Just now, scotchegg said:

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

Completely agree, don't dispute that at all.   The "range" of feedback is a bit all over the place, hence some in this thread (who are RW pilots) and others here on Avsim and elsewhere saying they aren't very good and furthermore to my question of where someone pulled this "majority consensus" from when there are such varying opinions and no data behind such a statement... 

I don't think FS24 is at a point where anyone can make irrefutable claims after 9 days the first few of which the sim didn't even work.  There is much more to learn but I also don't argue it looks great especially down low and slow!  I am just looking for balanced and factual conversations.  (I know, I expect a lot LOL)  

 

4 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

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 .
 

 

They are making their claims after using the sim, not watching YT videos which ironically are good enough for you to believe when they are favorable but useless if a top expert in flight simulation and flight dynamics spots things amiss?  That's convenient of you... 

So if one of the top flight dynamics modelers in our community says they feel off after using the sim what say you?  Because they have... 

I don't want to hijack the thread anymore than I already have and respect your opinion while I disagree with your assertion but nothing personal at all and we can agree to disagree.  

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by psolk

I'll be interested to see opinion from real pilots when a dev like A2A produces a true '2024' aircraft.

 

1 minute ago, flyingscampi said:

I'll be interested to see opinion from real pilots when a dev like A2A produces a true '2024' aircraft.

 

I am sure the review will be stellar!  I have no doubts about that, A2A will make it as realistic as possible like all their other add-ons.  MSFS 24 clearly has incredible potential especially in the short term future for low and slow VFR flying!  There is no comparison to anything we've seen really.  24 has it's issues but the visuals don't appear to be one of them!   

23 minutes ago, psolk said:

They are making their claims after using the sim, not watching YT videos which ironically are good enough for you to believe when they are favorable but useless if a top expert in flight simulation and flight dynamics spots things amiss?  That's convenient of you... 

So if one of the top flight dynamics modelers in our community says they feel off after using the sim what say you?  Because they have... 

I don't want to hijack the thread anymore than I already have and respect your opinion while I disagree with your assertion but nothing personal at all and we can agree to disagree.  

The "top modder" in question has said they've only been able watch others on youtube using the sim, in order to assess the aircraft FMs.. when he actually gets the sim and uses it and then opines again, I'll consider it of equal value to all others who've used the sim and opined 🤷‍♂️ And I'll keep repeating this easily, no matter how much of an "expert" one is, if their opinions are based purely on "spotting" others using the sim, sorry, said opinions are of not much value. Let alone watching others fly on youtube, what about the controllers these people are using and how they've configured etc? Is the expert able to divine and glean the details about all this merely by "spotting" them on YT?

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but once again:

1) Given that I'm getting the sim in a few days as I've been away from home all this time, I've been keenly looking out for opinions of 2024's flight dynamics and ground handling from fellow simmers, and especially simmers who're IRL pilots. And yes, the clear majority from both those groups appear to be that 2024 is better than 2020. If that's hard to take for some, that's... tough.

2) Amongst these reviews I especially (as I've always done) listen to the opinion of long-time IRL airliner pilots who're also long-time simmers, and who're unbiased when it comes to sim platforms and have easily both praised and criticized various sims and aircraft add-ons as they review them (V1-Simulations, 320 Sim Pilot, Blackbox711, A330 Driver, etc). Well guess what, they're *all* of the similar opinion that the default 2024 airliners they've tested (the ini A330/A321/Beluga/etc, Asobo/WT 737 Max) all exhibit noticeable improvements over 2020 in both flight dynamics and ground handling. In terms of GA aircraft, once again per that thread it seems a majority of IRL pilots of GA birds like C172/etc feel that 2024 is better than 2020.

3) No, I am not only looking at positive opinions, I also linked to and collected the negative opinions on that thread. I guess I should add this OP's post too 🙂 
 

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by lwt1971

16 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

We seem to have drifted into a discussion of the merits of default aircraft which is not really the point I was suggesting.  It is this: 

Why hasn't it been possible for anyone to develop a Cessna 172 model that flies and lands accurately in MSFS?   and why should we hop on this merry-go-round of updates, upgrades, new hardware purchases and new learning curves if the basics haven't been attended to yet?

I consider these legitimate and serious questions...I just don't see too many answers.

It's not that it is not possible, but since there is already a default 172 in the sim that is not too bad as flightmodels go, there is little reward for developers to try.
So they concentrate on aircraft that are not already in the sim.

Well, I'm with others in asking the OP to PLEASE tell us EXACTLY what he thinks is different in accomplishing a xwind landing in MSFS vs real life.  I'm a RW private pilot, and former aircraft owner (Piper Turbo Arrow IV) who lived in a very windy part of the world when still actively flying.  Lots of xwind landing experience in both high and low wing aircraft - in Cessnas - 152, 172, 172RG, 177, 177RG, 182, 182RG as well as Piper Warriors, Archers and Arrows, and the Beechcraft V35B.  I have to do the same things to handle xwind landings in the vast majority of planes I've flow in the sim as I did in RL.  Assuming, of course, that you've turned off all the little "helpers" that MSFS offers and are flying with full realism.

The biggest difference between sim and RL is simply that we don't have feedback in our controls or our behinds.  These are practical limits of a desktop simulator, but that doesn't disqualify it from being a sim.  In flight, I'm still needing to exercise the same basic control inputs in order to accomplish the xwind approach and landing.

