35 minutes ago, Aamir said:

This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. 

A2A had to go external in places to build it to their standards, which is understandable, because they're brilliant and build a brilliant product. What I don't get is people taking that and spinning it into "Asobo sucks!", yeesh. We had to go external on our engines and a portion of our flight model too, in this next update. It doesn't mean Asobo sucks. It means we, as developers, have specific needs and requirements from our product that we want to see - and that we can go build it ourselves. I don't think anyone railing on Asobo understands what a monumental task it is to have an FDE that is just bang on perfect for every single type of aircraft out there - including helicopters, gliders, etc, out of the box by default, and globalised. Insanity. 

p.s if anyone manages to do the above, perfect globalised modelling, and it's capable of running on anything less than a super-computer in real time, you're probably sat on a few billion dollars in training contracts - forget the piddly consumer market 🙂

Anything on Avsim, always seems to attract some of the  " glass is always empty" crowd that have to spew their conspiracy theories and try and rain on everyone's parade. . 

Edited July 21, 20232 yr by Bobsk8

51 minutes ago, Aamir said:

This thread is hilarious. People complaining about a £59.99 piece of home entertainment software (MSFS) not having incredible globalised flight modelling when even £30m+ level-D sims, specific to type, built from real aircraft test data, don't feel like the real thing. 

A2A had to go external in places to build it to their standards, which is understandable, because they're brilliant and build a brilliant product. What I don't get is people taking that and spinning it into "Asobo sucks!", yeesh. We had to go external on our engines and a portion of our flight model too, in this next update. It doesn't mean Asobo sucks. It means we, as developers, have specific needs and requirements from our product that we want to see - and that we can go build it ourselves. I don't think anyone railing on Asobo understands what a monumental task it is to have an FDE that is just bang on perfect for every single type of aircraft out there - including helicopters, gliders, etc, out of the box by default, and globalised. Insanity. 

p.s if anyone manages to do the above, perfect globalised modelling, and it's capable of running on anything less than a super-computer in real time, you're probably sat on a few billion dollars in training contracts - forget the piddly consumer market 🙂

Allow me to sum this up in bullet points:

1) Globalized high fidelity FDE is not a realistically feasible option

2) If you want anything near an accurate FDE, you'll need to run it outside the MSFS box ( probably all 100% of it, as A2A had admitted to do)

3) A2A are the only ones to go the full Montey thus far in that regard

4) Don't expect too much of a sixty quid game.

 

39 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

4) Don't expect too much of a sixty quid game.

 

Or a £30m Level-D sim 🙂

@Aamir

Price is of little relevance in this context, however.
We are being told repeatedly by the usual suspects that the physics engine is the best thing since sliced bread! Matt Nitschen went as far as saying that inaccurate FMs are only the result of a developers lack of knowledge or effort and not an issue with the platform itself.

Sure, other platforms have their shortcomings as well but developers had found ways to circumvent those. For most part it means throwing the physics engine out of the window and using a custom one instead. Take Majestics dash 8 as a great example for that.

So, if one wants to be truthful with regards to the physics, one FIRST needs to admit that they are only as good as a sixty quid xbox game.
THEN, those who want to take it into another level should throw the msfs engine away and use another externally . It’s been done on other platforms, it’s been done by A2A, it can be done by others that would follow suit.

No progress will be made,however, as long as there are those who insist that the MS physics engine is the bees knees or as long as folks are happy with switching on the AP at 400ft and watch for hours on end how a plane follows a magenta line only to post their landing rate on the forum. The former don’t want an accurate FM, the latter don’t need one. 
When that’s the situation, why indeed should developers bother.

At this point, at least let’s be truthful! When it comes to FM, it is exactly what Aamir had described- a 50 pound game, no more.

 

4 minutes ago, ha5mvo said:

@Aamir

Price is of little relevance in this context, however.
We are being told repeatedly by the usual suspects that the physics engine is the best thing since sliced bread! Matt Nitschen went as far as saying that inaccurate FMs are only the result of a developers lack of knowledge or effort and not an issue with the platform itself.

