Well, despite all of the complaining, whining and bashing. I do rather enjoy the improved physics in 2024 compared to 2020. The Kodiak and a few smaller planes really proved that point when landing on some of those tiny air strips. FSReleastic also helps.

5 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

It appears in your video that MSFS 2024 is modelling exhaust condensation from the plane, which appears more visible in winter than in the summer. In winter, the exhaust becomes way more visible because of condensation: https://www.cars.com/articles/why-do-car-exhausts-smoke-in-cold-weather-473956/.

Is that what you are referring to as snow being blown away by the engines?

Ok ... so ... condensation ...

1. First, you must look closer into the video - there are 'bigger' ice particles blown away with the snow. Such ice particles don't occur this close to the plane. Even if ...
2. Second ... look into the next video (in PANC):
   1. first setup, no snow in the weather settings, temperature 59 °F (=15 °C), yet a bit snow near the runway, no snow on the runway but still snow (or is it condensation at 59 °F?) blown away by the engines. Accelerating to 70 kts, parking brake set, observe the braking (or stopping) distance, whatever you want to call it.
   2. second setup: snow in the weather settings, temperature 59 °F (=15 °C), much snow near the runway, snow on the runway and snow (or is it condensation at 59 °F?) blown away by the engines. Accelerating to 70 kts, parking brake set, observe the braking (or stopping) distance, whatever you want to call it.

As I was told, the A330 uses already the modern ground physics. If you don't believe it ... test it yourself.

 

15 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

Ok ... so ... condensation ...

You are looking at the back of the plane and it's harder to tell.

Instead, look at the earlier video you posted, at the 3:06 mark:

At the 3:06 mark, you can tell the exhaust is coming out from the engine.

And like I said, look at this animated GIF of a real life plane showing the condensation of the exhaust coming out:

https://i.sstatic.net/AyLnu.gif

If you have problems seeing the whole animated GIF, here is a still part of that animated GIF:

Again, look at that animated GIF. It's the condensation of the exhaust coming out when a plane takes off in cold weather. That's what MSFS 2024 is modeling!

 

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

15 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

You are looking at the back of the plane and it's harder to tell.

Instead, look at the earlier video you posted, at the 3:06 mark:

At the 3:06 mark, you can tell the exhaust is coming out from the engine.

And like I said, look at this animated GIF of a real life plane showing the condensation of the exhaust coming out:

https://i.sstatic.net/AyLnu.gif

If you have problems seeing the whole animated GIF, here is a still part of that animated GIF:

Again, look at that animated GIF. It's the condensation of the exhaust coming out when a plane takes off in cold weather. That's what MSFS 2024 is modeling!

 

 

Seriously??? Condensation at 59 °F = +15 °C??? I made this second video (with 59 °F = +15 °C) ESPECIALLY for you, my friend ...
It's snow!!! I know, now you will invent a new excuse that there is no snow at +15 °C ... But then I can no longer take you seriously.

9 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

What is your video trying to show? Neither runway is "snowy"? I don't see snow on either runway. In the second half of your video, I see snow around the runway, but not snow on the runway

Just watched from 2:10 and that's what I saw. He added precipitation and nothing happened. Then he added snow which instantly dropped snow everywhere but the runway but then the jet blast started showing 'something'. If it was condensation wouldn't that have started when he added precipitation? What caused the adding of the snow everywhere BUT on the runway to cause that particular jet blast effect? 

It certainly looked like normal rear engine exit wind flow, and there is no snow coming from the engines. It would come from the ground and not look anything like in this video. It would be flatter and show snow rising in the air up from the runway. 

TLDR I don't see snow on the runway. Maybe the test should be run on taxiways or does it not show snow there either?

The only way this test would be valid would be to just turn tight circles on the apron with and without snow. Or off the runway on a road but that's so far from flight simulation I wouldn't care what happens there. 

To do proper surface testing you need a controlled environment which in the sim would be a custom 'airport/drag strip where the exact surface conditions could be controlled. We don't even know what's going on at the surface in these videos. 

