5 hours ago, jcomm said:

default C172, all aircraft feel really unrealistic in different aspects that real world pilots will easily identify...

 

This is so subjective and very broad. I can only identify  that no sim ever can replicate real world, but even with all its limitations 172 in MSFS does it pretty good to me. 

 The irony is just many people can't translate their RL flying experience into the sim and understand that they never can achieve the same sense of motor response . There is compensation mechanism that can be apply but not but everyone aware of it!

One of the most significant aspect that you can have in the sim misinterpret is  control pressure. For example control pressure in 172 not only depend on airflow but also  on how they rigged. Not many people aware of that, even some flight instructors are not aware of that.   Controls rigging can make 172 "stiff" or "light". Some people may prefers one over another. Most importantly even within fleet of identical 172 IRL pilots would prefer to fly only one  dismiss all other172. You would hear from them they like how this 172 is rigged and etc.LOL You can't replicate this in the sim! Even excellent A2A Comanche is MSFS replica of the aircraft that Scott own not that  one I flew for example.

So until people understand that we will be going to walk in circles . Things that RL pilot can "identify" will vary based on flying experience, limitations, proficiency, type of flying and etc LOL But if we want to hear some experts opinion we should start  eliminate everyone who has less than 100 hours pic in 172. Then we should determine if pilot is owner, renter or flight instructor. We should clearly understand that flight instructors would constantly to maneuvers that regular renter or even owner do only once in while during training or flight review. So flight instructors would definitely would have an advantage, but owner+A&P  combo could take  even take an edge over CFI! LOL

So lets stop about feelings and real pilots. We are not made from the same puppy mill factory with indexical feelings and experience LOL

5 hours ago, Fielder said:

BTW, I predict France will win the most gold medals at the Olympics

No. That will be the USA or China. They usually have larger delegations and take their Olympic sports very seriously.

France may finish third (due to 'home team performance bias) *if* the CNOSF has selected enough high-quality athletes across all of the events.

 

6 hours ago, jcomm said:

The overall feel of aircraft, from gliders to airliners, and rotaries, is also something that needs good attention from the dev team at ASOBO.

Yes, in the various aspects as you've listed, the feel of aircraft still requires improvements.

That being said, it's a lot better than four years ago. There have been a lot of updates in that time and the scope of improvements to aircraft handling is far greater than I can recall in my time of using the MS flight sim franchise.

7 hours ago, jcomm said:

... it lacks in many aspects of flight and systems modelling.

While systems modelling limitations can somehow be bypassed by talented developers, some of them having actually ended up being contracted to integrate the MS / ASOBO teams, flight dynamics can't, really, unless external flight dynamics are used...

 

I realize you always take the opportunity to regurgitate your taking points :), but to bobcat99's point (which you chose to go off on a long tangent on lol) was about ground <-> air transition which I do agree is one weak area of MSFS. The other was ground physics and handling which has been revamped in MSFS 2024 and partially backported to SU15, to great affect I might add given the iniA300 example and other aircraft devs who've taken advantage of the new FM capabilities.

You mention systems modelling limitations.. sorry that's incorrect, there are no "limitations", since as with all other sims MSFS allows an aircraft dev to override or replace systems (it's no worse than other sims). But what *is* a fact is that MSFS provides way higher fidelity in default aircraft systems that far surpasses other sims present and past.

And no, external flight dynamics are not the *only* way to achieve good FMs in MSFS. As has been said here countless times (including from *actual* experts and aircraft devs like Fenix's Aamir, FBW's Lucky38i, etc) the FM and flight dynamics all come down to the aircraft devs, using the FDE and toolbox that MSFS provides which aims to serve widely ranging aircraft types. Expertly developed FMs like the Fenix V2, PMDG's, iniBuilds A300, and various other examples stand right up there with the best of them.

I suppose if one's aim was to try and keep painting MSFS as being only capable in visuals, then one would keep trying to push narratives like... Well, yours 🙂

Edited June 30, 20241 yr by lwt1971

41 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

 

I realize you always take the opportunity to regurgitate your taking points :)

I do, just as you tend to defend MSFS's FDE no matter how sometimes really not justifiable some of it's modeling aspects are...

