Are you paying attention to details? I see aileron input given?
I know you are not a big fan of autopilot and you rather fly CAT II and III by hand and let the poor monitoring pilot do all the work while you show off your superior flying skills, but how does the Boeing 737 perform a crosswind autoland?
I think this method is a tradeoff. Using FEA, CFD, or something like that yields more precise dynamics simulation, but bottlenecked by CPU in realtime simulation. So they simplified the model by “prebaking” and parameterization to insure the simulation can be done in realtime. Anyone interested can try xfoil etc to see how slow an ideal physics simulation is.
Hi AdherentToast91
Please do keep elaborating and do not be disheartened. I have found your very large number of posts very enlightening and amusing and the replies to them very informative. 
I am confident that there will be clarity and a general consensus when the thread is done.
Happy crab flying.
While conveniently being ignored by the OP, excellent post. Nicely written and explained.
My understanding: the “legacy flight model” is a castrated “modern flight model”. You can operate a flight model without section [AERODYNAMICS]. Up to now I have not discovered what is exactly the difference between both flight models. I am sure that “modern flight model” is more powerful and that “legacy flight model” is more forgiving for bad parameter values.
Try yourself: switch on Aircraft Editor, Debug, Sim Forces for the “1000 surfaces” force vectors in “legacy flight model”. Do you expect exactly one force vector?
Well, the physics is the same, but to a human being it is not the same, the reason is because while landing you must be very precise, focused, and time limited. On Takeoff, you have to be also very precise, focused, and time limited by some factors, but while taking off from one dimension realm to a vast dimension realm, it is easy to make corrections and level out, without much pressure, but at landing, you are coming in from a vast dimension realm to a one dimension realm. So to speak metaphorically, you have to be very focused, you can’t make mistakes, and you are even time limited much more then while taking off. This puts a lot of pressure on the human performance, which also causes many more mistakes. Therefore it’s not the same, but to an algorithm it is the same. Hope this gives you a picture of the difference. And Thank you for the interest. And respecting my opinion. Although they may be others who will have different ideas…
Well, if you change fuel between 0% and 100% you normally see a shift in CG in the aircraft selector weight tab. That is MSFS 2020 can move the CG with fuel and with pax. But if this is done IN THE FLIGHT I don’t know. Only that the simulation has the necessary information to do so.
Thank you for your opinion, Dear Willisxdc, Have you seen my videos? I think not, for a very simple reason, you are focused on competition, on who is getting ahead of you, and you are thinking about what everyone is accomplishing. Now, I hope you know what is the meaning of deduct in Mathematical reasoning… Let’s start with your first statement, "I am looking for YouTube hits… Have you seen how many views I have? Let’s call it in your terms of understanding I am poor in the number of views… My humble opinion, if you don’t believe me, go to my channel and don’t view any video, count only the views on each video, so you can estimate, what lies behind the number of viewers. Now if you can’t deduct the connection between the number of viewers and the subject of videos? Then let me make it easy for you, the subjects behind all the videos is aviation, not anything else, only simulators, Can you emotionally understand why? Yes, you need emotional intelligence to deduct the reason for that… Now, Let’s assume that you have emotional intelligence, and you realize the connection, Now if you please, when you find a poor person begging for some water, bred, or food, do you make a note for everyone, that this beggar is trying to get rich with some water, bred and food? and you make it known to everyone to stay away of this beggar and let him die with no water, bred or food… Now if you ask me, how can you compare your claims that I am fishing for YouTube hits, to the small story of the beggar, very easy, if you ask me… Do you know how much money I have? Do you know how easy it is to advertise to 100,000 viewers, in less then an hour with about 200 USD. Now, if you ask me again, what is the relation, then let me help you deduct, - in one of the posts I wrote that I am only looking for kind users like me, that are interested to learn and know something different then what they know, from someone else, not better then them, because I am sure you are much better then me, and I don’t mind that… I am happy for you… In addition, if you have a YouTube channel, I don’t mind sharing your videos with everyone, so it will make you happy, but I don’t need to compete with what ever you believe about me, because it is your belief, your thoughts and your emotions… not mine. Thank you for your time… (Sorry Everyone, for the off topic unrelated to our scientific discussion).
