Maybe it’s just me but I find the one area where BS is slightly lagging is in the flight model. I mean it’s good , it’s just the systems and instruments are 9.5/10 good whereas the flight models are I don’t know, I wouldn’t want to put a figure on it but not quite at the same level.

It may well be argued that performance is within a close % of the flight manual, but has someone once said , possibly A2A, there’s more to a flight model than just hitting the numbers, it needs that special sparkle.

I can’t really put into words what is missing from the flight model other than special sparkle. If they could find that then BS would be a straight 10/10.

Heck I buy everything they put out as it’s built proof stuff and feels like they have to been flown like a real pilot would as there’s genuine consequences. I love their instrumentation.

BS is my favourite or possibly joint favourite developer , I’m just hankering after absolute perfection, not moaning.

I mean the flight modelling would be outstanding in any other developers sim aircraft, it’s just when you compare it to the rest of a BS aircraft I find it’s the weakest link, that’s all.

No, it’s not just you and Ryan! 😁

The BS addons are all so very well executed…just wonderful.

But yeah - the flight model? Very good, but so utterly predictable that they’re kinda boring to fly (GASP!!).

IRL aircraft aren’t like that because…well, they fly through the ATMOSPHERE, which is the exact opposite of boringly predictable.

I’m not in any way saying their physics are bad - no, not at all.

But yes, Scott at A2A nailed it when he talked about there being ever so much more to a flight model than what the Performance Charts say.

So I feel like it’s best to fly BS addons out of places like KSMO, where it’s “always 72 and Sunny”. And flat calm. 😉

But the GOOD news, as folks have said, is that BS do make a rather wide, eclectic and interesting variety of airframes. Especially those prop jets for when you need something faster than 200-ish kts. 😁🤙

As good as they both are, though, I do “occasionally” get bored of steam gauges. And/or props of any kind.

Which is where developers like FlightSim Reborn and Fly Sim Ware come in. Maybe not as deeply modeled as A2A or BS, but they’re getting there. And dang if that Lear Jet and Phenom haven’t killed off whatever remaining interest I had in Tubeliners… 😎

Edited May 23May 23 by UrgentSiesta

I am a long time A2A user and have also been using BS aircraft since the beginning back in 2020 with the steam overhaul packages. I love them both, and I agree with a lot of the others who say A2A has a slight edge in the flight model department. However, BS definitely makes more interesting planes and also develops them a bit faster. In the time it took BS to make the seven(?) planes they did, A2A has only come out with two. Now, I love the Comanche and it is iconic, but kind of bored with it now. The Aerostar just does not do it for me at all. A2A has a history of making planes I was not necessarily a fan of, but then I flew them in Accusim mode, and then I was hooked. The A2A Aerostar has never done that for me. And I also agree with another person that posted earlier that the Aerostar textures are subpar for the level of standard that A2A has set for themselves. It just does not have that Accusim "it" factor. Subsequently, when I want to fly a twin, I fly the BS Baron or Duke. Have a tubeliner type itch, then it's the Starship. Bush flying, the Caravan. See the pattern? About the only BS aircraft I don't fly are helicopters. Now if BS DID start developing choppers, well then, we'd be talking. But, in the heli world we have Taog, which is basically BS in chopper disguise 😁

The Caravan is definitely boring and predictable to fly IRL haha.

It’s built that way.

I've honestly never got the "BS planes are boring to fly" view (but respect others views).

To me, every time I rotate the Bonanza I get a buzz. It feels so realistic, balanced and with a correct sense of inertia, right from that point on.

In my opinion, flying GA aircraft in real life is easier than the sim anyway! 😄 So that solid, predictable flight handling feel, from BS aircraft, is a positive for me.

When comparing MSFS with my real world flying, the aircraft that I personally find feel most like real aircraft to fly are (in no particular order) :-

• Black Square Bonanza

• A2A Comanche

• FlightSimWare Sierra C24R

• COWS Diamond DA40

• FlyBoySimulations Rans S6S

• SWS Vans RV-14

This is not just a list of my favourite aircraft. There are many other planes I love and fly in the sim, but the above always stand out to me as feeling real in their handling characteristics. It's no coincidence that all of the above have some of the best ground handling in the sim too. Ground handling in MSFS2024 is one of it's weakest areas IMHO. The affect that even a small amount of surface wind has on how the aircraft handles on the ground is so unrealistic. Like there's no mass and the aircraft just won't track straight.

