4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

And the drama discussions are going on ... 😄

Marketing gibberish ... And why does that yield subpar results? It doesn't help to throw what may be the right technique at something if it is used incorrectly. This leads to dubious results. Even if you are throwing the CERN on something but configure it wrong, then ... draw your own conclusions 😉.

Nah, it's you who'd like it to be drama 😀.. and gee what a surprise that you cast what Matt says as "marketing gibberish". This is not from MS/Asobo as I noted since the SDK docs don't mention this and they never have elsewhere, Matt posted this as a 3rd party freeware developer in 2021, before he was hired by MS/Asobo (not that it takes away anything from whatever he says even now since he's a straight shooter with lots of insights and expertise).

And sorry, as much as you'd desperately want it to be "subpar results" that's just not so.. a lot of expertly developed aircraft FMs currently exist for MSFS that yield great results. The PMDG 737 or 777 don't yield subpar results, the Fenix V2 does not, the iniBuilds A300 does not, the default Citation Longitude does not, and the list goes on and on.

These nonsense talking points about MSFS flight dynamics might've worked when all we had were the initial batch of default aircraft in 2021, but that ain't so any more. It's also obvious why these narratives are being brought up recently by the usual suspects, one can only chuckle 😀
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

4 hours ago, Inu said:

It's like saying 1+1=4 but if you disagree, then let's agree to disagree.

Atmospheric simulation is not a flight model, just like water wave simulation, thermals in a cloud, haze or fog are not part of the flight model.

Have we come that far with this BS around here? denying simple facts? What's next, the sun shining is part of the flight model? because that affects it as well, after all, this usually means higher temperatures, thus affecting the aircraft performance. So with this logic, improving the sun simulation, equals an improved flight model. In fact, with this logic, anything in this world is "part of a flight model".

See how ridiculous this sounds? but "let's agree to disagree", after this kind of gaslighting, you don't deserve to make a U-Turn and act all polite.

And i'm sorry in advance if my comments seem a bit aggressive, but seriously, come on....who are you trying to fool around here guys? You think people around here are idiots? 

Then let's find some definitions of "flight dynamics":

From the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (aiaa.org) but a definition geared towards people in elementary or junior high school:

Quote

Flight Dynamics - study of a vehicle's motion through the air.

You don't like that one? Then how about this one from Cornell:

Quote

Flight dynamics characterizes the motion of a flight vehicle in the atmosphere

Hey look!  The word "atmosphere" is in there.  And the changes that the MSFS team made is air flow in the atmosphere and how that air flow can interact with the plane. And they didn't even specify how close the air flow changes can be, they only mention that it goes up to 20 KM away. So the air flow changes could be from perhaps 10 meters out from the plane, and that would count as part of the changes they made to the atmospheric air flow simulation.

Again, the keyword there is atmosphere. Say what you want, but for people like me, if changing how the air flow interacts in the atmosphere and that same air flow eventually comes in contact with the plane, by my definition, that is a part of flight dynamics changes that the MSFS team made. If that air flow never comes in contact with the plane, then you have a point. But that air flow may come in contact with the plane in MSFS, and that's the whole reason the MSFS team made the change in the first place.

The only one that is gaslighting are people like you.  This is not an open and shut case like you think it is. If it were an open and shut case, then Cornell would not use the word "atmosphere."   But yet, there is that word, atmosphere in Cornell's introduction.

 

 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

Usual defenders of MSFS physics … quoting fidelity models … blah blah blah.  Entertaining reads, but the fact remains … I can land my PMDG 737 at Lukla … not just me, many have done it without any special aircraft tweaks.  To be blunt, this is not realistic, not even close.  People have landed 747 at St. Barthelemy … when I say people I mean real world 747 pilots.

Whatever fidelity models are being used, they seem to be pretty brain dead when it comes to inertia and surfaces.  I don’t care what calculations they use, but they need to get real even if they add a fudge factor, whatever it takes.

