1 hour ago, SergioCosta said:

This should be a fun one.

Were you smiling from ear to ear? I'm pretty sure answering me won't violate any NDAs lol

42 minutes ago, Abriael said:

I'm sure they're not the only ones, so you'll have plenty of fun. Don't destroy that F5 key. 

Yeah. Basically every teletubbier showing off how their fantastic feats of wonder in MSFS have collisions off, and it's 100% obvious. So yeah. If you were able to slam a 747 down on Lukla's runway at 4000 ft/s vertical rate without crashing, and your wings and fuselage were made of nothing so you could simply roll through the obstacles around the runway, it'd likely be "possible" to land a 747 there and stop before you hit the back wall (not that it'd do anything if you did).

Most of these videos show it is possible to come to a full stop before the end of the runway. No matter if damage, collisions and whatever is turned of, it should not be possible to do this at all! MSFS is flawed, no matter how we all try to spin it here. Then again, so are all the other desktop sims as you have pointed out before.

I'm looking forward to what the team has to say about the improvements in MSFS 2024.

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by Rimshot

10 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Most of these videos show it is possible to come to a full stop before the end of the runway. No matter if damage, collisions and whatever is turned of, it should not be possible to do this at all! MSFS is flawed, no matter how we all try to spin it here. Then again, so are all the other desktop sims as you have pointed out before.

I'm looking forward to what the team has to say about the improvements in MSFS 2024.

If you had an invulnerable, non-physical plane that can pass through things and survive extremely hard landings, you could come to a full stop before the end of the runway in real life as well. 

It's not "spin." It's simple physics. Even if your mass is extremely high, if most of your momentum is vertical, your horizontal momentum can be minimized.

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

23 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

No matter if damage, collisions and whatever is turned of, it should not be possible to do this at all!. 

The problem of your approach to this point is: you start your thinking based on a real situation. Which is not given in the sim due to the mentioned hard landing, or slamming into the ground. If you land a 747 with 10000ft/min descend rate and only 100kts speed, you will able to «stop» it in no time. In the sim. In reality, you would have a hole at the initial ground contact point 🤣

31 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Most of these videos show it is possible to come to a full stop before the end of the runway. No matter if damage, collisions and whatever is turned of, it should not be possible to do this at all! MSFS is flawed, no matter how we all try to spin it here. Then again, so are all the other desktop sims as you have pointed out before.

But is there any actual evidence showing properly developed aircraft (like the PMDG 777/737 or Fenix A320) being made to land successfully on runways like St. Barts? Have you been able to reproduce such scenarios? I'm away from the computer but now I'm curious myself. If anyone else has such evidence please do share. Being able to do such antics with default aircraft like the 747 or other subpar aircraft X don't count, nor do situations where MSFS assistance/helpers settings are enabled. Regardless of how well developed an aircraft is, if *all* those heavies can be made to do this easily in MSFS, then perhaps nebulous statements like "MSFS is flawed" can be taken seriously 🙂 
 

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by lwt1971

21 minutes ago, Abriael said:

If you had an invulnerable, non-physical plane that can pass through things and survive extremely hard landings, you could come to a full stop before the end of the runway in real life as well. 

It's not "spin." It's simple physics. Even if your mass is extremely high, if most of your momentum is vertical, your horizontal momentum can be minimized.

Seems logical, but looking at these videos it just seems 'arcade'. Also the approach before such an unbelievable landing. It doesn't seem right.

Just now, AnkH said:

The problem of your approach to this point is: you start your thinking based on a real situation. Which is not given in the sim due to the mentioned hard landing, or slamming into the ground. If you land a 747 with 10000ft/min descend rate and only 100kts speed, you will able to «stop» it in no time. In the sim. In reality, you would have a hole at the initial ground contact point 🤣

Good point, that's how I look at it indeed. How does the sim compare to real life? but a 747 at 100 kts with a high angle of attack would have stalled into the ground already right? Just like that video of a 747 performing a looping immediately after take off (the other sim). It's just plain silly. It makes all the desktop sims 'gamey'.

Just now, lwt1971 said:

But is there any actual evidence showing properly developed aircraft (like the PMDG 777/737 or Fenix A320) being made to land successfully on runways like St. Barts? Have you been able to reproduce such scenarios? I'm away from the computer but now I'm curious myself. If anyone else has such evidence please do share. Being able to do such antics with default aircraft like the 747 or other subpar aircraft X don't count, nor do situations where MSFS assistance/helpers settings are enabled. Regardless of how well developed an aircraft is, if *all* those heavies can be made to do this in MSFS, then perhaps nebulous statements like "MSFS is flawed" can be taken seriously 🙂 
 

I don't know. The videos I have seen are probably the default 747. Personally I don't fly the heavies, so I have not tried it myself, not in a default and not in a properly developed heavy. I don't understand what's nebulous about my statement the sim is flawed; to clarify, I made this remark regarding the mentioned videos. What I see in these looks flawed. But as I said before, all desktop sims are flawed in one way or another.