An example of a plane that I enjoy, that has many other strengths, but doesn't feel so realistic to fly to me, would be the FSReborn Sting S4. It's a lovely addon and I enjoy flying it but it has a 'jitteriness' in the air that gets worse with any wind. I'm not referring to any controls-related sensitivity - it's more about how the model moves through the air. What I think is supposed to be a clear air turbulence depiction just results in jerky movements with a lack of inertia (even for a LSA).

Sorry for the O/T!

Edited May 23May 23 by JYW

4 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

I’m not in any way saying their physics are bad - no, not at all.

But yes, Scott at A2A nailed it when he talked about there being ever so much more to a flight model than what the Performance Charts say.

Here I'm gonna have to just say - to each their own. I've purchased 3 A2A planes, all planes I've flown IRL, and for me they nailed one of them - and unfortunately it's not a plane they've brought over or are apparently going to bring over to MSFS. The other 2 were kinda... OK, and I ended up almost never flying them. No need for details here as, well, see below.

I've got a bunch of Black Square planes and I haven't hit one I don't like yet or that isn't in my regular rotation.

For the most part, and as far as I remember, all of these planes have performed well in terms of book values.

But before some of you bring out the torches and pitchforks, please remember what I said earlier about "best" arguments. I recognize and agree that A2A sit at or near the top of the quality scale for GA. What I think you have to recognize, though, is what goes on when each individual takes to the virtual skies in this or any other sim. There are just so many physical variables and so many different sets of expectations and, yes, preconceptions that, to a certain extent, what each of us sees is at least a little bit unique. Yes, I think for most of us here there's a baseline which has be met - but beyond that, the special sauce we look for is at least partly a function of what we bring to the table ourselves, combined with how the developer matches our biases, expectations and preferences.

For my tastes, and with my gear, I'm just more of a Black Square guy and I don't find their models boring or unrealistically predictable in the least. But I completely respect those who feel differently, especially with regards to devs like A2A.

Scott

Without wanting to drift too far off topic here but for me I think one of the most realistic flying aircraft in a civilian sim I’ve ever flown was the just flight PA38 made by TD in XP11.

I’m not sure if it was anywhere near book figures in performance, although I have flown one , the performance figures were irrelevant to me, it just felt like I was flying a real aircraft 100%.

And then they went and released an update and it spoilt the flight model.

IL2 and DCS also felt real to me but I don’t use them anymore.

I was looking forward to the CFD upgrade in MSFS24, but so far it’s not really yielded any thing magical.

Anyway I’ll stop rambling and turn my light out (1 AM here)

16 hours ago, Simicro said:

Kudos to Black Square. They .......remind me of RealAir in the days of FSX/P3D.

I feel the same way.. Lots of attention to detail, great looking cockpits, a joy to fly.. Easily my favourite airplanes in MSFS 2024.

For me the Black Square sweet spot is the mix of systems depth and variety. A2A probably still has a slight edge in that last bit of hand-flying character, but BS keeps me coming back because I can jump from the Bonanza to the Duke or Starship and each one still feels worth learning on its own. I don't really see it as a winner-loser thing, more like different strengths.

15 hours ago, sniper31 said:

In the time it took BS to make the seven(?) planes they did, A2A has only come out with two 😁

Yeah 6-7 planes in 6-7 years! I don't know how Nick (who is alone?) manages to release 1 plane every year? He must work like crazy!

15 hours ago, sniper31 said:

A2A has a history of making planes I was not necessarily a fan of

Same feeling as you. It seems that after P3D (C172, Bonanza V Tail, Piper Cub, Piper Cherokee...) they decided to make less classic aircrafts.

