I would like to see a huge improvement in the physical “ground feeling” of aircraft by requesting a massive improvement in the ground interaction physics parameters.
Currently it feels like there is NO ground interaction - the aircraft simply ‘slides’ forward while taxing. It does not feel like a bumpy / lurchy ride when taxing a cessna - as it should - yes I have lots if IRL experience.
It should be very lurchy / bumpy even on relatively smooth taxiways. That is because in IRL the aircraft literally bounces forward and backwards and sideways because of the masses and movements present. Ie when tapping the brakes the cessna bounces forward ( IRL its actually a very LIGHT object - thats why you can easily push one along - as a fit and able individual.
Also, there are significant masses present in the wings (as fuel load) and at the nose ( engine) and over the main gear ( passengers) there really should be mass points to that actually show variation when you adjust them ( ie a light fuel load means turns in the cessnsa shouln’t be as lurchy.
Additionally: airliners should of course be included and I bet as it currently stands there is no chance of an airliner tail strike - where there absolutely should be + and there should be the associated drag while tail striking. Thing is - the simulator should allow us to test out the extremes of the physics of flying - no matter how this is occomplished - it dose not matter if its all magic coding tricks - as long is its convincing and repeatable then its good enough.
X-plane 10 / 11 already does this all pretty convincingly. - just go play the demo to see.
I think MSFS is a very long way from replacing x-plane for a realistic flight sim. It looks beautiful but lacks the real feel of flying IMO. I’m not sure Asobo is interested in that level of realism for their customer base. With groundbreaking planes like the HotStart CL650 and X-Plane 12 coming soon, the division will probably only get larger. But I intend to still fly both and hope FS keeps improving.
This is hilarious because now we know you’re lying. There’s one thing that makes an airplane turn effectively and that’s horizontal lift component. If you truly kept the wings level and used only rudder you would be generating almost no centripetal force and your radius of turn would be so large that you would not be able to fly a traffic pattern in any realistic manner. Not to mention that bank is a secondary effect of yaw so upon using enough rudder to turn the airplane you would naturally induce a bank. If you applied opposite aileron to attempt wings level not only would you not be turning in any meaningful way, you would be putting you and your wife on the brink of a stall spin accident.
Oh no, this definitely works! You can totally keep wings perfectly level and perform a turn with rudder only. I wouldn’t fly a circuit pattern that way, but this can absolutely be done. Its not comfortable though, not good for the engine and not particularly safe if done at low speed. But it can be done.
This sim is much deeper technically than many realize. Complaints about general aerodynamics miss the reality that developers are still learning to utilize everything available in the flight model. But as the latest dev videos are showing, Asobo continues to add detail and capability.
There is a problem with the inertia configurations in the default aircraft. They are set to be more twitchy than they should be. Maybe the numbers are correct, but the effect is not. This is easy to correct with a little tweak of the config files.
Another issue with some planes seems to be the balance of CG and aerodynamics that cause them to be easily upset. Other planes are more dialed in. You really have to seek out the gems to get the best experience. If your favorite plane doesn’t fly as well as you like, open the debugging tools and start making adjustments. You may find that you can make some improvements.
As I said in my post, possible, but the turn won’t happen at an acceptable rate for a traffic pattern without loss of altitude and/or inducing a stall. I demonstrate this to students IRL to show them that if they’re overshooting base to final turn, excess rudder usage will not help turn the airplane. Take out the C172 in the sim and try it. The aerodynamics in the sim aren’t perfect, but in my experience they demonstrate this principle well. Apply full right rudder and left aileron to keep wings level. The airplane will turn right at maybe 1 degree per second. It’s essentially impossible to fly a traffic pattern sans bank, at least in my experiences in a Citabria and C172.
Depends on the aircraft maybe, I used to instruct on the Socata’s (9, 10 and 20). As you say, its very bad (dangerous) operating technique but possible to get an acceptable turn rate that way.
Interesting. It would be fun to understand exactly how those aerodynamics may change based on aircraft design but that’s a bit beyond me lol. In the 172 when truly keeping wings level, the aircraft will basically keep flying straight.
That can’t be, the slip indicator is deflected to one side in such case. That indicates that there is a rate of turn. A slight one maybe, but there must be a rate of turn.
Well that’s not necessarily true. The slip/skid indicator purely indicates coordination. It can be deflected fully in a forward slip yet there is no rate of turn. Like I mentioned previously, in the 172 full right rudder and left aileron for level wings will result in about a 1 degree per second turn. So yes a slight one in that case but the aircraft almost remains straight. You can test this in the sim, as it seems to represent my experience with doing the same IRL fairly well.
In the context of wings level, if the slip indicator is indicating a slip, there is a rate of turn (heading change). Other than some drag created by the side of fuselage nothing is opposing the force created by the vertical stabilizer with deflected rudder.
Well sure. This is what I had said previously. I’m sure it depends on aircraft but in the 172 the rate of turn is so small that the aircraft almost remains straight. I understand now that you were referring to just this scenario with the slip/skid. I have some suspicion the resulting rate of turn is related to the amount of rudder authority the airplane has. I’ve tried this scenario with the Savage Cub in the sim. It has a much larger rudder and is a lighter airplane, and it will turn faster (closer to standard rate).
I guess you are right, also the size and shape of the fuselage. We are actually talking about a skid, not a slip. I believe the forces themselves are balanced, the force created by the vertical stabilizer (pointing out of the turn) is compensated for by the drag caused by the side of the fuselage being projected to the airflow by the skid (pointing into the turn).
The moments are out of balance however, the arm from the CG to the vertical stabilizer is longer than the arm between the CH and the point where the drag is assumed to act, same force over a longer moment a means bigger moment so the aircraft changes heading. In other words CG position could also have an effect. Then there is the moment caused by aileron deflection also for keeping the wings level. Its quite complex .
Didn’t see this topic, but this is exactly how i feel. Ground physics feel incredibly light and twitchy compared to other sims. Its mainly the default planes, mod/payware is often better.
I’m not a RW pilot, but I have decades of experience in FSX/P3D. There is something very off about the flight model that adjusting controller sensitivities has little impact on. Here is a quote from a RW pilot and developer that I will share here.
“Over a year ago a group of highly experienced FDE developers with around 50-60 five star reviews and awards between them got to together and sent a very polite submission to Asobo requesting some collaboration on flight modelling, or at least to listen to what they had to say, and they were completely ignored”
Please let’s not get hung up on whether or not Asobo has completely ignored this–it may not be true at all, but the real issue is and I agree, the modeling has seriously bad flaws with it in many ways, especially in lighter weight aircraft. There is giant historical precedent in FSX/P3D and I have hoped Asobo has simply not prioritized getting in and fixing this. Out of frustration I’m posting this as a Wish List item in the hope this does get prioritized. After all, this is a flight simulator and that is arguably one of the most basic elements, and we’re now 1.7y out from initial release.
I think smaller GA aircraft have improved since I wrote this bug report. For anything bigger it is still way off, can’t cause accelerated stall, still able to loop a fully loaded B747 or A320.
.
