I'd argue MSFS isn't (and doesn't want to be) an actual flight simulator, but rather a world and environment simulator. Then 3rd party aircraft developers then are building an actual flight simulator into this world simulator. It's a sort of specialization, like for example Airbus doesn't build their own engines but uses 3rd party manufactures for that.

The problem is that MS / Asobo haven't fully realized or embraced this idea (yet), which leads to spending a lot of energy on half-baked homemade stuff like default aircraft, airports, flight planner, AI traffic etc. I thought they'd have realized this because the fact that they outsourced many things to external developers (WT, ini, Gaya) in 2020 was showing into this direction. Unfortunately yet in 2024 there's a lot of stuff they could have just outright ignored and instead focused on the tools the 3rd party aircraft developers actually need.

53 minutes ago, ryanbatc said:

Default planes aren't great in any sim. 

2024 has some great default planes

  

2 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

I'd argue MSFS isn't (and doesn't want to be) an actual flight simulator,

That's not true at all

  

48 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

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

 

You're missing out. Real pilots have said some of the 2024 aircraft are accurate to the real thing.

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by Tuskin38

Just now, Tuskin38 said:

2024 has some great default planes

Can you elaborate “great “?

I read a post here by someone who, while not owning 2024 compiled a page full of links and quotes (italics and all) all pointing to the default models being a reliable representation as “tested by real world pilots”.

so, Im confused, which one is it? Should one disregard default models or are they so “great” as “tested by real world pilots “?

32 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

Can you elaborate “great “?

I read a post here by someone who, while not owning 2024 compiled a page full of links and quotes (italics and all) all pointing to the default models being a reliable representation as “tested by real world pilots”.

so, Im confused, which one is it? Should one disregard default models or are they so “great” as “tested by real world pilots “?

Same as everything in life, some things are good, others not so.  The default C152 in 2024 is surprisingly good.  As you say, many real pilots have praised some default aircraft.

1 hour ago, Tuskin38 said:

2024 has some great default planes

  

 

Default flight models... they're all mostly not great.  

2 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

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

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.

I love watching videos, streams and hearing opinions from actual respected pilots, even commercial pilots, that constantly praise the flight models and say they are very accurate. Then along comes some guy with no credentials, no backstory, no credibility to say that if you rub your hands together and do a jig while flying the 172, it needs roll around and purr or else it's not a real flight simulator, thus it's a silly video game and that is the end of it. 

3 hours ago, March Hare said:

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

Yes, to varying degrees with a varying set of add-ons.

X-Plane does it, v2020 does it, and v2024 does it, all with the default C172, et al.

Its been awhile since I've flown in P3D, let alone with any Default aircraft there, but - if you've got weather enabled, you can get it as well.

Not sure who OP is, but his post is quite troll-y, and is misinformed at best.

3 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

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.

Can you detail the ways in which it doesn’t match what happens when you do this in your real life 172?

2 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

Can you elaborate “great “?

I read a post here by someone who, while not owning 2024 compiled a page full of links and quotes (italics and all) all pointing to the default models being a reliable representation as “tested by real world pilots”.

so, Im confused, which one is it? Should one disregard default models or are they so “great” as “tested by real world pilots “?

 

Looks like some usual suspects' narratives don't seem to be aligning with the majority consensus from various IRL pilots and avsimmers about their feedback on 2024's default fleet dynamics 🤣

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by lwt1971

🍿

One part of the issue is control mechanism feedback and resistance. So we are all using different controls, so even if a seasoned pilot thinks it feels right, he is really saying it feels as right as it maybe could with the controls he is using with his sim. Now maybe if he gets the absolute best YOKE money can buy and perfectly configures its attributes, then maybe you could match all points.

Also, without "feeling the flight" it's hard for a pilot to really say how real it feels, unless he analyzed all the numbers directly, as many third-party devs do. The thing is though, there are some planes where Microsobo just seemed to use a default flight model without modifying much that had nothing to do with the real plane at all.

Some are much better than others, but there are still some weird bugs. For instance, land a non-watercraft in the water and crank the engines (some of them go 100+ directly sideways). The physics on a bounce are also way way off, as almost every bounce looks the same. Beyond that, I have no idea.

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by Alpine Scenery

2 hours 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.

The Asobo C172 G1000 is one of their Reference Models. I.e., they take an IRL one, strap a bunch of instrumentation to it, and use the results of those tests to finesse the sims aero engine.

They do the same with the Guimbal Cabri.

I'm always in pursuit of a better flight model, and great ones are indeed hard to find.

Which only means that I spend a lot of money and time on the quest, but there are definitely add-ons with good/great flight models across most sims.

Your mistake here is comparing a high-end payware add-ons to a default add-on.

XP REP delivers a fantastic, realistically handling aircraft on par with the best in any sim (I would posit they are THE best in XP, at least in terms of handling).

What you NEED to do is compare the DEFAULT 172s in both sims.

This has been done a number of times, and there are even a handful of YouTubes on it and it turns out the two are pretty close in handling.

IIRC, there are differences in edge of envelope responses, but they are both representative of the IRL aircraft in many ways, certainly for common activities like landing in a crosswind.

Now, if you want to compare apples 2 apples across the sims with REP, then probably the closest you can get is the A2A Comanche vs the JF Piper Arrow with REP.

Or the A2A 172 in P3D vs the REP 172.

And I've done the above myself, btw.

You'll find quite a bit of commonality across the handling qualities of the add-ons in those cases.

So much so that one needs to take into consideration factors other than the addon itself in order toake a determination on "best".

5 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

 

Looks like some narratives don't seem to be aligning with the majority consensus from various IRL pilots and avsimmers about their feedback on 2024's default fleet dynamics 🤣

There are just as many people criticizing including some of the top modders in our hobby and some people in this thread with their PPLs...  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.

But sure, the "majority" consensus says otherwise.  Funny though, I see a huge chasm of differing opinions opposed to any majority consensus about anything to do with FS24 yet LOL  

30 minutes 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.

We dont know is your answer. No one knows rather, no one here anyway. Ask Asobo.