Great video picking apart MSFS2020's flight modeling

[Thomas Pritchard]

So many here are comparing the A2A flight model VS the MSFS flight model and completely ignoring just how laughable the FSX/P3D model truly is. If MSFS made a model comparable to A2A then they would render more then just P3D obsolete.

In case you haven't figured it out, this topic is discussing the FS2020 flight model and its various shortcomings. As such, why would anyone need to even bring up the FSX or P3D flight model? This isn't the church of FS2020, where we must renounce the old ways lest we fall prey to sin, amen! If you want to start a thread comparing FS2020's flight model with those of FSX and P3D, you can do that.

I quite realize this forum is not the church of MS2020. This is where it comes to be burnt in effigy. The video shown was done half the sims lifetime ago. Lets just ignore the fact it actually gets monthly updates.

[cristi.neagu]

To me, the term "garbage fire" is a bit warranted. Not because of the quality of the flight model, but because of the development process that led to it. It is my ignorant opinion that the kind of flaws present in the model can only be the result of a very inexperienced team biting a bit more than they can chew. Looking back at Asobo's story of how they came to work on FS2020 it becomes clear that the flight model and the addon environment was very far down their list of priorities. Martial has stated that it all started from the idea of recreating the entire Earth inside a game, and the game they chose to do this is Flight Simulator. In other words, this isn't a case of a team that has a long standing passion with flight simulation working to restore the glory days of FSX. This is a team with a passion for game design and game worlds entering the world of flight simulation.

And at the end of the day, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that. You don't really think Henry Ford could design and build a car himself, do you? But the point where this has gone off the rails is when the decision was made, either by Asobo or Microsoft or both, to place graphics and scenery above everything else, and market it heavily towards Xbox and casual gaming, with the simulation aspects being a "oh yeah, it can do that too, I guess" afterthought. That's why to me it's a garbage fire. It's a simulator that is not really all that bothered about trying to be a simulator.

[Oracle427]

I can only comment on the handling of aircraft where I have done falling leaf and (un)accelerated stalls (DA-20, 172, PA-23-140, PA-18, J-3 and Zlin). These aircraft will stall and lose lift without any roll as long as it is coordinated when it stalls. If the aircraft is uncoordinated when it stalls it will stall the the side opposite the ball in the turn coordinator. If the ball is to the left of the cage, this is an indication that the airplane requires more left rudder to remain coordinated. If it stalls with the ball to the left of the cage, then it will roll right when it stalls.

Aileron position is also a factor in these aircraft at the stall. If there is left aileron commanded at the point of the stall, the right wing will be at a higher angle of attack.

The rudder remained very effective in these stalls in all of these aircraft As long as the aircraft is stalled while coordinated it will lose lift and descend until the angle of attack is reduced and the wings regain lift. Stalling at a 45 degree bank with the stall horn screaming in slow flight was no worse than stalling wings level power off or power on provided that the aircraft remained coordinated the entire time into and during the stall. Recovery can be initiated immediately when the angle of attack is reduced below the critical angle.

Note that the stall is a function of the angle of attack. The aircraft can stall while climbing, descending, turning, level, full throttle or at idle.

Spins and incipient spins are a different matter as those requires appropriate recovery techniques. Simply reducing the angle of attack may not be sufficient to initiate recovery. For example, the Zlin would not recover merely with rudder or elevator input alone.

Larger and heavier aircraft with different wing planforms and different size or position tail surfaces may not handle the same way.

Unable to comment on the video right now as I haven't had the time to watch it.

[cristi.neagu]

I quite realize this forum is not the church of MS2020. This is where it comes to be burnt in effigy. The video shown was done half the sims lifetime ago. Lets just ignore the fact it actually gets monthly updates.

I personally think you'll be hard pressed to find a more balanced opinion elsewhere than on this forum. This thread is a perfect example. Everyone has offered valid criticism towards FS2020. The video itself shows behaviour which, despite the monthly updates, can still be found in the sim. The absolutely ridiculous crosswind bug is still present, and not only that, it's almost as though the devs have no idea what we're all talking about. And yet, no one here is burning the sim at the stake. All I have seen on this forum is a lot of people very hopeful about FS2020 becoming the next viable sim, but who are very disappointed by the current state of affairs.