Personally I'm more interested in getting planes having correct mass /inertia modeling and tires gripping a dry surface correctly before worrying about runway conditions in different weather. I would put that kind of simulation way up higher than any sim has done to date. All aircraft come with stopping distance tables for landing weight /wet /slush /shallow and deep snow. Yes it would be great to have that modeled but I'd expect that to be in the realm of a very expensive addon (won't happen imo) not in a consumer sim any of us could afford. 

A simpler test would just be a wet vs dry runway. Surely that is possible to setup? Water usually runs off a runway and therefore has no depth (aqua planing needs puddles.. !) 

Snow has DEPTH and can vary from soft and crunchy to packed hard and icy. How the heck would you even start to code that? 

 

56 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

 

Seriously??? Condensation at 59 °F = +15 °C??? I made this second video (with 59 °F = +15 °C) ESPECIALLY for you, my friend ...
It's snow!!! I know, now you will invent a new excuse that there is no snow at +15 °C ... But then I can no longer take you seriously.

Because you didn't select live weather. And if you don't select live weather, for whatever reason, it will show the condensated exhaust from the iniBuilds A320.  And the default is 59 degrees Fahrenheit when you load in without live weather.

I did a test at CYEG, switching from non-live weather, to live weather.  When I loaded in at CYEG, it was 59 degrees farenheit already, which is not right for CYEG at this time of the year:

Look, the trail of snow that you claim it being pushed by the engine, magically disappears with live weather!  Same runway, same position. The plane didn't move an inch. Yet it's still winter at CYEG in both cases and you can see the snow in the background.

If there is so much snow on the runways that is being pushed by the plane's engine, why did it all magically disappear when I changed it to live weather?

It's likely some bug with the iniBuilds plane. I did the same test with the Asobo 787 with non-live weather on the same runway and same position at CYEG, and I didn't see that trail of condensated exhaust.  For whatever reason, that trail is shown by the iniBuilds A320 when it's not live weather. I don't know why.

But if you are so adamant to claim it's snow being pushed on the runway, then it doesn't make any sense when I changed it to live weather, that trail totally disappears.

IMO, it's probably the code that determines contrails is buggy with the iniBuilds A320 (if it's supposed to be a contrail). It shows up for non-live weather, and then when you switch it to live weather, it disappears, at CYEG.

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by abrams_tank

I'm curious how anyone has snow at 59F LOL...  I mean the silly things like at that temp it should be rain 😉 

1 minute ago, psolk said:

I'm curious how anyone has snow at 59F LOL...  I mean the silly things like at that temp it should be rain 😉 

My guess is, it's not even looking at the Temperature MSL/ISA +10 when you spawn in without live weather. It's probably looking at the month (February) and the location you spawn in, to determine if there is snow.  At this time of the year, there would be snow at CYEG in February.

17 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

My guess is, it's not even looking at the Temperature MSL/ISA +10 when you spawn in without live weather. It's probably looking at the month (February) and the location you spawn in, to determine if there is snow.  At this time of the year, there would be snow at CYEG in February.

I wonder if Activesky allows snow above freezing or it forces it to rain...  Now I have to check after this flight but to be fair this whole nonsense debate, if you live somewhere cold you will know that even on what you perceive to be "clear" streets there is always a trail of snow like the fan tail of water created by those jet boats when you follow another car and behind your own car...   

If there is snow on the side of the runway even with a clean runway I would expect there to be fine blowing snow across the runway and absolutely behind an aircraft at throttle... 

So that argument is pointless HOWEVER  if the weather system is going to be realistic it probably should determine precip type based on temp...  Now THAT is a whole different can of worms we have just opened LOL 

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by psolk

There is a simulation variable for runway surface condition that will tell you if the runway surface is "normal," "wet," "icy," or "snow." Then I guess you can argue whether MSFS uses this variable correctly in determining the friction/drag associated with the surface condition and whether or not it matches what is visible to the user.  In FS2020, I found that the stopping distance using max manual braking increased a bit on a wet runway. The stopping distance for a snow-covered runway as more than for a dry runway, but less than for a wet runway.  This seems to also be true according to my tests in FS2024 (where I also had a lot of difficulty in getting a wet runway).

