With all due respect I think Asobo have made the wrong call here not to issue a hotfix.
3 Likes
I agree, that was a bad decision…push out the fixes via Content Manager, include in in the next update to make sure everyone gets covered.
1 Like
So you actually copied a stripped-down .cfg File to the directory of a premium aircraft where no own flight_model.cfg exists? Just to understand…
Well I’m a software engineer, and what he’s been saying throughout this thread makes no sense to me. Yes, these are difficult problems. Yes, it’s hard work and yes, it’s easy to make mistakes when developing something complex. I HATE criticizing the work of others, because I’ve been in these situations myself and it’s no fun.
But come on, be serious. Breaking the physics model at the core of what is essentially a physics simulation is about as sloppy as you could possibly get with an update, and it’s indicative of severe software control / release problems. It’s a really, really bad sign. How something like this doesn’t get caught in an automated test of some sort (hey did anybody notice all our test flights land in the ocean?) is beyond me, and the “workaround” they have proposed… my personal guess is that flap settings aren’t the ONLY thing that are affected here and that the reason we’re not getting some kind of hotfix is because untangling everything that is broken right now will be more difficult than just forging ahead with whatever changes they’ve got coming in development.
I’ve been perfectly satisfied with FS2020 to this point, and there is huge potential here. I’m not at all concerned about getting my money’s worth over time, and there isn’t really any point in skewering the development team… I’m sure they’re trying. Hopefully the next release will resolve these issues and continue to build on what was there before the last update.
But we’ve got to be honest here, they just broke the simulator and our options are to try and tape it back together and use it half-broken for a while, or not use it at all. 20 years ago, maybe, but these types of major issues making their way into a release (and unable to be rolled back!) don’t really happen in big projects anymore and that’s a fact.
13 Likes
I’ll never understand how people can defend stuff like this when in their job and especially my job (law enforcement) we would be considered incompetent. It’s like me giving a citation to the wrong car just because it looked like another car and I said screw integrity, I’ll just let the system fix it and wipe my hands of the responsibility of making sure I do my job right. This is ridiculous and sloppy at best the way they went about this and the way they are handling it.
It is especially infuriating when we can’t even apply the community fix to airplanes we paid extra for! Like give me a break.
I’ll carefully consider buying anything else from Asobo that’s for sure. Fool me once shame on them. Fool me twice…
6 Likes
One question I have is - an update to the flaps behavior was in the change log for the UK patch - but they never QA tested the flaps, and somehow broke them? That makes no sense at all.
Ok the subject of the “Modern” flight model… The visual 3D model doesn’t get used for anything.
The “shape” of the aircraft for the Modern flight model is defined in the .cfg files as parameters like:
Fuselage diameter and length
Wing cord, span, and sweep angle, wing height, camber, dihedral, area
Horizontal tail location along the fuselage, span, sweep angle, height
Vertical tail location along fuselage, span, height
Area of control surfaces
This defines a very very simplified “aircraft” that the Modern flight model uses. Then there are coefficients and factors similar to FSX on top of that, because it’s too simplified to represent everything.
If you install the SDK and read the documentation on the flight model you can see how they abstract the aircraft to very simple geometric shapes that have nothing to do with the 3D model.
You could replace the 3D model with a simple sphere or one of those teapots the 3D rendering community uses as examples and it would fly exactly the same
Edit:. One concrete example of this is that the flight model only supports defining one set of wings. Biplanes like the Pitts Special or the Waco are being “faked” with a single set of wings in the flight model, regardless of what the visual 3D model looks like. If the flight model was using the visual model, both sets of wings would work.
1 Like
It was mentioned once, I think, but the second item is actually what lead to the current situation:
- Improved flaps system of aircraft: Aircraft creators can now move the wing surface’s position and camber with each flap system at each flap level
- Improved ground effect wing to ground interaction system to avoid pitch dip at rotation on some aircraft
But you are right, even if the change that specifically mentions flaps didn’t lead to this, and was more of a presentation change, rather than behaviour, someone should have tested it to some degree.
Considering just about every update is 2 steps forward and 1 step backwards with some obvious bug that the community found within 5 mins of a flight tells you how serious they care about testing their product before giving it to us.
Think of it as just another flying challenge and see what you can do with a hosed up aircraft to get down safely. 
1 Like
With all due respect, that isn’t acceptable for something you paid money for for it to work as it should. If it was a separate challenge like the landing challenges, fine. This is something they messed up and basically said screw the consumers. They will take whatever we give them. Thinking of it how you suggested is enabling this sloppy behavior in the future and is the reason the gaming industry is in the state it is in now. Paid “early access games”, “finished” products that need a 20 GB day 1 patch, incomplete games that are completed later with DLC’s. Don’t you ever get tired of this mess? I sure am. It’s the reason my gaming hobby greatly decreased. Most of these companies are about a buck and once they have it, they throw the project to the side and work on the next money grab. Hardly anyone takes pride in their product these days. This current situation being an obvious example.
2 Likes
Could this explain how I ended up going nose first into the strip at the end of an Alaska bush leg today? Very very slow and wanting to brake to a final stop so I pulled back on the stick to plant the tail wheel on the ground and the thing shot back up 10ft in the air!
Yep. All planes are now hovercrafts.
I don’t think either of these are the cause. These are improvements that are legitimately improvements I believe. This issue is caused by some in-progress code accidentally included in the final release, which wasn’t in the changeling.
I think I’m understanding correctly.
True, yes. The flaps thing crept in probably because of that work, and should never have been made live. Time for another process review, Asobo.
1 Like
Or at the very least test updates before making them live lol. Crazy to think this “update” was delayed for polish right?
Can you explain this? All under these headers? Delete all else? Only “lines”? Which “lines”?
This for the Beech Baron G58 & SR22
Thanks a ton for doing this fix! Quick (I know and dumb) question - I’m totally new to MSFS and I’m not sure if I place the folder in the community folder, or I empty all the contents of the “fix” folder into the community folder?
I point out once again that I promise nothing, they are just attempts
The flight_model.cfg contains many elements ([WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE] - [CONTACT_POINT] - [FUEL], etc …
some are clearly built on the model of the airplane, it is useless and dangerous to change them
[AERODYNAMICS] is the only one that has a lot in common with many aircraft and is among the ones suggested by ASOBO to get your hands on
You ask me if a mess can happen? likely
You ask me if a future update of ASOBO will reset everything? I do not know
[FLIGHT_TUNING] For those who, like me, have customized FSX badly, they know what I’m talking about, if you have no idea it makes no sense to touch anything
If anyone wants to try it, just lets you know how it went
At least I know I’m not crazy
I do not remember SR22
but the Baron G58 didn’t have the flight_model_cfg (like 787)
I can’t explain why
so if it is to be introduced we might as well leave only the content of [AERODINAMICS]