1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

If it was so great, explain us why the default B787 or the iniBuilds don‘t even simulate correctly the difference of inertia?

Because the real and the MSFS 787 have a P-Beta FBW that maintains the same roll response no matter what the weight is. If you see real world pilots who train with a 787 that has weight dependent roll responses, you should point them to the MSFS 787.

 

1 hour ago, Franz007 said:

Well I am doing that. And V1-pilot (a real Airbus-pilot) trains with it as well, before passing his checkrides.

Train what? No real pilot uses desktop sims to train manual flying. And for all other things (like 99% of the flight is done with the A/P on) the flight model is irrelevant.

6 hours ago, Franz007 said:

The actual expert I mentionned above (who has also worked as a test-pilot for addons) contradicts that. And he hopes that MSFS2024 will get (much) better related to that point and sometimes doubt it. If it was so great, explain us why the default B787 or the iniBuilds don‘t even simulate correctly the difference of inertia? You can check that by yourself: fly empty and full weight and tell me which difference you feel in the air.

You keep harping about BlackBox711 comment's about MSFS's supposed SDK deficiencies based on his experience working with and testing Fenix's A320 on their *initial* version (he's not a developer obviously).. he was going by whatever initial struggles Fenix had on extending the default engine model (which is different from the flight model). And as with all other sims when it comes to systems, to truly do what the aircraft developer wanted they did their own custom engine model and associated systems.

And regardless of what BlackBox711 said about Fenix's initial development experience, there is what Aamir himself said about MSFS's flight dynamics and base FDE, SDK, etc and also about their latest Fenix V2: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-4990988 (I'm going to go with the CEO of Fenix here to get the actual facts on their experience in developing for MSFS and its FDE).

You also keep harping about the default ini A310 not showing inertia difference based on weight, and now the 787 (which you got schooled on above). The freeware ini A310 is quite a simulation for its price but not as high fidelity as the top tier payware obviously (like their A300), if it's not showing different behaviour for different weights then that comes down to that particular aircraft's FM implementation by iniBuilds and what fidelity levels they were aiming for, and not about the sim platform. Unless you have deep insights into ini's development too (as you seem to with PMDG, Fenix, etc 😂) and can explain to us exactly how due to the sim platform's deficiencies that the ini A310 is not doing something you expect it to.

 

Edited April 9, 20242 yr by lwt1971

5 hours ago, Franz007 said:

We agree on that point. They are working on it for a simple reason, because many pointed out to it and complained. And certainly not because it already offers everything a dev needs (as wrongly stated by lwt).

There you go again putting words in people's mouths. No one, including me, are saying that MSFS offers "everything a dev needs". But it certainly is not as deficient or lacking as you always are eager to make it seem. As FBW's Lucky38i noted about you here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/643658-why-msfs-must-be-xbox-like-or-die/?do=findComment&comment=5088648 and here https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/643658-why-msfs-must-be-xbox-like-or-die/?do=findComment&comment=5088655 one can only conclude you're being intentionally obtuse.
 

5 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Well I am doing that. And V1-pilot (a real Airbus-pilot) trains with it as well, before passing his checkrides. And even if a desktop-sim (or a level-D sim) will never recreate 100% realism of real-flying, a flight behaviour closer to the real thing is still better than any other one. Otherwise, why even bother improving the FM?

Funny that you mention V1-Simulations the IRL A320 pilot and level-D sims.. this is what V1 had to say about the Fenix V2 B2 as compared to the real bird, level-D 320 sim, and other sims' A320 🙂
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFuEutQpCyU&t=6113s
"handling in flight I gotta say, it's right there, that felt very realistic all the way around compared to the real airplane"
"felt very much the same as when I do single engine training in the Level D sims, almost exactly the same honestly"

Well heck what do you know, not bad for an aircraft whose FM according to Aamir uses and extends the MSFS FDE ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Edited April 9, 20242 yr by lwt1971

@Franz007 Did you notice an actual developer responded to you? Unless I missed it, it doesn't seem like you've replied to him yet.

7 hours ago, HiFlyer said:

I.... Kind of find it a bit scary if a professional is waiting around impatiently for a game studio title to help provide him training for his real job....

Isn't that what level D's are for?

In the meanwhile, I now I have a mental image of professional pilots in huddles in front of their computers trying to get million dollar training on the cheap....

No one is using a desktop sim as a replacement for actual training in level-d sims and line training. You have to go through all of that, whether you have a sim at home or not. Where desktop sims are a useful tool is practicing flows and procedures to memorize, instrument flying, or familiarization with never flown before departures or approaches. None of that replaces any real training though. It's like practice for the practice.

10 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Well I am doing that. And V1-pilot (a real Airbus-pilot) trains with it as well, before passing his checkrides.

