16 minutes ago, jcomm said:

@scotchegg, Alexis owns a commercial pilot license, multi-engine, if I'm not missing any additional certification.

I know him well, for many years in flight simulation since the good old times of FSX 🙂

And... since a few years he moved to the best country in the whole World... where the best pilots of the Galaxy live, and the most beautiful gals of the Universe tease them...

 

I think Alex still needs to compare his findings to how a real life Cessna 172 behaves. Without that comparison, the opinions of the real life Cessna 172 pilots would probably be the most valuable feedback for the time being (unless Alex is also a real life Cessna 172 pilot, in which case his feedback is just as valuable as the other real life 172 pilots).

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by abrams_tank

17 minutes ago, jcomm said:

@scotchegg, Alexis owns a commercial pilot license, multi-engine, if I'm not missing any additional certification.

I know him well, for many years in flight simulation since the good old times of FSX 🙂

And... since a few years he moved to the best country in the whole World... where the best pilots of the Galaxy live, and the most beautiful gals of the Universe tease them...

 

 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣

As my great friend Jcomm mentioned, I used to own a pilot license, but it has been 8 years now without flying for real. Unlike Jcomm, who has been currently flying Gliders for over 40 years!!

The Cessna 172 is one Cessna variation I have very little flying hours, only 4. Did for part of the IFR. I have more on the C152, over 40. And most of the rest of my Pilot Course has been done on Pipers, love them. Being less stable than Cessna, they felt much better to hand fly to me.

 

27 minutes ago, jcomm said:

And... since a few years he moved to the best country in the whole World... where the best pilots of the Galaxy live, and the most beautiful gals of the Universe tease them...

All joking aside, more and more finance people I speak to are talking about Portugal as their retirement dream recently. Maybe you have something there…

7 minutes ago, Alec said:

As my great friend Jcomm mentioned,

Your bromance hasn’t gone unnoticed 🤩

37 minutes ago, Funky D said:

And we need to remember that Asobo used real aircraft with a plethora of sensors connected to create their new flight models (we don't know if the new flight models were a part of the alpha).

Also... You would never apply full deflection rudder quickly like that in real life. It likely wouldn't be possible to do that quickly with the amount of wind resistance you'd have unless you have legs of steel. I always take tests like this with a grain of salt, since they are hard to reproduce in real life and wouldn't be performed under any normal circumstance (if they can be performed at all!) You aren't really testing the flight model as much as you are testing how the model handles extreme unrealistic inputs. I would much rather Asobo tune things to smooth over abrupt inputs vs making the plane a twitchy mess when you're trying to fly normally.

Yes, from what I remember, Seb explained that they quantified the accuracy of the model and went from ~80% (I think) to >90% accuracy. Of course, we know neither what variables they used, nor which in-dev FM was used. The data itself also matters. There could be lots of data from normal flying and the model could be overfitting, so it will look good in typical scenario, but really mess up in specific other scenarios.

Personally, from a "feel" perspective, I thought it felt better and more reminiscent of my own experiences flying the C172. It's the only plane I've flown, so I won't comment on any of the other ones. For more non-standard stuff, I tested stalls (not the ones I showed in the video from my other thread), and the MSFS2024 version snapped the nose down in a very characteristic way, whereas I couldn't get the MSFS2020 version to do it the same. IRL, I remember that in many of the stalls I did there was this snapping effect if the stall developed fast enough. This is but one scenario of a million, though. Ultimately, we all perceive even real life experience differently, so not everyone will agree on the feel side.

45 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

All joking aside, more and more finance people I speak to are talking about Portugal as their retirement dream recently. Maybe you have something there…

Born here 60,5 yrs ago... seldom travelled abroad and only to a few places in Europe... would love to visit Japan 🙂

Also love Spain - soaring there is great !!!

Because, at the age of 9 I visited the cockpit of one of the 4 TAP's recently (and short living - sold to PIA around 1976) 747-200Bs, I became addict to becoming an airline pilot, something that never happened ... but flight simulation, since 1989 and early nineties of last Century helped feeding... It's a passion, and the rumours about the secret Project of PMDG being a 747 Classic have relighted my interest, now in MSFS 2024... although my all-time preferred airliner is still the L-1011 🙂

Sorry for the diversion... Back to Flight Modelling, or... even better, let's wait for 2024's release and reevaluate ...

For procedural / airline / ATC .... simulation it's a great platform!

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by jcomm

On 10/13/2024 at 2:05 PM, ryanbatc said:

 

These conversations are so subjective.  Mainly because the type of physical controller users have varies so much.  The quality difference between my ancient FFB2 sidewinder (yes it's still kicking) and a Virpil grip and base is monumental.

 

This is a really important point. Over in DCS, I thought I really sucked at aerial refueling. I just couldn't get the probe in the basket, and on the rare occasions that I did, couldn't keep it there. That was using an old Thrustmaster cheapie stick because I've put all my hardware money into civilian stuff like yokes.

Then I tried it with a Virpil at a friend's place and... Well I still sucked, that stuff is hard, but I sucked a lot less and once plugged in I could stay there a lot more reliably. Same sim, same me, just the hardware and whatever his curve settings are changed and it made a very significant difference.

22 hours ago, cyril972 said:

To me the 172 in MSFS2024 is much much better than in MSFS2020, it’s not even comparable.

