What’s the difference between modern and legacy?
All default MSFS aircraft have been designed with the MODERN flight model.
The legacy flight model is only available to make old FSX aircraft somewhat compatible with MSFS.
The legacy flight models simply don’t work with MSFS aircraft.
1 Like
Is this like a mod or something where you can switch it over to legacy?
I create my own preset to make blizzard conditions. I use the Rain as a base (since it’s the only preset that has percipitation at 20). Then I raise the snow level on the ground to max and reduce the temperature to -40 degrees C. I tried to raise it down to -90 myself before, but my A320 engine won’t even start. Lol. So I open up the A320 operating document and I see that the aircraft is certified to operate no lower than -40, so I set that in the weather preset. By reducing the temperature to negative values, you’re changing the same precipitation from water raindrops, to snow. I also remove the wind layer because I really hate flying with winds. Too much drama. The low visibility and the snowing blizzard is drama enough for me.
I also set all my cloud layers to 100 coverage so I can cover the entire world in eternal winter. And I set my lightning to 100 as well. And that’s how I set my blizzard conditions. Then I save it as a custom preset.
It’s an in-game setting under Flight model. It’s just a switch that you can set between “Modern” or “Legacy”. And as @PZL104 said, if you’re flying with the default MSFS aircraft you have to set this to Modern as Legacy will give you a lot of problems flying it, like swaying autopilot not being able to keep straight to the flight path, etc etc.
You could use Legacy if you are installing an aircraft mod that’s ported from the FSX aircraft. But ideally, any new aircraft add-ons from third party developers should be using modern flight model in mind.
What about for the A320nx mod?
A32NX Mod is improving the base aircraft included, not a separate aircraft. So it’s using Modern flight model.
Nope. A.floor doesn’t work below 100ft, so it couldn’t activate and shouldn’t because AoA was too low.
Flare mode also didn’t kick in because the didn’t descend below 30ft.
The problem was that one of the already known engine problems appeared.
The engines did take way too long to spool up from the (unplanned) idle condition.
The FDR recordings had been altered so that it looked like the engines spooled up within the required time frame.
Based on looking at the video repeatedly, I’ve found these pilot errors, Note that this is all my opinion and not anything about real world procedures :-
-
Your approach angle is too low. Most glideslopes require a 3 degree pitch up with a stable vertical speed. You didn’t maintain a steady glide path
-
Your weights look too heavy. Make sure you adhere to MLW limits
-
Your MCDU doesn’t have APPR phase. It always needs to be enabled before landing.
-
Your FMA is still in CLB/NAV mode. Ensure you’re in LAND (green) and FLARE (green)
-
Your approach looked too unstable. Though the aircraft in MSFS tends to roll during flare, it is still manageable in my opinion.
-
You did not flare enough to get your Vertical Speed close to landing rates
-
You landed in a tailwind that is a “STRICT NO”
In my opinion, I would say that’s more of a pilot error than the sim’s systems being wrong (they still aren’t good as IRL), but since from Day 1, I’ve never had any issues with landing.
I used the default A320 NEO till FBW came up with the A32NX. I’d suggest you to get that mod since it has better implementation of systems.
1 Like
Why would this be a no?
1 Like
Because the tailwind pushes your aircraft and makes it really unstable IMO. It first increases your ground speed. It creates excessive lift (which you don’t want when landing), hence creating a long float. Since your groundspeed is high, you need lots and lots of braking.
No, it doesn’t. For an aircraft tailwind or headwind doesn’t exist from an aerodynamic or performance POV.
Only when ground is added to this equation it becomes a factor.
The usual tailwind limits for most airliners is between 10 and 15kts.
Concerning the OPs landing:
Except for point 5, none of the mentioned points is a factor.
The only ‘classic’ error was to let the pitch attiude decrease at very low height. That’s a big no-no.
When he finally got the nose back up to the approach attitude (which is still way too low for the flare) the sink rate has increased already.
The final pull on the sidestick did rotate the A320 nose up, but at the same time it lowered the maingear at the same rate, which is the main reason for the ‘arrival’.
