More Physics, More Real Winds

Sure, but I’m less concerned about what things should be in a perfect world, and more concerned with reality… a reality in which we won’t fly a near study-level aircraft with proper physics until A2A, PMDG and (other ones I don’t care about) get a workable aircraft SDK.

I operate on the assumption that there is a 0% chance Asobo will develop an aircraft that meets the most demanding standards. Honestly, I’d rather Asobo focus on the base sim and let the talented, focused, and experienced 3rd party aircraft devs do what they do best.

3 Likes

Yes, We should have a fully customizable Simulator, That can have API to all its aspects, Including physics. That way, we can have professional models working with great graphics, but Asobo should realize this. Instead of adding 3D objects that don’t add much to the quality of the simulator and Its focus, A simulator is call a simulator because It simulates the physics, not the placement of static objects.

1 Like

Yes, The wind still has a bug, I don’t know why does it take so much time to solve these problems.
Thank you for your support.

And If We had more money, we could make Flight Simulator so much better…

Thats exactly what I mean by don’t poke the hornets nest :+1:

3 Likes

Maybe AdherentToast91 is secretly a developer of Xplanes.
I had typed a long winded response but, after reading it I self censored and ended up with this.
As an Aussie I don’t mince words, so I took out all the possible offending bits so as not to hurt little precious’s feelings.
My personal history in aviation, yes I have RW experience, is not relevant.
ASOBO is doing a d@mn fine job on a huge project, lets give them some credit, where credit is due and look to the future.
I do believe the next update does address issue with aircraft, so let’s see what happens .
Happy skies all.

1 Like

Here is one I would like all the professional pilots to give me an opinion, please.

With no Elevator Trim function and a bouncing 787 arcade game.

Thank you.

Trim works (on ground) with the default unmodified 787 here with identical trim commands.

The bouncing is a new, awful bug. CG needs to be >20% to avoid this problem.

1 Like

When does a fully loaded 787 with a <20% CG, bounce in that way in real-world Physics?

It doesn’t. Have you missed the fact that this is a new bug?

1 Like

I am sorry, the bouncing 787 was right from the beginning…

300 users offering their free time for beta testing… If you calculate the hourly pay for such a task, multiply it by 300 testers with their own valuable time… it would be more then 1 million USD within 166 hours, which is about 7 working days. But I am sure Asobo is getting all this support for free, and having fun creating an amazing low class arcade.

2 Likes

Looks like you are correct. That’s in fact pretty disappointing that it apparently got even worse now :frowning:

1 Like

I couldn’t agree more with these two paragraphs, particularly about the lack of inertia and how it relates to Pitch, FPV and AoA (and the GTA feel)
In another thread about control delay it was found that different aircraft types have different delay timings built in by Asobo depending on their size. Largest delay corresponding to the largest aircraft. If the flight model was fundamentally correct then there would be no need to alter controller inputs to make the aircraft feel more realistic.
@Grinde81 made a graph to illustrate.

3 Likes

Well it might be realistic to have some delay in flight control response as on larger aircraft it might take some time for the big flight control surfaces to move, but I think this is indeed overused to make aircraft feel more sluggish and artificially create inertia.

The reason you can’t pull any aircraft into an accelerated stall is because flight control deflection is limited as a factor of airspeed or g-loading by ASOBO. You can only see this in developer mode looking at control surface deflections as the in-sim flight controls just mimic your joystick. When you jank the stick full back the deflections are limited to simulate stick force and g-loading, the deflection then increases as airspeed reduces when holding the stick full back.

I think they have overdone this as you can’t pull any aircraft into an accelerated stall, the Boeing 747 and Airbus (when in direct law mode) pitch up to just below the critical AOA and then just stay there. I also found it difficult to fly a 60 degree AOB steepturn as the elevator authority was already running out at 2g to maintain level flight.

Still doesn’t explain the twitchyness though, that might really be an inertia problem, in real life it just feels more “fluid” to fly in gusty winds or turbulence. Might also be caused by the fact that for a 20 gusting 30 kts wind on the ground you need to set 40 gusting 60 kts on the weather page. The “ground wind” you enter is really the wind above the friction layer and MSFS cuts those wind speeds in half for surface wind. Its therefore difficult to properly test a good crosswind landing for example.

That said, I uninstalled MSFS from my computer a couple of updates ago and haven’t reinstalled since. So maybe things have improved in the meanwhile, therefore take this with a little grain of salt.

