As a result  of the ever increasing complexity and attempted complexity in flight simulation generally, I have a simple test of whether a program can accurately be called  a flight simulator: 

1. I set up a flight with a 10 knot crosswind landing in a Cessna 172 and see how well the program simulates the control compensations (that many simmers are familiar with) that are necessary land safely in real life.

2. If it doesn't come close, (as is the case with both  MSFS 2020 and 2024) then, in my view, it is something ...but it is not a flight simulator and no amount of tweaking will make it one.

If you concentrate on relatively inconsequential features [e.g. Are my sheep herding up correctly? Does that water reflect accurately?] and neglect the basics of flight you will continue to have a program with planes and geographic features but its quality as a flight simulator will be determined by how well it simulates a simple flight. Right?

 

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by TASCHMANN

So, a truly genuine question because I don't know, but does any home desktop PC flight simulator achieve that?

And?

20 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

as is the case with both  MSFS 2020 and 2024

Do you do these simple tests with the default aircraft for P3D, FSX, FS9 as-well too?

These kind of "tests" are quite frankly silly. When you have aircraft devs spending 6 months to a year refining a flight model for a single aircraft, I really am not sure how you expect the sim developers to put this kind of dedication whilst offering 5-15 planes as standard.

A sim's flight model is not some plug and play like a computer screen.

There is months are creating derivatives for the various subsections that make up an aircraft. Just take a look at the flight_model guidance in the SDK, you can be there for weeks understanding all the different parameters. While looking at the flight_model.cfg a lot of these parameters aren't filled out or lacking a good level of precision in terms of derivatives.

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by Lucky38i

Default planes aren't great in any sim.  It takes love and care from a talented flight model dev to make them fly accurately.

I fly xp12 still here and there, and while the defaults are slightly better, nothing is a good as a quality 3rd party aircraft.

6 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

I really am not sure how you expect the sim developers to put this kind of dedication whilst offering 5-15 planes as standard.

So an accurate crosswind simulation in a 172 is too much to expect?  Isn't it one of the most common challenges that is known to many pilots in the real world?

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by TASCHMANN

1 minute ago, TASCHMANN said:

So an accurate crosswind in 172 is too much to expect?

In a default aircraft yeah

I hear Career mode has spicy turbulence, does that count?

Just now, TASCHMANN said:

So an accurate crosswind in 172 is too much to expect?

The plane quite frankly, doesn't matter. if I'm making 15 aircraft as long as it flew good enough that's all the time I'm spending on it.

Though you've failed to answer my original question, do you do this fabulous test of yours with others sims using only default aircraft? I'd hazard a guess that you'd call any desktop sim, not a flight sim.

4 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Default planes aren't great in any sim.  It takes love and care from a talented flight model dev to make them fly accurately.

I fly xp12 still here and there, and while the defaults are slightly better, nothing is a good as a quality 3rd party aircraft.

In three decades of flight simming, I have never flown any default aircraft. To me it is a total waste of time.

 

The message I seem to be getting is: "Why are you expecting accuracy from an Asobo 172?" 

Because it's been in development for over 5 years, it's a relatively uncomplicated and ubiquitous plane that everyone is familiar with and Asobo still is not expected  to get it right?

BTW the 172 in  X-plane 11 and 12  with the REM will do the crosswind perfectly and consistently.  Why is there no way to do this in MSFS 202x with any addon.

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by TASCHMANN

52 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

 I have a simple test

 

Me too: My test is called "Am I having fun". 

Sorry, but your "test" has little merit if you judge the quality of the whole program by flight dynamics of one randomly selected default aircraft.

8 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

The message I seem to be getting is: "Why are you expecting accuracy from an Asobo 172?" 

Because it's been in development for over 5 years, it's a relatively uncomplicated and ubiquitous plane that everyone is familiar with and Asobo still is not expected  to get it right?

BTW the 172 in  X-plane 11 and 12  with the REM will do the crosswind perfectly and consistently.  Why is there no way to do this in MSFS 202x with any addon.

Actually I think 172 is one is the most complicated airplane to model ! Because anyone can get access and fly it IRl. Then they can easily pass judgement based on their experience, perceptions, and skill set! 

13 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

The message I seem to be getting is: "Why are you expecting accuracy from an Asobo 172?" 

Because it's been in development for over 5 years, it's a relatively uncomplicated and ubiquitous plane that everyone is familiar with and Asobo still is not expected  to get it right?

BTW the 172 in  X-plane 11 and 12  with the REM will do the crosswind perfectly and consistently.  Why is there no way to do this in MSFS 202x with any addon.

Even the A2A Comanche fails your test?