Either way, believe what you want. I cannot say more to convince you than the people in this thread have already said.

[Mustang]

It upsets me to see so much heavy criticism levelled at the product, when FSX was equally poor in many areas and far worse in others. The air in FSX never felt alive, even with ActiveSky. The AS turbulence was somewhat artificial and repetitive, resulting in the same effects being applied on the aircraft. It never felt natural. MSFS feels natural, even if the aircraft dynamics can be weird at times (as adequately demonstrated in the video). For me, simulation is about fooling my brain into thinking I am flying a plane in the sky (i.e. immersion). I care for systems simulations too, and overall accuracy, but losing the 'on rails' feeling of FSX has been one huge benefit of MSFS.

In a nutshell, I think (=my opinion) that Asobo have set out to model the aerodynamics using sound principles, replacing chunks of the FSX code as they go. But as ever, putting the 'right' equations into a simulation never yields correct results. There has to be a lot of 'tweakable' parameters to turn the maths into something that's more realistic. As great as many element of X-Plane's FM are, it too has had many weird aspects and is being refined over a long period of time. Again, just my opinion as a non-pilot, but as a person with a good overall knowledge and some education of the principles involved.

Much like the weather, which other users complain heavily about, I think Asobo correctly decided to take a fresh approach to building an atmospheric simulation over a wide area. It's taking the global model and projecting it down to local level, giving the wide ranging skies we see in the sim where you can fly through different weather systems in a matter of minutes. I have even seen half of a runway fairly clear and the other half covered in mist (well, ground-level clouds, but it was convincing enough when I went into it and couldn't see the far end of the runway). Generating weather the other way, from local METARs and scaling it up in the world, resulted in less interesting results and more 'canned' weather. I remember my old frustrations with FSX's and REX's weather engines, where the cloud layer and winds would always change at the halfway-point between two weather stations on a regularly flown route. Complete immersion killer when it was utterly predictable. So, while the current weather in MSFS is lacking in many areas (especially the ability to find out what the weather is in a given area, or get an accurate ATIS report), the overall starting point for the weather system is much better than other sims, and the end result in time should be worth it. I hope the same is true of the flight models too. Clearly the work takes a long time and is incremental in nature, so we can but wait.

Asobo have shown a lot of goodwill in adopting many of the community's wishes and bringing in new partners, including Working Title and FlyByWire, so I think they get an unfair amount of criticism. Yes, we as a community can help to keep them accountable so that they can focus on the most-needed improvements, but the internet is full of strongly worded statements (not so much opinions), a lot of which are outright false. But hey, I suppose that's what the internet was designed for!

In summary, they are engaged with the community like no other sim before. Yes, there's a lot of marketing hyperbole and an abundance of positivity from the developers which you have to take with a pinch of salt, but as a new platform - even one that can cater to new simmers - I think they have done more good than bad.

[jeepinforfun]

No wonder I don't understand all these negative Nancy posts about MSFS, it's because all I have done is plan a flight and fly it. The only time I have ever stalled a sim aircraft is when I first received the A2A's C172 and tried the stalls out because A2A was talking about how good they model it but other than that I just fly like a pilot with a friend aboard.

I like MSFS as I can fly very well using a world VFR map and the default aircraft have been flying by the numbers in takeoff, climb, cruise, decent and landing (yes the landings can be tough in a strong crosswind which I hope they will work on) and they look fantastic. Although I appreciate FSX for forcing me to learn more about the inner workings of a computer due to all the tweaking I had to do over time I sure do enjoy the jump in and fly aspects of MSFS with only minimal setup time. No OOM's which were a plague in FSX with high end scenery and aircraft. So for me I will stick with MSFS because I like it and after my FSX was killed by a ransomware creep which at the time was worth a lot of money with payware planes and scenery I decided to not go to P3D. I would have had to purchase all the A2A planes again and I would have still have OOM's and tweaking time so went on to other hobbies until MSFS came along and what a pleasure. I am sure it will improve over time just like FSX did.

Don't get me wrong as I love the A2A birds and can't wait to see them in MSFS, in fact after flying in FSX for a few years a was getting bored with default and lackluster payware and A2A was my savior (in a non-Religious way of course) and gave me many more years of flying fun.