 

I have crashes turned off because sometimes the sim can be a bit sensitive

 

Also flying under some bridges counts as a crash for some reason.

50 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Even if your mass is extremely high, if most of your momentum is vertical, your horizontal momentum can be minimized.

not exactly how airplanes land, except VTOLs like Hawker Harrier etc.

29 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Seems logical, but looking at these videos it just seems 'arcade'. Also the approach before such an unbelievable landing. It doesn't seem right.

ust like that video of a 747 performing a looping immediately after take off (the other sim). It's just plain silly. It makes all the desktop sims 'gamey'.

I made this remark regarding the mentioned videos. What I see in these looks flawed. But as I said before, all desktop sims are flawed in one way or another.

I guess what some of us are saying is that those videos are making use of subpar default or payware aircraft that have rudimentary FM implementations, and/or they have enabled certain MSFS assistance settings to make such "gamey" or "arcade" antics possible in the sim... so this then doesn't therefore mean there is some pervasive fundamental issue(s) in the sim. If and when such impossible-in-reality antics can be done in well developed aircraft with all assistance/protection settings disabled (be they with heavies or GA, like a PMDG or Fenix), then that could indicate a core sim issue.
 

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by lwt1971

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

I guess what some of us are saying is that those videos are making use of subpart default or payware aircraft that have rudimentary FM implementations, and/or they have enabled certain MSFS assistance settings to make such "gamey" or "arcade" antics possible in the sim... so this then doesn't therefore mean there is some pervasive fundamental issue(s) in the sim. If and when such impossible-in-reality antics can be done in well developed aircraft with all assistance/protection settings disabled (be they with heavies or GA, like a PMDG or Fenix), then that could indicate a core sim issue.
 

Fenix uses outside help for some it's FM doesn't it? So that wouldn't be a good comparison.

3 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Fenix uses outside help for some it's FM doesn't it? So that wouldn't be a good comparison.

The went external for some of the flare/ground-effect stuff in latest update I believe, but ya if not the Fenix, then any of the PMDG 737 or 777, or the iniBuilds A300 (not A310) are the examples that come to mind of well developed heavies. Perhaps even the AAU-enhanced 787.
 

41 minutes ago, Rimshot said:

Seems logical, but looking at these videos it just seems 'arcade'. Also the approach before such an unbelievable landing. It doesn't seem right.

 

35 minutes ago, turbomax said:

not exactly how airplanes land, except VTOLs like Hawker Harrier etc.

 

It doesn't seem right and it's not how airplanes land because pilots in real life have a limiting factor called survival. 

You could absolutely slam a 747 down at crazy vertical speed. Of course, in real life, that'd be a crash, but you would stop in a relatively short area. In the simulator, you can do that and not crash simply because you turn collisions off.

These approaches don't look right not because they're impossible in the real world, but because they'd lead to a crater and a fireball.

If you perform a normal approach within the limits of safety and procedure, you will NOT stop an airliner before you get to the end of one of these small runways. Basically, people manage it for sh*t and giggles (and engagement) because they're cheating, not because the sim is lacking. 

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

15 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

Fenix uses outside help for some it's FM doesn't it? So that wouldn't be a good comparison.

Fenix uses an outside model for one reason and one reason alone. Because they licensed the base of that model and sped up their development massively, allowing them to release much earlier than they otherwise would have if they developed their model and systems from scratch.

Other developers achieved model and systems that are no less precise without an external model. They simply took much longer.

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by Abriael

8 minutes ago, Abriael said:

Fenix uses an outside model for one reason and one reason alone. Because they licensed the base of that model and sped up their development massively, allowing them to release much earlier than they otherwise would have if they developed their model and systems from scratch.

You are probably talking about the ProSim systems code they based their codebase on right (I don't believe ProSim has any FM stuff but I could be wrong, or even if it does that Fenix used that since the MSFS FDE is entirely different). In terms of the flight model however, this is what Aamir said (I'm sure he'll clarify if he happens to be monitoring these threads): https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/?do=findComment&comment=4990988 .. bottom line is that they went external for the engine systems code, and a portion of their FM.

As with all premium aircraft devs when it comes to FMs, it's about building on top of the core sim FDE with customizations and overrides as they see fit.
 

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by lwt1971

3 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

You are probably talking about the ProSim systems code they based their codebase on right (I don't believe ProSim has any FM stuff but I could be wrong, or even if it does that Fenix used that since the MSFS FDE is entirely different). In terms of the flight model however, this is what Aamir said (I'm sure he'll clarify if he happens to be monitoring these threads): https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/636158-accusim-2-level-of-flight-dynamics-in-msfs-2024/?do=findComment&comment=4990988 .. bottom line is that they went external for the engine systems code, and a portion of their FM.

As with all premium aircraft devs when it comes to FMs, it's about building on top of the core sim FDE with customizations and overrides as they see fit.
 

Other developers managed to achieve results of comparable quality without an external model. Hence, the main reason is that they had to start with that external model for practical reasons, not because the built-in model isn't capable of achieving the same results. 

Edited September 16, 20241 yr by Abriael