16 minutes ago, Donstim said:

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

Yes and that came in SU15 🙂 (read my post again in case you missed something... the SU15 release notes I linked speaks about the "new ground contact model" hehe).. I'm talking about these FM parameters below which are the ones in your screenshot:
ground_new_contact_model_rolling_stickyness
ground_new_contact_model_up_to_speed_lateral
ground_new_contact_model_up_to_speed_longitudinal
ground_new_contact_model_gear_flex
ground_new_contact_model_gear_flex_damping
enable_high_accuracy_integration

the crosswind assist parameters came in SU10:
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

Ok, I agree with you on SU10 vs SU15. The point that I was trying to make still stands (that the Fenix does not make use of the new ground contact model -- in either FS2020 or 2024).

3 minutes ago, Donstim said:

Ok, I agree with you on SU10 vs SU15. The point that I was trying to make still stands (that the Fenix does not make use of the new ground contact model -- in either FS2020 or 2024).

What? They absolutely do. @lwt1971 is correct here.

15 hours 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.

 

Oohh 😮 ... so, all these guys are taking off only with half throttle at around 60 kts. If they did with full throttle, it would be 40 kts ... 🤔

15 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

 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

So I tested this. I am in MSFS2024 beta.

ESSA runway 26, winds from south at 150 degrees 50 knots.

1) set a 90 degree 50kt crosswind

2) After 3-5 seconds the plane has automaticly weathervaned

 

in short: I am unable keep the C172S straight in 50kts x-wind in FS2024. It's simply not possible with my MFG crosswind pedals (checked max deflection in my controls). It wants to weathervane immediately and I can't stop it even if I have full aileron into the wind and max rudder. And you don't even use ailerons in your video, my plane gets flipped otherwise if I even try to keep the nose down the centre line...Which I only can do if I increase airspeed to 115kts during a low fly-by, which is an expected action.

3) at 60kts I am totally unable to keep nose pointed down the parallell taxiway for rwy 26. my WCA is >25 degrees.

 Compare that to your scenario where you need approx 10 degree WCA?

 

Something is off with your installation. Simple as that. Why do I need a WCA of >25  degrees while you only need about WCA of 10 degrees, same plane, same wind conditions. You really should stop using your installation as reference because yours is faulty.

PS: a sidenote: What I did manage was to get the Simcoders REP C172 airborne at 39 knots though. Should you or I report that bug to them? Using your "it should rotate at 55 to 60 kts" as the scientifically correct conclusion?

 

 

 

39 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

So I tested this. I am in MSFS2024 beta.

ESSA runway 26, winds from south at 150 degrees 50 knots.

1) set a 90 degree 50kt crosswind

2) After 3-5 seconds the plane has automaticly weathervaned

 

in short: I am unable keep the C172S straight in 50kts x-wind in FS2024. It's simply not possible with my MFG crosswind pedals (checked max deflection in my controls). It wants to weathervane immediately and I can't stop it even if I have full aileron into the wind and max rudder. And you don't even use ailerons in your video, my plane gets flipped otherwise if I even try to keep the nose down the centre line...Which I only can do if I increase airspeed to 115kts during a low fly-by, which is an expected action.

3) at 60kts I am totally unable to keep nose pointed down the parallell taxiway for rwy 26. my WCA is >25 degrees.

 

Screenshots don't tell anything as you might know. They are a moment in time.

40 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

 Compare that to your scenario where you need approx 10 degree WCA?

 

Video please. You're welcome! At ESSA

 

@flying_carpet

I didn't take pictures or recorded videos, but I did try various scenarios and indeed in all of them, not only with the default C172, there surelly were consequences and the aircraft "weathercocked" sometimes aggressively with stronger winds.

Taxiing an A330 or the 321N (default) or during rollout or takeoff I surelly had to fight the x-wind component.

In practical terms, all effects taken into consideration, I see no advantage in Xp12 vs FS 2024 regarding this particular aspect of the simulation.

This being said, I still prefer the feel of Xp12 ground physics when it comes to inertia, but then I don't know if the aircraft I am flying in FS 2024 have the new ground physics enabled ?