Sure, other platforms have their shortcomings as well but developers had found ways to circumvent those. For most part it means throwing the physics engine out of the window and using a custom one instead. Take Majestics dash 8 as a great example for that.

So, if one wants to be truthful with regards to the physics, one FIRST needs to admit that they are only as good as a sixty quid xbox game.
THEN, those who want to take it into another level should throw the msfs engine away and use another externally . It’s been done on other platforms, it’s been done by A2A, it can be done by others that would follow suit.

No progress will be made,however, as long as there are those who insist that the MS physics engine is the bees knees or as long as folks are happy with switching on the AP at 400ft and watch for hours on end how a plane follows a magenta line only to post their landing rate on the forum. The former don’t want an accurate FM, the latter don’t need one. 
When that’s the situation, why indeed should developers bother.

At this point, at least let’s be truthful! When it comes to FM, it is exactly what Aamir had described- a 50 pound game, no more.

 

So apparently you think any sim that can run on a PC is worthless...

6 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

@Aamir

Sin embargo, el precio tiene poca relevancia en este contexto.
Los sospechosos habituales nos dicen repetidamente que el motor de física es lo mejor desde el pan rebanado. Matt Nitschen llegó a decir que los FM inexactos son solo el resultado de la falta de conocimiento o esfuerzo de los desarrolladores y no un problema con la plataforma en sí.

Claro, otras plataformas también tienen sus deficiencias, pero los desarrolladores encontraron formas de eludirlas. En su mayor parte, significa tirar el motor de física por la ventana y usar uno personalizado en su lugar. Tome Majestics dash 8 como un gran ejemplo de eso.

Entonces, si uno quiere ser sincero con respecto a la física, PRIMERO debe admitir que son tan buenos como un juego de xbox de sesenta libras.
ENTONCES, aquellos que quieran llevarlo a otro nivel deben desechar el motor msfs y usar otro externo. Se ha hecho en otras plataformas, lo ha hecho A2A, lo pueden hacer otros que hagan lo mismo.

Sin embargo, no se logrará ningún progreso mientras haya quienes insistan en que el motor de física de MS son las rodillas de las abejas o mientras la gente esté contenta con encender el AP a 400 pies y observe durante horas cómo un avión sigue una línea magenta solo para publicar su tasa de aterrizaje en el foro. Los primeros no quieren una FM precisa, los segundos no la necesitan. 
Cuando esa es la situación, ¿por qué deberían molestarse los desarrolladores?

En este punto, ¡al menos seamos sinceros! Cuando se trata de FM, es exactamente lo que Aamir había descrito: un juego de 50 libras, no más.

 

Tolis and Fslabs disagree.

Like Aamir said above, some of the usual suspects' talking points here are hilarious.. especially the ones who seemingly hate MSFS flight dynamics but yet find themselves here 🤷‍♂️

So let's take a tally and closer look at what some of the actual experts have said about MSFS's FDE and aerodynamics:

1) Aamir's (Fenix) post above in this thread

2) Lucky38i's (FBW) post above in this thread

3) Matt Nischan:
     - https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236
     - https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/more-physics-more-real-winds/372656/256

4) iniBuilds, re: their brilliantly modelled A310 (and other aircraft) which uses the core MSFS FDE and CFD tech:
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/972850172067459103
       "Just to be fully clear, our flight model in MSFS is on par to XP. So those still wanting to negate MSFS as a viable sim solution based on those reasons - don’t speak too soon.”
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1017423315771596880
       "Asobo are also making big strides in improving their physics with the new CFD simulations"
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1040653493914058873/1041129939333820477
       "Yeah we're super happy with it, blessed be CFD 🙏"
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1031242737741217913
       "The flight physics in SU11 are the same as XP now you know with CFD"

5) simbol (Raul) of FSReborn and their Sting S4 aircraft talking at length about their use of MSFS's CFD:
     - https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/626199-is-anybody-else-excited-about-the-new-20-km-cfd-in-su11/?do=findComment&comment=4872362

Hmmm so do I take the words of these experts, and also my own experience with various sims and aircraft over the years, or the ramblings of the usual suspects? Tough one! 🙂

A2A are brilliant developers, and for the kind of detail and realism they seek to achieve with their Comanche, they have taken the external route... and that's absolutely great, and also great that the MSFS platform as it stands now can enable that route for aircraft development as well as other routes (per the examples above). And with the advancements in aerodynamics/physics and aircraft development (i.e. fine-grained geometry definition, CFD, etc) that MSFS 2024 is bringing, I look forward to hearing more from these experts.

Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to read all of the above and various other posts on here and be able to conclude that absolutely no one is saying MSFS 2020's FDE is the bestest ever, it obviously has issues i.e. ground handling and ground<->air transition, etc. But it certainly is quite capable as a general FDE that has to cater to all types of aircraft per the experts' opinions above, and as always, the way an aircraft ultimately behaves in a sim is made or broken by the aircraft developer.

Oh, I see also the comical talking point "xbox game" being thrown out again, for all the usual reasons I suppose. What was absolutely hilarious and epic recently was when Andrew Wilson of FSL, yes the same FSL some of these usual suspects revere, quipped back thusly to similar attempts at denigrating MSFS (given that they are currently developing and testing both the Concorde and an airbus in parallel for MSFS): 
https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/topic/32739-p3d-v6/?do=findComment&comment=260171
"I guess I'm now a gamer then! "
 

Edited July 22, 20232 yr by lwt1971

1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

Like Aamir said above, some of the usual suspects' talking points here are hilarious.. especially the ones who seemingly hate MSFS flight dynamics but yet find themselves here 🤷‍♂️

So let's take a tally and closer look at what some of the actual experts have said about MSFS's FDE and aerodynamics:

1) Aamir's (Fenix) post above in this thread

2) Lucky38i's (FBW) post above in this thread

3) Matt Nischan:
     - https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/601526-msfs-has-the-most-advanced-flight-model/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-4549236
     - https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/more-physics-more-real-winds/372656/256

4) iniBuilds, re: their brilliantly modelled A310 (and other aircraft) which uses the core MSFS FDE and CFD tech:
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/784467650612822016/972850172067459103
       "Just to be fully clear, our flight model in MSFS is on par to XP. So those still wanting to negate MSFS as a viable sim solution based on those reasons - don’t speak too soon.”
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1017423315771596880
       "Asobo are also making big strides in improving their physics with the new CFD simulations"
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/1040653493914058873/1041129939333820477
       "Yeah we're super happy with it, blessed be CFD 🙏"
     - https://discord.com/channels/535246634448191499/535249224254619648/1031242737741217913
       "The flight physics in SU11 are the same as XP now you know with CFD"

5) simbol (Raul) of FSReborn and their Sting S4 aircraft talking at length about their use of MSFS's CFD:
     - https://www.avsim.com/forums/topic/626199-is-anybody-else-excited-about-the-new-20-km-cfd-in-su11/?do=findComment&comment=4872362

Hmmm so do I take the words of these experts, and also my own experience with various sims and aircraft over the years, or the ramblings of the usual suspects? Tough one! 🙂

A2A are brilliant developers, and for the kind of detail and realism they seek to achieve with their Comanche, they have taken the external route... and that's absolutely great, and also great that the MSFS platform as it stands now can enable that route for aircraft development as well as other routes (per the examples above). And with the advancements in aerodynamics/physics and aircraft development (i.e. fine-grained geometry definition, CFD, etc) that MSFS 2024 is bringing, I look forward to hearing more from these experts.

Anyone with a functioning brain should be able to read all of the above and various other posts on here and be able to conclude that absolutely no one is saying MSFS 2020's FDE is the bestest ever, it obviously has issues i.e. ground handling and ground<->air transition, etc. But it certainly is quite capable as a general FDE that has to cater to all types of aircraft per the experts' opinions above, and as always, the way an aircraft ultimately behaves in a sim is made or broken by the aircraft developer.

