BusheFlyer

21 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

It seems if you want a realistic (or even working) experience you need a heavily modified plane, add-on airports, add-on scenery, add-on weather generator, add-on ATC, 3rd party flight planning, and 3rd party log book. 

I guess I’m glad that MS/Asobo have built a frame work to enable this, but from what I’ve read, even that’s not great  

Does Microsoft or Asobo do anything really well?

Admittedly I’m feeling a bit negative at the moment, but it could be because of all the mods and add-ons I need to pile on this Sim to get any sense of realism and even with all that there’s still glaring issues. The whole thing just feels like a kludge. 

I don't understand your comment at all. You don't need any mods or any third party tools. Plan a flight from your local airport, fly it with the default real world weather and look out the window. It is so close to real that is seriously impressive. I have repeated more than a dozen real world flights I have done in MSFS and everything from the aircraft sounds to what I see out the window really brought those memories back for me. When VR arrives it will be a massive step forward in this sim. I flew exclusively in VR in P3D, and as hard as it to go back to 2D I have enjoyed MSFS far more than I thought I would. I can't go back to 2D at all in P3D.

Some people will never be happy I guess.

What you are describing has not happened to me ever and I have around 88 hours in my logbook on the c208. I wonder if it something else causing it on your setup. Perhaps a control issue?

Thankfully in light aircraft autopilots are superfluous.. just don't worry it and enjoy actual flying. I am sure in time they will straighten out these bugs.

I have been playing with the AP climbing out on both FLC and VS, it functions exactly as I expected it to.. if you leave trim alone and just pull the aircraft with the yoke at your chosen speed then enable either mode.. the nose will instantly drop as expected until the aircraft trims itself.. it will then porpoise around whilst trimming out. If you however establish the climb at say 110kts trim it stable at that speed turning on AP will hold it as expected.

The aircraft has only 1 elevator trim.. the thing you are describing is in a real aircraft the autopilot will be adusting the trim of the aircraft using servos.. the secondary effect is the trim wheel in the cockpit will also turn because it's linked by cables and pulleys. If you observe in MSFS you will see the wheel moving as the autopilot makes adjustments. The problem is with most simulator setups is you have a joystick axis (most likely a wheel) that only moves when you manually touch it. It does not move in sequence with whats happen on the aircraft unlike the real one.

So if you disable the autopilot and touch the trim wheel it will cause the sim aircraft to suddenly react to whatever your trim was at prior.

8 minutes ago, lambourne said:

So why has Microsoft released a new simulator trying to achieve greater realism? Why are any of us here on this forum?

You've mistaken the A2A style addon that takes into account wear and tear on an individual airframe for what a flight dynamics / simulation engine is designed to achieve.

If I have the numbers for dry operating weight, wing area, moments of inertia and interrelated drag coefficients as implemented by the MSFS engine, I should be able to input those into the MSFS equivalent of a .air file and then fly a simulated aircraft that is convincingly close to how the real thing handles. One of the problems with FS9, FSX and P3D was that the engine was fudged and simplified in places so addon devs had to find fudges and tweaks of their own to produce convincing or realistic flight characteristics.

Asobo said in its pre launch feature discovery series that MSFS would have a much better flight dynamics engine than what went previously. Sure, we've seen awesome reproduction of thermals, terrain/wind interaction and random light chop. That's 100% convincing to me. But in other areas are we seeing the promised improvement? That's the point of a sim engine comparison as the OP suggested.

MSFS is close enough to be realistic in terms of performance. It might be off little bit here or there but then so are real world aircraft. This striving for exact numbers is the proverbial dragons tail. That is the point I am trying to make.

The second point was no matter how good the sim, real world flight especially when it involves flight in those extremes of the flight envelope just can not be compared. A spin in a real aircraft can not be simulated, neither can any aerobatic flight or even simple things like steep turns and stalls. The absence of any 'g' or any seat of the pants sensation makes any simulation anaemic.

1 hour ago, Mark VII said:

Pls check you tube jet pilots FS opinions ( btw which jet do you pilot ? .. or are you a GA pilot instead ? This makes a huuuuuge difference) and if you are within the small percentage around 1% which has a different point of view on FS, that’s ok for the statistics 

Hello new member, so MSFS is no doubt your first flight sim, you have zero actual real world flying experience and you are relying on the word of a single Youtube pilot over the accuracy of the flight model. Okay, think we have understood enough. Have a nice day.

I should test it again myself, I pretty much gave up on using the autopilot except the way I described. I fly only GA types as a rule so I basically don't use the autopilot hardly at all.. just really for those long legs in the caravan or the kingair. 

7 minutes ago, Virtual-Chris said:

My process is similar except I don’t try to trim it. I just hit the AP once I’ve got it in a steady climb (usually around 800-1200 FPS) and I get the exact same behaviour... I hit AP, take pressure off the yoke... dive!  W T F?! ! Pull back up... then the AP engages. It’s frightening and dangerous. It’s like there’s a 10 second delay before the AP actually kicks in. 

