More Physics, More Real Winds

I watched the X-plane video and I watched the Dev’s Video’s. I read quite a few of the reply’s and the discussion. You can dismiss anything I have to say if you like or wish too. Because I don’t have anything over a 10th grade level of education. However My father used to make sure the C-130/C-141A and B The C-5A’s built at Lockheed, Where all set to true, along the wings and along the fuselage. by Calibrating the equipment used using a pocket slide rule. What I get out of this whole thing is people are more interested in flying air, doughnuts and coffee, than they are designing and flying airplanes and the aerodynamics. Even when they discuss the flight model, and programing, and never discuss lift surfaces and the fact that no pilots will even touch this conversation blows my mind. What are you really wanting to fly? Mountains, Wind, Weather, Data, doughnuts, peanuts, Or can I not sell anybody the thought of an airplane to go with that? Just saying. Because I do not for one minute believe a real airplane would have looked like the flight in the original video, Nor do I believe that a TBM 960 should do a loop with landing flaps deployed at 120Knots. I wish somebody would get off their ego and get those real pilots in here to find out what the truth is. Because I watched those C-141’s and C-5A’s fly over my head 2 miles from Dobbins Air-force base as a child, back in the late 1960’s! My father wasn’t worried about them falling out of the sky. I find these planes hard to fly in no weather. Some impossible. What am I missing here? Maybe earth is flat after all, and the chem trails? Well no that was people putting particles in the air to design Flight sims. Lets get real and talk about what people really want to fly without having to have a college education on how to design, and program an FMS. Without a 14 hour download every time the programs gets a hickup. As far as XP and MSFS being the grand knowledge kings on flight models, all fail to mention Eagle and DCS taking over and possibly about to end the debate. I would rather just get MSFS2020 up to par, user friendly and soon though. with the option of being a simulator where you just fly the plane, and a game where you have to put in every detail step by step before you get credit in your log book, that got wiped out because you made a stupid mistake, and used developer mode so you could change planes. With out going all the way back out, and working the server just as hard doing that, as it would to just let you switch your airplane on the ground. Enough said. Sorry Guy’s Maybe it should be Plane Simulator.


That was one very nice and intelligent way to put it, and it shows that when you have a degree of intelligence, other degrees will not match. I could not agree more with Capntedy, nicely puts, salute you, sir


Thank you for your opinion.


I didn’t think a simulator should be 100% accurate, but acceptable errors are common even with Aircraft manufacturers, no two aircrafts performances are alike.

2-3% of divergence is common to engineering statistics is very common.
But over 10 times more difference then the common divergence from aircraft specifications.
And how much time does it take to resolve such problems? not much if you ask me.

1 Like

Look at this video and tell me if you can demonstrate this kind of performance on FS2020? please.
Thank you.

Multiple answers possible: :upside_down_face:

  • No I can’t because there is no replay system in FS2020! :joy:
  • No I can’t because I would have landed the aircraft much better than this! :smiling_imp:

Kidding aside I agree it doesn’t feel to me like this in FS2020 at all from the few times I’ve dealt with similar conditions.

XP11 always gives me this feeling of organic elements acting on the aircraft and organic response to it (in other words the feeling of being in a fluid), whereas all the Flight Simulator series (FS, P3D) always feel like guided (in other words what you’d probably call “on rails”).

I’m raising the very question of the “1000 elements” flight model for the next Q&A by the way:
Live Dev Q&A: Guided Question - #18 by CptLucky8

edited to highlight the 1st half is only humor.


With OBS studio you don’t need a reply system. You can record while flying. It doesn’t matter if your landings are not perfect, only to see them on your system it would be wonderful for the improvement of FS2020.

Look at this :

How about watching my other two videos, and tell me what do you think? Maybe you can show me how to get FS2020 give me the experience as in the other two videos. I would be very happy. Thank you.

You can see the other two videos in the previous posts. (just above.)

It is kinda a let down that they praised how good the Sims physics were at launch and everyone’s bubble got popped. I do think it’s a goal they definitely have at the forefront of their minds and it’s consistently worked. For some reason it’s true what others are saying, let’s make it beautiful first. Backwards for simmers, forwards for gamers. They fact that simmers are such a small niche in the overall picture it doesn’t surprise nor even bother me in the least. Just longer for the overall polish that’s all. :blush:


I think that the developer team really put some physics into the weather, but if they see my videos, they will surly understand how you can give games to play with physics as never before, and make it a real simulator that even REAL simulator developers will be surprised how a game like FS2020 turned out so good.

Thank you for your support.

1 Like

Regardless of the physics engine, the planes need to be well done. The feature discovery videos show the engine, but whether the planes themselves are well done is something else. We will truly get an idea of the engine when we get some better aircraft hopefully. I’m sure they’ll keep improving it too

I will say that the turbulence is much better in MSFS (source: student pilot irl) and the taildraggers feel good too (I fly a taildragger irl) or at least good enough for me to not feel a bit difference (I am just a student though)

1 Like

How can you say that considering taildraggers don’t even ground loop in MSFS? Gyroscopic effect is also not there or hardly noticeable.

1 Like

How about a link to those videos? I love to learn how the dynamics of a sim/game work and how these days it’s really not just about making msfs a hybrid but putting everything into it they can. We’ve witnessed how complicated it’s been for them but I’m really intrigued in learning just how daunting the task is. It makes me understand more why I appreciate what they’re doing. I just LOVE so much about it!

I haven’t tried to groundloop, so I don’t know. The in air behavior and landing behavior feels good.

It’s usually exactly the opposite problem with taildraggers IRL, you are trying not to groundloop. :wink:

I’d like to know which taildragger you are flying as a student pilot?
That’s a bit uncommon these days.

Please Explain? I don’t understand the relevance to taildragger?
I will send you the situation file, and you try it, and show me, Thank you.

Look in the first post, there are three videos.

1 Like

Full aileron deflection and zero resulting roll…definitely not realistic at all.

xwnd was always one of x-planes weak point.

Do you know why resulting no roll? Have you tried landing a strong cross wind, 43 knots?

Well you are not giving much rudder input so should not affect aileron effectiveness at all. Full aileron input and complete lack of roll response is not realistic at all. Even when flying cross controlled I doubt there will be such a lack in roll authority. I have never seen it in real life at least and I have made plenty of crosswind landings over the last 10 years.