4 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

Looking forward to hearing how much of FS2020 will be 'fixed' in FS2024.

• Proper and accurate ATC

🤣

5 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

Usual defenders of MSFS physics … quoting fidelity models … blah blah blah.  Entertaining reads, but the fact remains … I can land my PMDG 737 at Lukla … not just me, many have done it without any special aircraft tweaks.  To be blunt, this is not realistic, not even close.  People have landed 747 at St. Barthelemy … when I say people I mean real world 747 pilots.

Whatever fidelity models are being used, they seem to be pretty brain dead when it comes to inertia and surfaces.  I don’t care what calculations they use, but they need to get real even if they add a fudge factor, whatever it takes.

...and we can still fly a C152 in a hurricane with "Realistic Turbulence", it's fun but not real.

40 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

the iniBuilds A300

Oh the irony... choosing the same example that an Airbus&Boeing-experienced pilot choosed to demonstrate how inacurate the FM was by comparing that same addon in a different platform. But since you refuse to accept what cannot be, just try it by yourself. You can fly the iniBuilds A300 empty or with full weight. And fly it manually. As long as you know the meaning of inertia, you should come to another conclusion. At least you could have sticked to the fact that the FM has imporved and will be in the next version. Everyone would agree with that. But entirely refusing to admit what 90% of users know is similar to someone claiming that the scenery of other plattforms is as good as MSFS's one. It won't be true by just repeating it again and again. And since you probably won't believe me, I highly ask you to have a chat with some of the real ailiner-streamers on Twitch or on Youtube. And show us the output please. "Krakin" can for sure report about his chat with BB711 where he ended up agreeing with that and hoping the FM will be imporved in 2024. And repeating "usual suspects" every time somone disagrees with you also starts to become quite boring and doesn't makes you more credible, rather the opposite. I won't argue anymore here. Your opinion is not backuped by the majority of airliner-pilots. Period.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Franz007

1 hour ago, abrams_tank said:

Then let's find some definitions of "flight dynamics":

From the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (aiaa.org) but a definition geared towards people in elementary or junior high school:

You don't like that one? Then how about this one from Cornell:

Hey look!  The word "atmosphere" is in there.  And the changes that the MSFS team made is air flow in the atmosphere and how that air flow can interact with the plane. And they didn't even specify how close the air flow changes can be, they only mention that it goes up to 20 KM away. So the air flow changes could be from perhaps 10 meters out from the plane, and that would count as part of the changes they made to the atmospheric air flow simulation.

Again, the keyword there is atmosphere. Say what you want, but for people like me, if changing how the air flow interacts in the atmosphere and that same air flow eventually comes in contact with the plane, by my definition, that is a part of flight dynamics changes that the MSFS team made. If that air flow never comes in contact with the plane, then you have a point. But that air flow may come in contact with the plane in MSFS, and that's the whole reason the MSFS team made the change in the first place.

The only one that is gaslighting are people like you.  This is not an open and shut case like you think it is. If it were an open and shut case, then Cornell would not use the word "atmosphere."   But yet, there is that word, atmosphere in Cornell's introduction.

 

 

Oh then I've been flying my aircraft in real life all wrong till now!

Next time when I land or takeoff (in real life btw as i'm licensed, I hear real life pilots opinion around here are very popular) and ATC informs me of the wind values, they probably mean it's the wind flowing 20KM away, fool me watching the wind sock behavior. Fool airports management placing the wind sock in the airport and not 20KM away of it.

Or aircraft manufactures that run a fuselage wind simulation through a wind tunnel, they should have done that from 20KM away, they got it all wrong haven't they?

Even what you quoted says: "air flow in the atmosphere and how that air flow can interact with the plane"  , are there any planes with a fuselage and wings as long as 20KM now? WOW! humanity really is progressing!

