32 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 no matter how hard you try to take me down with ya.

You're intentionally misrepresenting the purpose of the feature.

We, as IRL pilots, surely know that "weather" is infinitely connected, and that 20km away is often just a minute or three in the future.

13 minutes ago, Inu said:

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" 🤣

You're missing the bigger picture. And that's okay.

18 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

You're intentionally misrepresenting the purpose of the feature.

We, as IRL pilots, surely know that "weather" is infinitely connected, and that 20km away is often just a minute or three in the future.

Wind flowing down a hill 20KM away is not a "minute or three in the future". You will get those turbulence as result only when you get there.

It is useful to know so you expect those turbulence & plan accordingly, but has noting to do with what the current input of the pilot should be NOW.

I also did not say anything about MSFS and it's features, I'm just astonished with how far people will go here to gaslight others.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

22 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

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

https://news.erau.edu/headlines/virtual-reality-flight-training-program-at-embry-riddle-set-for-expansion

https://news.erau.edu/headlines/improved-pilot-training-program-yields-promising-results

Virtual Reality Flight-Training Program at Embry‑Riddle Set for Expansion

 

Aviation English Coordinator Andrew Schneider demonstrates use of the virtual Air Traffic Control Lab at Embry‑Riddle’s Daytona Beach Campus.

sd_flyer said: "there is no data to suggest that in any way they improve GA safety."

hhhm, interesting:

“We’re not just teaching students how to fly here,” he said. “We are training world-class safety professionals.”

"A group of 58 flight students at Embry‑Riddle Aeronautical University were able to reduce the time it took them to complete a first solo flight by more than 30 percent, thanks to a first-of-its-kind general aviation flight training program.

While results remain preliminary, reports from instructor pilots have been positive, said Dr. Ken Byrnes, chair of the Flight Department at Embry‑Riddle’s Daytona Beach, Florida, campus. “Students who go through our new training program are better prepared when they step into an airplane,” Byrnes reported. “They also have lower anxiety and greater confidence due to their experience and understanding of what to expect in the aircraft.”

The PILOT, or Pre-flight Immersion Laboratory for Operations Training program, an evidence-based approach that can save flight students time and money, was launched by Embry‑Riddle in fall 2021.

Embry‑Riddle Flight Training Manager Nicole Hester agreed that the program is paying off. “We have had students who finished and soloed in times that we have never seen before,” Hester said. “We’re also getting feedback from our instructor pilots that students in the new program can immediately control the airplane and understand radio communications very well.”

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by turbomax

20 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

You're missing the bigger picture. And that's okay.

I'm actually not, you guys are trying to argue MSFS has improved as a simulation, I agree and never denied it.

But wind blowing down a hill is not a "flight model" improvement, no matter how you twist it.

So if someone says he would like Asobo to improve the *flight model*, that is CLEARLY about the immediate inputs he/she as a pilot needs to apply, not how wind flows 20KM away of your plane. Your twisting is the problem, not his, he is being rather accurate about his wishes.

Future atmosphere/wind awareness is useful and indeed an important aspect in simulation & planning your flight in general, but has nothing to do with the immediate actions you have to take due to wind flowing around your fuselage NOW.

You don't need more leg and power applied when you land just because there is a hill 20KM away.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

15 minutes ago, Inu said:

I'm actually not, you guys are trying to argue MSFS has improved as a simulation, I agree and never denied it.

But wind blowing down a hill is not a "flight model" improvement, no matter how you twist it.

So if someone says he would like Asobo to improve the *flight model*, that is CLEARLY about the immediate inputs he/she as a pilot needs to apply, not how wind flows 20KM away of your plane. Your twisting is the problem, not his, he is being rather accurate about his wishes.

Future atmosphere/wind awareness is useful and indeed an important aspect in simulation, but has nothing to do with the immediate actions you have to take.

