That’s the classic stick free vs stick fixed issue. Since joysticks usually don’t move on their own e.g. due to an altered downwash, you simply can’t simulate this effect with non-powered flight controls.
The downwash mainly influences the angle of attack and hence downforce on the horizontal stabilizer. Sure it has some effect on the elevators aerodynamic center but there must still be some nose up/down pitching moment.
I’m only talking about the change of the elevator position due to aerodynamic loads.
Trim change with flap deflection depends on CG, flap angle, speed etc.
The DC-9 for instance can pitch up or down when extending flaps, depending on the weight / CG combination.
1 Like
Thanks PaulFalke
I think it is more or less the same in many areas. Even design companies prefer to rely on standard applications, with all the limitations they entail, instead of developing their own talents. In the 90s I personally had some success with mathematical models, but sadly there was no follow-up.
Good luck with your glider. And anyway let’s hope that by talking about it, the snail will move a bit faster.
Yeah, I still use the old model. And only the Cessna 152. But I am an armchair pilot.
Yeah, I have done and still do adaptive algorithms. The algorithms are hard, but harder are the stability checks and even harder the what to do if the stability check fail.
But there is a real need for say Kalman filters, IIR filters and accustic echo cancellation filters. And up to now no customer complains. Okay, some complains before going operationell, but not after.
That is true but this is about “Human factors”.
YES WE CAN! 
… yes we can be “disagree” sometimes… not about empirical facts/rules that define Aviation based on physics/science, everybody is agree to claim that you can’t set your full flaps down at 0.80 mach of course but on the other hand for other stuff that do not engage the safety of the pax and the bird we can have different point of views because at the end it’s still the man/woman who flies the beast until 2050 lol … it’s just about different practices based on different countries teachings/culture.
I give you just an example to illustrate my point: in my flight French school I was taught to always keep a hand on the throttles during the initial climb and even until the cruise (if you don’t use the AP or if there’s no AP) and same during landing phases… it’s exactly the same teaching when you’re flying a tube for our national airlines, or you will see american pilots or else not doing that, they are “allowed” to take off two hands on the yoke once the auto-throttles are engaged. (I’m talking under the control of US pilots here or others if I’m wrong) … Well as it was taught to me, the reason is about safety in the very rare case if you have the incident of sudden throttles back to idle (extremely rare issue) but on the other hand, for example on our side, there is no real recommendation to activate the AP after taking off, flying a B777 for example, on the contrary, for the sake of safety (again) “we” advice pilots to fly by hands as much as possible if it’s a climb without severe turb, same for the descent when the cockpit is sterile of course, just in order to not loosing your Hands-On-flying skills which is so important for a pilot I do believe! (Sure, there is no opportunity to loose your Hand-On-flying for a C152 pilot likewise for the bush pilots who are some of the best skilled pilots on the planet! imo) … so that you have a bunch of better skilled pilots in this area than airliner pilots (non-cargo flights) who stopped flying their plane because of rigid rules that obligates them to push the buttons just after T/O or to be obligated to disconnect the AP just 500ft before the very touch down! (we started to have too many crashes the last few years because of that, it’s taboo I know but it’s true, (it’s not their fault) but we have too many airline pilots who forgot to get rid of a stall for instance this is why we have more and more flight simulator lessons including “stall in high altitude” (belong other stuff) to improve our basic flying practices, yes it sounds weird right ? especially because a student-PPL-pilot after 5/8 hours is supposed to know how to deal with a stall! but … (always a " BUT" hidden somewhere) …
In China and many other countries on our beautiful planet you have no right to fly by hands until the FL cruise Alti but now it starts to be recommended even by some members of the FAA to change some rigid rules made by techno-dude non-pilots in their office who never touched a bird! …same for a long final landing when you are just allowed to disconnect the “automating” only in short final!!! … Too many rules of safety can kill the safety by itself, somewhere! (my oponion) …
Well finally you now easily notice that it’s about argumentation for the sake of safety and its meaning until a certain limit, with some variables included! .. That means there are different philosophies about safety matters based on different countries culture but at the end we pilots are all supposed to speak the same universal language means to fly safe in the same “framed rules” anyways!
I had instructors during my PPL who were different from each others in some details for instance but at the end of the day they say the same stuff: “Fly Safe” but this under different approaches and perspectives based on subjectivity, just different technics of flying… So it’s the same when pilots talk about this thing or that stuff on a forum or around a good glass of French Wine (the best in the world) sorry I’m French but “Trust me I’m a Pilot” lol! …
Hence it may diverge a little bit between pilots about such-and-such topic just because flying is, above all, an art. Aviation needs Science to make their birds dancing in the skies but flying them is an art more than a job (imo) 
To conclude and to join directly the topic here and not loosing myself in poetry, I wish that the MFS2020 devs will care a little bit more (it’s on the right way based on the roadmap) about physics/aerodynamism/weather like (Turb in CB/updraft/downdraft just to avoid to fly a Cub in TS!!! Please! 
