flying_carpet

It's not my job to pinpoint Asobo the shortcomings of their job*. * These aren't my words, but I have copied them from a member of this very subforum, but the "other way round".

You also didn't get the point. You should read and watch thoroughly my posts/videos. Some default planes are glued to the ground, others like the C172 indeed weathervaned into the wind from around 45 kts on. But slightly below 40 kts (see e.g. from 4:50 min on) it gets sucked into the wind.

Actually I only asked for provable FACTS, but what do we get instead? Personal attacks/accusations ... Is it really too much to ask for (provable) FACTS? Thanks for your attention ...

It might be that Asobo is trying to improve the ground physics. Apart from that, I doubt they will do (much) more for "realistic" flying. They have toned down a lot of things due to user complaints, e.g. icing, turbulences, ... Is there anything known that they want to improve also the water physics?

Could you both be a bit more specific, please? I mean, proving your statements with verifiable facts (e.g. video, data output, ...)?

So, the Wright Flyer was not only the first (motorized) plane, but also the first one "flying" on rails 😁. On a serious note: what would happen, if it didn't stop on sand, but on concrete? Would it also move forwards with crosswind? That's EXACTLY the purpose of simulators (isn't it?), to simulate things which you usually don't do, due to being too dangerous/difficult/expensive/etc. to do in real life. That's EXACTLY the purpose of simulators (isn't it?), to simulate things which you usually don't do, due to being too dangerous/difficult/expensive/etc. to do in real life.

Is that the "famous" quality of iniBuilds planes for MSFS? In the videos shown until now, no rolling to the right during takeoff is identifiable. In every real MU2 takeoff video* you will see how the pilots turn the yoke to the left for countering the tendency of (heavily) rolling to the right of the real MU2. Explanation for the roll tendency (of the real MU2): both props are turning into the same direction. * 2 examples of many others ...

I asked specifically for the default aircraft which are shown in the videos (that's the reason why they are called "MSFS 2020 ground physics (part 5): default Wright Flyer" and "MSFS 2020 ground physics (part 6): default C172" 😉). Even the iniBuilds A310 as a default plane (although basically a payware addon) shows the "glued" behavior. I also don't really think it's a "Steam vs. Store thing", but who knows? 🙃 I have often observed weird behavior in software environments ... So, I assume A2A and BlackSquare circumvented somehow the MSFS handling like PMDG, A2A, ... did during FSX times from what I read? Does that mean that they will "cheat" somehow without calculating the behavior?

Do you mean the A2A Comanche and the (default) Caravan? However, from what I have experienced - see other videos on my channel - e.g. the (default) CTSL (a really light aircraft) stays glued to the rwy at extreme crosswind - see video below. Even if this would be correct, the Wright Flyer moving forward and the C172 sucked into the wind at a certain crosswind is ridiculous - as long this is not a MSFS on Linux/Steam effect ... That's the reason why I asked. Also the highly praised iniBuilds A310 stays glued to the rwy, although iniBuilds claimed there is no difference to the version in "the other" sim. 😮 Do you have sources for that? Still, I don't understand yet the conjunction of flight management systems with crosswinds. Can you enlighten me? 😉

We all know that the ground physics in MSFS have "room for improvement". E.g. when standing on the runway, planes remain like glued to the runway even with very strong crosswind. Now I have found even weirder effects, please see below videos. To save you some time, watch the C172 especially from 1:30 min and 4:40 mins on. As I switched to Linux and operate MSFS through Steam, I'm wondering whether that is the reason. Can anyone confirm the the shown behavior?

Like this one? 😁 https://dospace.org/blog/the-space-shuttle-vs-smart-phones/

Did anyone claim that? See?

https://simulators.redbirdflight.com/products

Design, Development, and Testing of a UAV Hardware-in-the-Loop Testbed for Aviation and Airspace Prognostics Research: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160013264 . Or longer and more detailed (the pdf which is linked in the above site): https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20160013264/downloads/20160013264.pdf. The X-PlaneConnect toolbox mentioned in the first link: https://software.nasa.gov/software/ARC-17185-1 Statistical learning framework for safety and failure analysis of a DNN-based autonomous aircraft system: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210018971/downloads/2021211880.pdf Engagement at NASA: https://www.stemgateway.nasa.gov/public/s/course-offering/a0Bt0000004lS6jEAE/xplane-11-flight-simulator-development-virtual Resilient Autonomy Project Develops EVAA Software: https://www.nasa.gov/aeronautics/resilient-autonomy-project-develops-evaa-software/

No text 😉, only a link: https://acubed.airbus.com/blog/wayfinder/how-wayfinder-is-using-neural-networks-for-vision-based-autonomous-landing/

Can the respective instructors also explain how to setup (or in this case circumvent) this beahviour?