Well, that sounds like half the problem.. if you don't trim it then the moment you engage AP and release the yoke the nose is going to drop rapidly. The trim wheel is just that a wheel.. which the autopilot will take over from the position you left it. It will start to trim nose up when engaged but that takes time which explains what you are seeing happening.

The same thing would happen in the real aircraft.

I have been flying the caravan a lot... about 74 hours logged according to my log book. Mainly because of FSEconomy.  The autopilot is way too aggressive in pretty much anything it does.. therefore I only use it occasionally to hold altitude or in heading mode. I take off, trim to climb around 110kts, and follow the SID in the climb or the desired heading. Once I have reached altitude and am on track I typically engage hdg mode or nav mode and alt. Then enable autopilot. It then works fine, it holds altitude and tracks fine.

I absolutely do not trust it on flying procedures, so at the descent I usually take back control and hand fly the procedure.

All in all, it's a fun aircraft to fly IMHO. And until the various issues with the AP are ironed out it's not really a problem.

49 minutes ago, marsman2020 said:

I think the POH for a given aircraft should be the source of truth for the sim, since that is the reference information that sim users will find on Google in the absence of any official documentation being provided by Asobo.  If they want to add an 'engine wear' slider and an 'extra drag' slider to the sim so people can represent their tired out engines that are ready for a major overhaul and bug-covered aircraft, that should come after the flight models are tuned to match the POH.  

I do understand what you are saying, the thing is POH's (Flight Manual's for the bigger boys) can be far from totally accurate. This doesn't just apply to the light aircraft types, I can assure you from years of experience with real Citations and Learjets and the 737 that the given data is often very coarse. Aircraft performance data is derived from actual real world flight tests in order to build a picture of approximately the performance you should expect. This data therefore was valid for that particular airframe with those engines and on that particular day. Margins and tolerances are used to ensure that the AFM data will be good for all aircraft of that type.

I have a 737 AFM sitting in my garage and I am sure you would be surprised how coarse that data is. 

Airplane! (2/10) Movie CLIP - Automatic Pilot (1980) HD - YouTube

38 minutes ago, lambourne said:

I'd like to see a comparison. The goal of a good flight simulator should be an engine that you can plug real world numbers into and which outputs real world performance, or something close enough to it. The FS9/FSX/P3D engine is well documented and understood whereas MSFS seems to be a closed book so far judging by the amount of conversation about it.

I'm disappointed so far. Asobo's pre launch publicity talking about the fidelity of the new sim engine gave me high hopes and I think we were all hoping for at least one default aircraft that showcased what the new engine was capable of. Instead it's all a bit "well, maybe, not sure, perhaps".

This right here is the problem.. you simply can not compare real world flying to simulated flying. It's not a case of numbers.. In the real world flying is those numbers are variable. Let's suppose my Cessna 182 POH states my performance, what it is not stating is my 182 is a 20 year old airframe with an engine that is almost at TBO. It is also not accounting for that the airframe is a bit dirty after a summers flying adventures. I might hit those performance numbers or I might not..  probably not. Different 182's may well exceed those performance numbers on a regular basis. Mine might stall at 1-2kt's slower than that other 182. 

Real world flying is not exact, it's all an approximation with some sensible margins. From my real world flying experience and my simulator experience, then the stated goal of "something close enough to it" has been achieved.

What I will say from buzzing around in the DV20 in MSFS.. that plane is extremely well modelled, I have over 100 hours in the real one and it's so close to be amazingly real in the sim, if it had wing flex then it would be perfect. I am comparing just the aircraft here. The actual sensation of being in a real DV20 to the sim one is of course incomparable. 

36 minutes ago, SceneryFX said:

It's also a lot safer to use a simulator, as private flying has about the same dangers as riding a motorcycle statistically, at least for the first few years of a pilot's career which are often somewhat dangerous.

Well, statistically most pilot error accidents are not by newly qualified pilots. New pilots are very much aware of their limitations and lack of experience and tend to be pretty switched on. The danger zone is something like 600 - 1000 hour pilots, who are experienced enough to feel confident which naturally can lead to complacency.

Although I am not sure on the statistics for deaths whilst using a simulator.. I am sure the blood pressure issues that software bugs can induce have claimed a few victims.

Just now, eslader said:

Some people can't for medical reasons. Some people also realize that a $1,000 yoke/throttle quad/rudder setup is a lot cheaper than a $5,000 minimum license plus plane purchase/rental and gas to maintain currency.

Aviation is bloody expensive, and there is no point at which you have spent all the money you need to and can stop spending money for several years. That's not true of sims.

 

Yes, I am not knocking those devices or purchase decisions. If you can afford it then why not. The beautiful thing about a sim is the aircraft is always ready to fly, real world aircraft ownership can often be a case of opening your wallet and watching as many hands dip into it on a continuous basis until the day comes you sell it.

Private flying is and always has been impossible to reason financially.

In my opinion, MSFS does a pretty good job at doing what it can to simulate real flight. There are lots of areas of improvement of course, but the reality is.. it is an unreachable goal. When VR arrives, just like in P3D, then it will be a huge improvement to the sensation of actually sitting in a cockpit.

