Is the Flight Model of the MSFS 2020 realistic or do we need a completly rewrite?

What you are demonstrating is a lack of “Aircraft System” implementation. We are discussing “Flight Model”.

But again, you can have a very good FM but just implemented poorly for an individual aircraft, for which the 320 is a good example.


I have no real live experience with the big birds, but I have about a thousand hours on GA aircraft and also some on smaller Turboprops. Those are modeled pretty good. What would need more work is the effects of wind and weather when closer to the ground.


Thanks for the explanation!
Perhaps I am wrong, and I do not fully understand the difference, but I am upset by the fact that the plane in 95% of 100% can land on its own under any conditions)))

1 Like

Yeah, that’s actually the problem here. A lot of the complains you are hearing about MSFS came from a mixture of people with varying degree of understandings on how this piece of software actually works.

A very badly implemented A320 will feel very much “Arcade” because in reality:

The A320 IRL under “normal law” is a “G-command” flying computer. It flies very differently from a conventional aircraft in a sense that you can just use the sidestick, set the pitch and let go of your hand, and the aircraft computer would maintain that pitch for you without any adjustment! However under system failure, the control should revert to “direct law” which instead of requesting g-command from the side stick you are now directly controlling the surfaces. So then it should behave like a conventional aircraft in the sense that you need to trim the aircraft manually to accommodate the change in speed. But the in game 320 doesn’t seem to have this “failure” mode. So in essence you lose your engines/power, but the aircraft still flies in the “hands off” g-command mode. Which is why it’s holding its attitude all the way down.


I think you should not be mistaken. One of the quotes itself already plays it down. There is a slight difference. Not a major one, as the quote itself says already. Of course MSFS has it’s issues, but the sim will improve. The real good airplanes are made by 3rd parties, and they are yet to come. The PA28 Turbo Arrow is a good example, of which real world pilots say it is actually quite good. As is the DC-6.

Some people here are on a mission to use each and every thread in this forum to promote X-plane. Not sure why. Of course the choice of sim is totally yours, but if I want to have a realistic flight, it is not only the flight model that counts, but also what I’m looking at. And taking that into account, X-plane is miles behind MSFS. If I see screenshots made by X-plane people, it’s often just ugly. But that is my opinion.

As far as I understood, X-plane wasn’t were it is now after 1 year, so you can’t judge MSFS now already.


Thanks for the laugh :rofl:

I’ve just created a custom playlist on Youtube, named it ‘Comedy’ and put this video in it. :slight_smile:

1 Like

We are talking about flight model, not visual and how clouds are beautiful.
MSFS is not a 1 year product, it has lot of fsx code, it is a 40 years product.
For the topic, i just find aircraft fly too much as on rails,. I don’t have a lot of experience in GA flying, but in real, i find it is much more turbulent, less linear and smooth, especially vertical turbulences.
And i think they corrects the flight model issues too much by tweaking the aircrafts (like modifying surfaces etc…) instead of correcting the flight model.
ATC or avionics need more work than flight model if we are speaking about realism.
Anyway, it’s a great product, and there’s not a lot missing to make it a great, the greatest simulator. They just have to be willing to make these changes. Perhaps it is just not their goal. After all, it is just a entertainment product like Jorg said.


I’m not that critical. I am not comparing MSFS and XPlane. Most of my life I have played games of the Il-2 Sturmovik series … and there, in my opinion, a lot of attention is paid to FM and DM. I’m just pointing out facts that seem controversial / wrong to me … All this with a desire to make the Sim get better.

Again, I understand that it takes time …

Sorry for my English … this is far from my native language.

1 Like

What we need them to do is FIX everything in the CORE product that was intended to function BEFORE they work on Consumer Wishes and Selling New Airplanes in the Marketplace.


I think has been discussed pretty thoroughly over the last year. Plenty of topics here when searching for “flight model”. There is even a pretty nice video showing how you can take off with the c152 into the wind without thrust when you set the head wind high enough (from around launch, but it works equally well now, I urge everyone to try it out): Can You Take Off Without Moving? - Microsoft Flight Simulator (Cessna 152) - YouTube

Far too many people also overthink the A320’s fly by wire systems, and overcomplicate their thought process surrounding its integration and usage. There is absolutely misunderstanding on how FBW is implemented on this aircraft’s sim model, generally with a conventional aircraft (such as Boeing) mindset and then trying to make it fit to the Airbus.

But we’re talking about flight models in general, which are currently quite limited or dumbed down after SU5.

1 Like

I always wonder how people think they can judge the quality of a flight model by just describing how it feels for them, while so much is determined by the setup (throttles, joystick, yoke, etc) you use, your settings, etc. How an aircraft feels, how it responds, can hardly be a criterion for a PC based flight sim.

The only way to really answer the question is to get into the maths behind it. And we won’t be able to do that.

Until that time, it’s all just opinions.


Can you elaborate on that? From what I can see the adverse yaw seems to be more prominent now than it was before. I still was able to stall and spin the small aircraft and they seemed to behave as expected (spin recoveries also worked for me). Though I wasn’t in aero debug view when I did those maneuvers. So perhaps I’m missing something? Which part did they take out in SU5? Genuinely interested.


So you floated slowly like a 50-ton glider to the left with the wind and towards the ground? What was the expectation? I think that generally reflects what should happen, no? Here’s an incident from real life The Gimli Glider! Explained - YouTube

1 Like

Not the modern flightmodel though. Care to elaborate which exact Fsx code is present and in which part of the sim? Details please. And regarding your claim that Fs2020 isn’t a year old: well, ofc it isn’t? Those planes, basic sim functionality, physics, weather and so on, had to be built first. Was Xplane 1 year old after its first year? Was bruce artwick’s Flightsimulator 1 year old, one year after release? What kind of argument is that even? The code that was deemed reusable and fitting the ambitions of this project, has been reused, other parts are completely new. I’m failing to see the point you’re trying to make. This isn’t FSX or P3D.

1 Like

I would just ignore EvidencePlz. He posts the same thing everywhere and loves to take quotes out of context. All of his examples of people in his “category 3” are like the one shown here. Some people think it might be “slightly off”.

He also ignores all of the people that post criticisms of X-Plane’s flight model.

He’s not really to be taken seriously.


What aspect of the CJ4 mod as it applies to the CJ4 do you all believe or think you believe that the ‘flight model’ is off as I assume you are applying a generic flight model to all aircraft in MSFS?

Have a listen to a real pilot and Sean from WT discuss accordingly ; (7) Interview with Sean From The Working Title Group - Thecorporatepilotdad Podcast - YouTube

Better still listen to a 787 RL Pilot discuss flight model etc with 320 pilot while flying the MSFS 787 (7) Learn the Heavy Division 787 with a Real 787 Pilot! Full Flight Tutorial MSFS - YouTube

Whatever for me MSFS has blown everything else out of the water

this is the default 787 premium edition no mods


I agree. But I want to prevent others disliking the sim due to unfounded claims like that.

1 Like

That’s how we do a new version of an existing product. You can call it a new product, it’s just semantics.
it is a new product but also a new version of a franchise build with elements from its predecessors (the famous FS “spaghetti code” making difficult to make some changes on NAV / ATC / autopilot system on this opus, coming from a large part from fsx, because each small change can have an impact on all other functionnalities, and understand all interactions in such a huge code of 40 years old is a very hard task, made even more difficult because it is a totally new team working on this old code not their own, and without aviation background unlike previous teams).

1 Like

You didn’t address my question. What parts of the code are reused and where in the sim?