ha5mvo

You missed the point altogether, alas, there's little surprise in that.

This reminds me of a thread opened shortly after the release of the Fenix a320. Many, myself included, pointed at the errors in that planes flight model, which brought a counter reaction by the usual suspects with the inevitable long and winding cut/paste from "someone who knows" , videos from this or that pilot claiming it "flies like the real thing" and other "spewage" belonging to the "B.S file". Fast forward several months later, Fenix releases a patch in an attempt to address many, if not all, the points that were brought out on that thread! I'm surprised really that none of them started a thread complaining on how Fenix are attempting to "dumb down" their previously brilliant flight model

That would have been correct IF that turbulence wasn't translated in a somewhat exaggerated manner. Now, if you want live weather on one hand but don't want a 2-3 knot choppiness to shake a 70 tons airliner on the other. How do you go about achieving that?

Here's an example of what I said if one ever needed one....I don't have x plane...challenge you to find but a single post of mine on the xplane forum.....

Your point being? For what its worth, I don't disagree with anything in your statement but that's the nature of the beast. Moreover, sim flying is different to RW flying in that you fly by the seat of your pants with your head out rather than in the instruments, for instance. However, just because there are things you'll never be able to import to a sim doesn't mean one shouldn't strive to improve on those that are. It seems that some people on this forum had (quite sadly) had made it their lives vocation to sing the praises of MSFS regardless of reality and froth all over when someone dares point out the sims shortcomings - of which there are still aplenty.

It sure does! Hence I give little weight to perception or "feel" (what does "feel" really mean??)

Give Rob some credit too. He’s a legend in flight modeling, responsible for some, if not the most, realistic models ever created for simulation as well as a pilot himself.

.

100% correct!

Don't forget that MSFS is a very "sandboxed" platform. At least at this point in time. So 3rd party addons for camera or weather for example are almost impossible. This is one of its major shortcomings.

1) The developer is not always enough! If a developer isn't given good tools they can either discard what the platform gives them altogether (e.g Majestic) or settle for a whole lot of compromises under the guise of "sim limitations" or just say nothing counting on those who'll tell you the product is the best thing since sliced bread, regardless of how off it may be. Trust me, those are aplenty. 2) I rely on neither! Opinions don't count since they may vary depending on a million of subjective parameters. Starting with the hardware one is using and ending with ones personality... The only reliable objective parameters to judge by is a whole bunch of figures - POH. If a plane will fly by the numbers I deem it good. Some vague general statement by a streamer is just what it is - so I'm not impressed with those either unless again, they demonstrate how a given model follows published data ( or doesn't)

Visuals aside, the platform has to be able to support realistic flight physics. It’s interesting you had mentioned majestic. Do you know what they did with their flight model? They tossed away the p3d engine and introduced their own physics engine instead, for it is well known that fsx/p3d can’t simulate turboprops properly. Fenix are attempting a similar (yet in a much smaller scale) move for their engine model.

If that's the case, then it's certainly wrong! Like I said, I never used that model myself so I can't comment. I'm sure that fella is as good a pilot as any of them, problem is, that some of those streamers approach it for its entertainment value and will let anything pass. Then you see comments from those who don't know any better along the lines of " but pilot such and such said this model is the best thing he's ever seen"

I know nothing of the toliss but if the fenix is better then it’s in really bad shape. The fenix has takeff pitch wrong, roc wrong, drag wrong, FF wrong, pitch/power curve wrong….can be easily observed if you go for “unreliable airspeed “ procedure or just for fun attempt to simulate an engine failure.

It is definitely going that way. Coatl for GSX, AIG TC for AI, an external ATC program to replace that atrocity that's MSFS ATC and we're only getting started. Personally, I don't see the big deal about that! Frankly, I wish I could have some external weather program a-la Activesky or something to replace the camera system like chaseplane. Would only make things a whole lot better rather than imposing the native solutions as the only alternative.

Why? Where did it go wrong? pitch/power curve? drag curve? stall figures?

Not sure what you mean by "feel". Not exactly a tangible parameter. The "feel" using a Brunner yoke is worlds apart from what you'll get using a flimsy T16000 for the exact same plane. I'm still to see an analysis that demonstrates that fidelity of the MSFS engine. I do see though a lot of "feelings" albeit much less numbers to support them.... I don't think there could be a universal formula which will give you perfect (or even good) results if you only feed it with a given planes data. A good FM involves a lot of voodoo and black magic mastered by the few FM gurus like @robert young I have seen invisible surfaces and drag elements introduced into models to make them fly by "the numbers". I bet Rob could elaborate on that. At the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. While I have not tested ALL available models, those I did were quite far off the mark - leading addons among them. My only agenda is improving that aspect of MSFS, contrary of what the cheerleading squad might suggest. I don't see how squelching any form of criticism might be of benefit to either the sim or its users in that regard.

