Just to complement my idea. I don’t think an External FM is the way to go right now. It should be allowed, for more complex birds. But this limits a lot of the Developers able to produce fine work for the Simulator. Otherwise the Sim will be only for the A2As and PMDGs size Companies. And there are a lot of fine work done by individuals, by carefully tweaking what is available to them.
The way forward is to me, improve the Modern FM, and give it more roots to real data.
I really do have to ask this, cause i keep seeing it over and over and over:
Can you point to one person that has suggested to drop any sort of internal flight model and force every single developer to use an external flight model, entirely developed by themselves?
This assumption that an external flight model absolutely means that everyone has to use one is poisoning the argument completely.
Nobody has suggested that, but you brought up the subject of external flight models as “Hands down the best solution” and as I have said multiple times, whilst I agree that it is desireable to allow them (and I think, long term, massively beneficial to the sim) that is NOT a solution to the problem we are discussing here which is problems within the inbuilt flight model.
Then if no one is suggesting that only external flight models should be used, why do people keep talking about this as if this is the only suggestion being made?
And the only reason you don’t see it as a solution is because you’re not thinking openly enough. We have heard from lots of people (I think from Mat as well, if i’m not mistaken) that the goal is for developers to help out with the flight model, rather than creating private code that they keep to themselves. As such, has anyone considering open sourcing the flight model? Or, at least, making the code available to 3rd party developers under a licence or NDA? That way, developers can take the code, change it to fit their needs exactly, and then feeding back those changes to Asobo who can use them to better inform their development effort?
You have so many incredibly talented developers out there that have made it their livelihood to develop hyper realistic flight models. Give them a chance to help you.
I thought it was more a case of what Asobo want it to be. So more a case of ideals not equalling reality.
OTOH, Sebastien mentioned in their last Q&A twitch session that a revised version of the default C172 will be introduced with the next simulator update, bringing the aircraft to much closer to real numbers and response to control inputs.
I am really willing to find out what the users can say after testing that updated version, and what changed in the CFG files, in order to produce the better results because it was implicit that no core change would be required and it was just a question of modifying some aspects of the aircraft geometry and some aerodynamic coefficients ( ? )
Let’s hope for the best… although I also hope it doesn’t turn out to be one of those “solutions” where some scalars on control throw are made so low that the aircraft appears to respond acceptably to the inputs, but the true deflections / rates are completely out of sync with reality :-/ compromising other aspects of the overall aerodynamic model for a C172, or similar aircraft…
It would be great if the default aircraft will simply become more realistic within the next three SUs.
People who are hoping for or are expecting ‘extreme’ or ‘hyper’ realism (whatever that is) will be disappointed in any case.
As far as i remember, the change mentioned for the C172 was purely a config change. But i did notice something very interesting in the video he showed during that talk. The focus was placed on the response following full rudder deflection. That seemed to be pretty good when compared to the video. But what wasn’t so good was the recovery. The simulator needed a tiny amount of roll input to recover, while in the video a much larger input was needed.
Here it is:
Unfortunately you can’t compare the yoke animation with the real yoke movement.
For some unknown reason the yoke animation isn’t linear. Way too little movement around the center and a sudden increase at the end of the travel.
If you could compare the actual and animated aileron deflection, the result of the comparison would be much better.
True, but that by itself is an issue worth pointing out. And it seems weird to me how Asobo went out to get data from a real plane and they tuned the rudder response but didn’t notice the yoke at all. Or maybe they did and don’t see it as a problem. Or maybe they see it as a problem and will fix it later. Or not at all. Point is: we know very little about what their goals actually are.
The animation is simply sloppy. Don’t have any 172 installed, but AFAIR not even the ailerons are at their center position with a centererd joystick.
Agree, animations of controls and control surfaces while they move are extremly sloppy. The recently released Top Rudder 103 for example moves its ailerons in synch with the hardware control on the ground regardless how fast you move it. In the air the animation of the aileron is slower while the stick moves left/right together with the hardware joystick. I haven‘t looked at the elevator but the stick hardly moves back and forth at all while its tip should move approx 25-35cm for sure in such a plane.
That’s a different item and it happens with almost every aircraft in MSFS.
It’s Asobo’s way to simulate the airloads on the control surfaces and the associated increasing difficulty to move them quickly at high speed.
There is so much wrong with what they do… building assumptions into flightmodels…
The idea itself isn’t bad and e.g. the Bf109 is a classic example concerning this problem IRL.
As a 14 or 15 years old weighting around 50kg when I started flight training in the ASK13 I wasn‘t able to reach full right aileron deflection at more than 130-140kmh with only my right arm at all. Someone with more muscles certainly had no problem.
That‘s another point pro external flight models. You can‘t assume the strength of a pilot and a limitation of the controls has no place in a data based flight model.
This has nothing to do with an external flight model. This can be tuned to your liking in MSFS.
In FSX/P3D you can only decrease the deflection limit with increasing speed, MSFS additionally allows to slow the movement down.
ah… the sensitivity sliders… got it, thanks
No. The sensitivity slider have nothing to do with aircraft speed or dynamic pressure.
The above mentioned items are part of the FDM.
The reactivity sliders are pretty good though. I watched a YouTube video from a British guy talking about the sensitivity menu options.
Adding some non-linearity to sensitivity and a bit of reactivity actually felt better than “stock”. https://youtu.be/fOZfymIJR5U
It’s not the ultimate fix but it seems better than it was on a Honeycomb Alpha and crappy old rudder pedals.