1 hour ago, TASCHMANN said:

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

Well, OKAY THEN!!!

Last night, I took back to back flights in X-Plane's Default C172 and MSFS Default C172 G1K with Real World weather activated.

We happen to be having sustained winds at the moment of 12kts gusting to 18kts. As a result, the local landing patch has runways that are mostly aligned with the prevailing winds (about 10 deg to port of rwy heading), and others that are almost full value crosswind.

In BOTH tests, the aircraft performed similarly in terms of crosswind handling. And yes, Virginia, they both weathervaned into the wind on both takeoff and landing, as is proper.

And yeah, I'd WAY rather fly any SimCoders REP in X-Plane (their Marchetti is sublime), OR the A2A Comanche than either of those Defaults. They handle/fly so Much BETTER than any Default!

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta

55 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

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.

 

Not sure I understand. If it's not in the literature, then how do YOU know which is what?

2 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

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

Yes, crosswinds push the nose into the wind on takeoff in 2024. If yours isn’t you should get a video of it and send it to the devs.

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by scotchegg

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

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.

Speaking of "the numbers" 🙂... well, Asobo dove into those too as part of improving the FDE and individual FMs of the default aircraft. XP72 actually asked this question of Seb a few months ago at the global preview event below.

Some takeaways from what Seb said:
- with 2020 their process was to develop a FM, see the aircraft manufacturer for feedback, improve it, then see test pilots, improve more, etc .. but that was not a scientific method using measured data, it was all based on feedback, sometimes contradicting feedback
- with 2024 they employed a scientific approach by purchasing various instruments to measure various data with IRL aircraft in-flight. They measured accelerations, rotations, forces on yoke, airspeed around the aircraft, etc. Then they fleshed out the FMs for each aircraft based on that (in addition to taking advantage of the new CFD system, more flexible surface/geometry setup, etc). With the new method, 2020 aircraft have around 80% accuracy (to their measured IRL numbers) versus 2024 now at 95+%. Apparently they will (or already have?) documented this process along with details about the instruments they used so that 3rd party aircraft devs can also use similar techniques.

Most important takeaway here is the delta between their 2020 and 2024 FM numbers (vs IRL numbers), which generally then aligns with the improvements the vast majority are seeing with 2024 default aircraft vs 2020.

 

 

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by lwt1971

27 minutes ago, scotchegg said:

Yes, crosswinds push the nose into the wind on takeoff in 2024. If yours isn’t you should get a video of it and send it to the devs.

Question: is downwind drift modeled correctly? 

There are two main problems with x winds in 2020.  Firstly, the effect is simply exaggerated.  5kts feels like 15kts, etc.  Secondly and I think more importantly though: not only does the nose of the aircraft yaw into the wind (which is correct), but the aircraft attempts to exit the*upwind* side of the runway.  This is backwards.  A x wind near the aircraft limits should be trying to cause a sideways slide where the nose is yawing upwind, but the aircraft is drifting towards the downwind side of the runway.  

Any luck with this in 2024?

9 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Question: is downwind drift modeled correctly? 

There are two main problems with x winds in 2020.  Firstly, the effect is simply exaggerated.  5kts feels like 15kts, etc.  Secondly and I think more importantly though: not only does the nose of the aircraft yaw into the wind (which is correct), but the aircraft attempts to exit the*upwind* side of the runway.  This is backwards.  A x wind near the aircraft limits should be trying to cause a sideways slide where the nose is yawing upwind, but the aircraft is drifting towards the downwind side of the runway.  

Any luck with this in 2024?

That one might be above my pay grade.

19 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Question: is downwind drift modeled correctly? 

There are two main problems with x winds in 2020.  Firstly, the effect is simply exaggerated.  5kts feels like 15kts, etc.  Secondly and I think more importantly though: not only does the nose of the aircraft yaw into the wind (which is correct), but the aircraft attempts to exit the*upwind* side of the runway.  This is backwards.  A x wind near the aircraft limits should be trying to cause a sideways slide where the nose is yawing upwind, but the aircraft is drifting towards the downwind side of the runway.  

Any luck with this in 2024?

That’s exactly the bit V1 tested in his video. It’s been one of his biggest complaints over the previous sim.
 

He found it a big improvement over 2020, and even over XP which he thought was a bit exaggerated.

1 hour ago, ha5mvo said:

Not sure I understand. If it's not in the literature, then how do YOU know which is what?

So if you drive a performance car, you're probably familiar with the performance figures like 0-60, .25mi, lateral accel, etc., right?

And if you're a gear head, you've probably gone deep enough to see the performance charts in relation to those numbers.

All very similar to aircrafts perf charts.

Now, think about when YOU actually DRIVE the car...

How much of the driving experience is utterly missing from those charts?

Things like road surface, suspension firmness, rebound/damping, precip, even the way the car reacts to winds is rarely captured.

But those factors are a HUGE part of the subjective driving experience.

In a sim we can't experience G's, but we can certainly visually perceive many of those effects - and easily, too.

I personally know because I fly bugsmashers IRL. And I pay close attention to what the many IRL pros with more experience than I have to say.

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by UrgentSiesta

31 minutes ago, Stearmandriver said:

Question: is downwind drift modeled correctly? 