By all means, keep running around going "vroom vroom" believing that THIS is how those planes fly and handle. I have (tried) to explain this to you several times at length in the other threads. I have little hope that another time would be more successful. I, for example, have a hard time understanding the quantum physics, we all have to accept that there are personal limits to comprehension of complex circumstances... unless someone does not WANT to understand something 😉

Really?? And you say that based on what experiments?? your own?? highly doubt it!! So you heard someone saying on some twitch stream that this or that addon is the best thing since sliced bread and you take that for gospel? If you had any experience in aviation you'd know that wherever there are two pilots there are three different opinions. Opinions in that context are worthless if you can't back it up with data against the POH and I've done exactly that with the two addons that are considered the flagships of MSFS. instead of endless adjectives to belittle fellow posters, and long and tedious cut/paste why don't you show some data to support your case?

I'm afraid you're unlikely to get an answer as this might require at least some basic knowledge of aviation principles

This statement couldn't be more accurate. Unsubstantiated statements are exactly that! And by substantiated, I certainly don't mean "he said/she said", regardless of who he/she might be. Data and figures against real world values is the only thing that counts.

You might find a somewhat different reference here from the seasoned pilot: MSFS has the most advanced flight model? - Microsoft Flight Simulator (2020) - The AVSIM Community Seriously though, Being a IRL pilot, surely you'll agree that the "feeling" is what sets apart real flight from sim the most. Unlike the sim, you fly by the seat of your pants - an experience which no sim, good or bad, can convey. Funny enough, many student pilots with some previous simulator experience are infected with "simmism" in that their head is constantly stuck in the instrument panel rather than looking outside because that's the one thing they can't (and not used to) be getting from a simulator. Otherwise, btw , they have a HUGE advantage over those coming with no sim experience at all. So, once we understand that subjective "feeling" is well...subjective.. all that's left is numbers. Pitch/power that you learn from day one, roll rates , climb rates, stall characteristics , spins and so on. If all that data doesn't agree with published figures then the sim isn't much of a sim no matter how it may "feel" to one person or another. it doesn't have to be 100% as no two planes are alike but some acceptable margins of error have to be kept. Of all the planes that I have, be it default or reputable developers e.g PMDG or Fenix, NONE flies within what I can call reasonable margin off the published data. I didn't check all the models available as I have only a few of them but those I do have and tested, failed to impress in that respect and the culprit are not necessarily just the developers. There are some major flaws in the physics engine itself and it is much more than the ground physics that are(?) going to get fixed, or so we're told. Ironically enough, P3D, as an example, which has a more simplistic approach does a better job at recreating those figures in the sim. Where it lacks, is depicting the environment effects on a plane (which was actually vastly improved with the addon "realturb"). Where p3d fails entirely, is the simulation of turboprops. This is why serious developers like majestic had to abandon p3d physics engine completely and come up with their own external one! I feel that unless ASOBO is about to do a major overhaul of the physics engine, serious developers will have to follow majestics example and come up with an external engine of their own.

In what way? any facts or figures to support it? or just quotes from someone who happen to say so?

The flight dynamics on the Airbus A320 & Boeing 747 (maybe also the Boeing 787) seem completely wrong when opening the Developer Mode. In short the Center of Pressure (lift) is far in front of the Center of Gravity (weight), even with the center of gravity on the forward CG limit. In real life this causes static pitch instability. Looking at any random GA aircraft in MSFS we find the following distribution, lift in green is acting behind the weight vector in red with a subsequent blue downforce on the horizontal stabilizer. When now comparing the above picture with that of the Boeing 747 below we can immediately see the weight and lift vector changed places with an up-force on the horizontal stabilizer. Although it is not a direct requirement to have the lift acting behind the weight for static stability, the situation in MSFS is clearly wrong. Still the airliners don’t show static instability because there is something else fundamentally wrong: On the real aircraft the Center of Pressure moves forward in increasing angle of attack causing a restoring nose down moment and vice versa. In MSFS the Center of Pressure is seen moving aft with an increase of angle of attack together with the reversed lift and weight vectors it creates stability but does create wrong flight dynamics: Wrong pitch effect with slat / flap / spoiler movement. Wrong drag affecting all sorts of flight dynamics Wrong fuel economy as the stabilizer up-force is more efficient than the down-force in real life. Wrong stall characteristics.…

You are asking the developer to set up and maintain a repository of links to various sites for what? for a feature that would become useless in no time once the scenery developers start putting their own gsx configuration file as a part of the package. This is how it works for most part.