7 minutes ago, Inu said:

Its rather simple to understand imo

Atmospheric simulation= The reason you get whatever wind component you end up flying through to begin with.

Flight model=the resulting impact of this wind component and it's effect on the plane and pilot inputs.

Both are as mentioned, completely different fields of expertise to begin with. Even if both use the same CFD tech.

 

It indeed is rather simple but you keep talking besides the point 🙂 Yes we know "flight model" and "atmospheric simulation" are different fields of expertise. Who here is saying they are one and the same just due to the same CFD tech being used? 🙂 ... in any case, it's also a fact that flight dynamics are impacted by atmospheric airflow, and that the immediate airflow around the aircraft is impacted by factors in a much wider area. Not sure why that is even arguable, but whatever 🤷‍♂️
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

19 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

It indeed is rather simple but you keep talking besides the point 🙂 Yes we know "flight model" and "atmospheric simulation" are different fields of expertise. Who here is saying they are one and the same just due to the same CFD tech being used? 🙂 ... in any case, it's also a fact that flight dynamics are impacted by atmospheric airflow, and that the immediate airflow around the aircraft is impacted by factors in much wider area. Not sure why that is even arguable, but whatever 🤷‍♂️
 

After all, you guys are 4-5 people i'm commenting to, so excuse me if I applied the same arguments on you as I did on abrams tank.

Yes you should insist on such stuff, because if someone argues for an improvement in the flight model in the next Q&A, then he gets an atmosphere improvement as the "flight model improvement" and the plane still acts wrong, it's just not what he asked for.

It's not just a matter of "Semantics". You want a developer to improve something, be precise what you are asking for.

So if jorg give the same answer as abrams tank give ("hey we have a 20KM box of wind simulation!) to a flight model answer in the next Q&A, you should not be surprised to see disappointment follows.

And if someone clarifies what he meant and still gets the same nitpicking/almost mockery, you are ignoring his arguments and diverting the way it suits you. (not YOU Len, in general, discussions around here)

The fact that you still think I'm talking besides the point, clearly shows, that you don't get how both are completely different topics to begin with.

 

Anyway you'd have to excuse me, i'm done with this topic.

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

4 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You seem rather eager to keep bringing XP into the conversation, nd how the flight dynamics are not on par, that XP is superior, bla bla.. if you feel XP is superior and that the flight dynamics are not on par, that's great. Many of us feel that with properly implemented aircraft and their respective flight models that MSFS is also great for flight dynamics, as do many reputable 3rd party devs and IRL pilots. Such are opinions. Coming on here to repeatedly keep bashing MSFS flight dynamics makes you (and a certain other cohort) look rather insecure 🙂, but if that makes you somehow weirdly cope with MSFS's success then more power to you!
 

No, I didn’t particularly wanted to bash MSFS but you are almost forcing people to react when you repeat such claims again and again. So please don’t play the victim. And you last sentence speaks volume. I prefer to focus on the discussed topic rather than trying to reassure myself with « bigger is better ». Btw I do own MSFS exactly like you do. So should I celebrate myself for that achievement of being able to download a software from the internet and contribute to its success? Congrats to you and be proud if you feel that way 💪

 

 

39 minutes ago, Inu said:

Sure if he showed an example of CFD around a fuselage hitting real life values, but the example given was wind blowing down a hill, which is an environmental factor and not a flight model factor.

Both 2 are different categories of development and fields of profession, entirely, despite they fall under the same "semantics", in this case "CFD".

Never have I ever in reality had to compensate for wind factors 20KM away, in fact I land and takeoff around an airport in reality with a mountain ridge next to it, it's always the same exact place the turbulence occurs in.

The only thing it matters for, is expectations and risk management. If it's dangerous wind and turbulence, you don't go there in the first place. Same as approaching a cloud and expecting some thermals and turbulence.

If you watched their presetantions you have seen. CFD is very important for flight dynamics, the fact you said it isn't, makes me thing you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Also, apparently, you have no idea how the atmospheric engine works in MSFS. Having to compensate for winds 20KM away?! That doesn't happen at all. 

But hey, what really matters is we both have our FSims we like, right? I'm happy with MSFS (and will probably be even happier with MSFS 2024). You guys have... Austin Meyer I guess. 😉

38 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You seem rather eager to keep bringing XP into the conversation, and how the flight dynamics are not on par, that XP is superior, bla bla.. if you feel XP is superior and that the flight dynamics are not on par, that's great. Many of us feel that with properly implemented aircraft and their respective flight models that MSFS is also great for flight dynamics, as do many reputable 3rd party devs and IRL pilots. Such are opinions. Coming on here to repeatedly keep bashing MSFS flight dynamics makes you (and a certain other cohort) look rather insecure 🙂, but if that makes you somehow weirdly cope with MSFS's success then more power to you!
 

The other forum is pretty much dead. I get why they are always doing that over here.

11 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

If you watched their presetantions you have seen. CFD is very important for flight dynamics, the fact you said it isn't, makes me thing you have no idea what you are talking about. 

Also, apparently, you have no idea how the atmospheric engine works in MSFS. Having to compensate for winds 20KM away?! That doesn't happen at all. 

But hey, what really matters is we both have our FSims we like, right? I'm happy with MSFS (and will probably be even happier with MSFS 2024). You guys have... Austin Meyer I guess. 😉

I never said that I had to do that in MSFS, nor did I imply anything about the quality of MSFS in general or did I mention Austin meyer. So if anything, you are now twisting my words.

Refrain from assuming what you think I like and what I use, thank you.

And thank you for demonstrating exactly what I've been claiming all along about the quality of discussions around here, you managed to miss the point by a 20KM, well done 🙃

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Inu

6 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

The other forum is pretty much dead. I get why they are always doing that over here.

