We have tested our Rafale extensively on both PS5 and Xbox and have not experienced low FPS, even when flying over large cities.
The aircraft is highly detailed and includes complex avionics, but performance has remained smooth during our console testing.
We would be happy to investigate this further. Please send us more information via email or through our contact page, including your console model, simulator settings, flight conditions, location, and any other relevant details.
This addon is now the Gold Standard for FBW fighter flight models.
6 years, and we finally have a FBW fighter that can be controlled with precision (relative to everything else released so far) and at all airspeeds. I shelved the M2K because it can’t be controlled with precision, as it has sudden and abrupt input responses from stick center.
No apparent abrupt transitions in the flight model. Flight model remains smooth throughout the entire envelope. [I did not test stall characteristics]
The flight model remains smooth and controllable throughout approach all the way to touchdown.
I have no idea how the real aircraft handles, because I’m not a real pilot. However, the flight model for this addon feels as smooth as a conventionally controlled addon.
Since this is a FBW Fighter, I only cared about the flight model and its controllability on my first flight - as I expected continued disappointment. Until now, I didn’t enjoy flying any FBW fighters in MSFS. This addon changes everything for me, and it gives me hope that future MSFS FBW fighter addons released by other developers will also be capable of being flown with precision confidence.
August 4, 2026 … The beginning of a new era in the MSFS 2024 military fighter niche market. A day to rejoice.
Now that’s some interesting feedback ! Thanks a lot !
Did I understand it correctly that despite having a FBW, this aircraft does not suffer from the deadzone on the pitch axis ? Meaning that even with FBW on, it would be possible to perform an aerial refuelling with Airshow Assistant in Ace mode ?
Reference:
Virpil 50CM3 Base
Virpil VMAX Prime Throttle
Thrustmaster TPR
Aerial Refueling:
I think it would still be very difficult on the realistic setting.
Although it is closer to smoother and controllable from stick center, it still responds like a FBW: it still tries to maintain your attitude, and is thus still a challenge to maitain precise level flight relative to a flight lead or a drogue. It would be nice if FBW could attempt to hold level flight when only slight vertical deflections are commanded from level.
Holding a solid position in formation is achievable, but refueling might still be just outside attainable on realistic.
I disabled Airshow Assistant, as it has too many conflicts with my other addons. I don’t know. Adjusting your curves might make it as contollable to contact as the IFE/Heatblur F-14 or other non-FBW addons. I haven’t tried adjusting my controller curves on this flight model to see how it is affected.
So, the dramatic FBW deadzone issue that afflicts all FBW fighters in MSFS 2024/2020 is vastly mitigated with this addon.
However, it still maintains the familiar slight climb from level flight all FBW fighters exhibit. It is just a lot easier to compensate for it since deflection from center is much smoother, linear, and more predictable.
Then again, you might be a much better sim pilot than me and be able to nail the drogue on realistic every time now.
Ah ok, I see. So the problem is still existing, but just less “critical” than with other planes.
Ah well, I will give it a try once I buy it (in the not too distant future hopsfully). I just hope the FBW toggle addon works with the Rafale as well.
I’m not a good pilot but with FBW off I can perform the refuel in Ace mode in Airshow Assistant with most of my military jets. With FBW enabled, it’s impossible with absolutely all of them, excepted the older “analogue” jets.
Thanks for the reply. Just to clarify, I haven’t purchased (yet) the aircraft myself. My comment was based on multiple PS5 gameplay videos from CowTown, where the frame rate over large cities appeared to be very poor. I wanted to warn other PS5 users until this can be confirmed or addressed.
I don’t think there is anything really ‘wrong’; it is just a high-poly, high-complexity product, and comparing it to the A-10 isn’t fair in that regard. When I explored the aircraft, I noticed some LOD choices I would not have made. They will make the aircraft look better from a modest distance but really hurt performance when memory is scarce (as it is and always will be on consoles). I think they could tweak those areas, and it will make things smoother.
On the other hand… You are not supposed to fly this aircraft over big cities (apart from one day a year over Paris ). Pilots avoid built-up areas as much as they can. So when used realistically, the issue is not as problematic as it seems. They are seriously loud; I know, as they use the valley I live in as a training route. Only the F-35s that we see here make more noise.
The add-on has low performance above photogrammetry areas and I don’t think “you shouldn’t use it there anyway” is a good excuse for it. It’s a simulator, simmers have the freedom to use their add-ons wherever and in whatever capacity they desire. Saying it’s not realistic to fly above cities is not an acceptable explanation for low performance.
Firstly, there are photogrammetry areas in the simulator that are not cities, like the national parks in the USA. Should players research where PG areas are because an add-on produces low framerates over them?
Secondly, what ultimately counts as realistic? Fighters can fly above cities in case of demonstrations, celebration flights, big sporting events, etc. It does happen. Would you then remove Xbox controller support because it’s not realistic to fly with a gamepad in hand? Is it realistic to click around with a mouse? The problem with this reasoning is that it can very easily be taken too far.
In my opinion, an add-on should provide adequate performance regardless of the scenery below, that’s why beta testers usually use big airports and airliners to stress test the simulator as well. Currently the Rafale C doesn’t fulfill this requirement, for what reason we don’t know. But the developers should definitely address it and I hope they will.
Note that I never said that. I only said that if you use the aircraft as the real operators do, it is not such a big issue as it seems.
The fact remains that this particular aircraft, combined with those particular conditions, is simply too much for that hardware. While slight tweaks might be done (but likely none without modest visual downgrading), it is not a ‘memory leak’ as the video suggests. An aircraft has no way of knowing it is above a city, so there is no ‘trigger’ that could start a memory leak. It is simply too many polygons to draw for the hardware. I see exactly the same on my pretty slow laptop, while I do not see it on my test machines that have at least 16Gb of video memory.
That’s honestly a disappointing and in my opinion, irresponsible response. Saying “you’re not supposed to fly over big cities” isn’t a valid answer to a performance problem. This is Microsoft Flight Simulator people buy aircraft to fly them wherever they want, whether that’s Paris, New York, London, or anywhere else. Customers shouldn’t have to avoid parts of the world just to get acceptable performance.
What’s even more telling is that you’re from another third-party developer, not the Rafale developer, and you still pointed out LOD choices that you wouldn’t have made and that could improve performance on consoles. That alone suggests there is room for optimization. Instead of justifying the issue by saying people shouldn’t fly over cities, I hope those optimizations are seriously considered for PS5 players.
I had the fps drop flying with tf ap over the mountains in France. Went into a slideshow for a minute or two. But it did recover and runs very good 99% of the time considering how complex it is and how good the texturing is.
). Pilots avoid built-up areas as much as they can. So when used realistically, the issue is not as problematic as it seems. They are seriously loud; I know, as they use the valley I live in as a training route. Only the F-35s that we see here make more noise.