On 2/15/2025 at 4:15 PM, flying_carpet said:

Why have you deleted what you have written earlier in this post

They didn't. 

11 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

They didn't. 

Oooh yes, he did! It was about whether what you see on the runway in my videos is snow or condensation. He claimed that it was condensation and wanted to prove it with a video: in custom weather and set snow in the settings, you saw snow (or was it condensation). Then he switched to real weather and the snow (or condensation) was gone. That should be the his proof that it is condensation. When he realised that it was all BS, he deleted everything and replaced it by something else.

I will comment on the other (longer) posts, I have done a few tests, need to repeat them, record and upload them as well.

In any case, some people here have actually taken a closer look meanwhile and thought about it 👍 - and it turned out that not everything is as everyone thought.

Edited February 18, 20251 yr by flying_carpet

50 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Oooh yes, he did! It was about whether what you see on the runway in my videos is snow or condensation. He claimed that it was condensation and wanted to prove it with a video: in custom weather and set snow in the settings, you saw snow (or was it condensation). Then he switched to real weather and the snow (or condensation) was gone. That should be the his proof that it is condensation. When he realised that it was all BS, he deleted everything and replaced it by something else.

Is that not this post here?

Or this one?

 

2 hours ago, Tuskin38 said:

Is that not this post here?

Or this one?

 

Nope, neither of them. It was this one. Original post was at Saturday 08:19 PM, edited almost 1 h later with something completely different (09:03 PM).

 

On 2/17/2025 at 2:43 PM, lwt1971 said:

First of all just to ensure do you have 2024? The ground physics are very different vs 2020 (i.e. no more modelling of wheels as single points or undercarriages as single contact points on landing etc).

Yes, I have 2024 as you can see on the UI in my videos, but ... sorry to disappoint you (again). The C172 is the 'flagship project' of the new ground physics (I'm not talking about undercarriage in this case)? Well ... it's quite easily possible to accelerate and rotate at a crosswind of 50 kts - see below. And (!!!) it rotates already at 40 kts (although in reality at 55 or even 60 kts). It yells "stall, stall" to you, but lifts off relatively unimpressed.

 

And now with headwind: at around 90 kts (remember? v_r is actually 55 or 60) it (only) lifts its nose but accordong to my aerodynamic understanding it should 'pump', i.e. due to the high AOA it should fall down again a bit, then raise again the nose and so on. But it stays there quite statically. It was exactly this way in 2020. I don't see any progress here.

 

1 hour ago, flying_carpet said:

Yes, I have 2024 as you can see on the UI in my videos, but ... sorry to disappoint you (again)... bla bla bla

I wasn't talking to you or quoting you so not sure why you keep quoting me (exercise whatever reading comprehension skills you have to realize what you quoted was my response to FedDriver). It's adorable that you think I care to to look at your YT videos (I won't), or take you seriously (I won't) given your posting history and repeated attempts at FUD. Your persistence is amusing however.
 

Edited February 18, 20251 yr by lwt1971

2 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

And (!!!) it rotates already at 40 kts (although in reality at 55 or even 60 kts).

But you are going full throttle in that clip.

You seem both surprised and completely unaware what effect propeller slipstream has on a C172's stall speed. (Hint: delay of stall)

And yet here you are lecturing us about real aerodynamics.

Stop wasting your time.

 

Edited February 18, 20251 yr by SAS443

1 hour ago, SAS443 said:

But you are going full throttle in that clip.

You seem both surprised and completely unaware what effect propeller slipstream has on a C172's stall speed. (Hint: delay of stall)

And yet here you are lecturing us about real aerodynamics.

Stop wasting your time.

 

I would love to know how he came up with accurate vspeeds for a Cessna with 50 kts wind...  Is that in the Cessna manual 😉    

How do you know with a 50 kt wind the vr speed isn't 40 kts?  You don't because it's outside the flight envelope of the plane so it's pointless anyway.

