I always asked myself how anyone without being a real pilot would "feel" the real physics of an aircraft, compared to a simulator like MSFS, P3D or X-Plane... 😉

Edited July 20, 20232 yr by edpatino

5 hours ago, Lucky38i said:

are you really comparing a default aircraft to something that was worked on for 3 years? Asobo is a sim dev, not an aircraft dev why would this be a comparison, everyone knows default aircraft (in all sims) are relatively mediocre.

The thread title is Accusim-Like Flight Dynamics in 2024. I assumed base aircraft as a comparison was fair game.

Torque, P-Factor, and Spiraling Slipstream are supposed to be simulated in the new CFD for the 172 but I don't see it, so in line with the discussion I mentioned it.

If I was misunderstood the relevance than I apologize.

Making an engine that will support a glider, a seaplane, a jumbo jet and a F-16 can never have the same fidelity as a specially tuned aircraft.

I think it is better that more developers sees what is possible and tries to improve their game even more. 

55 minutes ago, espent said:

Making an engine that will support a glider, a seaplane, a jumbo jet and a F-16 can never have the same fidelity as a specially tuned aircraft.

I think it is better that more developers sees what is possible and tries to improve their game even more. 

That would be ideal.

Problem is that A2A probably has a lucrative revenue stream from their commercial and military projects able to carry 3 years of development on a single (sideline) GA aircraft.  Most developers are not in that position.   More like a sausage factory. 

Slapdash.  Ka-ching.  Next!

2 hours ago, WestAir said:

The thread title is Accusim-Like Flight Dynamics in 2024. I assumed base aircraft as a comparison was fair game.

Torque, P-Factor, and Spiraling Slipstream are supposed to be simulated in the new CFD for the 172 but I don't see it, so in line with the discussion I mentioned it.

If I was misunderstood the relevance than I apologize.

They are simulated, but far from consistently in FS 2020... Let's hope FS 2024 brings good news regarding flight dynamics and weather modelling...

All we have actually "better" than FSX in MFS 2020 --> flight dynamics wise only <-- if you want my honest opinion, is the end of the stupid limitation on max roll rate that made some aerobatic stunts impossible ( I myself asked for it at the dev forum @ flightsimulator.com during the beta ), and that "shake" that keeps shaking all aircraft due to the "awkward atmospherics" that although described with emphasis in the (ASOBO) videos and texts, where they try to make sense out of it's source, is actually a true PITA at times, but, ok, makes flying a bit more "active" / "alive" even if not necessarily realistic...

For airliners it's ok though. A PMDG or the Fenix or the FBW can do the job, for procedural flying... Turn the AP(s) ON as soon as possible after take off and you're good to go .... The moment you start hand flying ... well, that's another story...

Edited July 20, 20232 yr by jcomm

Ok I think we're focusing on A2A and how they did what they did a little too much. The op referenced the performance of the Comanche and is asking whether or not 2024 will be able to provide similar fidelity natively. I'm going to address that now.

Yes, I do think MS/Asobo can get the job done with 2024. I have outlined most of the reasons earlier in the thread but I'll reiterate.

1. According to Seb, a big limitation of the current SDK is done away with in 2024. That being the inability to properly define fuselages. This is due to increased freedom given to designate surfaces.

2. Bringing Andre Andrey (An.Petrovich) Solomykin onto the Asobo team to work with Seb. Seb is a very talented programmer, there's no doubt about that. I'm very impressed with what he and his team managed to do with the MSFS flight model, considering it was their first crack at an AAA sim. It became clear however, that to get the FM to the next level, they would need help. So they went to one of the best in the industry. To quote Stormbirds:

Quote

Hiring someone of Andrey’s calibre surely means that Asobo Studio and Microsoft intend to continue to be very serious about Microsoft Flight Simulator’s development over the short if not medium term.

 

Clearly not a move intended to cater to the casual crowd, right?

3. That mind blowing hot air balloon demo. Now this seems to going over a lot of people's heads but as I've said before, I have never seen a better display of realistic physics in a video game in my life. And I've played a lot of games and have followed the industry closely for years. @Abriael let me know if you concur lol. There are those who try to downplay the new FM as "just more surfaces" but the demo showed just how realistically those surfaces (along with the soft materials) react to air pressure and well....isn't that what any flight model is about? It is definitely an indication of how granular the new flight model is in general and that will definitely translate to planes.

