions" (which it's not since it's a farcical claim), even if this were the case, given that they've already gotten the payment from MS for the A310, why would they care to lie?

And you keep posting your comical YT vids which is of no use sorry and no one here is taking them seriously, and as contrived as they are, at best they might speak to the ground handling issues that everyone already knows about (for others' reference: not sure if the A310 has taken advantage of SU10's ground handling improvements since it effectively released at same time as SU10).
 

Edited November 6, 20232 yr by lwt1971