5 Likes

I still think there must be a better solution than the weird flight control logic ASOBO uses. In MSFS the flight control deflections are directly related to the joystick position at low speed, but at high speed the control logic all of a sudden becomes force based, reducing control surface deflection to simulate high stick forces associated with higher speeds (which you have no indication of as the in-sim yoke or stick directly mimics your joystick).

I think the flight controls should either 100% control the control surface deflections or be 100% force based, not some weird hybrid. In other words the in-sim yoke should either directly mimic your joystick which in turn is directly controlling the flight control surfaces (no weird limiting of maximum deflection as a factor of speed). Or the joystick should be considered as a force input rather than a control input, this way the in-sim yoke is not slaved to your joystick, your joystick rather becomes a force input acting on the in-sim yoke or stick. Full deflection of the joystick corresponds to maximum force an average pilot is able exert on the flight controls. This is kind of how it works already anyway at higher airspeed, but at least you would now be able to see what is going on.

I think the “force based approach” has two added benefits:

1 Trim can be simulated correctly. Currently if you trim the aircraft the trim isn’t moving the elevator. The elevator and yoke position remain neutral, still the aircraft is pitching when trimming, how? In real life, should the elevator be stuck or held in position, the elevator trim tab starts to act like a tiny elevator but instead works in reverse :sweat_smile:. This is some workaround because on the real aircraft the in-trim position is variable while on most joysticks the in-trim position is in the center and not variable. It looks really stupid to trim the elevator in MSFS (and most other sims), when trimming full nose up, it will look something like this in external view:

Note: in real life if the elevator would be held neutral like in the above photo, the elevator trim tab will start to act like a tiny elevator in this situation but working in reverse. The nose would pitch down instead of up :joy:.

When using a 100% force based approach, I think this could be fixed. As an example, when trimming the nose up, the trim tab exerts a force on the elevator, changing its position, the in-sim yoke would move to the nose up position as it is slaved directly to the elevator. You’ll need to push forward on the joystick to return the in-sim yoke to the previous position in order to maintain altitude. In real life it would be the same, when maintaining altitude while trimming up or down you’ll need exert more force on the controls, the only difference being that in real life the flight controls would need to remain more or less in the same position when maintaining altitude and more force would be required to keep the yoke in this position when being out of trim situation. (considering conventional elevator with trim tab, not THS :sweat_smile:).

2 It is currently possible to control the aircraft with autopilot servo’s engaged. In real life (at least on all aircraft I have flown) it physically isn’t possible to move the flight controls with the autopilot engaged, unless enough force is exerted on the flight controls to trip the autopilot offline and hand over controls to the pilot. When seeing joystick input as a force input rather than a direct flight control input, I think this could also be realistically simulated. When the joystick input corresponds to a force less than the autopilot disconnect threshold, the autopilot is in command and manual inputs are ignored, when above the threshold the autopilot trips offline and the pilot is in control.

5 Likes

Thank you so much for your contribution…

I have something very simple to add relative to all of your deep understanding to how we are improving our simulator…

If the SDK is filled with so many deep mathematical equations and physics, relative to what we can presume is functioning in the simulator without bugs… How come a simple addition of all the waypoints in the route within the progress screen in the FMC of the 747 and 787 is not added properly, Is it so hard to solve the error of the addition to all the distances of all the waypoint and have the total distance calculated accurately? It really amazes me how a group of programmers working on such a complex SDK for our simulator, can’t solve a simple addition problem in less than 20 minutes.

1 Like

It’s going to be on a list somewhere, but other things get prioritised over it.

1 Like

Lets keep this thread to Physics shall we.
Rants about the developer’s understanding of simple addition have no bearing and is mere supposition.

5 Likes

Take a moment to watch the elevator. Parking brake on. Trim full up. Take note of the end points of the up and down travel. Now trim full down. Take note of the end points again. You will notice that the function of trim appears to be an adjustment of the center point.
Assume 100% travel. Trim at neutral gives 50% up and 50% down. Trim full nose up gives 30% travel up and 70% travel down. (those numbers are arbitrary and just for illustration, but you get the picture)
I noticed this while trying to simulate a soft field takeoff. It is impossible to raise the nose wheel off the ground and roll just on the mains. The nose won’t lift until flying speed is achieved. This finding fits with your explanation as well.

2 Likes

In any situation, and aircraft or only certain ones? Don’t we, in effect, do this every time we land as we flare? Main gear touches down, then the nose slowly lowers as we lose airspeed. We aren’t flying, and the nose wheel is off the ground.

I’m sure I’ve done this on take off as well.

1 Like