I mean, lie to yourself as long as you wish, to me it's clear it's mainly an attempt to divert from the original question that was being asked no matter how hard you try to take me down with ya.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

12 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

I don't think I meant to assert that. I stated that current flight PC sims are predominately  entertaining platforms disregarding whether they are  marketed as realistic trainers or not.  In my experience I had several students who were using sims before actual training ( FSX, X-plane, P3D, DCS). They neither had an advange in average flight hours  before certification, nor better flying skills comparing with student who didn't have any prior knowledge of sims. In fact, in one case, PC sim usage gave student (who obseusely was doing it on his own)  gave him some bad habits and incorrect knowledge. And so we had to work hard to get rid of them. One in particular bad habit was absolutely terrible "flat" approaches with wrong side picture with bad mechanization management . Oh boy LOL

Numbers  shows GA pilots who actively participating in safety activities such as seminars/webinars or enroll to current program such as WINGs do better with flying proficiency and safety. As PC sims mature and become much spread out there is no data to suggest that in any way they improve GA safety. At least last time I renew my CFI there was nothing about it; other than that any safety extra tools are better and  FAA gives AATD, BATD, FTD more approval.

Ah - I definitely misunderstood you!

Completely agreed with above 🙂

50 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

Oh the irony... choosing the same example that an Airbus&Boeing-experienced pilot choosed to demonstrate how inacurate the FM was by comparing that same addon in a different platform. But since you refuse to accept what cannot be, just try it by yourself. You can fly the iniBuilds A300 empty or with full weight. And fly it manually. As long as you know the meaning of inertia, you should come to another conclusion. At least you could have sticked to the fact that the FM has imporved and will be in the next version. Everyone would agree with that. But entirely refusing to admit what 90% of users know is similar to someone claiming that the scenery of other plattforms is as good as MSFS's one. It won't be true by just repeating it again and again. And since you probably won't believe me, I highly ask you to have a chat with some of the real ailiner-streamers on Twitch or on Youtube. And show us the output please. "Krakin" can for sure report about his chat with BB711 where he ended up agreeing with that and hoping the FM will be imporved in 2024. And repeating "usual suspects" every time somone disagrees with you also starts to become quite boring and doesn't makes you more credible, rather the opposite. I won't argue anymore here. Your opinion is not backuped by the majority of airliner-pilots. Period.

Oh the irony indeed 🙂 , especially the part about "it won't be true by repeating it again and again" lol... are you talking about the iniBuilds A310 again or their payware A300? As the A310 is the freeware bird in the sim from the 40th anniv edition that you initially brought up this full vs empty weight complaint about.. and the problem with the A310 was not that it didn't model inertia and heft for its size, but that it didn't react differently to different load weights (which could well be a problem in the particular A310 FM implementation). Since you're the one making these claims about general inertia problems in the sim show us exactly how the A300 or PMDG 737 or PMDG 777 or Fenix A320 exhibit these inertia problems (i.e. well developed aircraft and not cherry picked not-so-well developed aircraft FMs in an attempt to cast as general sim problems).

And speaking of IRL pilots, sure let's go there... V1 Simulations, 320 Sim Pilot, Into the Blue Simuations, etc etc who've all reviewed the PMDG 777, PMDG 737, Fenix A320, iniBuilds A300, etc (they are type rated on these birds) and have lauded their flight dynamics (and not complained about this inertia problem on these big birds):

320 Sim Pilot (who's rated on the 777 now) on the PMDG 777: https://youtu.be/YqRXkFjgCXI?t=2842 
"amazing amazing handling"

Into the Blue Simulations on the PMDG 777: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=722wb6bF1yc
"flight modelling: very nice job by PMDG
"based on my level-D sim and IRL widebody experience, that certainly comes across in PMDG"
"reminds me of bigger version of 737"

V1 Simulations (IRL captain on A320) on the Fenix V2: 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"
"the hand flying on this is awesome"
"this is some good flight modelling here, very nicely done"

Hmmm.. sure sounds like they like the handling and flight dynamics, and not complaining about inertia, and quite safe to say that at the very least they don't seem to think the experience is "subpar" (in fact far from it) .. so what were you saying about opinion not being backed up by majority of airliner pilots again? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

15 minutes ago, Inu said:

Oh then I've been flying my aircraft in real life all wrong till now!