How about how does it handle real world scenarios instead of making up extremes to try and emphasize a point?  Does it handle correctly within it's flight envelope and not when in real life it would actually be tied down?  

Would be great if he worried about "those" things...   

A great analogy is iRacing.  EVERYTHING within the physics "limits" of the cars are modeled "however" once you EXCEED  those limits you can literally be launched like a rocket... 

They don't actually worry or care what happens outside those real world limits because there is no data to even model it... 

 

 

 

Edited February 18, 20251 yr by psolk

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

at around 90 kts

More irrelevant nonsense...

Stick to realistic winds, that are under the limits for this aircraft. It is pure arrogance just to make claims how this plane would behave in these conditions. This so absurd like complaining the Wright Flyer is not behaving correctly at FL370 or so...

1 hour ago, fsiscool said:

More irrelevant nonsense...

Stick to realistic winds, that are under the limits for this aircraft. It is pure arrogance just to make claims how this plane would behave in these conditions. This so absurd like complaining the Wright Flyer is not behaving correctly at FL370 or so...

Oh my goodness!!!      
The ignorance here is really frightening. We've been through this before: so ... your (real) plane is parked at a small airfield outside. A hurricane has been announced, with winds of over 120 kts. But since the limits of your aircraft are below that, the hurricane is not allowed. So, you order the hurricane to blow at realistic speeds that are within the limits of your aircraft.
Apart from that: a speed of 90 kts for the C172 is not permitted?? What are you doing in the air when you are flying straight ahead at 120 kts??? Is that not allowed????

Besides, I have CONTINUOUSLY increased the wind - haven't you noticed?

5 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

It's adorable that you think I care to to look at your YT videos (I won't), or take you seriously (I won't) ...
 

23 hours ago, lwt1971 said:

For me personally, the airliners I can definitely feel a difference in both ground handling and the ground<->air transition in 2024 vs 2020 are the ini A300 (2024 version), Fenix (2024 version), and the default A330 (compared to 2020 heavies). The consensus among the major IRL pilot streamers and avsimmers appear to also call out these three aircraft, and also the 2024 default ini A320 and Asobo 737 Max (I haven't flown these two much yet).
 

Interesting that you keep mentioning the Fenix as one of the airplanes that you can definitely feel a difference in ground handling in 2024 vs 2020 since it does not use any portion of the "new ground contact model" that many posts here are crediting as the prime reason for 2024's improved ground handling. It is really a bit of a confusing situation since the exact same "new ground contact model" parameters are also available for FS2020; nothing new was added in this regard (at least not in the SDK) for developers to use in 2024. So what is the real reason for any differences in ground handling between 2020 and 2024, considering things like airplanes (Fenix) reportedly handling differently in the 2 sims when using exactly the same ground handing parameters (which do not include use of the "new ground contact model")?

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by Donstim

28 minutes ago, Donstim said:

Interesting that you keep mentioning the Fenix as one of the airplanes that you can definitely feel a difference in ground handling in 2024 vs 2020 since it does not use any portion of the "new ground contact model" that many posts here are crediting as the prime reason for 2024's improved ground handling. It is really a bit of a confusing situation since the exact same "new ground contact model" parameters are also available for FS2020; nothing new was added in this regard (at least not in the SDK) for developers to use in 2024. So what is the real reason for any differences in ground handling between 2020 and 2024, considering things like airplanes (Fenix) reportedly handling differently in the 2 sims when using exactly the same ground handing parameters (which do not include use of the "new ground contact model")?

The Fenix 2020 version did adopt MSFS 2020 SU15's new ground handling parameters. But what came to SU15 was a partial backport from 2024's overall new ground handling, and as Matt said earlier the physics model resolution is more fine-grained in 2024, among whatever else extra that's there in 2024 which is not in 2020. So presumably the enablement of the SU15 parameters in an FM triggers the new ground handling when used in 2024. Also something is definitely different/better about the ground<->air transition in 2024 vs 2020 I find, along with ground effect etc. To me ground handling doesn't mean just taxiing but also the transition on take-off and landing.

