This… thank you… is exactly what I was trying to say. It’s close.
And I also agree that it can be improved upon.
By the way, will we ever experience inertia with a non fb yoke? Don’t think so.
English is not my mother tongue, so yes, I am trying to improve my skill in that language every single day. Thank you.
1 Like
Great post. Out of interest why do some simulations have better flight physics than others? I’d assume it would be be based on mathematical models and the models would be objectively correct so they would all basically have the same data entered into them?
Why does say a Cessna 172 fly differently in MSFS, versus Xplane vs an FSTD? I would assume they enter the same flight data and use the same physics modelling? Just surprises me a bit that they are all supposedly so different. I’m not an IRL pilot and MSFS is the only sim I’ve used so no point of comparison for me.
To expand a bit on what I mean. I assume all sims input the correct plane data from the POH.
Then there are standard equations to calculate things like vectored thrust, drag to weight ratio, forces in a climb etc. It’s all based on objective physics and mathematical models. Why would they input the incorrect data?
I dont think ANY of us want our Mothers tongue.
I did not realize that we can post our aircraft for Sale Here on the MSFS Forum…
Great idea. Thanks !
While you are correct in the first part of your assumption, you’re mistaken in the second. This is exactly why they behave so differently. It’s how you work with the data that affects this. For example, one of the aspects is the elevator efficiency due to propwash. That is, how the prop slipstream affects the elevator control. You can have the data from the real aircraft, but your flight model must account for it. If this coefficient is not accounted for in your FM equations it will never be taken into account regardless of how detailed your source data is. For an end-simmer it will be the wrong feeling on takeoff, since in a Cessna 172 it’s very prominent. Besides, it also depends in how exactly you process the data: do you simulate it as a coefficient that adjusts the elevator efficiency or as a force that is applied to the elevator? This is why P3D helicopters felt so artificial and unnatural: their helicopter FM just failed to account for many important aspects of the helicopter flight dynamics (in fact, for almost all of them).
1 Like
@Kjaye767 and to add up to my previous post since you’ve updated yours. POH has very limited data and it’s definitely not enough for flight modelling. POH has a different purpose. Flight data required for proper flight modelling is very extensive and not very easy to acquire. I can share this work just to shed some light on what it involves. It is no way near to what you can acquire from a normal aircraft with no special equipment.
2 Likes
These are promotional videos and not true to life experiences, not once did I see " Your internet connection is not fast enough" or " photometry will disconnect because it feels like it" and not one bridge in the video is shown with a solid black lump on the underside!
2 Likes
Personal Comments
Yes, I was foolish enough to stay in icing clouds too long during my XC in a non-FIKI a/c, and came up short on my alternate field near Yellowstone NP. The stall and loss of aerodynamic efficiency was decidedly insidious, and happened over the course of the last 5NM of the approach. It wasn’t an “instantaneous - you’re done” - the aircraft got slower and slower, and altitude decreased slowly but certainly. Between outside air temp, heavy continuous precip and other factors, there was no way to alleviate the icing and the plane eventually quit flying even at full power.
I think part of the problem is that folks haven’t flown the sim enough in all sorts of conditions that it’s able to show it’s full potential. I’ve flown 100 percent Live WX, Live Traffic since launch, and covered the US coast-to-coast in single engine GA six times - most of it IFR. Somewhere around SU7, that was amazing - cloudy, completely obscured, flying in and under active storm cells at night - somewhere around TN, I ended up in absolute zero/zero all the way down to the rabbit lights. The only reason I knew I was still on course was the highway that ran perpendicular at the end of the runway was barely lit by the occasional flashes of lightning. An approach that should have only been attempted by CAT3 certified a/c.
This sim can deliver those moments, and they have. Even something as simple as the hold short, watching the FedEx nightly delivery arrive in front of you while the sun sets, is awesome.
8 Likes
Thought I remembered once or twice falling foul of ice but wasn’t sure enough to comment. From memory it was over a year ago maybe 
So there’s no icing simulation anymore, is it?
Lol. Just posted for a hardware reference.
Does this apply equally to third party planes in MSFS as well, or can they be more accurate? I guess they can only affect how the plane operates, not how weather, thermals and air pressure etc are simulated in MSFS?
Is MSFS getting more accurate now that they have made changes to some of the planes and adding prop data and thermals and related data?
It surprises me that a small company like Xplane can be more accurate than a behemoth led Microfost project.
Cheesy. But of course very true 
I think the hardest to simulate is the fluid (air) to behave correct. Like wind for example. A constant windspeed is much easier to land in compared to a windspeed that varies all the time (gusts). And a fluid that behaves more realistic makes also the plane behave more realistic in the air even if the data from the plane is exactly the same in both simulators. The plane has static values, air doesn’t have static values to input means it’s much harder to make realistic.
Those 1000 contact points msfs has on the plane compared to fsx on the planes makes the plane behave more realistic in the air. The CFD air flow makes the air behave more realistic in the future. The thermals they add from uneven heating of ground also makes the air to behave more realistic. In su10 we will have gusts and those also will improve the air behaviour.
I don’t know but i think mass is important to get right too. Example that 1Kg weight is same as 1KG weight IRL. So many things that needs to be the same physics as IRL to make the plane feel accurate to real. We need to remember we can’t feel g-forces in the sim.
1 Like
The truth is that I don’t know. I haven’t flown in icy conditions for a long time
When I first got the sim and having no idea what I was doing I flew the Cessna in the clouds all the time and the plane would get so iced up I couldn’t see a thing, it was basically a flying block of ice.
Then I learnt that you don’t fly GA planes into dense clouds so I always go around or under them and I’ve never seen the icing effect since. It used to ice up just minutes after take off for me though!
3 Likes
Agree, but icing is completely wrong in the sim. You should be able to see icing building up on sharp edges and stuff on the plane like on wipers and stuff and mostly more back of the plane than in the front. In the sim the whole window gets ice and we can’t see anything while we have icing effect.
