2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

But are you saying at the end that Asobo shouldn‘t improve MSFS‘s flightmodel because it won‘t change anything anway?

Nope, I'm saying in the grand scheme of all elements that bring the vast majority of MSFS users to the sim-game, nudging the flight dynamics up from a 6 to an 8 is going to add just a small element of immersion into the experience over what is already there.  We agree there is definite room for improvement especially as it relates to weather dynamics.  I think if we took total novice FS user and stuck them into MSFS w/ sufficient support from someone who could help them learn quicker, versus stuck that same them into XP, at the end of X amount of time to get very familiar with all of the basics and then some, they'd do about the same on their first flight in a real world plane.  It would not take long to feel the dynamics in action, for both newbies, put in context to what they learned during their training time.

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

And there are actually professional airliner-pilots who use one of these desktop-sims to train for their checkride

Yes, and their check rides don't have so much to do with "flight dynamics" per se it's more about truly study level planes in the sim-game that plays by far the biggest role in that.

The flight model is improving with 2024, or at the very least they're adding more interaction points than 2020 for people to take advantage of.

Edited April 7, 20242 yr by Tuskin38

9 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

The flight model is improving with 2024, or at the very least they're adding more interaction points than 2020 for people to take advantage of.

The sim is improving at an almost dizzying rate, especially when you think of the centuries long wait for DX10 for FSX, the money spent on endlessly re-buying P3D, or the glacial pace of mostly refinement rather than advancement that the genre stagnated in for so long.....

For myself, it would have been nearly impossible to imagine the blistering speed of monthly progress that's now gone on for literally years and shows no signs of slowing down, with a new version close on the horizon.

Meanwhile, we kibbutz on the metaphorical porch, mint julip's in hand as we discuss the relative importance of things barely discernible as anything but minutia to the likely majority of users not self-selected to opine on navigraph and other cloistered venue's....

SSDD.

 

2 hours ago, Noel said:

I think if we took total novice FS user and stuck them into MSFS w/ sufficient support from someone who could help them learn quicker, versus stuck that same them into XP, at the end of X amount of time to get very familiar with all of the basics and then some, they'd do about the same on their first flight in a real world plane.

That could be the case for a novice having never flown. Not for someone having flown in real, where you can clearly feel that some flightmodels are inacurate and the plane not behaving like irl.

2 hours ago, Noel said:

Yes, and their check rides don't have so much to do with "flight dynamics" per se it's more about truly study level planes in the sim-game that plays by far the biggest role in that.

No. Because the way the flightmodel is modeled impacts the way the aircraft behaves. Having it hehaving close to the variables from real performance tables is very important beside the systems themselves. If an aircraft doesn’t behave like it should, this is a big issue for experienced pilots.

I am talking about the use of sim for training, not about a user making his first step in a sim. And for that, the flight dynamics (with the systems) are by far the most important part of a simulation. No wonder that most of professional level-D sims have very basic graphics. It just doesn’t matter. For an only-entertainment use it’s different but I think you were talking about the use of desktop-sims for a benefit in real flying, where the simulated flightmodel is the most important in my opinion. Flying the Comanche will give you a much closer « feeling as real» than flying the default C172. That’s why the flightmodel do have a very important role in simulations.

On 4/3/2024 at 1:11 PM, lwt1971 said:

Now if MS/Asobo came out and explicitly gave reason(s) for why they haven't opened up MSFS weather for writing/extending then it's up to us as consumers to take them at their word or not, but certainly in the absence of them saying anything it's even more foolish for us to come to sweeping conclusions re: their intentions.

I respectfully disagree ...absence of information speaks volumes when you've worked in the software development arena.  But to a very detail point, when a product was working in MSFS and then an update was released that prevented that product from working in MSFS and the reason given was "not a good fit" ... well, sorry I've been around long enough to know what happened and why.

But like I said before, that's just business and the risk in having a dependency.

 

17 hours ago, Noel said:

simulated very complete avionics

I can imagine having very high fidelity avionics in a flight simulator would save a person money if they want to learn that particular avionics in detail, so that they don't have to rent the actual plane on an hourly basis, to learn that avionic.  So it's nice that MSFS has the best G1000 NXi, G3000, G5000, and G3X add-ons now, I don't think you can even find better payware versions.  From my understanding, even the GNS 430 and GNS 530 are very good in MSFS and it has some features that the RealityXP GNS 430 and GNS 530 do not have (but not sure if the GNS 430 and 530 in MSFS are better than the RealityXP versions).

At the pace that Working Title is improving the GA avionics in MSFS, I think one day, MSFS will eventually become a "go to" flight simulator to use if you want to learn GA avionics in a flight simulator and you don't want to pay for payware GA avionics add-ons (or maybe in certain cases, there is no payware avionics add-on better than the default GA avionics in MSFS, as I mentioned in the examples above). The gap between the default GA avionics in MSFS and the default GA avionics for the competition is just huge at this point, it's not even close.

