Indeed. Which i still don’t know if it is a good thing or a bad thing.
I think that the best situation possible is to “outsource” as much work to the community as possible, and for Asobo to work almost exclusively on those issues only they can work on: core simulator components. The community is more than capable of tweaking cfg files. There are a lot of real world pilots available, as well as people with backgrounds in aerodynamics and physics. And the results of this work is evident in the many improvement mods for default airplanes. So to me, all that Asobo is doing by tweaking the cfg files of default airplanes is duplicating community work.
Unlike other sims, Asobo has drawn some clear lines in the sand(box), making it clear what developers can and can’t do. If they want to block developer access to components such as the weather, or AI, or the flight model, then I would expect them to expend most development effort in those directions in particular.
How do you come to the conclusion they’re only tweaking cfg files? It looks to me that Asobo are working hard on the core flight model, to make sure that it will be usable for all third party developers as well. Sure, it’ll take some time, but in the long term I feel it’s the much better option.
Sure, but how do you know they’re not working on other changes in the background?
I can’t tell 100% for sure either (as I expect neither can you), but I see a lot of assumptions going on.
I’m not surprised at all because even my different CFI, from 3 different schools I’ve been to, had for some of them very different approaches or very different “feelings” in aviation, not always based on numbers by the way but not in opposition of course but utterly different approaches even about the ground checks in some details. For instance at Lognes (LFPL), I remember two of them saying fermely: “put the RPM at 1500 during 15 sec before shutting the engine down, Goddxxxit !!!” (Hey cool bud coz I wasn’t taugh to do so at my first school!) this action was made for the PA28, Grob, TB9,TB10 (not the TB20 I flew, why? I have no idea! lol) … and on the other side one would say: “no need for that at all, why’s that?!” … All of them are pilots and we won’t say the same thing on a forum, no doubt about it, as I can also read here and there!
Just for the anecdot…
What do I mean by all that, is:
Imo Flying is not a “rigid science” but an art eventually!
…
3 min later
PS: Finally to get back to the topic here (not too late): sure I can’t wait that MFS2020/Asobo provides better realistic features especially in severe live weather conditions, like the feature (For instance: convective winds “Upside/Down” like Diana Ross already knew that it will be missing in MFS2020!) a dynamic-physics-realistic-feature that could break or put the MFS2020 C172 in a lethal stall if I do fly her in TS! or even in CB! which will lead everybody at the same place such as: “Create your FP relying on the weather conditions of the day for the sake of Safety!!!” (and so: Realism in order to simulate the danger of Mother Nature!) … and in general of course I can’t wait for better flight dynamic/physics stall/spin/adverse yaw etc as already mentioned here that should have been implemented since the release date, or at least since the first sim-updates because as I believe we do talk about a sim here, isn’t it? not about some “arcade-mode style” … I think the devs do work hard on it, so the better will come i’d like to guess!
I really don’t understand what that video is supposed to show. You say “same weight/wind/aircraft”, but you give no further details. I can easily think that XPlane is completely unrealistic in that video.
It’s to demonstrate the required inputs to fly the approach and land the aircraft with a x-wind from the right in XP11 vs MSFS and how this translates to the feel of the flight model. In XP11 the aircraft is displaced around multiple axises and requires constant corrections. MSFS it is almost completely static.
Yes, so? Like i said before, it may simply mean that XPlane is fundamentally broken, completely unrealistic, and is moving around way too much, and FS2020 is the golden standard and perfect in every way. You are making the assumption that XPlane is the yardstick and you’re expecting everyone to agree by default. If you want to show realism, comparing a simulator to a simulator makes no sense. You have to compare it with real life. And i understand that you may not have a 172 at your disposal to just jump into and get comparison data. That’s ok. But this is the reason why there are so many arguments on this forum, especially when comparing FS2020 with other sims: everyone is using subjective values as if they’re objective. This is why i’d rather let the real pilots and third party developers to determine what is and isn’t realistic.
Still, don’t get me wrong, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do the comparisons. Just don’t assume one is right and the other is wrong.
Please look at the aircrafts movements/inputs in this video then look at my video again, MSFS looks least similar.
I’m not making an assumption XP11 is the yardstick, I’m making an assessment of MSFS in comparison to XP11 based on my experience as a current airline and private pilot
If we’re assuming all 3 videos are shot in the same conditions, i would say the truth is in the middle. XPlane moves around waaay too much, while FS2020 not enough.
This may be related to something that Ninjite(?) previously documented on this forum. He’s a commercial pilot so I tend to give his observations a good bit of credence. He discovered that MSFS effectively halves the X-wind from higher altitudes to closer to the surface. Effectively, if you think you are dialing in a 20 kt X-wind you are actually only getting 10 closer to the surface. If you really want a 20 kt x-wind, you need to actually dial in 40 kts. I’m probably getting some of the details wrong, but this seemed to be the gist of it. I know IRL winds do drop off close to the surface, but not generally that drastically and not more than a couple wing lengths.
Seems like all winds get halved pretty much linearly between 1,000 ft AGL & surface.
Here’s the testing I did on the subject pulling local wind & altitude from the sim using SimConnect while doing a fixed-rate descent from 2,000 ft over the ocean down to the surface.
(little to none mechanical turbulence / friction-layer):
like Diana Ross already knew that it will be missing in MFS2020!) a dynamic-physics-realistic-feature that could break or put the MFS2020 C172 in a lethal stall if I do fly her in TS! or even in CB! which will lead everybody at the same place such as: “Create your FP relying on the weather conditions of the day for the sake of Safety!!!” (and so: Realism in order to simulate the danger of Mother Nature!) … and in general of course I can’t wait for better flight dynamic/physics stall/spin/adverse yaw etc as already mentioned here that should have been implemented since the release date, or at least since the first sim-updates because as I believe we do talk about a sim here, isn’t it? not about some “arcade-mode style” … I think the devs do work hard on it, so the better will come i’d like to guess!
