For the CRJ they are more dedicated to the simulation of flight systems than to the flight physics. In the first comments of this post, all the physical effects that are not simulated are described. The CRJ, unless it uses its own programming for the flight model, will not solve these problems.
1 Like
Jackass: 
I completely agree.
1 Like
Picking the right engine for the right task is critical. Just look at Star Citizen as a cautionary tale for those chasing glitzy graphics.
I see this has been discussed so all good…
you simply cannot put MSFS and X-plane in the same box.
X-Plane → one studio, one group, one management, constantly improving one product, continuous development (11 iterations)
MSFS 2020 → totally different group, different management, different development studio, multiple “owners” of the franchise over the years. It is in many many ways totally different and brand new.
At the end of the day I think we can all agree with your comment “We all want the same thing, that is the most realistic and good looking simulator possible on a home PC.”
1 Like
We often forgot – or maybe don’t fully understand – that this sim has:
-
Microsoft architecture for Windows, with its handling of input devices, operating system support or limitations for monitors, VR headsets, sound, and cloud services
-
Bing Maps as the source for worldwide terrain data and textures
-
Navblue as the source for navigation data
-
Black Shark AI for a processed copy of the terrain data, auto-generation parameters, and I think photogrammetry?
-
Azure as the cloud-based source of ATC voices, all terrain and photogrammetry data, and code
-
CoherentDrawGT as the virtual cockpit instrument rendering engine, with HTML and JavaScript code to feed – and stall – it
Austin himself said that the two sims do not directly compete and that he’s not worried about all the glitz of MSFS. At this point in time, we have to agree because realistic flight simulation and system simulation – i.e. study level aircraft – are only available in X-Plane. Realistic, low-level, VFR flight using pilotage is only available in MSFS.
As someone said, it will be easier for MSFS to fix the flight models and systems – or provide the needed core functionality so that third parties can do it – than it will be for X-Plane to add the features that MSFS already has. X-Plane would have to add add those things I listed above – and that would be PROHIBITIVELY expensive.
That being said, the idea of Google or AWS or both partnering with X-Plane? Hmmm…
3 Likes
Not “as possible”, but to a reasonable extent. The difference is that I would have one – greatly lowered – expectation for the Xbox platform, and while have that playable on a PC under the Xbox game bar, I would not let it cripple the Windows PC product. And I would have at least two levels of the PC product. One to work on lower-end PCs and one for high-end PCs and hard-core simmers who are willing to pay for it.
I have no expectation that we will ever get a sim that is “as realistic as possible for a PC” unless you add the qualifier “and that will turn a tidy profit, or sell a bunch of our hardware, or at least give us massive free advertising.”
2 Likes
At the risk of starting a real row, we need to stop with comparisons.
The purpose of this thread is to move the developers to focus on getting us to the, “Real as it Gets”, level of home PC flight simulation.
To date, there has not been a flight simulator released that accurately models all the aspects of heavier than air flight. Some parameters have been more or less successful than others. Some simulators, “FEEL”, better than others. I have yet to yank and bank ANY simulator aircraft that do what they should. Sure some have the performance tables nailed and you can plan a flight by the book and fly by the numbers, but let’s be honest, there is not one simulator that you could use to train a student pilot on anything other than systems.
So, let’s stop with the, “XXXXX is much more realistic than ZZZZZ.” They are all bad to one degree or another. This is the MSFS Forum and this thread is about improving MSFS. My challenge to you is, what needs to be done, EXACTLY, not by estimation or perception or comparison, to improve the physics of MSFS. What is missing, prove it, and what do we need to fix it? I am tired of the pixxing contest. I want to see THIS sim get better.
7 Likes
Amazing that as soon as the challenge is put forth to offer constructive suggestions, rather than the normal complaints, … crickets …
6 Likes
I thought the Laminar team were looking at improving the textures? Not photo realistic to be sure but at least an improvement?
To get back on topic then: Regarding the new aerodynamics video.
