19 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

One of the "holy duties" of each simmer is to tweak sensitivity control to their liking/believe! LOL Without it there will be a lot of problems.  I did tweaked my TM Airbus stick and Logitech rudders. Power, pitch, trim and my airplanes never twitch! 🙂

I thought the twitchiness might be due to spurious controller signals - so I unplugged them all while taking off in a crosswind - same twitchiness. I'll try messing around with this some more after hearing that adjusting sensitivity worked for you. Two quick questions though: are you running SU10 beta, and do you use live weather?

1 minute ago, enright said:

I thought the twitchiness might be due to spurious controller signals - so I unplugged them all while taking off in a crosswind - same twitchiness. I'll try messing around with this some more after hearing that adjusting sensitivity worked for you. Two quick questions though: are you running SU10 beta, and do you use live weather?

No I'm still on SU9. But I tell you took me a while to tweak my controls to likeness, especially Honecomb Bravo Quadrant! 

 Also I'm using FSrealistic Pro which add another level of authenticity in my opinion 

1 minute ago, sd_flyer said:

No I'm still on SU9. But I tell you took me a while to tweak my controls to likeness, especially Honecomb Bravo Quadrant! 

 Also I'm using FSrealistic Pro which add another level of authenticity in my opinion 

I have the same setup- tweaking the alpha and bravo controls are now an official pastime of mine 😉

I also agree about FSrealistic - the head movements help to dampen much of the twitchiness and adds a very realistic "fluid" feeling.

Speaking of fluid - as I understand it - Asobo plans to apply the newer CFD flight model to all aircraft (it's now only on the C172) and have it available as an opt-in for devs. I think we can look forward to a ton of additional tweaking and optimizations over the next few months.

2 minutes ago, enright said:

I have the same setup- tweaking the alpha and bravo controls are now an official pastime of mine 😉

I also agree about FSrealistic - the head movements help to dampen much of the twitchiness and adds a very realistic "fluid" feeling.

Speaking of fluid - as I understand it - Asobo plans to apply the newer CFD flight model to all aircraft (it's now only on the C172) and have it available as an opt-in for devs. I think we can look forward to a ton of additional tweaking and optimizations over the next few months.

Here is my choice for 172 in MSFS. It's not perfect but much better than default. Also it work in progress with great potential

https://www.justflight.com/product/wb-sim-172sp-classic-enhancement

19 minutes ago, enright said:

Speaking of fluid - as I understand it - Asobo plans to apply the newer CFD flight model to all aircraft (it's now only on the C172) and have it available as an opt-in for devs. I think we can look forward to a ton of additional tweaking and optimizations over the next few months.

Since SU9 the CFD enhancements have been available for all aircraft developers to use (https://docs.flightsimulator.com/flighting/html/Developer_Mode/Aircraft_Editor/Debug/Debug_Aircraft_CFD.htm) and Asobo provided an example implementation of it in their C172 ... currently the Milviz C310 and Sting S4 use it as their developers have said so, possibly more 3rd party aircrafts.

The expanded CFD enhancements coming in SU11 for atmospheric airflow within a 20km cocoon around the aircraft (see https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/623572-20-kilometer-cfd-around-plane-coming-for-su-11/) I'm not sure if that will apply to all aircrafts by default or if like now each one needs to be updated to take advantage of it... Hopefully we'll get more details soon but I'd guess it might be more of a global feature (at least a part of it) that applies without needing particular aircraft changes.

 

Edited September 2, 20223 yr by lwt1971

4 hours ago, enright said:

I still think there is a general issue with yaw in the flight model - in the air and on the ground. Crosswinds will push a plane laterally, but they don't tend to pivot the plane and change the direction the nose is pointed in - at least not as drastically as the current flight model does

I'm guessing you've never flown a taildragger?  Weathervaning is absolutely a thing and it can be quite violent (and of course nosewheel aircraft do it as well but it can be a little more subtle if you're not tuned into what you're seeing.)

The solution to both weathervaning and lateral drift is the same: get that aileron into the wind during a xwind takeoff and landing. This applies in a Stearman, and in a 737.

3 hours ago, Stearmandriver said:

I'm guessing you've never flown a taildragger?  Weathervaning is absolutely a thing and it can be quite violent (and of course nosewheel aircraft do it as well but it can be a little more subtle if you're not tuned into what you're seeing.)

The solution to both weathervaning and lateral drift is the same: get that aileron into the wind during a xwind takeoff and landing. This applies in a Stearman, and in a 737.

 Aleiron into the wind has little to no effect in MSFS and that's a sign of a wrong modelling. 

20 minutes ago, Jeeeno said:

 Aleiron into the wind has little to no effect in MSFS and that's a sign of a wrong modelling. 