In any simulator the most talented developers can try to overcome limitations of the base simulation engine / physics engine... They did it in previous versions of MSFS, like FSX / P3D, they do it in X-Plane because X-Plane is far from being perfect ! And in fact - as you probably missed in my post above - even does IMO as a glider pilot, gliders modelling with inferior realism compared to MSFS 2020, and that one really puzzles me...

Accepting that MSFS 2020 is still, probably at the moment my preferred flight simulator, does not mean that I can't keep complaining about the aspects I don't like, and being vocal about it may contribute, so I hope, to expect better from 2024... just as I keep hammering LR with my complaints about what I find wrong in X-Plane, and IPACS regarding Aerofly FS 4, ... etc

Edited June 30, 20241 yr by jcomm

I would like to repeat for the third time here that I am up in the air about the state of the Asobo team's flight and systems modelling.

4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

This is so subjective and very broad. I can only identify  that no sim ever can replicate real world, but even with all its limitations 172 in MSFS does it pretty good to me. 

 The irony is just many people can't translate their RL flying experience into the sim and understand that they never can achieve the same sense of motor response . There is compensation mechanism that can be apply but not but everyone aware of it!

One of the most significant aspect that you can have in the sim misinterpret is  control pressure. For example control pressure in 172 not only depend on airflow but also  on how they rigged. Not many people aware of that, even some flight instructors are not aware of that.   Controls rigging can make 172 "stiff" or "light". Some people may prefers one over another. Most importantly even within fleet of identical 172 IRL pilots would prefer to fly only one  dismiss all other172. You would hear from them they like how this 172 is rigged and etc.LOL You can't replicate this in the sim! Even excellent A2A Comanche is MSFS replica of the aircraft that Scott own not that  one I flew for example.

So until people understand that we will be going to walk in circles . Things that RL pilot can "identify" will vary based on flying experience, limitations, proficiency, type of flying and etc LOL But if we want to hear some experts opinion we should start  eliminate everyone who has less than 100 hours pic in 172. Then we should determine if pilot is owner, renter or flight instructor. We should clearly understand that flight instructors would constantly to maneuvers that regular renter or even owner do only once in while during training or flight review. So flight instructors would definitely would have an advantage, but owner+A&P  combo could take  even take an edge over CFI! LOL

So lets stop about feelings and real pilots. We are not made from the same puppy mill factory with indexical feelings and experience LOL

Thanks @sd_flyer. It's very reassuring to hear from you, a real life CFI who probably has thousands of hours in the Cessna 172, that the flight model of the MSFS Cessna 172 (I assume G1000 Nxi Cessna 172) flies pretty good for a flight simulator.

whatever 2020 has now, 2024 may be better. The presentation at FSExpo showed they actually went up in or used licensed simulators to help gather flight data to use in the sim.

And, btw...

at Pooleys (U.K.), one of my best sources for years in aviation technical books & trainning syllabi, their choice in terms of Flight Simulation products these days is : MSFS 2020 and no other, so, for sure MSFS 2020 can effectively be used for training too, and for procedural and even emergency training, navigation proficiency, etc... it surely does it's job well enough in this areas.

Flight Simulation | Simulation Software | Pooleys Flying and Navigational Products and Accessories

I can be critic, but I like it ... used to it's best potential. 

I haven't been using ELITE as my main virtual training platform since 2021 when I built my new PC specifically to be able to run MSFS... I have started to use BATC even though I like FSHUD, because I want an even more realistic ATC and AI Traffic environment (in any platform I use).

Do I want 2024 to be better? Of course !!!

Edited June 30, 20241 yr by jcomm

4 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

This is so subjective and very broad. I can only identify  that no sim ever can replicate real world, but even with all its limitations 172 in MSFS does it pretty good to me.