🤣

50 minutes ago, Franz007 said:

No, I didn’t particularly wanted to bash MSFS but you are almost forcing people to react when you repeat such claims again and again. So please don’t play the victim. And you last sentence speaks volume. I prefer to focus on the discussed topic rather than trying to reassure myself with « bigger is better ». Btw I do own MSFS exactly like you do. So should I celebrate myself for that achievement of being able to download a software from the internet and contribute to its success? Congrats to you and be proud if you feel that way 💪

Not at all, nobody's playing the victim here 🙂 .. I'm just amused by your repeated posts with predictable themes and intentions 🙂 

No "claims" were made or repeated, just actual quotes from Matt Nischan and then various IRL pilots, and then mine and others' opinions on MSFS's flight dynamics. What I mentioned about the Navigraph survey were just plain facts and I brought that up not as a "bigger is better" argument but to point out yet another data point that completely counters the narrative that MSFS flight dynamics are as bad as seem desperate to make it seem (because, you know, if that truly were the case then there wouldn't be such uptake of the sim amongst the survey respondents). Perhaps you should try not to get as triggered? You say you own MSFS, but given your posting history and your obvious dislike for it and obvious partiality for another sim it's kinda weird you're always on these forums spouting the same thing over and over no? Especially it seems on MSFS 2024 threads... curious 🤔 (atually, not)
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

4 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

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 😀
 

I knew you'd come round the corner with that 😉 (very predictable). Alright ... to make my point clearer: you need a VERY experienced developer to get good results. Otherwise you'll end up with what you see with the default aircraft. I.e., the base product is ... hmmm ... very much in need of improvement - in (very) many aspects. This is even confirmed by many MSFS users. Turning a blind eye to this does not make the (base) product any better.

 

20 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

The other forum is pretty much dead. I get why they are always doing that over here.

To open a sideshow is an old and very popular tactic when you run out of facts and arguments.
But it was fun 😄 to join in the discussion here.

32 minutes ago, Inu said:

I never said that I had to do that in MSFS, nor did I imply anything about the quality of MSFS in general or did I mention Austin meyer. So if anything, you are now twisting my words.

Refrain from assuming what you think I like and what I use, thank you.

And thank you for demonstrating exactly what I've been claiming all along about the quality of discussions around here, you managed to miss the point by a 20KM, well done 🙃

The discussions here are very constructive until you guys start with your non-sense. About the 20KM radius, it's just the area around the plane that is calculated. That´s all. There's no "wind effects from 20KM away".

17 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

To open a sideshow is an old and very popular tactic when you run out of facts and arguments.
But it was fun 😄 to join in the discussion here.

Well, it's a fact the other forum is pretty much dead, and unless you guys want to talk to the walls, you have to come here and chat. I was just being comprehensive. 🙏

25 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

I knew you'd come round the corner with that 😉 (very predictable). Alright ... to make my point clearer: you need a VERY experienced developer to get good results. Otherwise you'll end up with what you see with the default aircraft. I.e., the base product is ... hmmm ... very much in need of improvement - in (very) many aspects. This is even confirmed by many MSFS users. Turning a blind eye to this does not make the (base) product any better.

Oh, when it comes to predictability you are the hands-down winner 🙂

The fact that flight models ultimately comes down to the aircraft developer is.. a fact. Inconvenient for your narrative I suppose, but oh well. *Both* payware (from the reputable devs) and a fair amount of the default aircraft for MSFS are now at great fidelity levels and exhibit great flight dynamics. The current default aircraft that underwent enhancements via the AAUs and SUs are nothing like the initial batch on release.

Of course it takes good experienced developers to have good results, regardless of the sim, as clearly evidenced in both the payware and default fleets we have for MSFS and other sims. But hmmm, your "base product is very much in need of improvement in very many aspects" comment there reeks of hyperbolism sorry. Of course the base product is in need of improvements, like with other base sim products... but "very much" and "very many" is a desperate reach lol, but then again par for the course for you isn't it 🤣
 

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by lwt1971

3 hours ago, Franz007 said:

Indeed, the facts are that it is not on par.

Could you give me some links to these facts please?

I've heard that millions of times by now, but so far I have never seen a hard proof - since you repeat these "facts" over and over again I guess you have deeper knowledge about this topic.

No need to send me links with opinions and simplified maths - my background is more flying in real life than I care to count, instructing upd to IFR level, 60+ different types of aircraft,  flight test, aircraft design, aerodynamics, flight dynamics, and a little bit more engineering stuff. I speak plain Cooper ratings. So, please, publish some serious flight model numbers!

It probably does not help to listen to airliner pilots like Blackbox711 talking about flight dynamics. As much experience as he has got, 99 percent of airliner flying takes place in a very narrow field in the middle of the envelope - and as anyone with experience in flight test knows, things only start to get interesting once you arrive at the edges of the flight envelope.

I know XP11 as well as FS2020 and did some intensive tests about their flight dynamics so I think I can compare those.

Thank you very much for your help in advance!

Edited September 9, 20241 yr by Ojisan_alpha

11 minutes ago, ca_metal said:

Well, it's a fact the other forum is pretty much dead, and unless you guys want to talk to the walls, you have to come here and chat. I was just being comprehensive. 🙏

🤣🤣

3 hours ago, turbomax said:

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

hhhm, interesting:

"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.”

Waaaay back in the day when I got my IRL wings, simulators were not an option.

I can remember quite a few instances where I word not allowed off my CFI with some basic airmanship errors where I needed some stick time before I got them right.

I guess you can say I'm a visual learner, and learn best by doing.

If I would've had the benefit of even the most basic of today's flight simulation setups (and that includes the desktop consumer grade sims that we all love to argue over), I absolutely would've become a better pilot, sooner than it took.