Next time when I land or takeoff (in real life btw as i'm licensed, I hear real life pilots opinion around here are very popular) and ATC informs me of the wind values, they probably mean it's the wind flowing 20KM away, fool me watching the wind sock behavior. Fool airports management placing the wind sock in the airport and not 20KM away of it.

Or aircraft manufactures that run a fuselage wind simulation through a wind tunnel, they should have done that from 20KM away, they got it all wrong haven't they?

Even what you quoted says: "air flow in the atmosphere and how that air flow can interact with the plane"  , are there any planes with a fuselage and wings as long as 20KM now? WOW! humanity really is progressing!

I mean, lie to yourself as long as you wish, to me it's clear it's mainly an attempt to divert from the original question that was being asked.

Atmosphere, atmosphere, atmosphere. It's a simple word.   What don't you understand about that quote from Cornell?

Quote

Flight dynamics characterizes the motion of a flight vehicle in the atmosphere

Furthermore, the whole point of MSFS team's changes to the airflow in the atmosphere was how that air flow would interact with the plane. The MSFS team wasn't making changes to the atmospheric air flow for fun.  The whole intent of their changes was to change the how the air flow from the atmosphere would impact the plane, ergo, they had intent to change the flight dynamics.

Like I said, it's not an open and shut case. You are completely contradicted by that quote from the flight dynamics course from Cornell.

Sad that I had to go into detail, and show you an actual quote from a flight dynamics course, where the it clearly uses the word "atmosphere" when describing flight dynamics, where it completely contradicts you.  But this is why it's not clear cut. While you may consider the changes the MSFS team made to not be flight dynamics, other people may consider it to be related to flight dynamics.

Hence I said earlier, we can agree to disagree, because I know some people will see it one way, while others like me will see it another way. Sad that you didn't get it at that point, but you had to go dig yourself a hole.

 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

9 hours ago, jcomm said:

In my case, only flying gliders IRL, simulators like Condorsoaring and Silent Wings were beneficial even starting using them many years after starting to fly for real, when desktop simulators weren't available at all...

The use someone who also "pilots for real" can get from even a desktop simulator is usually not on the "hands and feet"-on flying skills but rather on the procedures and techniques used to operate the aircraft IRL, navigation and air rules, soaring tactics in the case of gliders, etc... 

When it comes to airliners, a friend with extensive experience from piloting small business jets to L-1011, A310 and the modern buses, is also an avid P3d and now also Xp12 and MSFS 2020 user (although he still prefers P3d with FSLabs for training and proficiency).

In MSFS he particularly likes the realism of the scenery. In P3d the realism of the aircraft simulation, and in both as well as in Xp12 with Toliss he says he can practice rw procedures and use them to keep proficient although for failures his go-to is P3d+FSlabs (because IRL he's in the modern Airbus fleet).

Honestly, none of the simulators I've tried gliders, with some exception for Condor and SW [but still far from the real thing in aspects that are very important such as control load and the forces we apply to controls, and can differ significantly from aircraft to aircraft]  satisfy me "feel of flight" wise. I would never recommend using a desktop flight simulator to train real world hand & feet flying. It can nonetheless be useful to have an initial introduction to it.

I also believe that using modern hardware such as VR can make a difference. I have several friends who use it and say the sensation of "being there" changes dramatically and can in fact provide realistic experiences of "feel of flight"... but I never used VR 😕 and the closer I can get to it is through my EDTracker + Opentrack for a limited 3DOF experience...

This is why I seldom use GA aircraft or even less gliders in MSFS, and for helicopters I honestly only spend time playing DCS World.  I use MSFS and XP as well as P3D to fly airliners, mainly Airbus... Airbus in particular has the additional effect of looking a little bit easier to match to the real thing because of the FBW and the use of the sidestick... Well...