Oh, I see also the comical talking point "xbox game" being thrown out again, for all the usual reasons I suppose. What was absolutely hilarious and epic recently was when Andrew Wilson of FSL, yes the same FSL some of these usual suspects revere, quipped back thusly to similar attempts at denigrating MSFS: 
https://forums.flightsimlabs.com/topic/32739-p3d-v6/?do=findComment&comment=260171
"I guess I'm now a gamer then! "
 

Everytime MSFS gets a new good   aircraft, or feature, or add on, the same trolls suddenly appear on  this forum , to throw the same old BS. They must hate the sims they are using, otherwise they wouldn't have the time or  interest in coming here to try and stir up more hate and discontent. 

Edited July 22, 20232 yr by Bobsk8

16 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

Price is of little relevance in this context, however.

 

16 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

only as good as a sixty quid xbox game

 

16 hours ago, ha5mvo said:

When it comes to FM, it is exactly what Aamir had described- a 50 pound game, no more

Given what you're saying, I guess price does have relevance as you circle back to it often. You're also taking my point very far out of context and spinning it quite hard. I'm not saying "it's only as good as a 60 quid game", you're missing my point entirely - my point is that this entire argument is laughable, as frankly speaking nothing is as good as doing an external FM, in any simulator.

20 hours ago, jarmstro said:

The whole argument is essentially driven by the X-Plane users claim that their universal flight model is perfection itself. I doubt it personally.

What you are getting is an extrapolation from what blade element theory could IN THEORY do with enough sample points (and even that is controversial as it was, after all, meant to only be used for the much more limited area of prop design originally) and totally ignoring what it can actually do, in practice,  given the limitations of current hardware. Of course you also need to consider that blade element theory only deals wit the fluid dynamics side of things and there is a lot more going on than that in a flight model.

There are really good accurate X-Plane addons but they are no different to the Comanche in the sense that they build on the base sim mechanics with various addons and lookup tables and tweaks and tricks to get it right.

The xplane FM is of course far from perfect, but according to AAA developers in Xplane you don't need to use an external FM to get the results of A2A, in MFS I don't know if this is possible or if you have to go to an external model.

A2A seems to me a brilliant and necessary product for those who are looking for maximum realism in a simulator, each person is looking for something different of course and everything is acceptable everyone can enjoy in their own way there are those who enjoy a lot with fairing I was waiting for something like this to enjoy GA in mfs as I enjoyed in xplane.

2 minutes ago, Aglos77 said:

The xplane FM is of course far from perfect, but according to AAA developers in Xplane you don't need to use an external FM to get the results of A2A, in MFS I don't know if this is possible or if you have to go to an external model.

A2A seems to me a brilliant and necessary product for those who are looking for maximum realism in a simulator, each person is looking for something different of course and everything is acceptable everyone can enjoy in their own way there are those who enjoy a lot with fairing I was waiting for something like this to enjoy GA in mfs as I enjoyed in xplane.

You do politics as a side job ?

I'll tell you what. MSFS 2024 looks like it will blow everything else out of the water when it comes to soft material physics.

1 hour ago, Glenn Fitzpatrick said:

What you are getting is an extrapolation from what blade element theory could IN THEORY do with enough sample points (and even that is controversial as it was, after all, meant to only be used for the much more limited area of prop design originally) and totally ignoring what it can actually do, in practice,  given the limitations of current hardware. Of course you also need to consider that blade element theory only deals wit the fluid dynamics side of things and there is a lot more going on than that in a flight model.

There are really good accurate X-Plane addons but they are no different to the Comanche in the sense that they build on the base sim mechanics with various addons and lookup tables and tweaks and tricks to get it right.

I spoke years ago with an aeronautical engineer that said that the blade element  theory used to design an aircraft,  was hogwash. 

Edited July 22, 20232 yr by Bobsk8

2 hours ago, Aglos77 said:

The xplane FM is of course far from perfect, but according to AAA developers in Xplane you don't need to use an external FM to get the results of A2A

So these learned and sagely "AAA developers in XP" have access to A2A's code and tech details such that they have come to this profound conclusion? Well wowsa, A2A might as well hire them!
 

Edited July 22, 20232 yr by lwt1971