1 hour ago, lwt1971 said:

Entonces, ¿estos "desarrolladores AAA en XP" eruditos y sabios tienen acceso al código de A2A y detalles tecnológicos de tal manera que han llegado a esta profunda conclusión? Bueno, wowsa, ¡A2A también podría contratarlos!
 

I really can't understand their answer, hire them for what? A2A is a great add-on development team for simulators but believe me they are not the only group out there achieving excellence in their products.

On 7/19/2023 at 4:55 PM, Donka said:

So it appears the A2A Comanche is a massive hit with how it performs both on the ground and in the air, perhaps showcasing a real deficiency in the MSFS core flight engine. I know Asobo hired a well respected military flight sim developer to work on MSFS so wondering if we will see similar kinds of fidelity built into the core sim for all aircraft to leverage? I don't think it would look to good if a new version of the sim can't replicate some of the feel of this add on.

This does not make sense to me.  How does an aircraft performing well in a sim proof a deficiency in the flight engine?

22 hours 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.

 

The MSFS is the very good flight model.  The detail from A2A is the optimization of parameters within that flight model.

12 minutes ago, Tierborn said:

The MSFS is the very good flight model.  The detail from A2A is the optimization of parameters within that flight model.

Uh no, A2A does not use MSFS flight model at all. Which says a lot.

19 minutes ago, Fiorentoni said:

Uh no, A2A does not use MSFS flight model at all. Which says a lot.

Exactly what does it say? All it says to me is that the A2A flight model is slightly better. What it doesn't say is that all the other planes I've bought are not fit for purpose. For a home sim the default flight model works very well. For 'casual users' and non geeks that is.

36 minutes ago, Tierborn said:

The detail from A2A is the optimization of parameters within that flight model

Nope.

3 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Exactly what does it say? All it says to me is that the A2A flight model is slightly better. What it doesn't say is that all the other planes I've bought are not fit for purpose. For a home sim the default flight model works very well. For 'casual users' and non geeks that is.

If you want something that flies pretty close to an actual aircraft, the A2A Comanche is the one to get. If you just want to drive around the sky like a car with wings, then the default aircraft would probably work. Depends on whether or not you want to learn about flying an aircraft. 

6 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

If you want something that flies pretty close to an actual aircraft, the A2A Comanche is the one to get. If you just want to drive around the sky like a car with wings, then the default aircraft would probably work. Depends on whether or not you want to learn about flying an aircraft. 

I've got the Comanche. It's great. So should I now delete all the other aircraft I've bought? I was flying the 414 earlier today and it seemed OK to me? Ditto everything else. EDIT If I wanted to learn to fly an actual aircraft I would. I'm sure my daughter in law would oblige.

Edited July 22, 20232 yr by jarmstro

17 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Exactly what does it say? All it says to me is that the A2A flight model is slightly better.

The 3 or so threads about the Comanche here on Avsim are pointing to "much better" instead of "slightly". Also you are moving the goalposts: We were arguing about the quality of MSFS' default flight model, not about what the average customers actually needs/wants.

13 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I've got the Comanche. It's great. So should I now delete all the other aircraft I've bought? I was flying the 414 earlier today and it seemed OK to me? Ditto everything else. EDIT If I wanted to learn to fly an actual aircraft I would. I'm sure my daughter in law would oblige.

You will probably find, when going to other GA aircraft from the Comanche, that there is so much lacking that you will get bored in about 20 minutes. 

1 minute ago, Fiorentoni said:

The 3 or so threads about the Comanche here on Avsim are pointing to "much better" instead of "slightly". Also you are moving the goalposts: We were arguing about the quality of MSFS' default flight model, not about what the average customers actually needs/wants.

Yes, and I would still use the word 'slightly better' to describe the difference between the Comanche and the 414's flight model. Exactly what is the leap forward here?

11 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

So should I now delete all the other aircraft I've bought?

Of course not, even after the Comanche I can still enjoy all the rest I have bought and even default aircraft.

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

You will probably find, when going to other GA aircraft from the Comanche, that there is so much lacking that you will get bored in about 20 minutes. 

Yes but that not to do with the flight model. It's the in depth systems. But no, I will still fly my other planes.

1 minute ago, jarmstro said:

Yes but that not to do with the flight model. It's the in depth systems. But no, I will still fly my other planes.

I still know someone that uses a flip phone. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. 

2 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I still know someone that uses a flip phone. Different strokes for different folks, as they say. 

So you are only going to fly the A2A from now on? How boring.