Regarding MSFS 2024, there are really nifty aspects of categories of flight being modeled, such as SAR, Agricultural, banners towing, etc...

I would really like to see at least the following addressed:

.) Proper / realistic visual range definition and representation for IMC operations;

.) better modelling of turbulence and shear effects, on ground and in the air;

.) much better helicopter flight dynamics modelling;

.) possibility to realistically model aircraft with special geometries or simply multiple wings / tail fins... 

I think you're pretty much spot on across the board there.

I will add my usual plug for the validity of "desktop flight simulation" in IRL training with the e.g. of the USAF/USN/USMC Pilot Training Next Program, which uses networked Prepar3D, an "ejection seat", a good HOTAS and VR. 

As you say, though, there's no substitute for getting your butt in an airframe and off into the wild blue yonder.

In re DCSW and helos, I didn't feel like jousting last night, so I was running randomly generated MedEvac missions in the UH-1. Great fun and ship-to-shore evacs really keep you on your toes! 🙂

I'm quite interested to see how MSFS v2024 handles that kind of stuff and how / if it'll end up being an improvement over the DCSW experience.

24 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Like I said, it's not an open and shut case. You are completely contradicted by that quote from the flight dynamics course from Cornell.

Yes it is, due to the very simple FACT that wind 20KM away, can't interact on your fuselage therefore has no relevance in the inputs a pilot needs, which is exactly what an airplane flight model is 🤷‍♂️

Environment/atmosphere VS aerodynamics are completely different topics, when I applied to my tests, both were clearly completely different topics, 2 different exams, 2 completely different categories of research and professions.

Maybe I should tell them to change the syllabus because of the quote you gave, they have been teaching us all wrong. Even Cornell himself would face-palm and cringe with how you are twisting his own words to make absolute no sense, but it says "atmosphere"🤣

Either you are trolling or just digging in your own mud of nonsense, either way, keep entertaining, "let's agree to disagree" 🤣

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

And sorry, as much as you'd desperately want it to be "subpar results" that's just not so.. a lot of expertly developed aircraft FMs currently exist for MSFS that yield great results. The PMDG 737 or 777 don't yield subpar results, the Fenix V2 does not, the iniBuilds A300 does not, the default Citation Longitude does not, and the list goes on and on.

These nonsense talking points about MSFS flight dynamics might've worked when all we had were the initial batch of default aircraft in 2021, but that ain't so any more. It's also obvious why these narratives are being brought up recently by the usual suspects, one can only chuckle 😀
 

Based on @Tuskin38's advice, I gave the C172 G1000 another try this weekend. And YES, it's been improved! I can honestly say it's even more of a solidly enjoyable representation of the aircraft and light GA stick-n-rudder flying in all regards. The tires might be a bit too sticky, but let's give credit where it's due 🙂

And then I went back to the FSR500, my new Happy Place. Flight model "feels" GREAT. One of the very few addons where every flight makes me want to fly it again at the very next opportunity.

8 hours ago, turbomax said:

hhmmm, interesting.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has given its top-level approval to Embry‑Riddle's Flight Simulation and Training Devices.

Flight Simulation and Training Devices (FSTDs) include both Full Flight Simulators (FFSs) as well as Flight Training Devices (FTDs). Unlike Full-Flight Simulators, FTDs do not require a motion platform or a visual system.

https://daytonabeach.erau.edu/about/fleet-simulators/red-bird-cross-wind-trainer

 

 

If EVER there was a setup crying out for VR... 😁

54 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

"Krakin" can for sure report about his chat with BB711

For the last time, I did not have a chat with BB. I proved this the last time you foolishly tried to make it seem like I was having a back and forth with him. You need to stop. It was not a gotcha moment and you're making yourself look silly. I would think you'd be wise enough to not even speak my name after trying to doxx me but here we are. Let's do this: You pretend I don't exist and I'll pretend you don't exist.