It definitely does. Unless something has changed... I tested this extensively earlier on, and the correct amount of aileron into the wind would almost eliminate weathervaning.  I'm not saying it felt entirely realistic, but the correct intent was there lol. 

Now, I only ever used 3rd party aircraft for these tests as I realized almost immediately that, just like in FSX, the default aircraft are pretty useless.  Maybe that is a factor? Unsure how much differently this behavior could be tuned in a 3rd party aircraft though...

1 hour ago, Stearmandriver said:

It definitely does. Unless something has changed... I tested this extensively earlier on, and the correct amount of aileron into the wind would almost eliminate weathervaning.  I'm not saying it felt entirely realistic, but the correct intent was there lol. 

Now, I only ever used 3rd party aircraft for these tests as I realized almost immediately that, just like in FSX, the default aircraft are pretty useless.  Maybe that is a factor? Unsure how much differently this behavior could be tuned in a 3rd party aircraft though...

I agree, the default aircraft are a good way to ruin someone's piloting skills. 

 

The default C172, and even the 152 look pretty acceptable to me.

While the wheels are in contact with the ground the physics not yet updated to a surface-based, including updated tire physics, leave a lot to be desired, being it a default or any of the best add-ons.

I believe we may expect a really interesting ground physics model if what Sebastien has mentioned in some of the interviews "materializes" ( sotwarealizes is more like it 🙂 ).

I believe they still apply a "phase-out" of the side wind component on ground from zero speed to around 15 knot ground speed to account for the problems with ground handling under x-wind, but it can now  be disabled ( I don't recall exacty how ... ).

It's work in progress. For me one of the most interesting features is going to be a realistic simulation of free castering wheels, being it tail or nose like in so many GA aircraft that have to be handled carefully on ground under more intense x-winds. Presently the castering tailwheel physics leave a lot to be desired, and aircraft like for instance the Flying Iron Spitfire fall short from being realistic regarding  ground operations, takeoff and landing. Actually any aircraft that should be modeled with a free castering wheel will leave a lot to be desired in terms of realism as it is right now.

Edited September 3, 20223 yr by jcomm

19 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

Believe it or not I just flew 172N that got modified with 180hp mod (IRL of course). I have no idea where engine was modified  Penn Yan Aero or somewere else. I had instructional flight first time after this airframe went back on line. Guess what it ? It flew nothing like no other 172 no even familiar to me S model that already comes with 180 by factory default!

I used to fly a 172 (also an N model) that received the 180HP PennYan conversion. The “N” originally had a flaps 40 position, but that was supposed to be locked out with the more powerful engine so the maximum flap setting was then 30 degrees.

For some reason, this was not done. In doing air work after the conversion, we found that the airplane would not do a power-on stall with the flaps set to 40. The aircraft ran out of elevator authority before it ran out of thrust. It would just hang on the prop with the yoke fully back against the stop!

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.…

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

The default C172, and even the 152 look pretty acceptable to me.

I believe we may expect a really interesting ground physics model if what Sebastien has mentioned in some of the interviews "materializes" ( sotwarealizes is more like it 🙂 ).

Yes very true, of all the default aircrafts the C172 is the most refined flight model wise, especially after they implemented & enabled the new prop physics and CFD stuff. 

Outside of this, those who keep talking about the other default aircrafts and equating those to being the one "MSFS flight model" either don't know what they're talking about, or are attempting to push narratives :)

I do wonder how A2A will implement/tweak its Commanche's ground handling/model given the current shortcomings in that area of the core MSFS engine. Like Milviz and other developers have done, they'll probably customize/workaround/tweak it enough such that any undesirable ground handling won't be too evident. Hopefully they can at least make use of the new ground handling parameters/features Asobo is introducing in SU10.
 

Edited September 3, 20223 yr by lwt1971

28 minutes ago, lwt1971 said:

Yes very true, of all the default aircrafts the C172 is the most refined flight model wise, especially after they implemented & enabled the new prop physics and CFD stuff. 

Outside of this, those who keep talking about the other default aircrafts and equating those to being the one "MSFS flight model" either don't know what they're talking about, or are attempting to push narratives 🙂

I do wonder how A2A will implement/tweak its Commanche's ground handling/model given the current shortcomings in that area of the core MSFS engine. Like Milviz and other developers have done, they'll probably customize/workaround/tweak it enough such that any undesirable ground handling won't be too evident. Hopefully they can at least make use of the new ground handling parameters/features Asobo is introducing in SU10.
 

I have a few hundred hours in a C 172, and the default C 172 flies like no 172 I have ever piloted. 

6 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have a few hundred hours in a C 172, and the default C 172 flies like no 172 I have ever piloted. 

Why not?