blade element theory is a fancy word used by laminar to say ‘hey, we’re using 3d model calculation to setup lift and drag’, which IS what msfs does too
also i don’t have a good knoweldge of aerodynamics, but i’ve read a lot of msfs documentation and made experiment myself, and i kinda knows how planemaker (xplane sdk) works
Absolutely no confusion at all here regarding your ‘simple’ questions, so no need to apologise for your woefully incorrect assumption.
Besides, why would I want to wait to watch any of your ‘upcoming’ videos landing a plane in a crosswind? I’ve been landing aircraft in sims since the early 90’s including your much revered X-Plane so I reckon I’ve got a few under my belt since then.
No offence, and thanks in advance for your understanding, but if it was proving to be hard to do as you suspect it might, there’s real world airliner captains out there streaming and flying sims that discuss in detail pretty much everything going including your much promoted crosswind landing using their real world knowledge and experience.
Sorry but I’ve learnt more from them and will learn more form them in the future, and from just doing it myself, than I will from watching silent, poorly edited and filmed clips of a 737 wobbling down to earth. Thankyou for accepting that.
My somewhat cynical point made in my previous post still stands as below:
Have a great day 
You are deeper in this kind of stuff than me obviously, I’m just a stupid pilot and taught aerodynamics for ATPL students but I don’t know anything about programming.
If I understand it correctly, X-plane uses the model including airfoil cross sections to calculate lift and drag while MSFS only uses a basic geometric model (I assume for moment arms to accurately calculate moments), lift and drag are taken from the .cfg files instead of being calculated from the model itself?
my understanding is that:
Xplane uses a 3d model that you setup yourself inside of planemaker to calculate flight mode. For the wings and rudders, you need to also provide and airfoil. It also uses curves and some tables too, nobody avoids that
Msfs in the other hand creates the flight model (as of my understanding) from the aircraft’s 3d model. I remember that on the doc they explained that the reason why you need to provide tables is because it will then go through a wind tunnel simulation and compare the values it finds from your 3d model ony with the value you provide them, and normalize the 3d model (because they say it wouldn’t be accurate otherwise). For the wings i think i found multiple parameters that look like the thing you’d put in planemaker, but for the core geometry of it it’s still unclear as msfs still asks you to provide a wing incidence and other parameters. It’s quite confusing as for the aircraft i’m making as the wing incidence isn’t the same everywhere. You also need to remember that most of the values that you need to enter on the flight model are not/very poorly documented. If you have a good knoweldge of math and physics you can read the full flight model calculation documentation Flight Model Physics. I don’t know if it explains everything, but it seems to explain a lot>
as always, i could be wrong.
EDIT:it seems like the documentation online is buged (shows how poorly the doc is), if you want a better version of it you can download the sdk from msfs’s dev mode
Great, Thank you very much for investing your time and effort,
I would love you to watch this video and tell me what I don’t understand in the physics of weight, trust, and Fuel Flow? or maybe I should change some settings?
Take 557,000 Pounds at 0.85 Mach, Needs 4.4 FF with 71-73% thrust, at FL380…
But 337,000 Pounds at 0.85 Mach, Needs 3.7 FF with 65-68% thrust at FL380…
You reduce the weight by almost half, but then you reduce the trust only by 7-10% and the Fuel Flow by 15%? does that seem to you logical? if Yes, please explain to me.
this should not be taken as an example to say that msfs is better because that would be stupid, but here you go
this really proves that they are using 3d to make the wings, but that also higlights that if asobo incorrectly set the target performances, the aircraft flight model would be incorrect even with a correct model !! this is very important
So you finally can confirm that weight affects performance, great.
A 7-10% thrust reduction? Where do you get this information from?
7-10% lower N1 doesn’t equal a 7-10% thrust reduction.
What change did you expect? 50% less weight equals 50% lower N1/thrust?
No need to watch a half hour video for something which has been already proven and confirmed by you.
Have you seen the cruise tables of speeds and settings of the real 787?
As already explained, N1 does not equal thrust. N1 is the fan speed, the only relationship there is between N1 and thrust is that a higher N1 equals more thrust, which is not a linear relationship. Equally 100% N1 does not equal 100% thrust, 100% N1 at SL at cold temperature means higher thrust compared to 100% N1 at high altitude. Conclusion, there is no direct relationship between N1 and thrust and most thrust is produced at higher N1s.
Same for the weight, weight times x2 means more lift is required (also x2 at 1g level flight), more lift means more induced drag and therefore more thrust required. This ratio is not 1:1, i.e. two times the lift does not mean two times the total drag and therefore two times the thrust required and therefore two times the fuel flow for example. You need to understand that induced drag is only part of the total drag and does not increase 1:1 with increased lift required.
Conclusion, it is important to understand that being 100% sure about something does not mean you are 100% right. So try to keep an open mind, listen to what other people have to say, do your own research but don’t immediately start to harress people with false claims and theories.
TPR (power ratio) is not the same as N1 to be sure.
And? What’s the point of posting this table? We all know that the flight models are still WIP.
The point is that your claim, that weight doesn’t affect performance, is plain and simple wrong.
Look at the table, and see how the weight, speed, and fuel flow change. Then if you want I will give you the right examples.
Why not watch a real world airbus pilot for a change? 
You are making wrong claims and you still don’t accept the thruth.
I’m done arguing with you. Have a nice day.
Nobody ever claimed the flight models in MSFS to be accurate, you said weight has NO effect on performance in MSFS, you proved yourself wrong there. In the meanwhile I found something to illustrate the N1 vs thrust for you:
There are a lot of inaccuracies in the MSFS flight model, drag not accurately modelled, missing propeller effects, adverse yaw hardly noticeable etc. But yours is not a legitimate claim in my opinion.
You know, there’s times when in both X-Plane and FS2020 I feel like I’m actually flying a plane, it all just feels right, so for me all these flight model arguments mean nothing if I feel like I’m actually flying a plane then that’s good enough for me, and both sims have given me this on many occasions, so I’m happy to have both and enjoy them.
Just my pennies worth.
Cheers. 
Something which might also not add to the accuracy is that you are flying outside of the flight envelope, FL380 is not a valid cruise level for 557.000 lbs.
If you want to proof something, set weather to ISA, climb to some level you could use to illustrate both extremes of the flight envelope, set the Mach No. from your table and note fuel flow, TPR is not useable as there is no indication for this (it is not the same as N1).
Suggest you try FL350, ISA conditions at 500.000 lbs and at 380.000 lbs as those are available from your table, set the Mach number from the table in the flight guidance panel and note the fuel flow. Btw I have no idea for which temperature that table is, it seems to be ISA looking at the IAS vs Mach number.
In your video the SAT = -44C where at FL380 the SAT should be -56.5C in ISA so that is the next mistake.
