14 minutes ago, psolk said:

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  

 

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.

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by lwt1971

33 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

Why hasn't it been possible for anyone to develop a Cessna 172 model that flies and lands accurately in MSFS?  

I don't agree with your assertion on the first place.

And as to the C172 specifically, it's pretty good as-is, and there is at least one upgrade to it that covers the flight model.

I may just have to pick that up to see for myself how good it is. Haven't as yet because the 172 doesn't have retractable gear, but I don't mind dabbling to help test and spread repeatable results and conclusions.

The A2A is excellent - every bit as good as any REP package.

And further up the scale, we have a bunch of IRL commercial ATP pilots who praise the handling of various airliners.

So I'm a little baffled that if you're so keenly interested in this subject that you haven't run across all that info yet...?

41 minutes ago, TASCHMANN said:

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?

That's just it though. You don't have to hop on this merry-go-round. You can exercise your right to not do something that is clearly unsatisfactory to you. Being a sim that can't get the basics right to your satisfaction, you should absolutely steer clear of it in favour of sims that do get the basics right with default aircraft to your satisfaction. 

5 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I don't agree with your assertion on the first place.

I've asked him to specify in detail exactly how the sim differs from his real life experience in crosswinds in 172s, so hopefully he'll be able to back up his assertion.

2 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

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.

I think your first point has a lot of conceptual merit. Because we know for a fact that this digital twin was developed before they bolted a flight sim to it.

OTOH, Asobo have made a TREMENDOUS amount of progress on the fidelity of the aero engine, and there are a few add-ons where it's shown in abundance, e.g., the FSR500, who's flight model is fully native to the sim.

But there are a very high number of devs who are NOT delivering Hi Fi flight models in v2020, either, so it's up to Asobo to make that as "simple" as it is in X-Plane. And they are on the path to deliver that.

 

3 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

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.

This idea that MS / Asobo are bumbling incompetents with little idea of what """""we""""" actually need is plain wrong. Yes, I'm an unabashed disciple of the project, but I do think they know exactly what their and our options and paths are, and how best to get there. The mix of MS commercial and structural power with Asobo's creativity is a strategic triumph, no matter what tactical arseache they make us go through on the way.

2 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

I was just trying to understand the duality of the so called “simple-test” you performed. Then with your own logic I assume that no desktop flight sim is good enough for you with its default aircraft. 
 

 

2 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

Why hasn't it been possible for anyone to develop a Cessna 172 model that flies and lands accurately in MSFS? 

This isn’t a question of possibility it’s just a question of willingness. No dev has bothered to make a 172 for MSFS. Why? How would I know I’d love the 737 cl line up but no one is making one either. Though there’s a plethora of high fidelity GA aircraft with well regarded FMs, perhaps give those a try? 

 

2 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

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?

Weren’t you the same one who just argued you needed REP to make the xplane 172 perform as expected? Is that not.. an upgrade? 
 

im seeing some odd inconsistencies with your serious question whenever I call out the same reasoning for other sims, why doesn’t it matter then? 
 

why isn’t your simple test done with aircraft that actually have refined FMs? Like the lauded black square, JF or A2A GA products? Why is your comparison done between a highly modified xplane aircraft and a default MSFS aircraft? 

Edited November 27, 20241 yr by Lucky38i

40 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

why isn’t your simple test done with aircraft that actually have refined FMs? Like the lauded black square, JF or A2A GA products? Why is your comparison done between a highly modified xplane aircraft and a default MSFS aircraft? 

And also, he still hasn't detailed in what ways it differs from his real life experience or published data.

6 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

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.

By your definition a simple wire-frame product, think of Flight Simulator for Apple IIGS would qualify provided it met the basic behavior you described in your test configuration to demonstrate the prerequisites of what constitutes a necessary condition to be called a flight simulator.  And yet no one would opt for FS for Apple IIGS because it was a true 'flight simulator', over MSFS 2020/2024.  And this is why:, 'flight simulation' is vastly more than takeoff dynamics in a lightweight GA aircraft.  And moreover--for all the zillions of pilots in the history of flight of lightweight GA aircraft learned w/o any kind of 'flight simulator', and learned far faster about 'flight dynamics' when they could truly feel every input and influence on the plane.  So flight dynamics is only a part of any flight simulation especially in the learning domain where understanding avionics, navigation and all the rest come into play be it MSFS or any other current desktop flight simulator.

5 hours ago, TASCHMANN said:

BTW the 172 in  X-plane 11 and 12  with the REM will do the crosswind perfectly and consistently.

And this is why I dislike X-plane, there is no such thing as a "consistent" crosswind landing (or any type of landing for that matter) in real life. You can do touch and goes all day long and each landing will be different. Reality does not exist in some kind of vacuum. Sometimes MSFS bumps me around on short final, sometimes the winds die down and the air is smooth at the last moment. This is the main reason I prefer MSFS.

You also can't bring up a control-related topic without mentioning your controls, your sensitivities, etc. And if you're going to say the sensitivities should not need any tweaking, then I trust all of your controls have a 1:1 ratio compared to a real 172? Because yes, your elevator and rudder will be twitchy if they have half the amount of movement that you'll find in a real 172.

17 minutes ago, Funky D said:

And if you're going to say the sensitivities should not need any tweaking, then I trust all of your controls have a 1:1 ratio compared to a real 172

And then we have to ask which real 172, as I'm sure the hydraulics are not all in the same perfect condition...

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 👍. 

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)

11 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)

What's interesting to also keep in mind is that the Fenix has not been upgraded to take advantage of MSFS 2024 features fully yet (given that part of their FM uses the sim's FDE, also ground handling, etc).

 

Edited November 28, 20241 yr by lwt1971

7 hours ago, Fiorentoni said:

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.

I agree with you, and in fact, I've never used MSFS as a "flight simulator." I've had it for 2-3 years and I've never sat in a single cockpit and I've never experienced the flight dynamics of any aircraft, ever.

Instead, I use MSFS as my world simulator; it's basically the out-the-windshield visuals that I use for Aerowinx PSX, which is my flight simulator. Each app has its strengths; PSX simulates the aircraft and flight, and MSFS makes the visuals. It's a nice combo.