I am glad that other folks test the the new sim and post their results to MS/ASOBO so they can work on them or to their favorite boards to show the testing they have done but if their purpose is to just inflame the naysayers with fancy video titles than that's a whole other story, in fact that turns the sim community which has always been very gentlemen like into a social media dumpster fire.

Thanks for listening to my ramble.

[cristi.neagu]

Meanwhile, all i'm wondering is where are all these naysayers everyone keeps talking about...

[wrkempson]

Most horses are neigh sayers.

[MarcE]

The sim is currently fully capable of a standard flight from a to b following the PPL textbook. The crosswind stuff, okay. A problem, hopefully to be fixed eventually, hopefully with expert input and taken professional advice.

But what Cristi said above pretty much covers my feeling: as soon as we leave the standard procedures and stable flight the devs don‘t understand anymore what we‘re talking about. I get that though, they are game developers, not flight engineers. The FSX whataboutism doesn‘t help though, this sim was made with an open mind towards addon devs and A2A for example have been perfectly able to create and connect accusim. In MSFS our information is that Asobo doesn‘t want others to use external flight models. My confusion comes from the word „want“. Keeping in mind that there were plenty translation errors in the past between Asobo and the (natively and foreignly) english speaking community nobody of us customers knows whether that means Asobo will tolerate it but just not encourage devs or whether they will actively prevent others to do it at some point. I cannot imagine though that developers like A2A or PMDG would commit to a simulator without points like these been communicated. They won‘t spend 1000s of hours of development without knowing that they can keep or even increase their level of professionality and the quality of their (flight) models.

However, I feel with this sim we‘re at a point of uncertainity, rumours and assumptions that it would really be extremely helpful if the devs would stand up and inform us about what we can expect. Currently all we have is a lot of indications, hints and teases but nothing that means we can expect „Accusim“ or proper RNP etc etc. A couple od weeks ago Dudley said that they could release the Comanche right now but held it back for quality, RSR shows tutorial videos of the DC6 and says that while things that were true before aren‘t necessarily true now, but beside that he stays very vague too. I miss someone to stand up and say „look, stand June 10th we can do this and this and can not do this and this. We currently plan a release of our first addon being able to do this but not that.

In a video by Milviz they said they weren‘t allowed to say anything negatively about Asobo so they just don‘t say anything. But that was in winter. However it certainly doesn‘t help to get rid of the confusion.

I personally am in a situation that I don‘t know whether I should hold back several 100€ for A2A, PMDG etc addons or whether I can tell my gf that we can extend our holiday in Spain. I could use new biking clothes too but if I decide to go shopping I won‘t purchase anything beyond that DC6 and maybe the Comanche anymore in 2021 depending on the price tag.

A clear communication 10 months into MSFS is absoletely needed as Asobo‘s development updates and road map doesn‘t help at all.

[cristi.neagu]

I personally am in a situation that I don‘t know whether I should hold back several 100€ for A2A, PMDG etc addons or whether I can tell my gf that we can extend our holiday in Spain. I could use new biking clothes too but if I decide to go shopping I won‘t purchase anything beyond that DC6 and maybe the Comanche anymore in 2021 depending on the price tag.

Extend your vacation Not because those addons won't be released any time soon, but because a vacation with a loved one is more important than sim time. And those addons will wait for you until you get the money, but sounds like this vacation won't be waiting.

Either way, I hear you. From the tiny titbits of information we do have, I am guessing A2A are wrestling with the sim right now, trying to get out the type of content they aim for. I think all aircraft and gauge developers are in the same boat, even PMDG. They meant for the 737 to be out first, but it sounds like they ran into delays with that. But yeah, I would really like an update from A2A kinda letting us know how development is going and a bit of a peek inside the development process. But it's understandable if it doesn't happen.

[iflyc77]

Great video indeed. MSFS is still arcade grade stuff as far as I am concerned. Have they fixed the spool time on piston engines yet?

[cristi.neagu]

Great video indeed. MSFS is still arcade grade stuff as far as I am concerned. Have they fixed the spool time on piston engines yet?