The only substantive difference in MSFS comes once you get the wheels on the ground.  Then all bets are off, as MSFS 2020's ground handling is, well... yeah.  But that doesn't change how the landing is flown.  Haven't yet moved to 2024, but have hope based on early reports that the ground handling has improved.

 

Scott

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by tttocs

1 hour ago, tttocs said:

The biggest difference between sim and RL is simply that we don't have feedback in our controls or our behinds.

This is very true and could sum it up really.
The only way to evaluate the fidelity of a flight model, therefore, is to fly by the numbers and see if they correspond with published data. For most part those are a series of reproducible tests one can easily (if somewhat tediously) make.

Unless something is so much off (like the ground handling which was previously mentioned) it’s hard to pass a judgement for a non “seat of the pants “ flight without getting into the nitty gritty of numbers.

This is why those kinds of opinion polls are of little merit, to put it mildly. Or else, the likes of A2A or Rob Young would have been left without a job.

3 hours ago, tttocs said:

Well, I'm with others in asking the OP to PLEASE tell us EXACTLY what he thinks is different in accomplishing a xwind landing in MSFS vs real life.

Fair question.  Just one example: a crosswind causes the nose of an aircraft into it...invariably.  Never away from it.

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by TASCHMANN

3 hours ago, tttocs said:

 

The biggest difference between sim and RL is simply that we don't have feedback in our controls or our behinds. 

This is so true! MSFS can never replicate the feeling of early round up, follow by the stall, follow by the hard butt kick, follow by wheel shimmy LOL

20 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

Fair question.  Just one example: a crosswind causes the nose of an aircraft into it...invariably.  Never away from it.

I'll test it @TASCHMANN, but from my memory of recent use of different aircraft during the last few days, under x-wind scenarios, I don't recall having experienced such a situation, other than in occasions when next to the ground there's shear effect.

Near the ground I've indeed encountered shear, and as a result, and if one is applying "downwind rudder" to uncrab and all of a sudden the wind shifts considerably to the opposite sector, then a good deal of nose downwind can happen if a prompt correction isn't used.

The only aspect of how FS 2024 deals with x-wind I wasn't able to check yet is if there is any gradient applied to the wind vector, affecting it's direction and intensity, as the aircraft get's close to the ground, as IRL happens due to surface interaction and/ or any obstacles upwind. MSFS according to Sebastian does model this kind of subtleties.

I don't know how to enable "Developer Mode" in FS 2024 and start using the monitorization screens to determine the axial and lateral components of wind.

OTOH, V1's video above highlights a flaw I've long been complaining about in X-Plane - an overdone effect of x-wind when the aircraft transitions from flight into ground mode and I was sometimes unable to avoid the upwind from dangerously being lifted, even sometimes a few seconds after having landed and started rollout... This has surely never been a problem with FS 2020, and so far I can't see it happen in FS 2024 either, but we do have to apply proper x-wind techniques to maneuver on ground, during taxi and takeoff / landing to avoid the upwind wing from rising under some circumstances

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by jcomm

20 hours ago, psolk said:

The more time people spend the more they seem to be saying it feels "improved" to 2020 but there are still major discrepancies with the default models and real life.  Even one of the most outspoken the past few days who is another real life pilot came back today to say after spending some time his opinion had changed and not for the positive.

Wherever in the world did you think that anyone was saying the new Default (or Payware) addons for v2024 were NOT going to have major discrepancies with IRL...?

JComm shared good, constructive criticism, and as an IRL pilot we've got to give weight to his opinions.

But I (also an IRL bugsmasher pilot), respectfully disagree with his opinions in many regards (see my previous reply to him as to why).

The major take away for v2024 is that it's substantially improved over v2020, and many more of the silly "flies like a kite" or "game not a sim" aspersions have been further put to bed.

7 hours 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.  

 

Totally wrong. Based on my personal experience vs today.

Oh, and, y'know...the US Air Force and US Navy, among others:

 

5 hours ago, flyingscampi said:

I'll be interested to see opinion from real pilots when a dev like A2A produces a true '2024' aircraft.

 

A2A likely won't produce a "true '2024' aircraft" because of their "sim within a sim" dev methodology (which carried over from their FSX/P3D products).

They already have most - if not all - of the critical flight model features, et al of v2024 in their sim. That's what AccuSim is all about, after all (along with all the engine/systems sim, as well) 🙂

When they add the eye candy features of the new sim (which are great, don't get me wrong), it's not likely going to come with a better flight/systems model because of v2024.

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

This is very true and could sum it up really.
The only way to evaluate the fidelity of a flight model, therefore, is to fly by the numbers and see if they correspond with published data. For most part those are a series of reproducible tests one can easily (if somewhat tediously) make.

Unless something is so much off (like the ground handling which was previously mentioned) it’s hard to pass a judgement for a non “seat of the pants “ flight without getting into the nitty gritty of numbers.

This is why those kinds of opinion polls are of little merit, to put it mildly. Or else, the likes of A2A or Rob Young would have been left without a job.

Broadly true.

However, "the numbers" can only get you so far. There is a TREMENDOUS amount of handling/feedback that happens that isn't described in the aircraft documentation.

For e.g., fly the BlackBird/MilViz C310 - which as per norm for MilViz - has a VERY "by the book" FM, and then jump in the A2A Comanche or FSR500. And do it on a gusty, windy day.

The differences are astounding.