1 hour ago, FedDriver said:

Spare me the "Do you fly IRL" nonsense, would you like me to record a video for you to demonstrate? 

That explains a lot. I don’t understand nothing about “cushion” you describe. Not need to be aggressive if can’t explain something . 

You can’t take one sim to prove another is wrong . All sims have limitations . Visual perception of simulated animation not  always correlate to physics.

There's a hotfix coming sometime today. No notes yet

7 hours ago, abrams_tank said:

Here are the prices in USD:

MSFS

• Fenix A320 = Approximately $62.91 USD at today's exchange rate
• PMDG 737-800 = $69.99 USD
• TFDI MD-11 =$69.99 USD
• Leonardo MD82 = $78.58 USD
• Inibuilds A350 = Approximately $76.16 at iniBuild's webpage
• PMDG 777 = $74.99

Average: $72.10 USD
 

X-Plane

• Toliss A320neo = $89.99 USD
• Rotate MD-11 (Passenger) = $83.95 USD
• Rotate MD80 = $59.95 USD
• FFA350 = $64.95 USD
• FF777 = $89 USD

Average: $77.57 USD

The average price of the MSFS add-ons come out cheaper, even with the add-ons that you picked to compose the average price.

From a value standpoint none of these products are worth the price.

So many never work as advertised due to being incomplete or buggy.

I can't say what the right price is since apparently many copies are being sold at these prices.

I have been roped into the hype by purchasing some of these in the past.

Now I typically wait a long time to see what evolves after the initial release.

I've been "randazzled" to many times!!!

23 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Just to be fair, not showing gear compression visually doesn't really mean they're not taking advantage of the new ground handling physics in 2024 (and the partial backport in 2020). But of course it's not known if they are or not until they confirm, or if someone who has the aircraft is able to take a look at the flight_model.cfg if that's even possible. Well hold on, actually looking at their initial intro videos, at this timestamp https://youtu.be/3cjLdfEfTow?t=2970 they do confirm they're using the new taxiing physics etc (they demonstrated skidding, carrying of momentum on turns/braking, etc). So if anything they haven't done visual modelling of gear compression on landings at the very least. Not clear if the actual ground dynamics model is accounting for this despite not showing it visually.. I'm also not sure if the ground handling physics revamp in MSFS (i.e. from modelling as single points to 3D tires with flex/dimensions/other-factors) included any additions/improvements for suspension and gear-compression physics.

And going back to that goodie of a thread, at the risk of speaking for Abrams, I think what he meant as 2024 having the best ground physics is the *combination* of the revamped physics along with the new much more detailed ground terrain modelling.. at least that's what makes the 2024 ground handling experience rather fantastic for me, especially with GA/smaller aircraft (anyways, best not side-track into that thread 😅)
 

 

once more - it's not about visual modelling of gear compression, it's about the gear suspension actually compressing realistically when you land, based on rate of descent etc, which should be noticeable from the flight deck as well as visible outside

it's not "visually modelled" because the suspension is not "actually modelled" from what I can see

duplicate

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by EGLD

24 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Just to be fair, not showing gear compression visually doesn't really mean they're not taking advantage of the new ground handling physics in 2024 (and the partial backport in 2020). But of course it's not known if they are or not until they confirm, or if someone who has the aircraft is able to take a look at the flight_model.cfg if that's even possible. Well hold on, actually looking at their initial intro videos, at this timestamp https://youtu.be/3cjLdfEfTow?t=2970 they do confirm they're using the new taxiing physics etc (they demonstrated skidding, carrying of momentum on turns/braking, etc). So if anything they haven't done visual modelling of gear compression on landings at the very least. Not clear if the actual ground dynamics model is accounting for this despite not showing it visually.. I'm also not sure if the ground handling physics revamp in MSFS (i.e. from modelling as single points to 3D tires with flex/dimensions/other-factors) included any additions/improvements for suspension and gear-compression physics.