This! I remember, when I was in a very stressful part of my life jobwise, I tried to find relaxation by reading respective books or watching youtube videos. However, it didn't help this much. Then, I booked a course with a professional trainer, and he showed me and the other participants (among others) how to breathe correct for relaxing. It was adapted to exactly the participants of the course and not a general "blah blah" in a video from someone from whom I don't know which background he has. Such things can be even contra-productive/dangerous and worsen things.

Possibly/probably (?) because: X-Plane 10 ist still a very good simulator Some of the publications are already a bit older In professional/academic/industrial environments things at times don't change this rapidly. E.g. at work, we still used Windows 2000, when people already used XP privately. Or later, at work XP when people already used ... you get the idea. Or all 3 together Some more examples: https://www.eku.edu/stem/index-4/aviationsimulator/ https://www.aero.psu.edu/research/facilities-and-labs/rotorcraft-flight-simulator-facilities.aspx https://avestia.com/CDSR2016_Proceedings/files/paper/126.pdf https://user.unob.cz/jalovecky/HMI/R2017/Vlastn%C3%AD/Jal_Bys_On_line_Analysis_Simul_XPLANE.pdf https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/5673378 https://etd.lib.metu.edu.tr/upload/12621894/index.pdf https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/13/12/585

Some more academic/scientific/pro context: https://louis.uah.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&context=honors-capstones https://tu-dresden.de/bu/verkehr/ila/ifl/simulatoren/airbus-a320-forschungssimulator?set_language=en https://www.ijrte.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/v8i2S11/B15900982S1119.pdf https://www.iea.lth.se/publications/BS-Theses/Full%20document/3019_Hammar_Djerf.pdf https://www.um.edu.mt/iat/ourequipment/ https://peer.asee.org/development-of-a-virtual-reality-flight-simulator-to-assist-in-the-education-of-aircraft-design-engineers.pdf https://projectdragonfly.nl/project/simulator/

Make up your mind yourself. You literally begged for it. Again and for the record: Apart from that: One more: And even more (based on mSparks video above): if you ask your favorite search engine e.g. for "'x-plane' site:dlr.de" you will find more. In my opinion, the DLR (German Aerospace Center) is a kind of "pros", isn't it? If you search for other aerospace companies, associations, ... you probably will get more results.

And you haven't thoroughly read what I have written, namely ... Apart from that, what I basically meant (forgive my somewhat "sloppy" wording) is that people at an aero club are certainly "pros" compared to "gamers". More professional usage? Here we are: https://www.fsr.tu-darmstadt.de/forschung_und_dienstleistung/ausstattung/simulator_1.en.jsp (TU Darmstadt, i.e. University of Technology in Darmstadt, Germany). Their system: X-Plane + Linux. What kind of losers 😁.

After reading an article in a flying magazine (from the Bavarian aviation association), I searched also the internet for that simulator mentioned there. Here it is: https://flugplatz-genderkingen.de/simulator/ (in German). Not only that respective aviation club is using X-Plane 12 for their simulator, but according to the article in the magazine, it is almost structurally identical to a simulator at Diamond Aircraft. Excerpt from the website:

Isn't that how capitalism actually works? We see it e.g. every year when booking a vacation: high demand, high prices. If the vendor can push through high prices, he knows he has a highly desired, precious and successful product. Also applicable for flight sims 😉.

Fixed that for you 😀. And they even could buy this well known IT company in Redmond. And another one in Cupertino. And Tesla Motors. And SpaceX.

Ok ... as I was talking about Egypt ... still, I saw lots of caravans ...