What V1 Simulations says about 2024 vs 2020 sums it up well: https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/654326-msfs-2024-flight-dynamics-and-groundwater-handling-thread/page/6/#findComment-5254910
"flight modelling wise there is a substantial change to how aircraft behave on and around the ground, from 1000 feet down to touchdown and taxiing, the simulator is significantly different, without question better than 2020 .. the floating is less, the aircraft have more inertia, etc .. what's driving me to keep coming back to the sim is how the flying feels, how the airplanes are responding to control, especially from 1000 ft above to ground"

And as to Fenix 2024 vs Fenix 2020, in his detailed review when he compared it to the XP's Toliss A320 also has comments about how the Fenix 2024 compares to 2020 (note particularly the comments on ground handling i.e. inertia on the ground, etc): https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/654326-msfs-2024-flight-dynamics-and-groundwater-handling-thread/page/8/#findComment-5265248
 

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by lwt1971

19 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

The Fenix 2020 version did adopt MSFS 2020 SU15's new ground handling parameters. But what came to SU15 was a partial backport from 2024's overall new ground handling, and as Matt said earlier the physics model resolution is more fine-grained in 2024, among whatever else extra that's there in 2024 which is not in 2020. So presumably the enablement of the SU15 parameters in an FM triggers the new ground handling when used in 2024. Also something is definitely different/better about the ground<->air transition in 2024 vs 2020 I find, along with ground effect etc. To me ground handling doesn't mean just taxiing but also the transition on take-off and landing.
 

The SU15 new ground handling parameters are not the "new ground contact model." They were added to assist developers in addressing crosswind handling characteristics with the existing ground contact model. The new ground contact model was added later in 2020 and is also in 2024. (That must be what Seb had referred to as being backported to 2020.) You have to turn it on by using the new parameters, which the Fenix experimental/alpha, or whatever you want to call it, port to 2024 does not do.

V1's comments regarding the ground handling differences between 2020 and 2024 appear to be generic, applying to all aircraft, regardless of whether or not the "new ground contact model" is used. It would really be nice to know what it really results from. But it doesn't appear to need to use the new ground contact model.

13 minutes ago, Donstim said:

The SU15 new ground handling parameters are not the "new ground contact model." They were added to assist developers in addressing crosswind handling characteristics with the existing ground contact model. The new ground contact model was added later in 2020 and is also in 2024. (That must be what Seb had referred to as being backported to 2020.) You have to turn it on by using the new parameters, which the Fenix experimental/alpha, or whatever you want to call it, port to 2024 does not do.

What came in SU15 was the partial backport of 2024 ground handling, i.e. the "new ground contact model": https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/sim-update-15-beta-release-notes-pc-1-37-2-0-xbox-1-37-3-0-february-14-2024/629823
Ground Contact Resolution Improvements

• More accurate ground contact model.
• Optional soft ground collision model for tires / flexible gears.
• Enabled new soft gears on C172 and Cabri.
• New high accuracy physics system to enable vibrations and micro movements.

So if 2020 aircraft carry these over into 2024 then presumably that enables 2024's new ground handling system.

The parameters you speak of to assist crosswind handling characteristics came earlier, in SU10 as a first attempt to improve ground handilng:
ground_high_speed_steeringwheel_static_friction_scalar
ground_high_speed_otherwheel_static_friction_scalar
ground_crosswind_effect_zero_speed
ground_crosswind_effect_max_speed
 

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by lwt1971

No, that is not the new ground contact model. Those are adjustments made to the "old" ground contact model. See the SDK here regarding how to invoke the new ground contact model:  

https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ajsy7Ey4_8uFgZ0pLWmSXZURMj7_jg?e=gCfp8u