26 minutes ago, Peter Z KCLE_EDDN said:

I saved thousands of dollars when I got my PPL/SEL and IR rating because of Microsoft’s flight sims. My very first instructor was nearly speechless about my existing knowledge on systems and navigation.

I never expect a level-d 172, but the sim is a terrific procedural trainer on checklists and memory items, as well as keeping your instrument scan sharp 👍. 

I'm so old the desktop sims didn't even have the quality to be procedural trainers back when I got mine. 🤣

I would've killed to have had FSX, X-Plane 10, Prepar3D and any decent addon.

Throw in a truly Hi Fi add-on like A2A, SimCoders, et al, and I would've become a much better pilot MUCH more quickly.

Imo the human brain is wired extremely well after millennia of evolution and refinement to interpret all input stimuli and judge whether the FEEL of the sum of the parts is genuine or suspicious. The eyes alone are not to be trusted without backup elsewhere. We see a flame but if we don't smell burning or feel the heat we don't tend to react. 

I've only used 2020 but it's never felt right in any stage of flight. Looks incredible and looking out the window it feels as if I'm flying. Once back at the controls and the illusion is lost. 

It's the opposite with fsx and p3d (I've never tried xplane yet) where (with several addons) I feel I'm actually flying at times especially in IFR (some genuine anxiety there!). Then when I look out the window I'm reminded it's software not real. 

Flying in the dark or IFR with the older sims is still the ultimate immersion for me when I depart and arrive at quality addon airports. 

If the horrid sepia night lights of 2020 were fixed I feel like that sim would feel better too as a flight model is harder to judge at night time when your eyes are more concerned/busy with the dials in front of you than the aircrafts movement relative to scenery outside. 

I haven't found the perfect sim yet, although if I could view p3d via the scenery of 2020 /2024 I'd pay a lot of money for that. 

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by sloppysmusic
ONE typo.. 🙄

26 minutes ago, Georgleboui said:

So V1 just did a comparison between Toliss A320 and Fenix A320.

X-Plane 12 vs FS2024 effectively. It's a fascinating watch.

 

(Spoiler alert: both quite similar with Fenix slightly better in both visuals and handling)

I mean, who IS that guy anyway...?

Just a YouTuber out for clicks and free add-ons

🤣

4 hours ago, Georgleboui said:

So V1 just did a comparison between Toliss A320 and Fenix A320.

X-Plane 12 vs FS2024 effectively. It's a fascinating watch.

Ohhh, nice! I really enjoyed this video! Hats down one of the best comparison videos.

That was a really interesting video, but do we know if the guy was legit and a real pilot or just claiming to be one?
One thing that stuck out was when they said he had never flown a plane into there in his live stream, and he responded --- yes I have, I flown 2 different planes there. However, that is not a common place to fly '2 different planes' there, so it sounded it suspicious to me.

I don't know either way, he might be legit.

I never thought the big boy airliners were all that hard to model, since they work more like a missle than a paper airplane, it's the smaller planes that are weird imo. However, I am in no way qualified to say how far off X-Y-Z is, just that sometimes things are so funny looking I know it needs more work.

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by Alpine Scenery

2 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I don't know either way, he might be legit.

He is.

2 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

However, that is not a common place to fly '2 different planes' there, so it sounded it suspicious to me.

Why should this be so uncommon?

This is TNCM, right? A number of North American airlines fly there. He might have moved to a different employer and changed to a different airplane type in the process, or he might just have moved onto a different fleet at the same employer - both of these happen pretty regularly.

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by martinboehme

He flies the A319, A320 and A321 for his airline.
Also clarified that he also flew there in a Challenger in his corporate days.

 

16 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

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?

The thing is that you cannot replicate the controls of an aircraft (and the POV/FOV, the body feelings... but these are secondary aspects) with a home setup. How would you even do the comparison? The debate between game and simulator in my opinion has always been silly.

A simulator is something that makes you able to fly the real aircraft, and PC games certainly cannot do that, not even for an ultralight. Airline grade simulators can.  

 

10 minutes ago, MrFuzzy said:

A simulator is something that makes you able to fly the real aircraft, and PC games certainly cannot do that, not even for an ultralight. Airline grade simulators can.

By this definition a fixed base "airline grade" simulator isn't able to "make you able to fly the real aircraft" either, which is wrong.

Don't forget even Level-D (6 axes of motion) multi-million dollar simulators have a list of acceptable percentage tolerances of deviation from the performance of a real aircraft.

A simulator is anything that can recreate the various scenarios, methodologies, work flows, etc. in a virtual environment that can translate to the real world.

All the desktop simulators (MSFS, XP, P3D, FSX, DCS) are ultimately games. Yet they are also flight simulators, since using them properly means learning systems functionality and flight control input behaviour that can be used in real world flying – a number of real world airline pilots even admit to using them for practising workflows.

The only way to feel the sensation of flight is to pilot a real aircraft. However, since the vast majority of us here cannot due to financial, health, age, personality or other concerns, desktop simulation is a great alternative.

4 hours ago, Alpine Scenery said:

I never thought the big boy airliners were all that hard to model, since they work more like a missle than a paper airplane, it's the smaller planes that are weird imo.

I don't think that's true, as a blanket statement.

Airliners fly at transonic speeds, so compressibility effects come into play. Swept wings have their own quirks. True, props are weirder than jet engines (all that asymmetry), but jet engines aren't as simple as you might think.

And looking at the question that started this whole thread -- how well is crosswind correction modeled -- I'd say that applies equally to light GA airplanes and airliners.

It's true that light airplanes -- and in particular taildraggers -- have their own quirks, but I think the bigger difference is that airliners tend to be flown right in the middle of the envelope, whereas light airplanes more commonly get closer to the edges (prolonged slips, stalls, spins, etc.).

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by martinboehme

I dunno, i've experienced some pretty pants full-motion level D simulators, and they don't represent wind physics very well at all. And if they count as Flight Simulators then I think it's fair to say that MSFS2020/2024 can be called Flight Simulators also.

15 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

 

Trusting the opinion of "top modders" who eyeball others playing the sim on youtube, versus IRL pilots and simmers who actually have the sim in hand, know what controllers and how they have set those up, fly the birds, and *then* give their opinions on the flight dynamics and ground handling. Ya easy one, I am going to go with the latter every time.

If one feels the default 2024 Asobo/WT or iniBuilds birds don't show an appreciable improvement over 2020, that's fine. But the fact is, as hard it is to take for some feeling that way, the majority consensus *is* otherwise 🙂, and a significant majority at that.

First of all, there are real world pilots in this very thread stating the opposite.   There are real world pilots here on Avsim who have posted their findings and some of the inaccuracies.  So you would believe someone on youtube rather than people with their PPL's in this thread and on these forums?  

Second of all, bashing the "modders" who are the ones who made the default planes into payware type add-ons in 2020 and are saying the 2024 models don't feel right is ridiculous.  These are the people in our community who make things more realistic and improve them.  Why would you negate their opinions because they don't match your narrative?  

Finally, please show your work in the margins as to the data behind this overwhelmingly majority consensus you speak of and the significant majority at that...  We must watch different News Channels LOL  That is just a baseless claim without the data behind it.  MS wont even allow reviews yet and Steam is overwhelmingly negative so where is the data behind your majority consensus?  I'm a stickler for facts like that 😉  

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by psolk

2 minutes ago, psolk said:

There are real world pilots here on Avsim who have posted their findings and some of the inaccuracies.  So you would believe someone on youtube rather than people with their PPL's in this thread and on these forums?

There are plenty of real world pilots on Avsim who have said 2024’s fm is very good.

9 minutes ago, psolk said:

First of all, there are real world pilots in this very thread stating the opposite.   There are real world pilots here on Avsim who have posted their findings and some of the inaccuracies.  So you would believe someone on youtube rather than people with their PPL's in this thread and on these forums?  

Second of all, bashing the "modders" who are the ones who made the default planes into payware type add-ons in 2020 and are saying the 2024 models don't feel right is ridiculous.  These are the people in our community who make things more realistic and improve them.  Why would you negate their opinions?

Finally, please show your work in the margins as to the data behind this overwhelmingly majority consensus you speak of and the significant majority at that...  We must watch different News Channels LOL  That is just a baseless claim without the data behind it.  MS wont even allow reviews yet and Steam is overwhelmingly negative so where is the data behind your majority consensus?  I'm a stickler for facts like that 😉  

Yes there are opinions from IRL pilots and simmers who don't see any improvements in 2024 over 2020 too, no one is denying that. And those have also been collected in https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/654326-msfs-2024-flight-dynamics-and-groundwater-handling-thread/ too ... but looking at the overall amount of opinions there (and elsewhere), the clear majority consensus is that 2024 improves over 2020 appreciably in the area of flight dynamics and ground handling. If that's not obvious to see, then sorry can't help you.

Oh please, no one is "bashing" the modders. I don't care who it is (it could be the topmost experts of flight simulation and flight dynamics).. if they opine on the quality of flight dynamics in a new sim by looking at others playing it on youtube, then ya I'm going to give those opinions much less weight than those who opine after having actually used the sim .
 

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by lwt1971