Something is wrong with the force of gravity and its effects on mass. Dunno how to tell a software what a metric ton is and how it should behave under certain g-loads but in FS 2020 the planes seem too light, hence the veer off of light aircraft in slightly windy conditions and extremely low approach speeds of airliners. Even at stall speed the 787 doesn’t want to land and has to be way too slow for a 2.5° nose up 700 fpm descent with full flaps. Either the weight of the remaining fuel and/or the weight of PAX and baggage are miscalculated or they just have to redifine 1G. Until then i will attempt overweight landings to check by what amount the weight is off in a 787.
After testing:
Okay landing behavior at 450.000 pounds landing weight, which is already 5.000 pounds above max landing weight. I got 2.5° nose up at 700 fpm sink rate on final with only flaps 20. With flaps 30 the result would’ve been even more extreme. Either the 787 was rushed or the entire weight system in FS 2020 is way off. Or could it be something as simple as a kilogram/pound conversion error?
You’ve seen this topic presumably? Why don’t you two merge forces?
https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/asobo-why-are-some-of-the-aerodynamics-completely-wrong/324439
If you compare it with DCS (even if they are military planes) the behavior and physics of the plane is another world, you really feel the effect of your actions with the yoke in a realistic way.
And the first sim i played where you can fall into a unrecoverable spin. 
No way to access the link? Was it removed?
I’ve done some tests in the 172 vs a real life 172s, and at least at slow speeds (taking into account the real life yoke travel vs limited travel of sim yoke hardware) the 172 in the sim is very realistic (it does exactly what the real one does)
A lot of it is down to hardware, and expectations set by other sims (which model behaviour differently but not mor realistically)
Of course this is a 172 not a 747 which I can’t test against IRL, but at least it shows that the sim is capable of simulating the real thing, if the right amount of dedication is applied to it
You’d be surprised at how much light planes actually are at the mercy of the winds…
I’ve done a bit of brushing up of precision landing skills the past few weeks IRL on both an archer II and a 172s (sort of like the spot landing competitions to reach a precise landing spot)
Both were extremely dependent on wind conditions (as expected), every kt difference made for quite different approaches/power off points, and both were very much impacted by wind direction on flare/float (no other word to describe it on both aircraft, if you want them to they will float very far over the runway).
Aside from obvious distance considerations, the slightest change of wind makes real life light-ish aircraft weather-vane like weathercocks at slow speeds in ground effect… and they change yaw constantly! If anything I find this undermodeled in the sim rather than “too light”!
Also the light GA trainers WILL fly down the runway without power a very long way IRL rather than just set down (again, not “too light”).
On the Asobo 172 I can recreate the same floating and landing distances as IRL very easily, so I find it rather realistic (hardware travel differences set aside).
Surprisingly, the 172 acts the same as IRL on flap deployment too (i.e progressively deploying flaps in ground effect adds A LOT of floating distance, just like they should). You can easily add a couple hundred feet float distance by deploying flaps at the right moment just like IRL. (Btw Pipers are a lot easier to do this since they are low-wing aircraft, you can even get a balloon using just flaps close to stall speed in ground effect if not careful)
Yes, I am a fan of the default 172, it is very good
try piper arrow by just flight - reduce thrust to neutral - and it starts literally fall down, speed dropping rapidly, nothing like stock cessna 172 (which glides gracefully)