While the flight model inputs affecting ground handling may be exactly the same between 2020 and 2024 for a given airplane, we don't really know whether the simulation using these same inputs has changed between 2020 and 2024. Nothing has been provided publicly through the SDK or the development forum to developers to specifically identify any such changes.

1 hour ago, psolk said:

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.  

One of the points of the original post is that MSFS 2024 has procedurally generated rocks across the entire world, placed there by AI. It's these procedurally generated rocks placed by AI that gives MSFS 2024 a whole new realism with ground physics, that no other flight simulator has done.  MSFS 2020 does not have procedurally generated rocks placed by AI across the entire world that affects the plane when it rolls over the rocks.

Even if MSFS 2020 had the exact same ground physics capabilities with respect to planes rolling over rocks, the outcome is radically different in MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 because of the procedurally placed rocks by AI in MSFS 2024.

And it's these procedurally placed rocks that the plane's tires can roll over, that makes the ground much more realistic in MSFS 2024. Bush flyers especially benefit from this in MSFS 2024, as well as when you land on a non-paved runway.

56 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

One of the points of the original post is that MSFS 2024 has procedurally generated rocks across the entire world, placed there by AI. It's these procedurally generated rocks placed by AI that gives MSFS 2024 a whole new realism with ground physics, that no other flight simulator has done.  MSFS 2020 does not have procedurally generated rocks placed by AI across the entire world that affects the plane when it rolls over the rocks.

Even if MSFS 2020 had the exact same ground physics capabilities with respect to planes rolling over rocks, the outcome is radically different in MSFS 2020 and MSFS 2024 because of the procedurally placed rocks by AI in MSFS 2024.

And it's these procedurally placed rocks that the plane's tires can roll over, that makes the ground much more realistic in MSFS 2024. Bush flyers especially benefit from this in MSFS 2024, as well as when you land on a non-paved runway.

Bush flyers are the only ones who benefit "procedurally placed AI rocks" 

If 2020 and 2024 both cause crashes when you hit a rock and both roll over rocks of a certain size in the same manner then the only thing 24 has done is add "procedurally placed AI rocks" the actual ground physics if you hit a rock would be the same.  The difference would be rock detail and rock placement not ground physics...  That would be based on the ground physics of the specific plane which if they have a single point of contact just like 2020 would hit the rock no differently.  Then there is the individual planes suspension and travel, a mooney hitting a rock is going to be different than a Cub... 

So 2024 has the most accurate rocks is what you are saying?   LOL

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by psolk

3 minutes ago, psolk said:

Bush flyers are the only ones who benefit "procedurally placed AI rocks" 

If 2020 and 2024 both cause crashes when you hit a rock and both roll over rocks of a certain size in the same manner then the only thing 24 has done is add "procedurally placed AI rocks" the actual ground physics if you hit a rock would be the same.  The difference would be rock detail and rock placement not ground physics...  

So 2024 has the most accurate rocks is what you are saying?   LOL

It has more than that. You can refer to Seb's interview where he talks about how MSFS 2024 is using 4000x more detail for its ground handling engine. I think lwt1971 linked to that interview earlier in this thread. It was a total ground handling rewrite from MSFS 2020.

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

14 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

It has more than that. You can refer to Seb's interview where he talks about how MSFS 2024 is using 4000x more detail for its ground handling engine. I think lwt1971 linked to that interview earlier in this thread. It was a total ground handling rewrite from MSFS 2020.

We've already well established the ground handling physics are tied to the plane and are opt in.  

What is the total ground handling engine rewrite with 4000x more detail?   So you are saying ground handling is 4000x improved?   What does that mean if the plane isn't using the new 2024 ground handling features?  

Rocks alone don't equate to better ground handling physics...   They equate to better scenery but not better physics

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by psolk

2 hours 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.

Yes, you're very correct. They introduced a custom taxi friction implementation at the launch of the 319/321 expansion but this was an external solution. All this time I thought is was them making use of Asobo's coding. 

@Donstim yup you're correct about the Fenix not using the ground contact model in 2020 or 2024. But like I said earlier, to me there's something definitely different about the ground handling especially the ground<->air transition in the Fenix in 2024 vs 2020. And that's not just me saying it, others have too including those IRL pilot streamers I mentioned.

Re: 2020 vs 2024, there are most certainly improvements across the board on runway taxiing, ground<->air transition, between the ground and very low altitude like 1000' (i.e. ground effects, etc), and especially off-runway/rough-terrain handling which is also where the new more detailed (4000x) ground terrain modelling and 3D ground collisions (ground and water, from micro level to macro level) comes into play. That latter aspect most certainly is night and day 2024 vs 2020 (i.e. bush flying, small aircraft landings/takeoffs/taxiing in off-runway ground terrain and water).

We know the C172 (G1000 version) has the new ground contact modelling in its FM, iniBuilds confirmed their A300 has it. Likely some of the other default 2024 aircraft too. Regardless, there are tangible improvements being observed in 2024 over 2020 in ground handling, the ground<->air transition, and in-flight dynamics near the ground by numerous people in various 2024 default aircraft (IRL pilots and simmers alike)... all these folks can't be imagining things 🙂 https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/664166-why-msfs-2024-has-the-best-ground-physics-for-a-flight-sim/page/4/#findComment-5370752 . Whether its due to the ground contact model in the aircraft FMs, and/or other factors in 2024, who knows.
 

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by lwt1971

32 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

which is also where the new more detailed (4000x) ground terrain modelling

OK, that makes A LOT more sense than a 4000x improvement in the ground handling engine and a total re-write of the ground handling!!

