Real World Pilots, please state your feedback about the flight model

Discussion Hub General Discussion
205

hey yo, student pilot, RPL holder here with around 70 hours in PA28s, 172s and 152s.
as well as light sport aircraft.

One overarching issue is that all the planes float too much, induced drag is really neglected and there is no way I should be at 30KIAS in a 172 comfortably floating and not even sinking haha.

The light sport planes feel about right, but I can’t comment too much because each plane has it’s own quirks, the bristells i flew would have been different from the VL-3 and CTSL for example, but they handle about how I expected them to.

I haven’t flown a 152 in over 2 years, used to book casual lessons in them during high school for a bit of flying experience before I started training full time after I graduated, from what I remember, the ingame 152 feels pretty close. Fun little plane that is a bit gutless in the climb, doesn’t like to cruise faster than 100KIAS, but as long as you’re good on the rudder, basically does whatever you want it to do in terms of handling.

The 172S is spot on, exactly like the real thing. The way it wingdrops in an approach config stall at 1700RPM at 1-2 stages of flaps is identical, can almost hear my instructor yelling at me to fight the wingdrop with rudder quicker in the background lol. Only issue is that G1000, which, lets face it, is missing a lot of features, most prominently the red button to mirror the PFD and I really wish the analogue was in the standard edition.

I know people are complaining about the 172 rudder being a bit different from real life, but irl the 172 S variant has a ground adjustable rudder trim that only maintenance staff are allowed to adjust, the required rudder on takeoff were always slightly different from plane to plane at my previous school which had the 172s, it was a massive flight school and the planes got used a lot, so quite often the rudder trim would be slightly out of wack. The ingame 172S feels pretty close, in terms of rudder input needed, to a couple of the planes at my old school.

Can’t comment on any other planes as I haven’t flown them irl! Hope this helped

3 Likes
206

Some of you “real pilots” need a visit from FAA or EASA, how can you say controls of GA aircraft are realistic… Forget your yokes and joystick just fly looking at your in game yoke which truly represent aircraft controls. How can you tell me controls are realistic when you spend 30 min setting up your sensitivity and you fly when in game yoke makes almost no movement but plane banks like F-16. I don’t remember setting sensitivity in in C152 when doing PPL. Controls are wrong and it got nothing to do with peripherals they will not fix controls only mask it.

3 Likes
207

I find that with my controls it works very well. You should know that the Cirrus can basically be flown with your fingers once airborne because the aircraft is so sensitive. I don’t know if changes we’re made in newer models, but I fly a G2.

1 Like
208

Saying “sensitive” I mean in external elements (wind). I fly a G3 and yes, it is sensitive on controls but it goes like a train on rails after take off and with 4kts wind.

209

I haven’t much messed with the external elements but I think I understand what you mean.

It could just be the way drag and airflow is modeled around the aircraft. It might have to be touched up.

The drag and airflow on the Bonanza is broken so it could be something similar.

1 Like
210

Try changing the seat position in the aircraft before startup. I think that may be why the picture looks slightly off from your real world experience.

1 Like
211

Tried that of course, still pitch feels too much nose up in most aircraft…

1 Like
212

I guess another question would be, when we do find things that are off, do we continue discussing here or create a ticket in zendesk?

1 Like
213

Well thats the problem, it’s all very subjective, for airliners there is actual data about what pitch corresponds to what weight in what configuration. For GA aircraft that kind of data isn’t available and it all comes down to what we feel is right compared to real life.

Thats why I’m asking the question, are there more people coming to the same conclusion?

3 Likes
214

oh , just clarifying the condition when I do the test, not stating the headwind is affecting the climb rate.

1 Like
215

Controls are also different from aircraft to aircraft, real world, even in the same type. I have flown 3 different R44 Raven IIs recently and the controls feel different between aircraft.

Whenever you fly a new/different aircraft IRL, you have a period of “familiarization” to adjust to that aircraft’s controls. I get the same sensation when I hop into the sim. The actual throw of your peripherals or movement of the in game modeled yoke/stick don’t really have bearing on feel of the flight characteristics.

When you are flying, you don’t look at the controls, you make an input and the aircraft responds. How much input to get a desired aircraft response comes from experience and familiarization.
Set up your controls so they are comfortable for you, then don’t worry about it.

I have a 1:1 set of controls (PFT Puma) and have the sensitivity set to zero (which represents 1:1 in the sim) If you are experiencing more drastic movement then expected from the input you make, you may need to turn the sensitivity on your curves down (into negative) so the throw around stick center affects less movement of the aircraft’s control surfaces. It’s more important for a desktop stick since they only have a few inches of physical throw compared to a much larger throw that may be in an actual aircraft.

3 Likes
216

Ah…I get you.

My fixed wing experience isn’t fresh enough to comment on the attitude/visual picture. I’ve been relying pretty heavily on the VSI during approach which I am certain would get me harsh words from any instructor.

1 Like
217

This guy is what the creator of the thread spoke of :sweat_smile::sweat_smile::laughing::wink: Knows it all without ever having stepped inside a cockpit, then tells others that a real pilots perspective is useless, it’s just unbelievable.

2 Likes
218

Are you absolutely sure you used the right technique? The table you have there is for short field take-off which means full power before brake release for example. Also is that table for the same C172 version? Its an interesting observation, I will give that a try as well…

219

I think you might have done something wrong here, I just performed a take-off with the C172 from an airport at sea level, 10 degrees, 1013.25 hPa, no wind, 2550 lbs, flaps one notch, full power before brake release and I came up with 290 m from brake release to lift-off, your table reads 925 ft which is 282 m so I think its safe to conclude that its fairly accurate.

Edit: second try 291 m, same conditions :wink:

8 Likes
220

So back in the FSX days of helicopter simming…Hovercontrol had a program setup for training and getting a virtual SimPilot certificate. Some members became virtual instructors to train virtual students. Was pretty cool. It would be neat to see something like that setup in the MSFS community.

221

Be careful looking at the control in the cockpit because so far I’ve found that the roll input is not linear when you look at the yoke/stick. The first half of movement is at a slower rate and the second half moves a lot quicker, looking at the ailerons themselves, they are linear though.

222

@Giliador I agree with the need to reduce sensitivity of ny (crappy cheap) flight stick Thrustmaster Flight X. I reduced to 95% to be able to land kind of smooth. But I cannot tell something about other game yokes. I doubt, there is any which could simulate the need of proper trim on the final approach in a real GA plane, is there?

223

Pilots will want the sim to be as realistic as possible. The issue is there is an expectation that the base simulator is meant for enjoyment by a wide variety of consumers. The marketing team needs the “game” to appeal to as large an audience as possible.

This seems obvious but if you frame it from the point of view of a pilot it is difficult for me to say “Yeah your A320 is complete garbage” and I could easily justify that argument. I realize I have to temper my opinion with the knowledge that the sim isn’t meant to train people to fly real airplane (at least this sim isn’t). It is meant to be an approximation.

The experienced simmer will realize however that if they want a very realistic interpretation of an aircraft they will need to invest in payware aircraft to fullfil that desire. That said, the accuracy of the game engine goes a long way in the eventual maximum authenticity of even the payware aircraft, and is thusly relevant.

1 Like
224

I don’t want to sound disrespectfull but you don’t have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Make sure your research is right before posting something like this.

As others have mentioned already, make sure you use the same units of measurement (mph vs kts). And I don’t know how you end up with those insane take-off distance claims all the time, are you testing take-off performance at Quito International? Or perhaps Lukla taking off uphill? Make sure your technique and conditions are correct, 15C, sea level, standard pressure, no wind, correct weight, flaps, full power before brake release.

Those performance figures are coming from where? A brochure? 170 ft demonstrated takeoff distance under what conditions, a 20 kt headwind, cold day and high pressure? Also I think the 170 ft take off distance is really take-off roll, take-off distance is from brake release to 50 ft screen height, I doubt any aircraft is capable of reaching 50 ft from brake release point in 50 meters, either that or they performed this test with an extreme headwind.

Not to say the aircraft might be underpowered but first get your facts straight…

4 Likes