One issue that kind of makes the stopping distance comparisons moot is that the runway surface condition simulation variable does not change from "normal" (i.e., dry) when using live weather. This was true in FS2020 and appears to be true in FS2024 as well. The following screenshot is using live weather at KABQ. From the ATIS (also shown in the screenshot), it was snowing in KABQ, but runways 10L and 10R were identified as "wet" for airplane stopping performance purposes. The FS2024 view from the cockpit looks pretty realistic in that there is a thin smattering of snow on the runway with tire tracks through it showing the runway surface. However, the simulation variable for runway surface condition remains "normal," i.e., dry, though the precipitation state is correct as 8 ("snow").

I haven't heard any commentary from Asobo indicating that they did anything specific to increase the accuracy of airplane rolling or stopping performance on wet, snow, slush, or ice-covered runways compared to FS 2020. The discussion I've heard has mainly been centered on crosswind effects, ground-to-air transition, gear/tire flex, and landing on unprepared surfaces.

https://1drv.ms/i/s!Ajsy7Ey4_8uFgZ0fru8qoM4zZYQ86w?e=XyLs3S

Edited February 15, 20251 yr by Donstim

On 2/13/2025 at 1:16 PM, lwt1971 said:

ground handling physics and systems is the best I've experienced in a sim
 

do you own X-Plane out of interest?

I'd love to hear from someone impartial about how the two sims compare in this regard, perhaps I'll buy back in with Gamepass to see if MSFS default aircraft display more realistic ground handling because that's quite a claim and would be a huge improvement in the MSFS platform that I would welcome for sure

I don't recall it being particularly groundbreaking in my admittedly limited time with the initial release

14 hours ago, sloppysmusic said:

To do proper surface testing you need a controlled environment which in the sim would be a custom 'airport/drag strip where the exact surface conditions could be controlled. We don't even know what's going on at the surface in these videos. 

Personally I'm more interested in getting planes having correct mass /inertia modeling and tires gripping a dry surface correctly before worrying about runway conditions in different weather. I would put that kind of simulation way up higher than any sim has done to date. All aircraft come with stopping distance tables for landing weight /wet /slush /shallow and deep snow. Yes it would be great to have that modeled but I'd expect that to be in the realm of a very expensive addon (won't happen imo) not in a consumer sim any of us could afford. 

A simpler test would just be a wet vs dry runway. Surely that is possible to setup? Water usually runs off a runway and therefore has no depth (aqua planing needs puddles.. !)

 

C'mon guys 😉: it's not THAT hard. Setting defined weather conditions (custom waether), accelerating to a certain speed, reduce throttle to 0, set the parking brake and observe up to which runway exit (and if required count the amount of lights left and right of the runway) the plane comes. It's not to the millimeter exact, but a very good approximation.

 

'Condensation' 😄 at the C172 engine and the wheels.

 

1 minute ago, flying_carpet said:

Condensation' 😄 at the C172 engine and the wheels.

 

Ah now we're getting a control vehicle! 

Also in 2024 some things are modeled visually but not physically. Which is fine, we've had addons that do that forever. If you place your bush plane on a sandy beach and and rev it up while holding brakes you will see sand flying up behind you. It's a visual effect only as there is no sand being removed from the beach. It stays flat as it did before you were there. Also if you're feeling gamey you can nose dive into the sand (or snow) and you won't leave a crater, you'll just bounce off. Every sim is like that. 

I'm not sure exactly what your point is but I think it's that ground friction is the same whatever you put on the surface? Or more accurately what you THINK you put on the surface?

The fact that you got me mostly agreeing with A_T says a lot about this thread! 🤔

Also where are the examples from sims you infer are better at this? You can't say something isn't the best without a actual comparison. 

9 minutes ago, sloppysmusic said:

Also where are the examples from sims you infer are better at this? You can't say something isn't the best without a actual comparison. 

If you ask me like that ...:

 

I wouldn't claim anything if I hadn't tested it myself (unlike some other people 😉)

31 minutes ago, flying_carpet said:

If you ask me like that ...:

 

I wouldn't claim anything if I hadn't tested it myself (unlike some other people 😉)

You get a vote for the comparison. Although I'd have preferred P3D to be in the mix too!