Then, I do like to feel how an aircraft in FS 2024 handles out of the tarmac, when you exit the runway or taxiway and transition to the grass / soil / ... It handles a lot more convincingly than any aircraft in Xp12 that tends to become instantly stuck and require unrealistic amounts of power to overcome that overdone drag. 

Sorry @flying_carpet but honestly I see no real point in your observations 😕

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by jcomm

2 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Something is off with your installation. Simple as that. Why do I need a WCA of >25  degrees while you only need about WCA of 10 degrees, same plane, same wind conditions. You really should stop using your installation as reference because yours is faulty.

PS: a sidenote: What I did manage was to get the Simcoders REP C172 airborne at 39 knots though. Should you or I report that bug to them? Using your "it should rotate at 55 to 60 kts" as the scientifically correct conclusion?

Any of his "conclusions" being scientifically correct or being in good faith are about as possible as carpets being able to fly 🙂 ... I wonder if the non-glass C172 is being used (i.e. the version without the G1000), as that might not have gotten the full treatment by Asobo. I haven't flown it in a long while, need to give it a try.
 

10 hours ago, Krakin said:

What? They absolutely do. @lwt1971 is correct here.

Can you point me to that in their documentation or release notes?  I can't find where they confirm that.   They specifically call out 2024 specific as well like the wipers so I thought they would have called out being the first add-on aircraft using the new ground model if it was fully implemented... I know it was rebuilt with the 2024 SDK but haven't actually heard anything about the upgraded ground modelling.  (outside of here)  The first line seems to imply the changes would have had to been made for the 2020 plane as well.

From their release notes:

Quote

All changes apply to both 2024 and 2020 versions of the aircraft unless otherwise mentioned. Loads of tasty changes within, some highlights:

1 - 4x SimRate is now supported (experimentally)

2 - Attempted further fixes at both crazy wingflex flapping and FBW oscillations with several optimisation passes

3 - Entirely reworked the fuel flow math for current and projected data - EFOB should be pretty accurate/reliable now, along with most other places requesting fuel flow in any capacity

4 - Gently retuned the FBW normal law and handflight feel after customer feedback with the aim to achieve slightly more weighting/inertia (flare and rotation unaffected)

5 - Rebuilt the airmass temperature simulation - we adjusted and corrected for the factors of human to cabin environment heat exchange, PAX now give off correct amount of heat to the airmass simulation within the cabin on a per-PAX basis (correct to the number of occupied seats and location) - built cabin insulation simulation in order to dynamically ramp aircraft skin heat-exchange relationship with the external environment - added considerations for fuse skin friction heating, air density, etc., affecting the environment within the aircraft in addition to PAX generating heat. Adjusted pnuematic inflow/outflow rates and temperatures to correct for A320 type behaviour e.g. expect the PCA to be reasonably useless when in temperature extremes and with PAX on board, switching to the APU to contain and retain comfortable cabin temperatures may now be necessary. Doors now affect overall airmass temperature simulation in addition to the cockpit windows (which have been retuned also) - opening a door will affect the zone temperature first before propagating through the entire airmass simulation. If temperatures are extreme and all doors are open, aircraft environmental control will NOT be able to keep up with demands - if in extreme conditions and needing to quickly cool/heat the cabin, close all doors. Pay heed 🙂

Known Issues (MSFS 2024)

• We’ve only had MSFS 2024 for a few days, so there may be some issues - please be patient with us as we learn this new sim platform alongside you.
• To enter the cockpit from the outside, you will need to press Shift + C (or whatever you’ve assigned to “TAKE CONTROL OF CHARACTER”). We plan to add more click spots at a later stage.
• Liveries installed via the livery manager and externally won’t have thumbnails. We plan to update this later.
• Lights are too dim during the day (affects most MSFS 2024 aircraft).
• Some sounds disappear occasionally (known MSFS 2024 issue).
• Detail/normal maps are missing on some surfaces (known MSFS 2024 issue, fix due in the first major patch).
• Registration/SELCAL plate shows with black text.
• Cockpit display brightness and reflectivity inconsistent at times.
• Clicking on the EFB sometimes takes a few attempts. Fixed in v2.3.0.541
• The installer takes slightly longer at the “scanning” stage, this is something we’ll optimise.