) etc in order to give to the non-pilots but passionate-simmers an idea about what is to be a pilot flying birds in VFR and/or IFR flights because no matter if we are pilot in the real life or armchair-pilots young or old (there is no age to Love) we share the same passion on the same bright vibe and we all need more realism in terms of Engine-Weather and Flight Models (Welcome to A2A birds and The SP-30 (Mad Flight Studio) in MFS2020 soon!) … and maybe some simmers here behind their screen will be our future Captains and our future Flight-Instructors tomorrow morning!!!
By the way I didn’t forget that I started with FS2004 back in the days and at 29 years old I said to myself fater a beautiful dream: “maybe I can make it in real” before flying a bird in the real life (small and heavy ones) 2 to 4 years later after lauching my sim for the first time! …(sorry i talk about myself now but just for sharing in general) and I now fly more sims than real birds because I have a bunch of free-time (sse how long is my post here, sorry my novel!) 
yeap I’m a Grounded-Pilot now, the crisis kissed my … so thanks to Xplane and MFS2020 to exist, I got back from where I came from : Flight Simulator! How cool does it sound and I enjoy it everyday despite that I really miss the perfume of my real bird so badly but I deal ok with that! 
so now just sharing personal feelings of JOY with you guys!) …
Well even if it’s a sim and it will never match the reality in its completeness as a matter of fact of Mother Nature but it can get very close by providing a solid and reliable illusion… and illusions (the good and sane ones) are sometimes not that far from Reality!
Amen! (lol)
Happy Landings to all of us!
2 Likes
Well after hours working with Flight Sim 2020 and $600 worth of upgrades i’ve decided to shelf it for a while. As a real pilot with hundreds of hours flying C-172’s and C-182T’s I don’t under how other so called pilots say the flight dynamics are accurate. They are actually very poor and and the G1000 is a huge joke and nothing like the actual G1000. trying to get a IFR flight plan and proceedures entered is way to hard and really inaccurate even the CLR [clear] button does not work. For gamers who want to buzz around and look at the “PRETTY” scenery it’s great but as a true flight simulator it is way way behind X-Plane 11. Perhaps the upcomming patch #2 will corect some of these problens so will wait and see.
5 Likes
I have only flown the 172 and Diamond GA aircraft in the sim and for a new sim I think they did a really good job and it will only get better. Of course the sim can’t model things like the way your body feels in turns, climbs, etc. and never will unless you have a million dollar full blown motion sim. Most of the arm chair pilots who say it is not realistic probably don’t even try to fly the sim in a realistic fashion. I can’t comment on the tubeliners as I have never flown one in real life but GA is pretty good.
1 Like
When the flaps are lowered it generates more lift initially, but as you rise, the nose will start to lower. Once the drag increases you’ll see a pitch down after oscillations unless you maintain the nose lower.
I’ve flown plenty and it’s fairly accurate. I’m not sure of your “experience”, but it’s never going to be perfect. Who expected every system to be 100%, I sure didn’t and by far this iteration has more functioning tools than previous.
2 Likes
I thought that high wing planes do nose up with flap deployment and low wing planes nose down. MSFS May be only using the 172 model which give nose up with flaps. XP works this way too.
BE AWARE IT’S A NOVEL! 
I second that too! There is also a big drag issue etc … I think the “problem” looks like we have a misunderstanding about what means “accurate flight model” .. enjoying flying is one thing but if we start talking about flying by numbers in a realistic dance in the sky then we are still “a little bit far away” in MFS2020 from reality or even from Xplane if we enjoy “not fair” comparison! … it’s not about opinion but it’s factual: talking about the 172? … who will claim that we have here an accurate flight model? I really do need solid arguments for that! ? I mean kindly that even if you spend only 3 hours flying the real plane tomorrow and get back to our sim, it’s going to be easy to be factual and objective as much as possible.. then we should be able to share real stuff here… the 172 is not that bad, it’s kind of a pleasure to fly to a certain limit of tolerance but we can’t talk about a “real flight model”.
I guess if someone write here “I’m a real pilot” I want to trust him but it’s gonna be hard for my ears if in the same time he or she says that the 172 out of the MF2020 magic box, has a realistic behavior? The bird has some good stuff, some good mood somehow but the MFS2020 C172 isn’t not study level bird or at least one on which we can start talking seriously in terms of numbers, isn’t it? (not yet! well again it’s not that bad but it’s not that good at all as well!) … I don’t even talk about the TBM or tubes or I don’t want to investigate in twin engines in MFS2020 because it’s really really far from what a C90 flies irl for instance (I know this one is not in MFS2020) but for those like me who were lucky to fly twin engine birds come on just a simple thing that a “basic” simmer knows which is the Torque effect, well don’t you think that it’s very important to include it in the flight model? yes it is! … or training with “Engine failure after V1” ? Can you do that with one of your birds in the hangar of MFS2020? Who will dare to say here that the flight model is ok in MFS2020! Who? 
Trust me I will vote for him or for her for the next presidential election because he/she will have to be very persuasive!!! That will change the law of physics of Mother Nature for the parts that I know then!!! 
