I have no pilot experience, so I wouldn’t be able to know for sure what’s realistic or not (unless it’s something really obvious, of course). I have to go by what real pilots say, but even then it’s a mixed bag and they often supply contradictory feedback where some think it’s fairly realistic and others don’t, so that seems a little dubious too.
As long as it’s pretty darn close, that’s good enough for me, since this is mostly an entertainment thing, and I’ve always felt like it’s more about the overall operations and procedures that flying involves rather than a hardcore scientific physics simulation of air moving over surfaces.
I’m willing to give a little slack to the ground handling physics because the way the sim is trying to balance the dynamic weight of the aircraft across the defined contact points. If you think it’s easy to just let the physics engine do it’s thing with only some parameters, then try it for yourself in any game engine without “cheating”.
Let’s face it, the sim will probably never know enough about the real-world physics to be that much more realistic. If it ever does, you could probably make a racing sim within it.
I’m usually satisfied with imagining that this new plane that I just got into and need to taxi has some quirks that I just won’t pick up on the first few tries. But I bet most pilots can manage a decent taxi after many flights in the same plane.
The main thing to consider is that any flight model is a combination of the sim’s engine plus the developer’s input parameters. Thinking that poor handling is only a defect of the sim, is incorrect. Developers also don’t have access to enough data to be able to achieve much more fidelity than we already see. I expect that there will always be some aircraft that feel excellent and some that fall a bit short.
I think you are quite right that fully modelled ground physics would be tricky and not really necessary. It gets pretty complex pretty quickly.
But the problem of excessive weathervane was a bit too serious to be left unaddressed and it’s strange that it didn’t create more of a reaction from users as you would think folk would get upset that so many of their landings would turn out so poor.
But then I have no idea what percentage of users fly with live weather, without rudder assist, in crosswind conditions or who have an idea of how a light GA should behave in moderate to strong crosswinds.
All I know is that it was clearly wrong to a number of users who were able to articulate the problem from pretty much the launch of the SIM and that it was eventually recognised with both interim and long term solutions in implementation.
It will be interesting to see what the new ground physics package looks like when it comes.
Well, it depends on what aircraft. 25knots of crosswind component would be way way too much for most (any?) single - engine piston IRL. Pilots wouldn’t attempt to fly. But not an airliner.
The CJ4 has a MDC of 25knots. Until they tweaked the flight model in SU12 it was completely impossible to take off anywhere near that - you woul eat dirt long before Vr.
Have you looked to see what parameters they are using in the flight_model.cfg?
A new product like that should be taking advantage to the improved ground handling options.
Of course, even with those implemented you still need well calibrated controllers and proper technique and a lot of practice deal with a real strong gusty crosswind
25 kt crosswind is perfectly doable for a C172. Have done it before IRL. The instructor I had for my PPL has landed in well over 30 kt of crosswind. Before somebody comes along to say it’s above max demonstrated yeah that’s right. But max demonstrated is not a limitation of the aircraft, either legal or technical. It’s merely a statement that the test pilot demonstrated a safe landing in 15 kts crosswind. The main risk is if you’re on a narrow runway and it’s gusty you might get blown to the side.
Eek. Not sure I’d want to land a C172 in a 25knt crosswind IRL! But I definitely wouldnt want to in the sim. Your real life experience underscores just how bad the weathervane effect in the sim is.
The ATR is barely subject to drag, and in a 25kt crosswind, doesn’t particularly want to stay on the runway once you’ve planted her wheels firmly on the deck. Trying to keep her on the asphalt is an insurmountable challenge, let alone on the centreline!
I thought it was just me (not a real-world pilot) until I saw that others more familiar with the real aircraft are experiencing the same phenomenon.
This is where this point made by @Sal1800 is most relevant.
How any aircraft handles on the ground is now (relatively) easily tuned by an aircraft Dev. But they have to do so and many have not made use of the new parameters. I can’t say for the ATR as no one has yet reported what values have been used in the flight model to the thread where we track these things.
I would add though, these 2 different styles of simming can be desired from the same person. I love in depth realism, checklists, procedures etc… but there are a few times I just want to grab a plane from the hangar, spawn on runway, then go fly right away. Its the beauty of the sim, we have choices.
I would add that some times you assume physics can’t be easily implemented and cost for hardware is high, so for casual or vfr flying, chilling out or relaxing you prioritize visuals.
My particular case. If I need to train real procedures and accurate flying or specific situations (cross wind landing, turbulent flight, OEI procedures..) I can get xplane for this, which is more specialised in the physics.
However, to chill out and disconnect from daily life, clearly I prefer MSFS.
I would say is difficult to have everything in one sim, and prefer to have several specialising different areas.
That being said, obviously there is some room for improvement that MS can do and I expect will do (ensure adverse yaw works always, rotorcraft imrpved flight model..)
Yep. I am both a serious simmer AND a casual simmer. And because of that, I feel Asobo generally has the product pretty spot on (save for the bugs and odd scientific inaccuracy).
Unless you have 100% accurate, real-world controls with the same length of throw, the same resistance, the same force feedback… the notion of “perfect” flight modeling (be it MSFS or XP) is NONSENSE.
Now, we don’t want “silly” flight dynamics. We don’t want taxiways to feel like skating rinks with anything over 3kt winds… but flight dynamics with a comparable disauthenticity (?) of say, a Honeycomb Alpha, is ok by me.
Real world pilot, sim in VR, physical panel, use a Honeycomb, MFG Crosswind, GNS 530 & 430 from realsimgear, etc. I know as real as it gets… and I just accept the limitations of the software AND hardware, and enjoy the HECK out of this sim.
EDIT: And, I have the aforementioned hardware mounted on a 6 DOF motion platform, use ForeFlight mounted on my yoke with LiveATC.net playing local frequencies in the background, so I’m aiming for as “realistic” as anybody.
I have never flown a real aircraft so i don’t know how real physics feel like. I also think that it would only make sense with hardware that actually gives you some kind of physical feedback (force feedback, resistance or stuff like that).
Agree with most of the above points of view. Without the full sensory experience IRL, it makes no sense to simulate “accurately” as we will not have the tool at hand to deal with all that without some compromises made in the sim/game. Edge cases excepted, I think we have a good compromise with what we have, and are getting as improvements are made. IRL, although I can fly IFR in bad weather, or challenge crazy crosswinds, these are rarely fun or relaxing times. IRL most enjoy seeing a beautiful sight while flying as much as gaining or maintaining competency as a pilot. We need some, but not all of: accuracy, fidelity, scenery, specs and scary weather; as even our best at home flight decks are still limited to informing 2.5 of 5 senses.
Too many keep referring to the ‘real-world experience’ but MSFS has never claimed to match that. The old slogan it once used — “As real as it gets” — is the only claim Microsoft ever made, and I don’t think we can deny its validity.
We live in societies in which we have choices. Don’t like what Asobo offers? Switch to P3D or XP. But by doing so, accept that the eye candy will be no more. And accept that they don’t perfectly replicate real-world flying either.
There’s no one thing that does it all, unless you’re a millionaire who can justify chucking a few million pounds/euros/dollars at a professional training simulator. We all have our little moans every now and then but, fundamentally, I think the vast majority of us are happy with what we have, and just push the hyperbole and criticism in the hope that the devs will sit up and take note. And thus far, that’s exactly what they have done.
This definately needs tuning. The affect of a crosswind component on the rudder is too strong. The prop wash would cancel out any crosswind affects on the ground and in the air. Just think about squirting water at a fire hose stream with a squirt gun. The squirt gun stream just gets carried away by the firehose stream. It does not push the firehost stream.
