[Dev Q&A] Thank you for answering the airliners question. Some notes

Thank you :+1:t2: to both Jorg and particularly to Sebastian for giving a thorough response to my question about correcting aerodynamic behaviour of the airliners and the planes in general, and also to @Jummivana for blending the question that nicely along the SDK discussion.

Some follow-up notes:

  • Totally appreciate that you do not want to implement study-level airliners - we want them from, well you know the 3rd parties we love :slight_smile: The way I read the community, people want flyable planes with working autopilots and a reasonable in-flight waypoint management.
  • A320 has indeed improved, but only elevator authority, not control sensitivity during flare. And there is also the roll problem during flare. That needs detailed debugging.
  • the fix for 787 elevator authority has not been rolled out as of v1.9.5 - the problem persists, and when AoA is still in the greens. Hoping the best for update 5. And if we’re flying that close to stall speed, we should have stick shaker first (or SPEED SPEED warning on the A320).
  • FBW on the real A320 is not disabled at 50ft as Sebastian mentioned - the aircraft memorizes pitch attitude at 50 ft RA. This attitude becomes the reference point for pitch control. The sidestick changes from load factor demand, to delta-pitch demand. This means that the sidestick commands a certain number of degrees nose up or nose down relative to the reference pitch. You don’t have to implement a real Airbus here :rofl: but that might give you an idea how to get to a better result with your code.
  • I am at your disposal if you need more input or beta testing.

Thank you so much for your efforts. This masterpiece of a sim will get better and better. I am here for the long run so I don’t care how soon, as long as we get there. You are doing something noone else has done before in simulators (including the transparency and listening to the community), so hats off to you.

MP

4 Likes

All - I want study level airliners in this sim, why?

  1. I am older, never going to get to really ever fly one in real life. I want them as real as it gets so I can experience the real thing, well as stated above.
  2. I for one don’t want to add more to the sim as in “add on aircraft” except for some military ones I will want down the road, because I did buy the Deluxe Premium version, and they should be as close to real world as possible. Yeah I want the 100K sports car for the 120.00 USD I paid. Or I want the planes to work as closely to real world as possible because how do I learn to be better if they are not RW.
  3. I appreciate the efforts of Asobo/MS and all, getting this better than it is. But continued improvement is something the installed base (as in purchased users of sim) would like to see. I get that 3rd party developers should be rewarded with their content, but should not have to buy it to get real world planes. Ok, maybe the QW 787-10 but at 80 bucks, that decision is going to take a long time coming, because that is a lot of money to spend for just one plane to me, remember retired, this is not my life’s work.
    Realize this is work in progress. As PC professional (built hundreds of PC’s, varied hardware, etc.) until retirement, that breeds in a certain amount of impatience, which I am trying to temper.

I understand your view, however, you have to agree that flight simulators “live” out of the addons.
For example, FSX survived for 14 years, just because you will find scenery for nearly almost every major or minor airport somewhere, because people love the sim, and love making it better. Same with planes. The 3rd party devs go the extra mile.
If MS kill all 3rd party devs and develop everything themselves, the ecosystem will starve to death, and then the simulator will eventually die because noone will have the liberty or the room to improve it.

2 Likes

Having default models at a higher standard and closer to or reaching so called study level isn’t going to put third parties out of business.

2 Likes

True… but having Asobo focus on this when there is clearly other things they need to focus on might make for better resources. I agree, any plane in the default packages should be flyable and shouldn’t have some of the basic issues that the planes have had, but I don’t think anyone is expecting study level planes from Asobo.

4 Likes

They seem to agree with that and they said they are improving the planes all the time (we really need to see that)
But also clearly said that they won’t make every button functional :slight_smile:

2 Likes

MP4008 you are correct. My favorite plane in FSX is the Virtavia C-17GIII, and it’s definitely 3rd party. It flies better in FSX than any of the planes currently in MSFS. And there is a difference with wing over fuselage versus wing under fuselage. All WOF 's have much better lift capability, plus more aircraft level flight. Under wing AP, seem to plow through the air with a nose up angle to them. That may not be true in real life, in the sim, 787 never is level based on how I see it-outside view. And as stated above, if the FBW system is programed into 787, then some of the “so called bugs” are not bugs at all but actually the way the plane is supposed to fly, and it’s “the way we are flying it” which may be not correct. And for me not sure I will be able to adapt my knowledge/flight ability to FBW. As example, the trim should adequality reflect nose pitch, but FBW might be hindering that and causing me to “bug that issue” even though it may not be bug, but designed flight parameters. Since, (Asobo-this is a fault) no manuals, or tutorials on any of the planes other than C152 basic flight training, not possible to learn how the designed systems are really supposed to work. Many of us are NOT real pilots, nor trained in Big Airliners and their complex systems. No way to learn, using possible OLD concepts for previous planes/simulators, which is wrong way to fly them. And for me, sure as heck not going to take aftermarket online course which could cost hundreds if not thousands of dollars to really learn how to fly the correct way. So, although the sim is just flat out great scenery wise, and for most of the GA and semi-business Turboprops, but based on what I have been able to accomplish, not so for the 787/747 planes. I have no experience with A320, since “if it aint Boeing I aint going” mindset. It may be wonderful plane, but why should I get even more frustrated than am already by trying new plane and surely not know how it should fly, nor the controls are way different as well. Too long winded, but believe speak for many.