Not sure about "spool time on piston engines"... isn't spooling something jet engines do? But JustFlight developers have expressed some of the difficulties they're having with the engine modelling, mostly with the fuel flow simulation. I don't know if any of that has changed.

[DHenriques_]

Great video indeed. MSFS is still arcade grade stuff as far as I am concerned. Have they fixed the spool time on piston engines yet?

Not sure about "spool time on piston engines"... isn't spooling something jet engines do? But JustFlight developers have expressed some of the difficulties they're having with the engine modelling, mostly with the fuel flow simulation. I don't know if any of that has changed.

I fairly sure he means the visual concerning engine start as that relates to the timeline between when the starter is used and the propeller visual goes to full motion. There should be at least, depending on engine condition (hot/cold) several slow blade movements before the engine starts.
We spent a lot of time on this visual with our planes and in my opinion got it as close to real as possible.
In most add on and certainly in most default prop planes in the sims the prop visuals at start are WAY too quick and not realistic at all.
DH

[KarelPatch]

I’m going to jump in to say that for me after a few months of playing, MSFS has killed all pleasure I had with flight simulation. I was so incredibly happy when it came out that I deleted all my P3D related stuff and I know it would take me at least a dozen hours to reinstall and tweak P3D - I’m not brave enough for that at the moment. I also stopped my Game pass subscription because I don’t feel any joy to use MSFS.

For me, the most fun was to fly with real weather from Active Sky. I spent months doing an around the world trip with hundreds of short flights, mostly with A2A planes and with the Vertx DA62. I would check the real weather maps and reports and make decisions based on that. I would load VOXATC, file an IFR flight plan or just go VFR. Each flight was a challenge, especially with A2A aircrafts where atmospheric elements have a real impact on a multitude of factors. My altitude and all planning took into consideration icing, cloud layers, winds aloft… And of course sometimes I did flights that were very complicated and unforgiving, flights you wouldn’t do in real life. But that was so fun and gratifying!

I know this topic is about the flight model and not weather and atmospheric conditions. But for me the main situations where you are likely to fly out of the envelope is when you get mistreated by weather. When you suddenly encounter downdrafts or end up in IMC during what was supposed to be a VFR flight. Under pressure you can get in big trouble… in P3D. Hard to get in trouble in MSFS because the planes will just fly almost on rails. When you master the MSFS techniques, you can do pretty much anything with planes, it’s like mastering any other arcade game…

[DHenriques_]

I’m going to jump in to say that for me after a few months of playing, MSFS has killed all pleasure I had with flight simulation. I was so incredibly happy when it came out that I deleted all my P3D related stuff and I know it would take me at least a dozen hours to reinstall and tweak P3D - I’m not brave enough for that at the moment. I also stopped my Game pass subscription because I don’t feel any joy to use MSFS.

For me, the most fun was to fly with real weather from Active Sky. I spent months doing an around the world trip with hundreds of short flights, mostly with A2A planes and with the Vertx DA62. I would check the real weather maps and reports and make decisions based on that. I would load VOXATC, file an IFR flight plan or just go VFR. Each flight was a challenge, especially with A2A aircrafts where atmospheric elements have a real impact on a multitude of factors. My altitude and all planning took into consideration icing, cloud layers, winds aloft… And of course sometimes I did flights that were very complicated and unforgiving, flights you wouldn’t do in real life. But that was so fun and gratifying!

I know this topic is about the flight model and not weather and atmospheric conditions. But for me the main situations where you are likely to fly out of the envelope is when you get mistreated by weather. When you suddenly encounter downdrafts or end up in IMC during what was supposed to be a VFR flight. Under pressure you can get in big trouble… in P3D. Hard to get in trouble in MSFS because the planes will just fly almost on rails. When you master the MSFS techniques, you can do pretty much anything with planes, it’s like mastering any other arcade game…

Don't be too quick to give up on FS2020. They are making changes and additions and fixing bugs every day. There will be a period, actually in that now, where the 2020 experience might be less than expected but I can tell you from my own personal experience that the sim IS improving on an ongoing basis. It WILL get better. Give it some time. I know for a fact (as much as I can say) that Microsoft is listening and VERY interested in the future of MSFS2020.
Dudley Henriques