The reality however is feel, if you spend $1000's of dollars buying decent control yokes/throttles/pedals then you will get a better experience no doubt... but if you are going to spend that money.. why not spend it on real flying.

There are certain things that simply can not be simulated.. aerobatic flight is the big one. Having spent many happy hours in real aerobatic types I just don't even touch aerobatics in a sim. It's these cases of flying in that 10% margin of the flight envelope that sims just can not represent realistically.

Personally I get a lot of pleasure from flying in MSFS, I accept it for what it is.. and if it's real enough then to me at least it's doing a pretty good job.

No thank you. Cockpit environments are getting so very good in MSFS with such high fidelity, in order not to ruin that environment, you would need a super detailed and realistic looking co-pilot. It would need to be animated to take the controls and operate radios when enabled to do so. Otherwise it is just a superfluous manikin that I would immediately disable. I would much rather they spent development time to implement that into something actually valuable.. such as improvements to aircraft and so on. 

Everyone.

The thing is, many flight sim enthusiasts are never ever going to be satisfied totally. They are chasing the proverbial dragons tail, thinking this 'addon' or the next update.. or DX12 is going to reach the apex of their goal. The reality is somewhat different.. flight simulators are just that.. simulators.. they are not REAL. Technology will never ever be able to create a real flight experience with all it's complexities with aircraft, weather and so forth. So everyone, should enjoy it for it is and for what they personally get from it.

On the kingair, condition lever is set to idle for taxi, and high for take-off, during flight you leave it in high. Then after landing checklist you set back to idle.

10 hours ago, snglecoil said:

The H model was manufactured in 1967, last of the Continental O-300 hawks. If yours was a 1974, it would have been the M model. I think the M model was one of the first to have the standard 6 pack layout. Before that, I really think the designers just threw instruments against the panel and wherever they hit is where they stuck them 🤪 Yeah, way too much info, I know. I’ve been shopping for a M model or later all year...but somebody keeps jacking the prices way up!

Yeah I am a bit hazy on the date of it's manufacture, was many years ago that I owned it. It was definitely a H model. The O-300 was lovely sounding although a bit underpowered in a 172, not vastly so, just you had to think of it as a 3+1 aircraft rather than a true 4 seater. Anyway, many happy memories in that old girl. 

Well mine was a Cessna 172H from I believe 1974 (if memory serves me right), it really had very few panel upgrades aside from a c mode transponder and KTX radios, it had an RNAV unit. The autopilot unit was not much more than a wing leveller with basic features like altitude hold and could follow a VOR. The ASI was also in MPH. 

The nice things about it was it had the super smooth 6cyl continental as opposed to the much more common 4cyl lycoming. It also had 40degree flaps, which were both good and bad.. 40degrees could drop you into some tight fields. The problem with them, and why they removed them, was you simply could not climb or in many cases even hold altitude with them all the way down. So an unexpected go-around could catch you out if not careful.

It was a solid touring aircraft, and was decent for IFR, just a bit on the slow side.

Can speak as a former owner of a real C172, I almost never used the autopilot in all the years I owned it.  When I did briefly use it it was just the basics like following a heading bug. I certainly wouldn't ever use VS mode on an aircraft like a cessna, it flies low and slow in mostly bumpy air, with a mixture control, VS mode would just be asking the aircraft to constantly trim chase. It is an easy aircraft to trim.

22 minutes ago, Waldo Pepper said:

Definitely hook it up to your OLED.  I'm using a 48" LG CX OLED as my desktop monitor,  the sim is jaw dropping at times.   Crisp, beautiful textures.   Gorgeous sunrise / sunsets.

Also,  there aren't many panels that can compete with an oled when it comes to displaying minute points of light on pitch black backgrounds,  like the stars.    I flew from Key West to Miami at night. It's insane how many stars there are at night in this sim,  more than I've ever seen in life.  I've never been in an area completely devoid of light pollution irl.      I started thinking about how wild it would be to replace the default world scenery with highly detailed terrain of our moon.

 

 

Your post brought a recollection to me, many many years ago I was lucky enough to be on a safari in South Africa, in the Kruger. Crystal clear and freezing cold night, not a single hint of light pollution. The milky way was so utterly overwhelming in the night sky, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. It is something every man should see at least once in their life, it is surreal and you get an appreciation for how religions came to be.

20 hours ago, Bigsby said:

Worse for me.I'll wait for the early Nov

Patch.I'm not going to subject my computer and its very expensive video card to constant CTD's.The ball is in

Asobos court they have to show some

Improvement to basic airplane equipment

 

I have over 100 real world hours in MSFS so far without ever experiencing a CTD. So I would perhaps suggest that you might reconsider that stance.

I use FSUIPC with the CH Throttle quadrant and assign the axis to both thrust and reverse, so detent is idle, backwards from detent is reverse and forwards is throttle. Just be sure to clear all the bindings from inside the sim itself for the device.

6 hours ago, Colonel X said:

When posting these enthusiastic 60 FPS numbers, you should name the plane you were using. No CPU will push 60 FPS in the Airbus at LAX, you're lucky to get 30.

I don't touch the airliners in any sim. The GA types are more my thing, just like in the real world.. a whole lot more fun.