Well, in MSFS 2020 all airplanes are monoplanes - for the “1000 surfaces”. I made a flight model mod for the biplane Pitts 2S2 and the FSX conversion of triplane Fokker Dr1.
I think “biplane as monoplane” is not that bad. Sure, you have to lie, say enter fake number into your cfg files - the “1000 surfaces” wing is located between the 3D model lower and upper wing. But I think you can adjust a biplane as good or bad as you can adjust any other airplane in MSFS 2020.
@AdherentToast91 let’s put aside the fixation on video’s then and focus on the rest of my post.
I would be interested in hearing your comparison between MSFS xwind landing forces and techniques and real world experience from your perspective as a 737 rated pilot. Is there a particular aspect that convinces you that real world techniques cannot be used in the simulator? Not as compared to X-Plane, but as compared to the real life handling of the 737.
Now, Let me give you my humble professional opinion, about what ever you understand in the reality of aviation and topics of high speed nature, and demand. In the world of aviation, there is a very small percent of people leading the game to a safe landing, the reason is very simple, Because those who fly sky high don’t think anything is impossible in your terms of understanding… Mathematically speaking, if you take your statement to an pilot’s interview in an airline, I suppose you will not be hired. Because of your attitude. Now let me explain to you why, in relation to physics… If you have read the document just before, which has the number of degrees to crab which will stand to 3-5 degrees not more, beyond that the stress will be to much for the landing gear and not for the particular phase of the moment, but for it’s lifetime… it’s life of the ware and tear will be shorter, If you look at it, combining your attitude and your understanding of flight and physics, if you are capable to use a combined technique of crabbing and side slipping, and you are so proficient to use both, then for 3-5 degrees of correction why are you not capable of aliening the aircraft on the runway with 0 degrees, or even 1 degree, but your aptitude proves that you don’t have even the determination to show what you are capable for accomplishing, to say the least of underestimating others while you don’t believe that you are better then them even when it comes to your responsibility of proving that you will give 100% to safety, in addition to the profit of the airline. Now you can deduct what ever you feel like, otherwise you can go and watch my landings and see what is possible for you and what is not. Thank you.
Look, you have multiple real world airline pilots in front of you here, we all seem to mutually agree that your knowledge about the subject is inaccurate and sometimes plain wrong. We perform crosswind landings day in and day out and its our job to be proficient at it, know the right techniques and understand the risks. We showed you the literature from the Boeing FCTM and Embraer SOPM confirming what we are saying, you posted something from the flight safety foundation which also confirms what we are saying. Now you come up with this nonsense again:
I guess you chose to conveniently ignore it but I believe I showed you that the Boeing 737 is certified to land without de-crabbing up 40 kts (!) without causing structural damage and that the wing low technique is not recommended by Boeing above 20 kts crosswind to maintain adequate ground clearance. You can’t answer me regarding how the Boeing 737 autoland performs a crosswind landing, I’m pretty sure it doesn’t de-crab as I don’t believe the Boeing 737 has a rudder servo, which would also debunk your theory. Somehow you are still in Disneyland selling your own ideas and theories as truths, conveniently ignoring the evidence that is in front of you.
Here’s a little bit of education you can learn: You can click on a poster’s avatar – the little icon or picture next to their screen name – and see their profile. In the profile, if they choose, they can post some key credentials. You can see a list of all their badges, and a history of all their activity and posts. You can see who they like, and who likes them.
For example, Willis got his pilot’s license in 1970, his commercial license in 71, and has done a ton of flying in many different planes. A lot of his flying was in Alaska, which has very challenging weather much of the year.
I got my private pilot license in 1978. Good grief, Willis, we are ancient!