V2.3.0.524

Avionics and Systems

• Added experimental support for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024, as well as addressing 2024-specific changes required in systems code
• Added 4x sim rate (experimental for now, let us know if you run into any issues with it)
• Rewrote EFOB (and general fuel flow prediction) computation/math
• Added new granular cruise/climb/des fuel flow
• Replumbed all requests pertaining to fuel flow data
• Attempted fly-by-wire oscillation fix for all users
• Optimised fly-by-wire CPU usage
• Gently retuned fly-by-wire normal law “feel” for slightly more inertia/weighting - flare/rotation is unaffected
• Rebuilt general pneumatic airmass temperature simulation through the aircraft
• Tuned AP roll
• Improved wing flex on lower performing systems
• Improved PFD colours and grey
• Refactored some internal systems in preparation for state saving
• Fixed A319 IAE not being able to enter managed speed in certain cases
• Fixed outer to inner tank valve appearing on non-jet pump config aircraft
• Fixed SD CRUISE vibration values blinking instead of pulsing
• Fixed OIL QTY displaying incorrect value when failed
• Fixed incorrect indications on F/CTL page during failures
• Fixed double text on waypoint/symbol names
• Fixed ND TCAS range markings showing at 10 NM
• Fixed ROSE ND range rings showing when in TCAS range
• Fixed being unable to enter A321 MZFW as the limit was too low

Art and Sound

• Added experimental support for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
• Added MSFS 2024 native WORKING WIPERS 🚨😲☔ (first airliner with ‘working’ wipers in 2020, and again in 2024)
• Developed new glass material to more accurately show the double flash of the SL strobes
• Added collision to stairs to support 2024 walkaround
• Fixed chart/reading light always showing as on from external view
• Fixed GPU clipping with GSX tug
• Fixed ISIS missing ATT and BARO text
• Fixed open windows blocking EFB interactions
• Fixed visual issues with ISIS light detector
• Fixed slight kink on both wings with new wingflex
• Fixed aircraft rolling out of the hangar
• Fixed missing FAP decal from exterior
• Fixed fastener type on cockpit windows
• Fixed issue with LCD simulation causing colour offsets at some brightness levels

EFB

• Added a delay before connecting the GPU on arrival
• Added an option to disable the ambient display sensor for users who pop out displays
• Improved logging around departure performance calculation
• Improved memory usage
• Fixed changing units during GSX refuelling loading an incorrect fuel amount
• Fixed MACTOW mismatch on final load sheet when using “fast” or “real-time” load methods
• Fixed situation causing ACT empty tank weights to not be set when loading in
• Fixed display of OFP formats that don’t have bookmarks (like SWA)
• Fixed map not showing for non-Navigraph users

Installer

• Added support for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
• Added support for installing into multiple simulators, including correct handling of dependencies
• Added automatic camera preset file copying between MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 (your saved camera views should be there when you first load in)

Livery Manager

• Added support for Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024
• Fixed some typos in country names

 

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by psolk

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

Any of his "conclusions" being scientifically correct or being in good faith are about as possible as carpets being able to fly 🙂 ... I wonder if the non-glass C172 is being used (i.e. the version without the G1000), as that might not have gotten the full treatment by Asobo. I haven't flown it in a long while, need to give it a try.
 

You don't believe in flying carpets? They exist, they are real 😁 .

 

Ok, serioulsy ... As the A330 was mentioned ... its 'advantage' compared to e.g. the C172: no torque effect and no influence by counteracting it with the rudder. It was mentioned somewhere it has the new ground physics model implemented (is that really confirmed?) and on the other hand it was written somewhere that you can switch crosswind on and off. Let's see what happens. Crosswind of 90 °, 83 kts, VRMM, rwy 36, full throttle. Observe the tail fin and its movement (or lack of) compared to the centre line. Only from 60 kts on it starts to react slowly. At 83 kts crosswind ...

 

3 hours ago, SAS443 said:

Something is off with your installation. Simple as that.

I can completely confirm that this can happen!
 

what I’m dealing with right now: There is a light that floats inside every aircraft on my installation and lights up everything at all times like a feature you would have in 3d model editing software kind of way… I have an empty community folder and I’ve tried reinstalling and it still doesn’t get fixed. 
 

so yeah this game can really get messed up in weird ways for people. 

