ahmede19

thank you for your reply and i wholehardedly agree. seeing as you are typed in a modern swept wing turbojet, can you provide any insight into the ground and flight feel of MSFS for these aircraft?

both. its a sad case when you can tell another vatsim user is from a different sim just because they are in something other than A320/B738/B787. i used to cross the pond and you would have B747, 757, 787, 777, 787, A330, A340, A380, all in trail on the NAT tracks. with a concorde speeding past 30,000 feet overhead. now its just a line of 787.

i started with FS2002 over 22 years ago and then used FS2004 and FSX for many years. the 2000s and early 2010s were a golden age for flight sim. there were SO MANY planes flying around multiplayer. being at VATSIM at a major hub , you couuld see all the different boeings, airbuses, as well as RJs, antonovs, concordes, etc. now in MSFS if you sit at a major hub you will just see a million A320s , slightly fewer 737s, and one or two 787 and A330. how is this the case, after 4 years since release???

nice adhominem

no, its not a set of simulated flight surfaces moving through simulated airflow. the airbus 320s (FBW, Fenix, Asobo, latin vfr, headwinds, and INI) might move the 3d model's control surfaces, but this is just cosmetic. ultimately what happens when you command a "nose up" input for example, is the aircraft pitches up at a calculated rate given the speed and AOA on lookup tables. unlike a 737 where the aforementioned calculations actually take place

first of all, this isnt a Airbus 320 forum, so your analogy doesnt make sense, and therefore not worth replying to your incorrect logic

of course the airbus FBW laws obfuscate the MSFS flight model.. the MSFS flight model will not accurately replicate the pitch and roll tendencies of a modern swept wing underwing turbojet airliner... it take a LOT of hand coding and tweaking to implement these behaviors.. if you dont, you will have a lot of real world airliner pilots commenting it doesnt feel like the real plane but if you just make an airbus, all you have to do is program it to hold pitch 24/7, and joystick input only commands RATES (degrees per second of an axis), rather than calculating control surface deflection and the resulting moment (all while accounting other moments from the underwing engines, landing gear drag, flaps, spoilers). now, your airliner pilots in the real world will comment "Its so realistic!" because their airliners behave like a train on rails, and your airbus addon does too... easy! see what i mean

i made 3 points 1) there are too many A320s (plus the supersize A320 skin, HW A330): this is objectively correct Asobo default a320 fenix a320 fbw a320 INI a320 i think even Latin VFR has an a320?? 2) airbus FBW logic, covers up the MSFS flight model.. this is objectively correct.. you don't have to factor in the nuances of how a MD80 / boeing behave in pitch and roll during various flight regime, because you can just slap Airbus FBW logic over it (hold pitch, command roll/pitch rates instead of commanding flight control deflection) 3) A320 and its variants are boring, the amount of manhours spent on making 5+ iterations of this aircraft, just so some people can simulate obscure circuit breaker failures or customize their IAE engine variant and whether the sign says No smoking vs No Portable devices... this is a FLIGHT simulator so the flying should feel authentic. not a Aircraft interior/exterior customizability simulator.. the fact that there are 5+ variants of A320 since release, all doing the same short-medium hauls, with little other diversity in the airliners (default 787 doesnt count since you need a specific MSFS for it, PMDG 777 doesnt count since its not out, A310 is a historic airliner and only arguably longhaul but definitely not ultralonghaul)... so, all of this, makes this point objectively correct

not trolling, i have been a member since 2014. i am interested to hear the communities thoughts on why there are so many iterations of the exact same boring FBW aircraft , and the intent with which developers obscure MSFS flight model with Airbus law

developers keep slinging out airbus for MSFS the reason for this is, the flight model in MSFS is not good at all.. and you can "hide" it by the extra layer of Airbus FBW laws... why do we need a Asobo A320, FBW A320, Fenix A320, and now INI A320??? do the users have some obsession with this airplane? there seems to be such a fascination with OCD personality and configuring exactly what brake fans or sharklets your airbus has... how about getting the flying model close to being correct? plus the Headwinds A330 which is just a FBW A320 skin... MSFS out for 4+ years and no decent boeing long haul aircraft available.. instead you have to cope with pretending the A310 is long haul