It's a 4000x increase in ground terrain modelling which is absolutely phenomenal for Bush/water flights however a runway/taxiway "should be" pretty smooth in real life so not sure how much it helps on a paved runway which is then where the increased contact points comes into play. 

To confirm though the Beluga tilting bogies wasn't the new ground handling model, Fenix isn't using the new ground model so its the 172 the A300 and we don't know what else.  

That makes a lot more sense.  😉 Thank you again for clarifying

This has been a good learning thread for me. 

 

Edited February 19, 20251 yr by psolk

On 2/19/2025 at 11:07 AM, SAS443 said:

Something is off with your installation. Simple as that.

As I can't remember one time when @flying_carpet was not acting in bad faith, I would not be surprised if he is manipulating the sim somehow to make it look bad. That is my honest opinion.

It looks like the mission of his life to invent unrealistic, absurd and nonsensical scenarios, outside any real world relevance just to discredit MSFS. It is the most absurd and flimsy excuse to say that he is simulating a hurricane that hits parked aircraft. That has nothing to do with the ground model of the sim. Real world planes would be tied to the ground in that case.

 

Ok, so ... what do we learn from this thread? It doesn't always help to ‘read and understand what the experts and Microsoft/Asobo say’, but to critically scrutinise and test for yourself. Especially in the extreme/edge areas. This is the only way to find out how good a product (be it a flight simulator, a car or superglue) is. JUST AND ALSO for extreme cases, simulations are made, for example, because reality is too expensive or too dangerous. Why, for example, are cars first ‘crashed’ hundreds of times on the computer? This ‘practically never’ happens in reality and is not part of everyday use. What percentage of us here have already crashed our car into the wall? See? That's ‘unrealistic’.

Or after air accidents - it is 'unrealistic' for a military helicopter to crash into a landing regional jet. Who would do that?? You then look at the whole thing again (also) in simulations, e.g. why someone crashed (boundary conditions etc.).
Another example of crashes: A C152 fell from the sky. Why? You recreate and simulate the flight paths of the C152 and another plane in the vicinity (a 747) and realise that the C152 crossed the wake turbulences of a 747. Nobody does that sensibly and realistically in reality!!! And yet it happens. You could have re-enacted the whole thing in real life, but you'd have to sacrifice a C152.

17 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Ok, so ... what do we learn from this thread? It doesn't always help to ‘read and understand what the experts and Microsoft/Asobo say’, but to critically scrutinise and test for yourself. Especially in the extreme/edge areas. This is the only way to find out how good a product (be it a flight simulator, a car or superglue) is. JUST AND ALSO for extreme cases, simulations are made, for example, because reality is too expensive or too dangerous. Why, for example, are cars first ‘crashed’ hundreds of times on the computer? This ‘practically never’ happens in reality and is not part of everyday use. What percentage of us here have already crashed our car into the wall? See? That's ‘unrealistic’.

Or after air accidents - it is 'unrealistic' for a military helicopter to crash into a landing regional jet. Who would do that?? You then look at the whole thing again (also) in simulations, e.g. why someone crashed (boundary conditions etc.).
Another example of crashes: A C152 fell from the sky. Why? You recreate and simulate the flight paths of the C152 and another plane in the vicinity (a 747) and realise that the C152 crossed the wake turbulences of a 747. Nobody does that sensibly and realistically in reality!!! And yet it happens. You could have re-enacted the whole thing in real life, but you'd have to sacrifice a C152.

That may be what YOU learned from this thread...    All of which is absolute nonsense BTW  

I learned that the new ground modelling is opt in and I gained a better understanding of the new modelling of multiple contact patches

I learned that outside of the 172 and A300 we really have no idea what other planes are actually using the new contact models

I learned the Fenix and Beluga were not using the new model despite people thinking they were

I think some people learned we had tilting bogies in 2020 as well and that is not the new ground handling model at all

I learned that there is a 4000x improvement in terrain modelling, not a 4000x re-write of the ground handling engine which made no sense to begin with

I learned if a plane is using the same single point of contact ground modeling as 2020 it should behave the same

I also learned a rock doesn't make for better ground physics but it makes bush flying more consequential... 

 

I learned that as usual somewhere between the sensationalism of 2024 being the greatest unparalleled achievement in gaming history and the bashing lies the truth.  

 

 

Edited February 20, 20251 yr by psolk

12 hours ago, flying_carpet said:

Especially in the extreme/edge areas.

More flimsy excuses to legitimate your laughable attempts to discredit MSFS.

You did not test edge cases. The definition of an edge case is as follows:

A scenario that happens at the highest or lowest possible values

A flight simulator is not supposed to simulate the effect of a hurricane on parked and tied aircraft. That would be an aircraft parking simulator. Very boring and irrelevant for flight simulation.

What you did is like simulating the C152 flying on the moon. Or under the water. Don't expect any meaningful result for things like that.

On 2/19/2025 at 1:37 AM, Krakin said:

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

Nope

NT -Double post

Edited February 21, 20251 yr by Rusty Spanner

On 2/20/2025 at 11:45 AM, fsiscool said:

It looks like the mission of his life to invent unrealistic, absurd and nonsensical scenarios, outside any real world relevance just to discredit MSFS. It is the most absurd and flimsy excuse to say that he is simulating a hurricane that hits parked aircraft. That has nothing to do with the ground model of the sim. Real world planes would be tied to the ground in that case.

 

Ok, so that's you technical explanation? Well ...

 

Crosswind to a tied and a non tied plane (YT doesn't allow embedding the video, so you have to click yourself on it, even if it hurts 😁)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRjpTKTlDOU&ab_channel=SimsburyAirport

And if even a A330 doesn't get affected by 83 kts crosswind until it reaches 60 kts forward speed, the conclusion is clear.