I gave a try to the King Air well it’s just impossible that a real pilot who flies this animal (I never flew that one by the way) who will dare to claim that it is “accurate” because I will need to talk to him in private and see his flight licence or KA QT lol ! Seriouly captains if someone who really flies the TBM for instance and says to me that the flight model is accurate, that she responses correctly to our imputs, same I’ll vote for him too as a Vice-President this time! No no no it’s for now impossible to fly by numbers (not really) or by the book with the POH on the knee with accuracy as it’s supposed to be however it’s possible to enjoy and to feel confortable with this joy and to share it here, sure but no more! Otherwise it’s going to be funny because it has be taken with a big sense of humor otherwise it’s TOO serious and a little bit ridiculous in the same time but funny or funky…
Having fun, enjoying flying the MFS2020 C172 or the TBM is one thing, but if we are a little bit “serious” as real pilots to share reliable informations (which doesn’t mean to take ourselves too seriously because we fly birds irl but at least a little bit serious if we dare talking about aviation and humble in the same time, I talk to myself in the same way of course!).
Because somehow it hurts to hear that the MFS2020 flight models work or are realistic, because it’s not (not because I want to but as a matter of many little facts in a row!), it’s funny to fly but it’s not really “realistic” but it gives a nice and sweet illusion of comfort if we don’t dig that much… the small birds are not that bad but in terms of “pure” realism I will go on Xplane for that with study level addons and a good engine-weather like Active sky if I want to get close to the “reality” but it’s not the point here yet, it will come step by step I do believe …
Anyway… tks to some DR400 pilots and 152 ones who provided a mod to rectify huge errors in the cfg… it gets better and thanks a lot to them, they are aware that they still have some work to do that the devs didn’t make before releasing the product, before we bought it! … Well the C152X is on the good way for the sake of realism, based on my real flight experiences (at the end who cares about my real flight experiences, not me here lol) I should better say: based on physics/areo blabla/Books/PoH blabla she gets in a better mood than she was out of the box for sure! Just give a try and let’s talk about, here later … I do believe that she’s the best in terms of flight model/aero so far… I guess this one is the only one reliable (imo) to tease the clouds with still some work to do but she starts to be sexy in the skies!
My friends, let’s talk about realism a last minute here (I know I’m long, I don’t tweet) but now this is a simple exercice that we all learn in flight school during our PPL, so launch the sim, take your C172 right now, imagine that you are a little bit to high on your glideplan on final, you have no pax on board 
and you decide to “forward slips” to get back on a safe glide and please just see what does happen in front of your screen and how behaves your MFS2020 C172 
… and after you get back here and no doubt we will change our meaning of “realism” or even “realistic flight model”, no need for philosophy or Maths, just facts are enough to illustrate my words in a better way!
If someone can explain me how to make an accurate forward slips it in MFS2020? I’ll give you my cat that I don’t have, promis/juré/craché! … then we can put a solid stone for a “serious” discussion about accuracy, flight model/realism… And I have other points to share in my pocket, to put in front like this, so let’s play, let’s enjoy it!
But the most “important” here seriously, is: let’s hope that the patch 2 will bring some joy in our hangar with better dynamism/aerodynamism/physics and sure: better flight models and certainly a better engine-weather in order to stop flying our Cub in TS or CB… I know that it’s allowed in MFS2020 to fly a C172 through a thunderstorm (so gentle) but hopefully this will be fixed too for the sake of… guess what? REALISM!! hhh
This is the end of my novel, it’s 2.58 am here and let’s put that way: it’s a young sim very very promising, with a huge potential therefore step by step it will make everybody happy here simmers, hardcore-simmers, pilots who were fired because of the Covid crisis, pilots who do fly tomorrow morning, pilots who are grounded like me and my cat if he’s still alive… so despite of legitimate frustrations it’s going to be ok I beleive if gamers don’t complain to the devs that they cannot fly their Cub in CB in order to considerate them with respect thus to avoid them like a hardcore-simmer does or a pilot irl does (I mean for VFR flights) … and finally: Patch/updates are coming so yeahhhh!
BeautifulSkiesAhead!! 
Happy Landings guys! (without Forward slips!!!) 
3 Likes
I think we are in agreement that pitch control is used for air speed and power is used for descent path. A perfect example of what I am talking about can be found on Gary Wing’s YouTube video " how to land a Cessna" at the 1:50 mark. In this FS2020 sim I doubt that the addition of power at the last minute would have enabled the smooth landing that we see in the real life video.
This decades old ‘method 1’ vs ‘method 2’ discussion is only applicable if it’s about small path/speed changes.
Once the deviation from the planned path/speed becomes bigger you need pitch and power for correction.
2 Likes
We’re in agreement with your technique? Not all of us. 40 years of flying a variety of military and civilian aircraft, always used pitch for altitude control and throttle for airspeed.
1 Like
I think it would be good to invite John and Martha here to settle some facts and opinions here 
The pitch vs power dispute will never be settled, even by John & Martha!
2 Likes
The funny thing is that while the guy in the video said that he’s correcting the ‘little sink’ by adding power, he’s actually increasing the pitch attitude as well…draw your own conclusion from this endless pitch or power discussion.