There are at least six others in this thread that are pilots, with a couple of them active, professional pilots. There are aircraft developers, at least one navigation system developer (CaptLucky founded RealityXP), and professional software engineers.
You claim to want to learn from others, yet you ignore what all these people have to tell you, and antagonize them as well. You have only indirectly brought value to this topic by getting all these people to “debate” aviation and engineering subjects. You seem totally unware that in this game you are but a mouse serving to entertain the cat, and also completely unaware of the copious amount of evidence you have presented to prove that you fail to comprehend even the basics of flight at any level.
But thanks for the entertainment while we wait on the next sim update.
Just to play a little bit of devils advocate here. I think you’re both agreeing here. AT just is incapable of writing a coherent sentence. To translate AT’s post into what I think he’s trying to say:
(assumed quote in english) “beyond 5 degrees of angle at landing, the side loading on the landing gear will not cause immediate structural damage but will cause a change in fatigue over the lifetime of the part”.
It seems to me that AT isn’t trying to say, in this specific post, that the gear is going to yield from a landing with that angle but rather that the increased loading will cause an increase in fatigue and shorten the lifetime before fatigue failure. That’s probably true purely from a SN curve standpoint. Of course, that ignores reality and assumes that design, maintenance, and inspection schedules are based on a fatigue life of perfect landings every time with no factor of safety.
This is also not the voice of an airline pilot, autopilot is a safety tool and a requirement for numerous procedures (including CAT II / III approaches, RVSM etc.), if you fail to understand the importance of the autopilot and think it is for lazy pilots instead of enhancing flight safety and situation awareness, you are either not a real world pilot as you claim, or you are dangerous individual in a multi-crew environment.
I guess to you these ideas are nonsense because you don’t want to make the effort to understand them, as it is very hard to learn to de-crab an aircraft precisely at the right moment. Logically to an average pilot, they don’t even believe it is possible, I suppose if you are still trying to convince me that I am wrong, by using the word “nonsense” or “wrong” or anyone of the words without really seeing some real proof, then let me help you… How many videos can you find of real aircraft, the large ones, because the small ones can take a higher ratio of stress relative to their weight… what percent of those videos, include large aircraft landing with strong crosswind landings without de-crabbing and addition to that side slipping, in my humble professional Mathematicaical opinion, much much much less, then the number of videos you will find the same technique I used in my videos of de-crabbing right at the final moment is almost 99%… if you think this is a wise moment to make some serious claims about enjoying some serious flying on FS2020, I am always open to learning something more, other than be stuck on these simple proofs… 
Thank you.
If they would just open up the SDK for A2A (and other devs of course) the problem would be solved in my case.
Very clever. I am slowly but surely getting to some improvement. But I guess people are unaware of the related topic of stress and damage, over time, in the physics term of Fatigue. Thank you for helping me make it clear…
I think Asobo has “switched off” some effects. I have no proof, but if I look at adverse yaw, I think I find some relevant variables for adverse yaw in the documentation. And I find some cfg files parameters comment about adverse yaw. But even having far too big values, no adverse yaw effect happens.
I assume that the feedback loops in the flight dynamics engine “run away” if Asobo switches on all the nice features that are already in place. Therefore Asobo uses the phrase “dumb down” instead of “switch off” to describe the current situation. And yes, if I “dumb down” the multiplier to zero, this is the same as “switch off” the formula because zero times anything is zero.
For me “dumb down” or “tune down” is classical marketing speech for “we have not established stability and/or convergence criteria yet”.
I guess it would take much more proof for you to understand the difference between Autopilot and autosuggestion. Do you know how many crashes have been reported because of lack of proficiency of flying and the main cause was Autopilot?
The first one : Asiana Airlines Flight 214 - Wikipedia
If you want more I will provide you with more proofs… That way you will understand why airlines encourage pilots not to rely on autopilots but to fly the aircraft more when possible, not at FL350, but other phases of flight which will increase their proficiency.