3. The CFD is more detailed. Enough to become a burden on performance. I've heard it over and over in here that you need a lot of computing performance to get good CFD simulation so I guess that's a good sign lol. This is actually part of the reason they moved to improve multi-threading.

 

Will everything be perfect from day one? Probably not and what I've discussed relates to lanes in flight. Seb has promised a rewrite of ground physics but I haven't heard him say anything about it with respect to 2024 so I'll hold back on speculating till we hear something concrete. The future is definitely looking bright. Once again, I think 2024 is going to prove that we can have it all as simmers with gorgeous visuals AND amazing realism.

 

References:

https://www.helisimmer.com/interview/msfs-2024-helicopters-future-msfs-2020

https://stormbirds.blog/2022/09/12/lead-engineer-departs-great-battles-team/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPhScg_FINE

 

Edited July 20, 20232 yr by Krakin

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

The moment you start hand flying ... well, that's another story...

What do you mean?

1 minute ago, threegreen said:

What do you mean?

doesn't feel right to me....

1 minute ago, jcomm said:

doesn't feel right to me....

Feels right to many real world pilots, many of them are professionals. 

Edited July 20, 20232 yr by Bobsk8

1 minute ago, jcomm said:

doesn't feel right to me....

You didn't mention the A310 and that's probably the best of the bunch.

Just now, Krakin said:

You didn't mention the A310 and that's probably the best of the bunch.

I haven't had the time to use it, honestly. I spend 80% of the time in the ATR 72, then the rest equally between the 736 and the FENIX 320....

I want to start using the 787 too, but I have to learn it first....

7 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

Feels right to many real world pilots, many of them are professionals. 

maybe because I am not a professional... pilot... 

Anyway, from what I've been reading, watching and talking with friends (also real world pilots although not professional) who own it, the A2A Comanche is in a different league, as was expected...

It took time for A2A to get in, but looks like the wait was more than worth....

Edited July 20, 20232 yr by jcomm

20 minutes ago, jcomm said:

maybe because I am not a professional... pilot... 

Anyway, from what I've been reading, watching and talking with friends (also real world pilots although not professional) who own it, the A2A Comanche is in a different league, as was expected...

It took time for A2A to get in, but looks like the wait was more than worth....

Do you know why it's a "different league" as you call it? simple - because they had to throw out the much touted native "physics engine"  and devise a new one from scratch! all 100% of it.

If you want a demonstration of the native engines "capabilities" try simulating an engine failure on the Fenix  A320 - still considered the flagship of airliners and you'll witness its "fidelity" first hand.

I tip my hat off to A2A for doing the right thing and not compromising for msfs faulty physics. Too bad I personally have little interest in simulated GA as I have plenty of real-world opportunity to fly those.

I'm still waiting for the developer capable of pulling a similar stunt with an airliner.

12 hours ago, ErichB said:

This FUD is getting tired and old.  Abobo/MS  have proved time and time again that they are able to exceed expectation.  MS has made enough money on this title to date (having sold 12 million copies) to meet any reasonable expectation of a high fidelity sim.

So is having an A2A like FM a reasonable expectation for a high fidelity sim? IF yes, then MSFS doesnt meet that. Wich is my point exactly, they dont need to, having sold ,as you said, 12 million copies without it. Also, i never ever, EVER said they only cater for the casual flyers, they just prioritize them, wich again, makes perfect sense. Wich is why we'r getting cool more hardcore oriented features only 2/3 years after launch.
From the "inside" (wich is plane develloping, wich i do full time) it is quite clear what their business plan and approach is, devellopers of hardcore addons tend to loose way more hair than us (we Big Radials, make planes that are more on the fun/casual side). So im not saying at all its a problem, i actually think its pretty great. But answering the question, is 2024 gonna have an A2A like FM, the answer is still NOPE.

20 minutes ago, leprechaunlive said:

(we Big Radials, make planes that are more on the fun/casual side).

Well that explains a lot.......