Well, I still think tailwinds are no. I’d rather land on a crosswind blowing from the frontal 180 degrees than a tailwind. My post was fully in my opinion (lemme quickly add it)
I assume you mean a 90° crosswind 
1 Like
So many things wrong here, tailwind does definitely not create exessive lift thats not an opinion, its just wrong. Sure the groundspeed increases and so will the touchdown speed so more deceleration is required. But to say tailwind is a strict no? Most aircraft have a limit of 10 / 15 kts tailwind, its not uncommon to land with a little tailwind.
All the automation issues you are pointing out (APPR phase, CLB/NAV, LAND, FLARE modes etc.) have no effect on aircraft handling. Note that the autopilot FLARE mode has nothing to do with the flare control law during landing. He might be too heavy, the CG might have been out of limits, fly a little more stable, those are all valid points.
The OP does report he needed full up sidestick to arrest descent, his speed looks decent (assuming within max. landing weight) he definitely isn’t anywhere close to maximum AOA, it also looks like he starts arresting the descent (which was a little shallow to begin with) in time. I would think CG out of limits or a bug causing a mistrim.
1 Like
I just noticed the problem! If you look closely at your video, you can just see the trimwheel appearing into view at the bottom of the screen moments before touchdown, and it is trimming nose-down in a hurry. Seems like a bug to me.
Note that the real airrcraft does trim down slightly in the flare control law so even in the real aircraft some up side-stick is required during flare but this seems a “little” excessive.
Looks like very arcady and unrealistic simulation of what would really happen in the real world, the ground effect virtually not simulated here, which would become a greated factor with this kind of VS.
On pilots side however as many others have mentioned aircraft does not look stabilized for landing, I can’t help but notice no rudder input whatsoever prior to touch down and ailerons corrections instead. although the MFS A320 known for unrealistic banking during the flare. Overall - expect to get a call from maintanace after this one 
1 Like
Ground effect is not very profound on a swept wing, I think there is way too much ground effect simulation in FS2020 on the airliners at least. Not being stable, rudder and aileron corrections, all might be but the issue here is the autotrim trimming nose down in a hurry, can’t really blame someone for not flying a stable approach that way.
Regarding rudder and aileron input before touchdown, depends on the crosswind technique used, it’s not a Cessna, it’s ok to land in a crab and kick the rudder at the moment touchdown occurs. Also doesn’t look like there is much (if any) crosswind in the video, rudder use on a jet isn’t the same as on a piston aircraft. Rudder is not normally used in flight except in cases of engine failure, control malfunctions and crosswind landings.
2 Likes
I don’t know which part is in your opinion ‘very arcady’ (whatever this means) and unrealistic.
Why should there be any rudder input necessary?
Why would you need maintance after this landing? I’ve seen worse landings IRL.
1 Like
On the real A320 the flare mode commands a nose down pitch to reach -2° within 8sec.
This means that if you approach rather fast with an e.g. 0° pitch attitude, the nose down moment is virtually non-existent.
If you are being caught low and slow with an e.g. 4° pitch attitude, the nose down moment is very noticeable and requires a considerable aft stick input.
The ‘average’ we have in the MSFS A320 is too strong and coupled with the dramatic increase in pitch attitude below ~40ft this makes the flare and touchdown quite challenging.
AFAIK Asobo is changing this behavoir in one of the upcoming patches.
1 Like
here is why, the aircraft wants to land this way, watch the rudder control in the video, the kick was initiated ok but in the wrong direction, judging from the bank angle I’d assume right main gear would touch down first, combined with violtent rudder kick to the right it would overload the right main and cause even more yaw to the right, now imidiatelly after there is a corrective action to the left which in real world would actially put more stress on the said gear. On the maintanance side - Airbus is equipped with HLERS (High Load Event Reporting System) which will autamatically issue a report to maintenance in case of gear overload and this landing seems like a perfect candidate.
Worth mentioning though its not a critique on pilots behalf here as I dont know how much of this was simply buggy simulation and how much of it was pilot induced.