4 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Oohh 😮 ... so, all these guys are taking off only with half throttle at around 60 kts. If they did with full throttle, it would be 40 kts ... 🤔

Are you denying or acknowledging the effect a propeller slipstream has on stall speed?

Should we correct the latest edition of Oxford "Principles of flight - ATPL Ground Traning Series" where it says

Quote

Increased engine power will decrease stall speed due to propeller slipstream and/or the
upwards inclination of thrust. The lift of the aeroplane
at a given angle of attack and airspeed will be greatly affected

Or maybe we should inform Cessna they can omit the remark in  "SECTION 5 Performance" where it says (read the highlighted part please.)

 

Again, I got the most detailed and complex C172 simulation for XP12 airborne at or/below 40kts. Have you submitted a bug yet? or is it "OK" since it happened in a sim not named MSFS?

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by SAS443

28 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

You don't believe in flying carpets? They exist, they are real 😁 .

Ok, serioulsy ... As the A330 was mentioned ... its 'advantage' compared to e.g. the C172: no torque effect and no influence by counteracting it with the rudder. It was mentioned somewhere it has the new ground physics model implemented (is that really confirmed?) and on the other hand it was written somewhere that you can switch crosswind on and off. Let's see what happens. Crosswind of 90 °, 83 kts, VRMM, rwy 36, full throttle. Observe the tail fin and its movement (or lack of) compared to the centre line. Only from 60 kts on it starts to react slowly. At 83 kts crosswind ...

 

Don't try to evaluate a default Airbus in either MSFS or XP12... They're far from realistic, at least in as far as flying control surfaces act...

The same applies if you pick the default 330 in Xp12... BTW, try an engine failure in that one and comment at the Xp12 forums how you find it realism wise...

OTOH, I wonder how the FBW 380 behaves, and I know that at least the Tolisses in Xp12 behave rather differently from the default aircraft with their PlaneMaker "fbw flag" set ...

In either sim you will find inconsistencies, incomplete modeling details, etc...

There's one aspect where I find MSFS does a much better work than X-Plane, btw - manual braking! As much as I try to set the "curves" / "reponse" in X-Plane 12, even in a per aircraft customization process, I don't get the effect of manual braking I get in all aircraft, specially the airliners, in MSFS. That one is IMO very well done !

I got tired of criticising each sim... Instead I now get the best I can out of each one... In X-Plane 12 I don't fly twin props because of the bug plaguing them for a while... In MSFS I don't fly helicopters... In both sims I use some really nice airliners... For ww2 I would reinstall IL-2 Great Battles or DCS World...

Each for it's own...

(and, as we say in Porta Land... don't throw stones at your neighbour if you have a roof made of glass...)

15 hours ago, Krakin said:

What? They absolutely do. @lwt1971 is correct here.

What?  They absolutely do not. If you own the airplane, you can check the flight_model.cfg file yourself. I'm sure that @lwt1971 would agree with me that the inputs to turn on the new ground contact model are not there.

1 minute ago, Donstim said:

What?  They absolutely do not. If you own the airplane, you can check the flight_model.cfg file yourself. I'm sure that @lwt1971 would agree with me that the inputs to turn on the new ground contact model are not there.

Thank you, this is what I have been trying to confirm.  

So the Fenix ground handling in 2024 is currently implemented the exact same way as 2020 which would imply it should feel and handle exactly the same in both sims yet people claim it's noticeably better in 2024. 

So is there something else I am missing here as to why it would feel so different to some people? 

Back to the point that it would be really nice to know what planes "actually" have 2024 ground handling implemented because otherwise people are talking a bunch of hogwash about how much better everything is when they are actually using planes that are modelled exactly the same in both sims and not even leveraging the 2024 features...   Unless of course like I said there is something else that I am missing...

So is that little Cub this whole thread was started over to highlight the benefits of 2024 ground physics even using the 2024 ground physics LOL???  I mean I'm pretty sure if you hit a rock that big with crash detection on in 2020 you would crash as well...  Maybe I'm wrong.  

So this thread "should be"

2024 has improved ground handling "when it's implemented" but we don't know where it is implemented  yet  LOL