Yeah, I just got through watching the stream and the talk towards the end about where they see the game in a year has some reassurance that certain areas will receive some love. I just believe that it serves everyones best interest (including third parties) for the core product to be as good as it can be and get concerned with the perception that third parties can provide for and fix everything.

1 Like

I have not flown the A320 Neo much in the sim, but nearly all my flying for the past month has been practice/learning in the 787-10. In addition to the low-speed handling bug that affects the ability (or inability) of the aircraft to flare before touchdown, there is a serious issue relating to auto-throttles during final, at or just before touchdown, and sometimes even during rollout.

That is, sometimes the aircraft autothrottles simply do not throttle down when commanded, even when you go in-cockpit and toggle them to OFF and even if you also hit the master Autopilot Disconnect. The engines just don’t spool down and they refuse to respond to physical throttle controls. This impaced me twice tonight on attempted landings. In both cases, I touched down at around 145 knots and just kept going at that speed, despite deploying spoilers, having Autobrakes set and trying to apply manual brakes, etc.

A probably-related problem occurred on a third attempted landing tonight: I hit the Autothrottle toggles at approximately 1,000’ AGL on final to control touchdown speed manually and my engines immediately spooled down to Idle and refused to recognize input from my physical throttle control. I even tried toggling Autothrottles back to On and re-enabling A/T on the AP dashboard, but the engines refused to spool back up.

These problems are incredibly random but they happen enough, to enough people, that there are multiple reports scattered through the forums concerning similar issues from many people over the last couple months. The random nature makes bugs like extremely frustrating - just last night I made a 2 hour flight in the same aircraft and flew the same approach to land on the same runway and everything went perfectly.

I’ve said something similar to this before but I feel we would have been better off with a good ole, mechanical flight control airliner like any 737 or even older airliner aircraft to start with. Or, simply give us the 152/172 done well and call it a day.

They would be far simpler in my opinion to provide “help” regarding systems simulation that doesn’t affect flight, allowing pilots of all experience levels to FLY with less “is it supposed to do this?” type questions. In this way, newer pilots can learn to FLY the aircraft and not manage systems that either don’t work or are not going to work by design.

PC flight sims have been around for decades and I’ve had nearly all of them during this time. I can count on my left hand the number of “solid” study-level Airbus aircraft that were a hit with the market - on any platform.

There’s a reason for that and one is the complexity of properly programming/simulating the dozens of systems and subsystems that work together which, like the real aircraft, make this more of a plane you “manage” vs. fly.

Given that, Asobo have still done a really good job at bringing us these aircraft and a stellar job at bringing us this platform. If they remain open and inviting to the great 3rd-party developer ecosystem, then we will have proper study-level aircraft of all types to this platform. Several have already committed this.

Until then, and for newer pilots, there is a world of things to learn about flight that you can experience in the cub or 172 that will pay dividends when you get your hands on that shiny new study-level whatever it is.

Re: the live weather caching issue – clearly it’s not pushed out correctly or at all, I’m flying over Nashville, TN and it’s clear skies all around… yet when you look at any radar since 8pm CST, there’s a ton of rain and a hurricane just south of us.

Live weather is NOT fixed.

Interesting. I flew the circuits I mentioned above out of and back to KBNA myself last night between about 6:00 pm and 8:00 pm with live weather enabled and had plenty of thunderstorms and lightning all around (though weirdly no rain at all, even as I approached touchdown …) So the weather seemed reasonably accurate when I compared to actual live weather radar from the NWS at the time.

I also jumped to KAVL a few hours ago just to check what was probably the location with the worst weather in the US at that moment. METAR was saying +RA so went there and…WOW :astonished: the rain was like in the “press any key” video demonstration, and the ground was wet and full of puddles, and the rain was causing the classic splashing effect on the ground!

Then I took off and … while still over the runway the rain stopped :flushed: