X-plane has a much better flight model.
Having designed flight models for MS flight sims and x-plane for many years, I definitely disagree.
That’s without even considering the WIP modern MSFS FDM.
I like to agree with you but I can’t, if I fly the Kingair or TBM trying to slow down, endlessly floating in ground effect.
Maybe you are right in the hands of 3rd party developers but what I’ve seen with the default planes so far X-plane has done a better job.
That’s why I’m presently not flying any turboprops and other constant speed prop equipped aircraft in MSFS.
The whole turboprop/propeller simulation is a realism/immersion killer for me, but I’m pretty sure that Asobo is going to considerable rework/improve these major problem areas
i’m only a flight student, but the 3 most remarkable flaws in the sim for me are,
- The Yaw , aint no need for rudder in the game, wich would be intolerable in real life.
- The Wind , There is something with the wind still not working accordingly with real weather.
- The View , As a VFR pilot, I tend to use remarkable points I cant find back in the game.
For example, Bridges, AWOS radar systems, waterfalls, rocky parts on a mountain, etc etc (and what’s with the height of buildings??? ). I did however go around Japan , and if the whole world was rendered like Japan is , ( some parts of it anyway) then it would be more acceptable.
If you want a perfect example go ahead and find mount rushmore in the USA, you will be SO disapointed if you even get to find it.
I would undoubtly use the sim as some backup training if those things were corrected.
I am certainly disapointed so far and I will NOT recommend it for a real world experience simulator.
Maybe to have fun with other people flying around like fools (Even tho we can’t communicate ingame)
So that’s it for my 0.02$
Cheers and dream on.
The lack of propeller slipstream, P-factor etc. is handled in this thread. More votes are welcome!
I agree on this. Asobo/Microsoft needs to enhance the FS2020 flight model with braking effect of the propeller. Until they do so, I have produced a work around.
My workaround is to use lift drag and additional drag with flaps and landing gear. In landing approach I reduce throttle, but this alone produces the “floating” effect. As I use flaps 20°, flaps 40° and landing gear I can fake a realistic landing approach with the Beechcraft King Air 350i. The non-realistic part of my fake is that take-off is best without flaps and landing gear should be retracted soon after lift-off.
See my work around on Youtube https://youtu.be/7W8WXb7lTnA
Download my Beechcraft Air King 350i X flight model mod at http://www.andreadrian.de/FS_2020_sailplanes/index.html
Measure yourself, you will get the same numbers as I did. Here is the stock C152 FS2020 configuration parameters that make the “more flaps, less lift” effect:
flaps-position.0 = 0, -1, 0
flaps-position.1 = 10, -1, 0.25
flaps-position.2 = 20, -1, 0.75
flaps-position.3 = 30, -1, 1
The third value defines the “less lift” factor.
Just out of interest, what other sim gives you better VFR experience over the whole world?
I think he wasn’t comparing MSFS with other sims. I somewhat agree with what he @anon85311196 said about the yaw.
As for the ‘view’, I mean the scenery, it’s a constant thing for Asobo and others to keep improving, and they have clearly stated their desire to do so (more obstacle and related data are coming, for example, as announced by CEO Sebastian himself). The world is huge and there will be an infinite number of real world objects and features to add to MSFS, which is what a lot of trigger-happy and impatient people are not realizing yet.
As for Mount Rushmore, @anon85311196, yes may be it’s not there in MSFS yet, and a USA world update has been announced already. So when that happens, check back to see if they added it. Meantime, you can try and see if this helps https://flightsim.to/file/501/mt-rushmore-scenery
Just for fun I will reply this.
I’ve seen someone implement FSX with a Google render.
it was amazing.
Well, not stating a fact for the sheer fact that we are waiting for something to happen would not be post-wise, would it?
I did as well mention that Japan is somehow nice on a vfr point of view.
My main argument here would be how google is able to offer 3d render versus mfs.
I’m not even speaking of trees in random sectors or complete sections of river missing.
I get that city’s are and should be the first places to be adapted to the game but look at my pictures attached.
Don’t get me wrong here, Op wanted real pilots to give their point of view on mfs, and those are mine.
I could go a long way and speak about the lack of church’s that are normally up there in term of landmark, or even how absent the turbulence is when transitionning from a city to a forest and etc.
The truth is, without some very strong fundamental basics, this game is more deceptive than realistic.
Also note that My game settings are maxed out.
I think it all comes down to expectation.
Well they sold me a Simulator.
According to Google,
- a machine with a similar set of controls designed to provide a realistic imitation of the operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or other complex system, used for training purposes.
Like I said in an earlier post,
None of the above respects such criteria.
It is still fun to fool around with and
I do hope it will be refined and my hopes are in the community… it proved itself many times to enhance the experience of any modable game/simulation.
Having a game with nice trees is not cutting it for me.
Flew the FS2020 CAP10 to reproduce the real life flights I made , testing things in real life. Stalls are much better with the modern flight model. Legacy model is full innaccurate.
Using modern flight model, Spins are partially correct though. Initiatine a spin in stalling the plane while in a left turn, with too much rudder left generates a spin on the left. FS2020 gets this correct.
Stalling the cap10 in a left turn, with rudder on the right will generate a stalled roll on the right, with a spin rotating right… but FS2020 spins the plane left and no stalled roll on the right. That one is so brutal in real life, I lost my lunch in the bag.
Guess the torque effect at stall speed and idle power is a little overdone.
That could be.
I redid the same test in FS2020 with the pitts, turning left, idle power, and rudder in or rudder out.
Rudder in ( ie left) , spins develop on the left.
Rudder out ( right) , no stall…
If they can tune this, that would be great…
To answer your question, in my case I fly both MSFS and FSX DX10 with ORBX Regions, ASN weather, and A2A planes.
As we are speaking of VFR Experience, in my case, when I look outside looking for landmarks that match the sectionals charts MSFS fails to show me antennas, towers, lighthouses… while my current FSX setup gives me better weather, better flight dynamics and although the visual quality can’t be compared with MSFS, it gives me the landmarks I expect to see when I fly with sectional charts and a better VFR experience overall.
On the other hand, I’m able to get this only when I fly over the ORBX regions, while MSFS gives me more the feeling of “virtual traveling” all over the world, but for me VFR experience means to simulate the completion of a VFR flight according to the rules of the area you are flying, not sightseeing randomly around the world.
I’m not saying that in the future MSFS won’t become better and better, I’m looking forward to it, but this is how it is right now.
Yep the AP is somewhat broken. I deal with that issue by pulling the speedbrakes when it started climbing, seem soften the effect. Just don’t do it in real life out of habit lol.
Yeah that’s the FSX one, it really shouldn’t be used aside for compatibility reasons with some aircraft