9 hours ago, Donstim said:

No comment on that one other than I don't think MSFS 2024 allows for that type of damage.

There are several issues here:

1) MSFS does not have the correct braking coefficients (at least not what is used for transport category airplanes) for these surface conditions.

2) What you see visually in the sim for the surface condition may not be the same as what is used for the flight physics (that is, you may see a snowy surface, but a dry surface may be what is being used for the physics model. You need to look at the surface condition simvar to see what is being used for physics.

3) It can be difficult to get other than a dry surface condition for the physics model even with custom weather and even much more difficult when using real weather.

This has been discussed pretty extensively. As with FSX, crosswinds were completely zeroed out up to a certain airplane speed on the ground in the original version of MSFS 2020. This was changed in SU10 to allow the developer to specify the speeds at which the crosswind starts to phase in and the speed at which 100% of the crosswind is applied. The developer could also tune the lateral motion of the airplane on the runway at higher speeds during takeoff. With SU15, a new ground contact model was introduced with further inputs available to the developer for tuning both longitudinal and lateral friction. With both SU10 and SU15, these new capabilities are not applied at all unless the developer sets these parameters. For MSFS 2024, both of these changes from the original version of MSFS 2020 remain in place along with some additional physics changes "under the hood" that are not yet well understood/explained.

See above. I don't know what was used in the flight model of this airplane for that behavior.

For the standard A330 (accepting your typo in reference to the airplane you were talking about), although it ostensibly uses the new parameters available since MSFS SU10 and also includes activation of some portions of the new ground contact model of MSFS SU 15, they have chosen to phase in the crosswinds very slowly from 0 crosswind at 0 knots airplane IAS to all of the crosswind at 207 knots airplane IAS. The new ground contact model for longitudinal and lateral friction are basically disabled as well.

That's what I'm saying ... However, I was told 'a thousand times' that I'm wrong. Still, nobody proved me wrong (only with screenshots, but no videos). As the Wright Flyer at FL 37 was mentioned during this thread ... screenshots prove everything 😂.

However, I wonder why the pilot didn't pass out due to hypoxia.

'But it's writtten in the SDK ...' etc.
The older among us will remember: e.g. the GDR. It is EVEN WRITTEN in the name: German DEMOCRATIC republic. It was a DEMOCRATIC state 😂. Every 4 years there were elections, thus ... it was DEMOCRATIC.
Or the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. 'It's DEMOCRATIC. EVEN WRITTEN IN THE NAME. YOU ONLY HAVE TO READ AND UNDERSTAND!!'
But if you do your own 'indirect tests'* to reveal reality - I mean demonstrating on the street or against something they don't like, you get the result. Namely get arrested. But it is still democratic, as it is WRITTEN into the name ... Democracy is only not enabled there, but it is in the name. It's opt-in.

* For the ones who don't understand the analogy: what I did were 'indirect tests' to reveal the result of what is written into the SDK - namely that the 'new physics' aren't enabled.

Edited February 25, 20251 yr by flying_carpet

@flying_carpet,

as you certainly know, I am as critic about MSFS as I am about Xp12, and whatever sim I use / used... I always find something to criticize.

Regarding this subject of ground physics, I'm not blind, even if I understand that ASOBO has made progress from what ground physics were before, in the Legacy model of FSX, truth is that when a flight simulator has to "bake" the winds in order to cope with the limitations of the way ground physics are modeled, then that's because it's model is limited, and MSFS does it, DCS World does it too, and even X-Plane does it, although in a different way, that I find to be more "acceptable" because it was introduced as a fine tuning of wind near ground and the gradient effect due to drag at the surface.

Austin has, along X-Plane 11 and fine tuned in X-Plane 12, created a very sound / coherent model for ground physics on runways and taxiways. It is not that perfect when you transition into soil, or even grass, but I find it better in  Xp12 than in Xp11... and MSFS is still inferior in that particular aspect of ground physics modeling.

Same applies to many other aspects of the overall physics modelling of MSFS, even if we are now supposed to profit from much more lift/drag surfaces per model aircraft. Some addons will probably explore this new features in the future, and I look forward to find a more consistent behaviour of aircraft when flying with turbulence or variable winds, but I know that for me at least, X-Plane 12 does it better, and that's why I use X-Plane 12 for specific high quality aircraft including rotaries.

But I still think that in other areas MSFS offers a better experience that X-Plane 12, and the fact that I spend usually more time in MSFS 2024 than I do in X-Plane 12 tells me that even being picky as I am about the limitations of each platform, I still can find, now that I learned to profrit from the best aspects of them all, pleasure in using all of them, each for it's own.

