4 hours ago, Alec said:

I am puzzled how simmers are saying that flying now is improved, with such pitch stability in default planes.

Well, I would say because the overall feeling of flight was very good, from take off roll to landing. And probably also because I never used strong short inputs like you did in your tests 😉

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by Rimshot

2 hours ago, Rimshot said:

Well, I would say because the overall feeling of flight was very good, from take off roll to landing. And probably also because I never used strong short inputs like you did in your tests 😉

You don't need input @Rimshot... simply fly in weather... If there's even the slightest wind variability, and updrafts / downdrafts, your aircraft will behave like it did in MSFS 2020 or even worst ... even more kite-like.

Either from inside the cockpit or from an outside view... At times it is near ridiculous. Was pretty much like that in 2020, but I honestly felt the 172 and the taildragger were even worst now in this Alpha 😕

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by jcomm

Now with Tech Alpha Closed, I will be waiting for November to finally have access to the full Developer Mode, in which collecting data will be possible, allowing a much deeper analysis of what has changed internally, for good or for worse.

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

simply fly in weather...

Well, I did. But mostly calm weather to be honest, so I haven't experienced what you are describing. On to more flying on November 19th!

It is difficult to trust the opinion of anyone who said they tried the alpha and saw no difference in the ground handling.

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by Krakin

6 minutes ago, Krakin said:

It is difficult to trus the opinion of anyone who said they tried the alpha and saw no difference in the ground handling.

I honestly didn't @Krakin, other then the baked reduction of x-wind component when taxiing / taking off, up to a given threshold speed, but that's already there since one of the 2020's SUs ... 

I used both prop aircraft with a rather open mind because I really want to like flight dynamics in MSFS 2024 more than I do in 2020, but, let's just say it wasn't a good start 😞

Maybe next time I can already find differences... Maybe on other default aircraft meanwhile made available... 

Since my RL experience is soaring I would really have liked to be able to test a glider in this Alpha...

AvAngel did a video just on gliding during the September demo, and they think it's better than ever.

 

My 5 cents: got a PPL, tested with real weather in the 172. Compared to 2020 my impression was that the aircraft reacted much more violently to control inputs, especially rudder. The 172 was tossed around in the strong winds, and I struggled to fly it straight and level. I did turn down turbulence to minimum which helped a little. 

It’s not a good comparison though, seeing as though I used default sensitivities vs the custom ones I have for my axis in 2020.

10 hours ago, jcomm said:

Above all, Alexis contribution not just "by saying" but "by showing" actual recordings of his flight tests in the MSFS 2020 and 2024 C172 are important because they make CLEAR many complain about in this flight simulation since the early flights I did in 2020 - aircraft feel twitchy / rubber-band tied to their stability / trimmed state and the amplitudes and frequency of the osccilations look overdone to me.

It’s difficult to say what we’re seeing when there are no comparisons with real life 172 tests of the same nature, we don’t see the relative strengths of inputs (Is the rudder kicking exactly the same for both planes?), there are no timings for the oscillations other than what we can see with our eyes, the wind direction is different etc. etc.  it’s not exactly…rigorous…

There are enough rw pilots saying ‘yes, this is more like the real thing’ for me to trust things are going in the right direction. In my own experience in the alpha, I was much more easily able to hit the centre line and piano keys, something I often struggle with in 2020 as I often float over the keys, I guess this is up to the better inertia. And in flight I almost (almost!) had flashes of my 109 experience in IL2 and thought ‘Maybe this is the Andrey touch?’

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by scotchegg

I wanted to believe Asobo would specially care on giving us a sample of hope that they are doing the necessary thing to make the FlightModel better, after so many years of criticism in this area from the community. This would come in their Default planes, of course, they can't do otherwise. That is my thinking, if I want the community to know the necessary improvements have been make, I will show them some signs of that.

In Ground Handling, it's there, definitely improved. Kudos to Asobo. 

In Flight, all I can say for sure is that I found no improvement at all. Is it worse? I can't say, my limited test as mentioned by others is very limited in precise data. My feeling is that it is worse specially in Pitch behavior, but I dont want to write any conclusion based on feeling, as this is exactly the main reason I believe for the bad state of aerodynamics in the sim, too much reliance on feel, and not enough hard data to measure how it actually is doing. 

So, the main reason of the post is to put that in my opinion, in the current state of Tech Alpha, Asobo has failed to deliver the needed improvement based on their default planes. I find it worrying, but of course, in November we will know for sure, and everything can happen until then.

On 10/14/2024 at 2:37 AM, Alec said:

dampens in too little oscillations, we have this overestimated stability that makes planes not too much of a pleasure to fly, as it is constantly reacting back to our controls like a fast spring.

 

11 hours ago, jcomm said:

the amplitudes and frequency of the osccilations look overdone to me.

@jcomm are you sure you're even on the same page as Alec? Alec is saying the planes are too stable with insufficient oscillation, and you're saying the oscillation is overdone...

13 minutes ago, Alec said:

My feeling is that it is worse specially in Pitch behavior, but I dont want to write any conclusion based on feeling, as this is exactly the main reason I believe for the bad state of aerodynamics in the sim, too much reliance on feel, and not enough hard data to measure how it actually is doing. 

Despite being very skeptical of your methodology, I do appreciate you're at least trying. I think my main recommendation would be to not touch this subject until you have real life 172 tests to compare against. Otherwise, what's your baseline? It's essentially just your feeling that the plane should behave in a certain way.

Edit: @Alec you've been very transparent that you're not an engineer, are you a 172 pilot?

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by scotchegg

2 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

I think my main recommendation would be to not touch this subject until you have real life 172 tests to compare against.

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.

19 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

 

@jcomm are you sure you're even on the same page as Alec? Alec is saying the planes are too stable with insufficient oscillation, and you're saying the oscillation is overdone...

It's tricky because we're talking about amplitude AND frequency. It's not the amplitude I find big but rather the frequency, and the speed it takes to dampen out...

25 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Despite being very skeptical of your methodology, I do appreciate you're at least trying. I think my main recommendation would be to not touch this subject until you have real life 172 tests to compare against. Otherwise, what's your baseline? It's essentially just your feeling that the plane should behave in a certain way.

Edit: @Alec you've been very transparent that you're not an engineer, are you a 172 pilot?

@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...

 

Edited October 14, 20241 yr by jcomm