I don’t see the point behind altering the control surface stops as explained in the aerodynamics video. Can’t do that in real life so why in the sim? The wear and tear option is great, we can finally set 0 wear and accurately compare aircraft performance with the published AFM.
Also curious what this has to mean:
A spin is not caused by “one wing being stalled and not the other” in a spin, both wings are stalled, the inner wing has a larger angle of attack (more stalled) compared to the outer wing. The difference in drag (more stalled = more drag) keeps the aircraft yawing, the difference in lift (more stalled = less lift) keeps the aircraft rolling. Still, both wings are stalled!
Skybrary: Spin - SKYbrary Aviation Safety
Lots of talks about propwash, great that this is simulated. What about slipstream effect on the vertical stabilizer, p-factor, gyroscopic effects etc.? Those are important to truely make a prop plane feel like a prop and not a jet (i.e. constant rudder input required for coordinated flight depending on speed and power setting).
Future improvements will be regarding flap pitching moments, how about the wing downwash angle on the horizontal stabilizer. I could be wrong but I don’t have the feeling this is currently simulated (accurately if at all). This is really important for proper flap related pitching moments and ground effect simulation.
Also 6000 combined flight hours is really not that much… I nearly have that myself, I could join and double the Asobo combined flight experience 
.
7 Likes
Apparently in the last video Asobo is taking seriously the work to improve the flight model. What I don’t see are the force vectors in the propeller that produce a torque on the fuselage, as well as a gyroscopic effect. You only see the thrust it produces.
2 Likes
I’ve been flying x-plane for couple years. I love MSFS 2020 but there it’s difficult to go back and forth between x-plane and MSFS. Not being a real pilot I really can’t judge which is more real but they are definitely different. I love GL1000 planes and have learned to navigate using them in X-plane. Huge difference trying to build flight plans on a G1000 in MSFS. Hope this improves
1 Like
I also have doubts about FS2020s physics model. I will have to be looking at more data, but what I’ve seen so far is not what I have been hoping it would be. Sorry 
It is certainly a beautiful game, but I was hoping that it would replace X-Plane for use in serious flight training applications. In FS2020s current state Laminar Research will not have to fear for their market share,… that’s definitely a good thing there 
In the picture you posted, you can see the forces acting on the aircraft. (Yes, I know that you knew that but maybe not everyone does) As you can see the lift is not distributed equally.
You can see that the lift lines are different in the back and than in the front. The resulting moment is the pitch moment the aerodynamic forces exert on the wing. The horizontal stabiliser counters that moment to a total sum of (close to) zero.
They also vary along the span of the wing. When asymmetric, the resulting moment is the roll moment of the aircraft.
The downward force on the fwd section of the outer wing is a result of the wing twist (meant to keep the A/C controllable at high alpha) and shows up at higher speeds. It should disappear at slower speeds / higher alpha.
TBH,… all those features lead me to believe that the flight model was actually capable of much much more than X-Plane, but with this rushed publishing, I have the impression that they simply went for the low hanging fruit with a premature release. It’s a pity
Btw, can someone tell me if end users can display those force lines?
I get that, just doubt the angle of attack (taking into account wash-out angle) will be come negative, resulting into negative lift on a substantial part of the wing (tip). They must have shot that clip close to Vne then 
. There is also a shot of the Kingair lowering it flaps and having negative lift on everything outboard of the flaps… I’m not sure how accurate that is.
In the developer mode you are able to select aircraft creator > debug > forces.
Thanks!!! Will check those forces for sure!
You can also select pitch moments, it will then show CG / CP, stabilizer forces and resulting pitch moments in a diagram. Like I used in this thread:
The title of this thread and first 20 or so posts after that pretty much have met that challenge i.e. describing the issues with constructive suggestions - and don’t need to be rehashed. Moderators will know exactly what we’re talking about. The cricket-level responses are mostly from boredom having covered this same territory for weeks.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.