First of all try to actually read the conversation and understand how and when this was brought up... Urgent made a comment about how physics in the sim have been continually improved since release to which he was questioned about how exactly and for specific examples. To which Abrams answered about one such example, the simulation of atmospheric airflow in a cocoon around the aircraft with a radius as large as 20km. The use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in flight modelling was put in previously and this was a new addition by Asobo to apply the same tech to atmospheric airflow simulation. And as already noted by others (and obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of physics), the simulation of atmospheric airflow is kinda sorta important to flight dynamics too. But if you insist on strict categories and this not being a "flight model" improvement, then sure go right ahead, but that's *besides* the point since what's being discussed here is sim physics in general, not just exclusively about flight models.
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

@lwt1971

You are quite easily impressed and haven't watched a lot of comparisons made by those pilots, have you? When you do, things starts to look slightly differently:

- Emi (A330 Driver), a former B737-pilot who even was/is also part of PMDG's specialist's-team when comparing the PMDG 737 with the ZIBO: "The point where zibo clearly wins are flight dynamics".

- Into the Blue Simulations: "and what you loose in terms of graphical fidelity by using XP, you certainly make up for with regards to realism" (meaning flight realism). "The fidelity is obviously significantly stronger in many respects than Microsoft light simulator in its current state even now" and "I'm sure many of you are aware xplan typically offers some of the best flight modeling available for PC flight simulation".

- BB711: He cannot stop repeating again and again how the Flightmodel is lacking. He stated a few months ago: "MSFS' Flightmodel is very basic" when he was demonstrating that other platform.

Do me a favour please; ask any of those pilots you mentionned yourself about flight dynamics in MSFS and that other sim and please share with us their answers. Otherwise you will keep living in your own world. And your statements are going pretty much against the majority of opinions I'm seeing here from users asking for a better FM. By the way, Asobo promised imporvements and have hired a specialist. Everything points to same direction...Are you perhaps also a flat-earther?

36 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

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.

That's great 🙂 .. based on this "subset" of ground handling improvements backport from MSFS 2024 that came in SU15, and also as shown by adopters like iniBuilds on their A300 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4cxNccH66U&t=1318s) and Fenix, things definitely look promising for the full ground handling rework coming in MSFS 2024. Let's see if and how they improve the ground <-> air transition modelling.
 

6 hours ago, VeryBumpy said:

Full CPU multi core usage

This is already confirmed to be coming with 2024

35 minutes ago, Krakin said:

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.

Of course you were online in BB711's chat and making statements about flight dynamics. That's where BB711 answered directly to you: https://youtu.be/ivbkl5xzBVU?t=8905
I quote him here again: "MSFS has a very very basic flight model simulation".

 

15 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

First of all try to actually read the conversation and understand how and when this was brought up... Urgent made a comment about how physics in the sim have been continually improved since release to which he was questioned about how exactly and for specific examples. To which Abrams answered about one such example, the simulation of atmospheric airflow in a cocoon around the aircraft with a radius as large as 20km. The use of computational fluid dynamics in flight modelling is already there, and this was a new addition by Asobo to apply the same tech to atmospheric airflow simulation. And as already noted by others (and obvious to anyone with a basic knowledge of physics), the simulation of atmospheric airflow is kinda sorta important to flight dynamics too. But if you insist on strict categories and this not being a "flight model" improvement, then sure go right ahead, but that's *besides* the point since what's being discussed here is sim physics in general, not just exclusively about flight models.
 

This is the quote you all raged about:

Quote

That's atmospheric simulation, not to be confused with flight dynamics. 

So you're saying that atmospheric simulation is second to none? Strange as it seems to be the most frequent issue on the "to be fixed in 2024" list.

Instead you chose to apply the term "Physics" in a very counter-productive broad meaning; the sun shining, is physics as well. Light rendering, is physics based as well. So yes technically "atmospheric simulation" is indeed "Physics". And the water flushing in the toilet as well. Everything in this world in fact, is "Physics".