As others have mentioned, he most likely uses it for practicing cockpit flows and use of his instruments, which could've also been done on something like the original Aerowinx PS1.3 for MS-DOS. Flight model is irrelevant in that case. You are not going to develop the necessary muscle memory and tactility of flying an aircraft for real through a desktop simulator, regardless of whether its MSFS, X-Plane, or FS98. Flightsim is a tool, not the bible, and nobody claims it to be one.

Edited April 9, 20242 yr by arwasairl

16 minutes ago, arwasairl said:

As others have mentioned, he most likely uses it for practicing cockpit flows and use of his instruments, which could've also been done on something like the original Aerowinx PS1.3 for MS-DOS. Flight model is irrelevant in that case. You are not going to develop the necessary muscle memory and tactility of flying an aircraft for real through a desktop simulator, regardless of whether its MSFS, X-Plane, or FS98. Flightsim is a tool, not the bible, and nobody claims it to be one.

No, he mentinned the fligh-behaviour/dynamics explicitely and said that’s why he was using the Toliss over the Fenix.

11 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

No, he mentinned the fligh-behaviour/dynamics explicitely and said that’s why he was using the Toliss over the Fenix.

I implore you to make you up your own opinions instead of preaching what others say. Pilots are people too, and are not free from having their own opinions.

And if you've never flown the A320 and thus cannot make a reasonable opinion, then you don't need to try this hard to try to convince others that you're right. Agree to disagree. 

Edited April 9, 20242 yr by arwasairl

9 hours ago, fsiscool said:

If you see real world pilots who train with a 787 that has weight dependent roll responses, you should point them to the MSFS 787.

It was actually a real world B787-pilot, demonstrating the MSFS B787. When asked he complained about the lack of inertia-simulation. Same in the inibuilds A300/310.

1 minute ago, arwasairl said:

I implore you to make you up your own opinions instead of preaching what others say. Pilots are people too, and are not free from having their own opinions.

That’s what I do. I do fly real planes. And the last time i wanted to use MSFS for doing the same flight I did irl, it was a very bad result and the plane behaving in no way like i am used to. But that wasn’t what you wanted to hear, was it? You guys are trying so hard to blow some comments out of proportion and try to turn my opinion in something that confirms your bias.  It looks like you want that thread to be closed. Pleaes go back to your initial discussion now. I have clearly stated my opinion and experience. If you cannot deal with a different opinion, it’s perhaps time to move on.

17 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

That’s what I do. I do fly real planes. And the last time i wanted to use MSFS for doing the same flight I did irl, it was a very bad result and the plane behaving in no way like i am used to. But that wasn’t what you wanted to hear, was it? You guys are trying so hard to blow some comments out of proportion and try to turn my opinion in something that confirms your bias.  It looks like you want that thread to be closed. Pleaes go back to your initial discussion now. I have clearly stated my opinion and experience. If you cannot deal with a different opinion, it’s perhaps time to move on.

Youre clearly being very confrontational with your responses and I can tell the tears in your eyes have welled up causing your spelling to degrade. Please read the last few words of my response as I'm not entertaining your rage bait.

Edited April 9, 20242 yr by arwasairl

48 minutes ago, arwasairl said:

As others have mentioned, he most likely uses it for practicing cockpit flows and use of his instruments, which could've also been done on something like the original Aerowinx PS1.3 for MS-DOS. Flight model is irrelevant in that case. You are not going to develop the necessary muscle memory and tactility of flying an aircraft for real through a desktop simulator, regardless of whether its MSFS, X-Plane, or FS98. Flightsim is a tool, not the bible, and nobody claims it to be one.

In the case of the current version of Aerowinx Precision Simulator (PSX), it is used as a procedural trainer by at least two r/w 747-400 operators - (Lufthansa and Atlas Air). It does have a very accurate flight model for a desktop sim, but its main use is for training flows, FMS operations, and failures and consequences, since all onboard systems of the real aircraft are emulated with extreme accuracy. 

49 minutes ago, arwasairl said:

You are not going to develop the necessary muscle memory and tactility of flying an aircraft for real through a desktop simulator,

In VR with controllers you can, actually, which is another area in which desktop flight sims are a very useful tool. The movement around the cockpit in VR following flows makes it much easier to memorize flows and locations of switches, levers etc. to the point you can perfectly apply that muscle memory in the real cockpit. It also familiarizes you with the dimensions and the height above the ground, etc. If you have some experience in an aircraft in a flight sim in VR it's almost eerie how familiar the real cockpit of that aircraft will be. I experienced this myself a few times now when I got the opportunity to hang around a cockpit at work, and I know of several pilots who use flight sim VR as a training aid.

Desktop flight sims aren't going to replace any required training, but I think many underestimate the value it has as a training aid.

33 minutes ago, arwasairl said:

Youre clearly being very confrontational with your responses and I can tell the tears in your eyes have welled up causing your spelling to degrade. Please read the last few words of my response as I'm not entertaining your rage bait.

Oh that’s interesting. I am perfectly calm and it looks like the rage comes from you, simply because you cannot deal with a different opinion.

The best anecdote to MSFS forums is MSFS.

sp