Edited April 7, 20242 yr by abrams_tank

12 hours ago, Franz007 said:

but I think you were talking about the use of desktop-sims for a benefit in real flying, where the simulated flightmodel is the most important in my opinion.

Thank you for sharing your opinion--I expressed mine clearly.

Cheers

34 minutes ago, Noel said:

Thank you for sharing your opinion--I expressed mine clearly.

Cheers

I hope he keeps that same energy if 2024 ends up having the best flight model

27 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I hope he keeps that same energy if 2024 ends up having the best flight model

Relatively speaking FD is pretty much all they can hang their hats on which IMO why the focus lies there.  I stand by my opinion that of all elements one can learn about in a desktop flight sim "flight dynamics" as long as they're in the ballpark are as good as is needed already in MSFS.  Not long ago wannabe pilots learned to fly with no simulators of any kind.  In a matter of minutes in the air a novice trained in MSFS or XP will quickly discover what it really feels like, how the plane responds to inputs and exterior forces.

48 minutes ago, Krakin said:

I hope he keeps that same energy if 2024 ends up having the best flight model

Well they have the "resources" to do it, now its time to prove it. We can only hope.

The topic of flight dynamics has been discussed a lot here over the past few years, and as always the usual suspects will come around here trying to push the narrative that MSFS does not enable good flight dynamics.. but the fact still remains it all ultimately comes down to aircraft developers and how they develop the flight model for their particular aircraft using the tools available in the core FDE of the sim platform (there is no one "flight model" in the sim, it's the base flight dynamics engine on which particular flight models *per* aircraft are built on).

Even before MSFS introduced computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tech the FDE was already quite capable (as Matt Nischan noted in https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236), but of course at that time not too many well developed aircraft were out and all the default aircraft at that time had subpar flight models so this talking point started spreading. As MSFS currently stands there are numerous expertly developed 3rd party aircraft out now (such as the Fenix B2, PMDG 737, etc) which have received acclaim from various IRL pilots out there (i.e. V1 Simulations an IRL 320 captain has lauded the Fenix B2 and thinks it is probably the best 320 simulation ever, compared to his experience of using all the ones out there for various sim platforms, and he particularly finds the hand flying of it the most realistic.. A330 Driver and 320 Sim Pilot have similarly lauded the Fenix and other MSFS birds). In addition to the 3rd party aircraft, some of the enhanced default aircraft like the Citation Longitude, SR22, 787 also certainly hold their own when it comes to flight models.

Now that's not to say MSFS can't do better with the FDE and the tools they provide in the box to make it easier for aircraft developers to flesh out their FMs.. one popular request from many of the devs has been for a more precise way to define the aircraft geometry in terms of how the wings and other surfaces of the aircraft can be modelled, beyond the basic planform shape so that the FDE tech (be it CFD or non-CFD) can be properly leveraged (i.e. https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/assets/images/Additional_Information/flight_model/flight_model_10.png, https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/Samples_And_Tutorials/Primers/Flight_Model_Physics.htm) .. and that's something MS/Asobo have revealed as coming in the reworked FDE and physics/aerodynamics engine in MSFS 2024. Another sore point was ground handling, but that also is being addressed in v2024 and also partially backported to v2020 SU15 now and developers like iniBuilds have taken advantage of it in their A300 to great effect (https://youtu.be/N4cxNccH66U?t=1318). But my earlier point remains, even with the MSFS FDE as it currently stands, the platform and the tools in the toolbox are certainly enough for stellar flight models, in the hands of the right developer.
 

Edited April 7, 20242 yr by lwt1971

On 4/4/2024 at 2:40 PM, lwt1971 said:

Why bother bringing on Working Title to bring us payware level quality avionics in the default sim and increase the FDE/systems/etc fidelity of default aircraft if the focus is on the supposedly non-serious arcade-loving masses of XBox users?

Au contraire why are Deimos, Captain Sim and the like IN Microsoft's very own Marketplace (of all places).

25 minutes ago, bofhlusr said:

Au contraire why are Deimos, Captain Sim and the like IN Microsoft's very own Marketplace (of all places).

So are A2A, JustFlight and PMDG.

The flight sim market should and does cater to a very wide range of interests and capabilities.

There are the novices just starting out, those that lack the time/willingness to commit to learning complex aircraft, those wanting the highest fidelity to practice for their next job and everything in between. We shouldn't gatekeep what should or should not be permitted to appear on the Marketplace.

The lower quality products obviously sell, which means there is demand and that generates fees that go into Microsoft's coffers to be part reinvested into MSFS.

2 hours ago, bofhlusr said:

Au contraire why are Deimos, Captain Sim and the like IN Microsoft's very own Marketplace (of all places).

What does that have to do with what they said?

5 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

What does that have to do with what they said?

Sorry, but who is 'they'?  ... never mind... it's just a differing opinion. That's all.