I can't have an opinion on the A2A planes since none of their released products attracts me at all, so I can only agree with all those who expressed their positive views regarding the Black Square planes, many of which I flew in real life ages ago - without GPS mind you - and this is another reason for me to thank the developer for having gone to the extend of including the Bendix KNS-81 RNAV equipment, that certainly requires more work and braincells than loading a Simbrief FP into the TDS, a much welcome exercise when you need to "brainstorm" more often to keep that grey matter active and alive...!

Jokes apart, never had we in the past any simulated GA aircraft with that amount of details and attention to the proper operational procedures. Kudos indeed to Nick, I am looking forward to the Commander 114, another of my real life GA love with a lot of stick time in Europe, some ... hmmm... fifty years ago! Blast, did I write that?

Edited May 24May 24 by Bernard Ducret

19 hours ago, tttocs said:

Here I'm gonna have to just say - to each their own. I've purchased 3 A2A planes, all planes I've flown IRL, and for me they nailed one of them - and unfortunately it's not a plane they've brought over or are apparently going to bring over to MSFS. The other 2 were kinda... OK, and I ended up almost never flying them. No need for details here as, well, see below.

I've got a bunch of Black Square planes and I haven't hit one I don't like yet or that isn't in my regular rotation.

For the most part, and as far as I remember, all of these planes have performed well in terms of book values.

But before some of you bring out the torches and pitchforks, please remember what I said earlier about "best" arguments. I recognize and agree that A2A sit at or near the top of the quality scale for GA. What I think you have to recognize, though, is what goes on when each individual takes to the virtual skies in this or any other sim. There are just so many physical variables and so many different sets of expectations and, yes, preconceptions that, to a certain extent, what each of us sees is at least a little bit unique. Yes, I think for most of us here there's a baseline which has be met - but beyond that, the special sauce we look for is at least partly a function of what we bring to the table ourselves, combined with how the developer matches our biases, expectations and preferences.

For my tastes, and with my gear, I'm just more of a Black Square guy and I don't find their models boring or unrealistically predictable in the least. But I completely respect those who feel differently, especially with regards to devs like A2A.

Scott

I do agree with your position, particularly in regards rig variability, preferences and perceptions.

And for sure I’m not here to bash BS and put A2A ahead of them.

My constructive criticism in re the BS flight model is simply that they’re generally way too easy to fly on short final and to a lesser extent on takeoff.

For e.g., we’ve got 18kts gusting to 26 here - a very common situation.

Crosswind component is relatively low, but it’s there.

If I jump into the Caravan, which I realize is a Super Sized 172, I barely have to touch the controls to get down the runway and into the air while maintaining good centerline, etc. On an 800 shp flying billboard…really?

Similarly, on the Caravan or Turbine Duke, I’m not having an issue utterly greasing the landings - Every. Single. Time.

In these highly gusty conditions…? I’m simply not that good a pilot, as my CFI would’ve gladly attested 😂.

IDK, it’s probably driven by a sim thing. All I can say is that, for me, it’s a LOT less work to get a BS addon butter landing than other Hi Fi addons in this sim and others.

Now, does that mean I’m gonna stop buying Black Square? Absolutely not - they’re GREAT addons that are extremely satisfying in most ways, just not quite as lively handling as (IMHO) they should be. 🤙

I think it's just me, but I find the Caravan less immersive than the baron or bonanza. I don't really know why. I don't think it's because of blacksquare though. Maybe it's just a boring airplane? But the other two. Absolutely love them.

14 minutes ago, micstatic said:

I think it's just me, but I find the Caravan less immersive than the baron or bonanza. I don't really know why. I don't think it's because of blacksquare though. Maybe it's just a boring airplane? But the other two. Absolutely love them.

It's my favourite 😎 But it is perhaps a little exciting that the Bonanza, Baron, Dukes or TBM.

17 minutes ago, micstatic said:

think it's just me, but I find the Caravan less immersive than the baron or bonanza.

I find the same thing; but I think it was designed to be a very stable, predictable, restrained aircraft. I also agree that I hope BlackSquare will work on the flight models, something I have said for sometime. The planes are great, interesting, varied, with excellent systems and fly by book specifications. But they do not feel alive the way A2A.