It’s not as twitchy as before, you feel the inertia, also you can finally trim the aircraft for a specific power settings and it stay right at the altitude you trimmed it at. Try doing that with 2020  

During an approach it’s not as draggy as before and you can finally do approach with the right power settings(1800 to 1900 RPM) and most importantly a nose down pitch during the approach exactly as in real life (in MSFS2020 it’s 2100-2200RPM with a nose up attitude as if this was an airliner)

I won’t even talk about how different the plane feels on the ground because it’s night and day. Asobo and Microsoft did wonder in the Flight model department 

I agree completely. The 172 is not difficult in either 20 or 24. But it feels more lively, or maybe alive is a better word, in 24. But it is also very much easier to trim and make tricky condition landings in 2024. I like the handling better in every way in the new sim compared to the 2020. I expect that I will like all the Asobo planes better in the 24 version. I don't know about the addon planes, it depends on whether those companies will take the time to work with the new opportunities for plane tuning like Asobo is sure to do.

Honestly, at this point, even if MSFS24 were just in alpha, it feels like MSFS2020 was a proof of concept for MSFS2024.
 

Everything is significantly better: the flight model, ground handling, lighting, reflections, ground textures, clouds, turbulence, and the digital twin. All have seen major improvements.
The user experience, tablet integration, and flight planner are also much more refined. (We keep wating for the new ATC, completely revamped  but coming later they Said)

 

After what I experienced this weekend, if all the default planes are as polished as the Cessna 172, I won’t need to buy third-party aircraft for a long time, because they will need to catch up. I’m  excited for the PC-12, SR22, A321/A330, C172, and C152.

 

Yes, the flight model really impressed me, but did you notice how circuit breakers are functional now? The tires even compress and deform under the weight of the airplane. This is the kind of attention to detail they can truly be proud of.

 

On 10/13/2024 at 10:22 PM, sd_flyer said:

You actually won't stress aircraft as long as you are within maneuvering airspeed . Forward slip would be one example of full rudder deflection

Here is cool vid of Cub doing forward slip - a good example of full rudder deflection

 

That was the sexiest thing ever. LOL. 

6 hours ago, cyril972 said:

Honestly, at this point, even if MSFS24 were just in alpha, it feels like MSFS2020 was a proof of concept for MSFS2024.
 

Everything is significantly better: the flight model, ground handling, lighting, reflections, ground textures, clouds, turbulence, and the digital twin. All have seen major improvements.
The user experience, tablet integration, and flight planner are also much more refined. (We keep wating for the new ATC, completely revamped  but coming later they Said)

 

After what I experienced this weekend, if all the default planes are as polished as the Cessna 172, I won’t need to buy third-party aircraft for a long time, because they will need to catch up. I’m  excited for the PC-12, SR22, A321/A330, C172, and C152.

 

Yes, the flight model really impressed me, but did you notice how circuit breakers are functional now? The tires even compress and deform under the weight of the airplane. This is the kind of attention to detail they can truly be proud of.

When you write a text using the dark mode of your web browser…..it ends up being white text on a normal white page…stupid me😭

@Alec The big question is the expectation. If the expectation is wrong, you can also bin the conclusion. So if you say "unexpected results", what is your expecation based on?

Shouldn't you first figure out, how the pitch response of a 172 looks like? Until now you only argued with terms like "twitchyness", "rubber band feeling", which are completely nonscientific buzzwords. 

In correct terms, your video is showing the short period mode pitch response, as visualized here:

 

Until now, you have not prooved at all whether the new or the old sim is better in simulating the default 172. Because all is based on an expectation which is only an idea in your mind.

But how, if we search for real world data?

The best diagram, I can find for the curve that describes the correct expectation is this:

(from here Airplane Stability and Control (Flying Qualities) | Academic Flight)

In the diagram, the red curve shows hardly any overshooting after the initial large peak. After just 0.5 seconds, the angle only changes in the sub-0.03..0.05° range anymore.

And now, based on this data, you can review again the two aircraft and conclude which one is better.

My conclusion: the new one is better.

This is also no surprise, because Seb explained, that they have instrumented real aircraft with dataloggers to base their flight modeling in MSFS 2024 on hard, real world data.

So your expectation was not solid enough to proove errors in the MSFS 2024 flight model, but it was actually the MSFS 2024 flight model, that highlighted errors in your expectation.

Edited October 15, 20241 yr by fsiscool

2 hours ago, fsiscool said:

 

In the diagram, the red curve shows hardly any overshooting after the initial large peak. After just 0.5 seconds, the angle only changes in the sub-0.03..0.05° range anymore.

 

You're answering your own question !

Where in that test is the amount of deflection of the yoke mentioned ?

Can you compare the amount of AoA variation between the experiment you link and Alec's test? If you say it's based on identical control deflections, then there's surely something very wrong about MSFS's stability (static / dynamic)... 

Otherwise if you prefer to opt for the experiment having been done with reduced yoke inputs, then nothing oposes what Alec has shown in his tests and is clearly "strange" to say the least...

There are **many** factors affecting this kind of aerodynamic tests. A2A and Austin Meyer have videos of such tests, like:

A2A Accu-SIm C172 Trainer Elevator Response (youtube.com)

The Phugoid | Longitudinal Stability - Static Positive, Dynamic Negative (youtube.com)

(try that stick input on the 2nd vid in an MSFS low wing light prop... and see the pitch responde by comparison...)

 

Edited October 15, 20241 yr by jcomm

it's insane how the A2A video is showing so well the issue we're trying to point out

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

You're answering your own question !

Where in that test is the amount of deflection of the yoke mentioned ?

The yoke deflection is irrelevant for the times. E.g. the 0.5 seconds for the new flight path to settle is independent from the yoke deflection.

Here you can study the step response of a second-order system: Second-order step response – GeoGebra 

AoA translates 1:1 to lift, hence to the flight path angle changes in the video.

Phugoids are irrelevant to the pretended issue from Alec's video. Phugoid oscillations are not visible in the video at all (they are longer period).

Therefore my assesment stands: The OP had wrong expectations. The quicker pitch settle time of MSFS 2024 and the fewer oscillations are not less realistic but actually closer to the expectation curve.