And going back to that goodie of a thread, at the risk of speaking for Abrams, I think what he meant as 2024 having the best ground physics is the *combination* of the revamped physics along with the new much more detailed ground terrain modelling.. at least that's what makes the 2024 ground handling experience rather fantastic for me, especially with GA/smaller aircraft (anyways, best not side-track into that thread 😅)
 

 

That's a lot of words to say that yes, this is a clear omission on their part, especially with the price point and other features included like tire squat and taxiing physics that was shown in the preview videos for example.  

Not modelling the single point of contact with the ground compressing on takeoff and landing is omitting a pretty big part of ground physics... 

EK001 LFBO - OMDB 🙂 on the way but how do you acticate TCAS on this bird ?

Michael Moe

if you can handle this truly appalling video, a quick external shot at 15:50 says all there is to say - that's not just a lack of visual modelling, there is no suspension compression at all

compare this to a video of the Zibo landing hard and you'll see the difference

 

 

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by EGLD

1 minute ago, Michael Moe said:

EK001 LFBO - OMDB 🙂 on the way but how do you acticate TCAS on this bird ?

Michael Moe

The same way you do in the A400M and A380.

4 minutes ago, Michael Moe said:

EK001 LFBO - OMDB 🙂 on the way but how do you acticate TCAS on this bird ?

Michael Moe

You will find it on the SURV page of the FMS.

Has anyone tried the ADS-B function on one of the Online Networks yet? So far I only used it with Offline Traffic. And this comes with the drawback that instead of giving you the callsign of the aircraft you are seeing, it gives you the registration.

7 minutes ago, EGLD said:

if you can handle this truly appalling video, a quick external shot at 15:50 says all there is to say - that's not just a lack of visual modelling, there is no suspension compression at all

compare this to a video of the Zibo landing hard and you'll see the difference

 

 

That's really bizarre.  Suspension modelling is a matter of animating the strut between 2 keyframes, and letting the code/ground physics do the rest.  It's literally a 5 second task.  Maybe a minute, depending on the moving parts that need to be animated.

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by GoranM

6 minutes ago, GoranM said:

That's really bizarre.  Suspension modelling is a matter of animating the strut between 2 keyframes, and letting the code/ground physics do the rest.  It's literally a 5 second task.  Maybe a minute, depending on the moving parts that need to be animated.

Have you considered it might be an unintentional omission?

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by btacon

20 minutes ago, psolk said:

That's a lot of words to say that yes, this is a clear omission on their part, especially with the price point and other features included like tire squat and taxiing physics that was shown in the preview videos for example.  

Not modelling the single point of contact with the ground compressing on takeoff and landing is omitting a pretty big part of ground physics... 

Did you read all what I said, and sorry that was too many words for you 🙂. It's not known yet if suspension/gear modelling and compression improvements (or handling of) is part of the ground physics revamp in MSFS (well, at least I don't know). If it is, then yes it's an omission on iniBuilds' part to not take advantage of that.

It *is* confirmed per what iniBuilds said at that timestamp in the video that they are taking advantage of the new ground contact model (so that at least enables all the other improvements in ground handling, taxiing, etc).. I read your "Now when it's shown that a brand new top of the line top of the price line add-on actually has no landing gear physics at all" comment to mean that you were saying they weren't taking advantage of the new ground physics at all.
 

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by lwt1971

9 minutes ago, btacon said:

Have you considered it might be an unintentional omission?

Well, sure.  But I've been making add ons for 16 years.  It's not something easily overlooked.  When a dev is animating a wheel, it's 2nd nature to work up from making the wheel rotate, then animating the suspension, then animating the steering, then animating the retraction.  It's done that way because of the multiple parenting of animations needed, that eventually parent up to the root animation.  The retraction.  Missing an entire animation in the middle of the order of animating them, is...unusual.  UNLESS, these new ground physics were ruining the compression, and they just decided to omit the animation deliberately, in favor of getting the product out.  I can believe that.  

Edited February 28, 20251 yr by GoranM