There are two main problems with x winds in 2020.  Firstly, the effect is simply exaggerated.  5kts feels like 15kts, etc.  Secondly and I think more importantly though: not only does the nose of the aircraft yaw into the wind (which is correct), but the aircraft attempts to exit the*upwind* side of the runway.  This is backwards.  A x wind near the aircraft limits should be trying to cause a sideways slide where the nose is yawing upwind, but the aircraft is drifting towards the downwind side of the runway.  

Any luck with this in 2024?

That's what made me dump 2020.... so many things were screaming wrong in my brain and that was the worst one .... like turning your wheel right while you car go left .... I've tried so hard to explain that thing on the zendesk... gave up at some point.

 

From my test in 24, it's much better, from the planes i've tested none had this behavior, huge win already, but you can still take your word not allowed time to work the flare out, you won't drift downwind ..... so no need to put that wing into wind. Also still find the tire grip too strong, like if you land with still a bit of crab, u won't have that small drift as you're still light on the wheels. Same with takeoff, reaching VR in strong Xwinds on contaminated runway you're flying perfectly straight, when i would expect a bit of slip while being so close to liftof.

 

I thought they added parameters for friction and such, we'll have to wait for some devs to maybe dial in something better. i think it'll be possible to achieve something nicer with devs that understand properly how planes are flying.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Muds said:

but you can still take your word not allowed time to work the flare out,

Yeah, I’m still struggling with that. Ironically, I seem to be worse at judging it on runways with papis…

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

Question: is downwind drift modeled correctly? 

There are two main problems with x winds in 2020.  Firstly, the effect is simply exaggerated.  5kts feels like 15kts, etc.  Secondly and I think more importantly though: not only does the nose of the aircraft yaw into the wind (which is correct), but the aircraft attempts to exit the*upwind* side of the runway.  This is backwards.  A x wind near the aircraft limits should be trying to cause a sideways slide where the nose is yawing upwind, but the aircraft is drifting towards the downwind side of the runway.  

Any luck with this in 2024?

I'm almost positive that's happening, otherwise I wouldn't need the crab to maintain centerline.

The G1000 Flight Path Marker shows it very clearly, too.

Will be easy to test later on - same good cross winds today!

4 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

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

OK, now I'm confused.  In your initial post you were addressing landings.  Now, you seem to be talking about a crosswind takeoff issue.  If that's the case, you should see a weathervane affect into the wind.  That's expected.  The biggest issue I see in MSFS for xwind takeoffs is that it seems to exagerate the weathervane effect far too quickly in the takeoff roll (or for that matter, even when taxiing at slow speeds) almost as if you weren't really moving with wheels on the ground on dry pavement.  If the crosswind is from the left, it's particularly bad as I have found myself running out of rudder authority in only moderate crosswinds.  To my mind, everything is still doing what it should, requiring me, the pilot, to keep aileron into the wind and rudder pedals to control my ground track, it's just that the rudder pedals act like I'm controlling rudder, rather than nosewheel steering far too much, far too early.  At slow speed it should be mostly about the nosewheel, while as speed increases it should slowly transfer to rudder affects.  MSFS seems to do too much about the rudder, too soon.

Note, this discussion started with the 172, so I'm generically referring to what happens in a smaller, tricycle gear GA airplane with nosewheel steering.

Scott

Well, when it comes to crosswind physics in MSFS 2024, V1-Simulations has had nothing but high praise for 2024 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTOeK4Zn630&t=7669s (of course with the Fenix and not the default C172, but if there was something inherently missing/bad with the core 2024 sim that'd have been quite evident in his situation)

                                                   Toliss   Fenix
X-wind physics in flight              8         9.5 ("toliss albeit good Fenix is more accurate")
X-wind physics on touchdown   8         9.5 ("I was that impressed, did my natural inputs as in IRL and behaved as in IRL")
X-wind physics on ground         6          9
X-wind physics roll-out               7         9 ("crosswind physics in 2024 is awesome")
 

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by lwt1971

Sounds promising.  To clarify, when I was talking about downwind drift, I did mean once on the runway, if you fail to keep that aileron into the wind.  Some commenters read it the way I meant but I think a couple didn't; my fault for not being clearer.  Sure you need to crab into the wind on approach, you needed that to a reasonable level in 2020 as well; my gripe was that once you touched down, the only factor affecting directional control was the plane's desire to yaw into the wind.  This tried to become a turn that took you off the upwind side of the runway.  In reality, the plane would be trying to yaw into the wind while at the same time skidding sideways towards the downwind side of the runway. 

Anyway, sounds like they have improved that which is great news.  I think the only plane I've flown in 2020 that does this right is the Comanche; no surprise considering I don't think A2A was using much (or any) of the default sim physics.

10 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

(of course with the Fenix and not the default C172, but if there was something inherently missing/bad with the core 2024 sim that'd have been quite evident in his situation)
 

I think seeing what an addon plane can do is much more interesting. It's about what the flight physics engine can do in the right hands, in my opinion, not dissecting a default plane which just seems pointless to me given they are always a lukewarm affair. Hell, default planes in sims prior to 2020 / 2024 were bordering on flying trash cans, so it's a positive that we've reached a point where people take them seriously enough to represent an entire sim's flight physics engine.