The ideal would be (for me) to be able to use a single platform with all of the features I find spread among those I use, but that's not yet possible...

So, when you post at this MSFS forums something that shows a limitation in the platform those who visit and post here probably have as their preferred simulator, just as when someone ( me included ) posts something "negative" about X-Plane 12 at XP forums here or at the .Org, most of those who have that plaform as their choice will repond sometimes in a rather harsh way 😕

That's life!

I've chosen my own way - I use all of those forums, and both sims, and I usually post NICE things about each one at their forums, and also NOT SO NICE things, at those same forums, because for me there are actually GOOD and surely not so GOOD aspects on each sim.

What I try no to do is to only post nice and sometimes not so nice / critic comments about that sim at it's dedicated forums, trying to compare only the absolutely necessary with the other sims.

I say GOOD and BAD things about all of them, at tehir respective forums...

Edited February 25, 20251 yr by jcomm

16 minutes ago, jcomm said:

@flying_carpet,

as you certainly know, I am as critic about MSFS as I am about Xp12, and whatever sim I use / used... I always find something to criticize.

Regarding this subject of ground physics, I'm not blind, even if I understand that ASOBO has made progress from what ground physics was before, in the Legacy model of FSX, truth is that when a flight simulator has to "bake" the winds in order to cope with the limitations of the way ground physics are modeled, then that's because it's model is limited, and MSFS does it, DCS World does it too, and even X-Plane does it, although in a different way, that I find to be more "acceptable" because it was introduced as a fine tuning of wind near ground and the gradient effect due to drag at the surface.

Austin has, along X-Plane 11 and fine tuned in X-Plane 12, created a very sound / coherent model for ground physics on runways and taxiways. It is not that perfect when you transition into soil, or even grass, but I find it better in  Xp12 than in Xp11... and MSFS is still inferior in that particular aspect of ground physics modeling.

Same applies to many other aspects of the overall physics modelling of MSFS, even if we are now supposed to profit from much more lift/drag surfaces per model aircraft. Some addons will probably explore this new features in the future, and I look forward to find a more consistent behaviour of aircraft when flying with turbulence or variable winds, but I know that for me at least, X-Plane 12 does it better, and that's why I use X-Plane 12 for specific high quality aircraft including rotaries.

But I still think that in other areas MSFS offers a better experience that X-Plane 12, and the fact that I spend usually more time in MSFS 2024 than I do in X-Plane 12 tells me that even being picky as I am about the limitations of each platform, I still can find, now that I learned to profrit from the best aspects of them all, pleasure in using all of them, each for it's own.

The ideal would be (for me) to be able to use a single platform with all of the features I find spread among those I use, but that's not yet possible...

So, when you post at this MSFS forums something that shows a limitation in the platform those who visit and post here probably have as their preferred simulator, just as when someone ( me included ) posts something "negative" about X-Plane 12 at XP forums here or at the .Org, most of those who have that plaform as their choice will repond sometimes in a rather harsh way 😕

That's life!

I've chosen my own way - I use all of those forums, and both sims, and I usually post NICE things about each one at their forums, and also NOT SO NICE things, at those same forums, because for me there are actually GOOD abd not so GOOD aspects on each sim.

What I try no to do is to only post nice comments about a sim I use and like at it's forums, and not so nice / critic comments on the other simulator forums.

I say GOOD and BAD things about all of them, at tehir respective forums...

I can agree on this with you.

What I wanted to say: I was told from the 'gatekeepers' 😉 

1. that I should listen to the experts
2. I am wrong (without hard proof)
3. and whatnot ...

However, when I read misinformation (like ' Why MSFS 2024 has the best ground physics for a flight sim'), I will point to it.

15 minutes ago, Lucky38i said:

Numerous people have, across various threads that @flying_carpet has made comments. That was my first comment that I made to you, it may be useful to read the threads they have engaged in. Anyone can have criticism on a topic matter and no one here is claiming that you can't do that. Quite frankly at this late in the stage engaging with @flying_carpet I have no idea what point you're trying to make.

Ya know ... telling someone he is wrong (with no clear evidence) is no proof.

Saying 'Yeah ... we all know that the default models aren't good, buy addons' is like buying a car and saying 'Yeah ... we all know that the default wheels, engine, steering wheel, power steering, GPS, driver's seat, ... aren't good. You have to replace them by accessories from 3rd party manufacturers.'

Surely this thread has more than run its course?

5 minutes ago, Paladin said:

Surely this thread has more than run its course?

Indeed it has!  Ergo.....🔒