FWIW, I’d like to second this, though I have a lot less experience than you (non-current glider pilot, recently got my single engine license on a 172). None of the (few) aircraft I’ve flown in real life have ever felt like the real thing to me in any sim (MSFS, X-Plane, Condor 2). If I know the real aircraft, I see things the flight model does and can relate them to the real world. („OK, flight model, I see what you’re getting at!“) A model might be completely „on the numbers“, but it still doesn’t feel the same. Hardware may play into it - if I had a Brunner yoke instead of a VKB Gladiator stick that might close the gap a bit on the 172, but I still doubt it would feel even close to real.

So I’ve stopped chasing the idea that a desktop sim should feel like the real thing. Instead, what I look for is whether I find a sim aircraft pleasing to fly and whether I can suspend disbelief. I’ve found aircraft like this in every sim I’ve flown, and likewise, I’ve also found aircraft that I found unrewarding (though I might not know whether that’s my fault or the flight model‘s). That’s not to say I don’t eagerly await improvements that the sims or addons make (ground handling in SU15, the sweet flight model of the A2A Comanche, and to go way back, I’ll never forget how blown away I was the first time I flew Airline Simulator 2). But the more I obsess about the imperfections I perceive in.a sim, the more I miss out on the enjoyment and challenges to be had along the way.

7 hours ago, jcomm said:

I do, just as you tend to defend MSFS's FDE no matter how sometimes really not justifiable some of it's modeling aspects are...

In any simulator the most talented developers can try to overcome limitations of the base simulation engine / physics engine... They did it in previous versions of MSFS, like FSX / P3D, they do it in X-Plane because X-Plane is far from being perfect ! And in fact - as you probably missed in my post above - even does IMO as a glider pilot, gliders modelling with inferior realism compared to MSFS 2020, and that one really puzzles me...

Accepting that MSFS 2020 is still, probably at the moment my preferred flight simulator, does not mean that I can't keep complaining about the aspects I don't like, and being vocal about it may contribute, so I hope, to expect better from 2024... just as I keep hammering LR with my complaints about what I find wrong in X-Plane, and IPACS regarding Aerofly FS 4, ... etc

@lwt1971

Uh Oh...

What do I do if you've BOTH made some very cogent points ?

I know: Upvotes all around ! 😁

On 6/29/2024 at 11:22 AM, abrams_tank said:

Hi. I was reading this flight.fandom.com wiki page on MSFS, and according to that wiki page, it claims that "Around 60 percent of Asobo team got their pilot license in the course of making FS2020":

Here is the link to that flight.fandom.com wiki page: https://flight.fandom.com/wiki/Microsoft_Flight_Simulator_(2020)

Unfortunately, they do not provide the source where they got that information. I know that Seb got his PPL already, and I believe more Asobo employees did learn how to fly in real life, plus Asobo hired some real life pilots to help with testing and collecting data, but I have never heard that 60% of Asobo got their pilot license. That figure seems to be a little high. 

Since this flight.fandom.com wiki page did not provide where they got that information from, does anybody know what the original source for this information is?

Once again your posting stuff that has no factual basis.

Why have a discussion about rumors????

8 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

Once again your posting stuff that has no factual basis.

Why have a discussion about rumors????

Do you have reading comprehension issues? Like seriously, it was noted in this thread where the source came from:

And then it was noted by me again here where the source came from:

Maybe next time before you come and say something insulting, READ FIRST.

 

Edited July 1, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

The article you reference is making a baseless claim.

It doesn't reference any factual basis to make the claim that "AROUND" 60% of the team obtained a pilots license since working on the game.

It certainly shouldn't be recognized as being factually correct!

 

12 minutes ago, tpete61 said:

The article you reference is making a baseless claim.

It doesn't reference any factual basis to make the claim that "AROUND" 60% of the team obtained a pilots license since working on the game.

It certainly shouldn't be recognized as being factually correct!

 

Are you referring to the wiki page? Or are you referring to the Polygon article?

The Polygon article is written by Charlie Hall. And in the article, Charlie Hall is interviewing Jorg Neumann.  How is it not factual? 

I'm referring to the Wiki page. Your the one that referenced it.

I'm not sure what a speculative thread does.

How does the fact someone have a pilot's license from Asobo effect someone using the game?

Modelling in the sim vs knowing how to fly has never seemed to translate well into duplicating real life into the game anyway.