It is quite clear what the guy was talking about for anyone not trying to nitpick, from the first time I read it , he is talking about the flight model, i.e. the inputs needed to be applied while trying to land and takeoff, and been given an example of wind blowing down a hill, which is irrelevant. 

Instead, just as usual, people around here attempt to twist others words to match their strawman arguments, aiming to twist the actual meaning to discredit his views on which you don't agree, which is a very, very low level of speech and debate tactics.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

2 hours ago, Franz007 said:

@lwt1971

You are quite easily impressed and haven't watched a lot of comparisons made by those pilots, have you? When you do, things starts to look slightly differently:

- Emi (A330 Driver), a former B737-pilot who even was/is also part of PMDG's specialist's-team when comparing the PMDG 737 with the ZIBO: "The point where zibo clearly wins are flight dynamics".

- Into the Blue Simulations: "and what you loose in terms of graphical fidelity by using XP, you certainly make up for with regards to realism" (meaning flight realism). "The fidelity is obviously significantly stronger in many respects than Microsoft light simulator in its current state even now" and "I'm sure many of you are aware xplan typically offers some of the best flight modeling available for PC flight simulation".

- BB711: He cannot stop repeating again and again how the Flightmodel is lacking. He stated a few months ago: "MSFS' Flightmodel is very basic" when he was demonstrating that other platform.

Do me a favour please; ask any of those pilots you mentionned yourself about flight dynamics in MSFS and that other sim and please share with us their answers. Otherwise you will keep living in your own world. And your statements are going pretty much against the majority of opinions I'm seeing here from users asking for a better FM. By the way, Asobo promised imporvements and have hired a specialist. Everything points to same direction...Are you perhaps also a flat-earther?

All those IRL pilots certainly seem impressed don't they.. and I only quoted a few from the many reviews of MSFS aircraft these pilots (and experienced users of many sims) have done that I've seen.

Great that you took the opportunity to bring in the topic of XP, could care less since I don't use it any more. I just quoted some of the many comments these IRL pilots have given after doing unbiased reviews of various aircraft for MSFS.. I realize their reviews don't fit your narrative, but these IRL pilots feel otherwise, as apparently do a large majority of hardcore simmers per surveys (like Navigraph) who've embraced MSFS for both its visual and flight fidelity. If the flight dynamics are as poor as you and some others would like to make it seem, MSFS would not be dominating the simmer demographic like it does now. In any case, do keep keep trying (by coming on to the forum of a sim you dislike and telling us repeatedly the same things 🤣), you guys just keep sounding sillier and sillier by the day 🙂 
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

It was mentioned at FSExpo, I believe, that atmospheric disturbances will stay simulated up to a certain amount of time. Wake turbulence was mentioned as something you will now have to take into account in 2024.

Wake turbulence is already modelled in 2020, but for some reason only in the Reno races game mode.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

Haha the classic sim vs sim.

You could ask a million real world pilots and you'll get a million different opinions.

Hard to follow what this topic is even about at this point though.  It kinda feels like one group of people is upset about a certain sim's success...

2 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Great that you took the opportunity to bring in the topic of XP, could care less since I don't use it any more. I just quoted some of the many comments these IRL pilots have given after doing unbiased reviews of various aircraft for MSFS.. I realize their reviews don't fit your narrative, but these IRL pilots feel otherwise, as apparently do a large majority of hardcore simmers per surveys (like Navigraph) who've embraced MSFS for both its visual and flight fidelity. If the flight dynamics are as poor as you and some others would like to make it seem, MSFS would not be dominating the simmer demographic like it does now. In any case, do keep keep trying (by coming on to the forum of a sim you dislike and telling us repeatedly the same things 🤣), you guys just keep sounding sillier and sillier by the day 🙂 
 

Here we go again. You cannot accept facts so you're trying to steer it into a different discussion...applying your logic let me state that if Mc Donalds wasn't selling such a delicious and healthy food they wouldn't be the most visited restaurants in the world. Do you agree with that? 😅🤦‍♂️