I’m PPL in real life. Im pretty happy with the model in general but the main thing i just cant stand is how aggresive the sim is when you pt flaps up while climbing. It just sinks like crazy, even if you are above the recommended flaps speed. And I feel that way in most light / turboprop aircraft. Same on approach, the plane just sinks like a rock even in full flaps and above your VREF.
Does anybody feels the same?
3 Likes
Note: You can change the sim rate (4x/8x/16x). You have to use the ‘r’ key + either + or -.
The issue is that there is no on-screen indication of what mode you’re in, so coming back to normal speed can be difficult. I do it by looking at the clock in my plane, and syncing the seconds to a real clock - when they match, I know I’m back in real time.
1 Like
A lot of problems are from the overly sensitive/jerky controls and poor trimming ability. It’s like they expect everyone to have a high-priced yoke for GA, even if not all of the GA have a yoke anyways.
It’s just pretty difficult to judge because of that. A lot of things that are way more annoying than the flight model is the fact that they didn’t properly implement feathering and mixture setting. That’s just so weird.
1 Like
Here are my 2 cents…
4500h total time, ~1600h C172, PA34, DA-42, 8KCAB, etc, 2800h A320, 100h CRJ 700/900…
MSFS 2020 dynamics that need improvement…
C172 is on the spot! Almost perfect. However, it lacks a little of adverse yaw. Try applying full aileron left and right at 70kt in the actual C172 and the sim version, without touching the rudder. You will see the difference.
All other piston engine airplanes are greatly modeled, with the same problem of adverse yaw.
However, jets are absolutely wrong! I crashed trying to land the aircraft I flew in the past 4h almost everyday (A320)! This raises a concern whether the flight model depends on the actual airframe or just programming lines.
Turbulence is better than other sims, but it lacks the wing dropping that demands work from the pilot. I seems that the wing rocks but always returns to level. You could fly a turbulent approach on MSFS without any roll inputs. This is definitely wrong. Other than that, all the interaction with obstacles and clouds is great!
Overall, more adverse yaw needed for ALL aircraft and jets need a complete rework. But we are on the right way!!!
16 Likes
Thanks for the details, however if I may ask a quick one - are the take offs that aggressive in real life in terms of applying rudder when the aircraft veers off on application of throttle.. i sometimes over correct and end up in a zig zag fashion on take off just trying to keep it on the center line.. but as far as training videos goes on the Cessna I can see most beginner student pilots don’t struggle much. I have realism to full and also have disabled any assistance like rudder etc. Either I’m doing something wrong ending up over correcting and fighting the aircraft or my rudder (on my joystrick itself) needs some sensitivity adjustment.
I know it’s not really fair to count my 20 hours in a PA28 when compared to a professional pilot, but I’d say the similar aircraft in FS2020 feel similar enough to make it a worthwhile training tool. I actually think it’s harder than the real thing, due to no physical sensations and not being able to look around you.
I’ve been watching some youtube videos of airline pilots trying out FS2020 and was fascinated (and frustrated) to see how much time they spend fiddling with the FMC, and using the autopilot for almost everything - come on guys, show us some seat-of-the-pants throttle and stick skills and tell us if things like the turn/dive/climb handling, throttle change response times, and general feel matches the real thing!
2 Likes
I’ve skipped all of the replies here so I can give my opinion without bias. I’ve got way more than just the Private Pilot License so I can chime in.
The flight physics are decent, nothing outstanding that got my ‘red flags’ going. I do have some yellow ones, there’s no ground effect being simulated so when you take off at a slow airspeed and leave 5ft off the ground the airplane will sink back into the ground. FS2020 doesn’t do that, you can just climb out at stall speed off the runway.
I’ve attempted to do spins in airplane that should spin fairly easily (think SR-22 long skinny wing) and I couldn’t get it to spin unless I properly held the rudder. Do a skid in real life at airport pattern altitude and the parachute wont even save you.
Multi-engine airplanes behave too nice when you fail one of the two engines. If you take off, fail the left engine and are below a certain speed the airplane will spin due to asymmetric thrust (Vmc roll-over) couldn’t get it to do that.
I really like the turbulent air simulation, the airplanes feel alive. I like loading the wing with G’s and exceeding the angle of attack, get the stall horn alive. I hope Asobo takes time to listen to pilots with all of the mentioned above and nail these areas.
11 Likes
As you are a real pilot I would be really happy to hear what you think of my “non pilot observations”
“snipped from my above post”
I took a twin engined turbo prop up for a quick spin, then realised my secondary device wasn’t programmed for primary flight controls.
Undeterred I used the mouse and setup the throttles and flaps for take off etc and took off (at this point I was just hoping to use the keyboard or something for some sight seeing - but didn’t), then using careful manipulation of the throttle flew 12 miles away and landed at another airfield with no issue using nothing more than flaps and split throttle…no primary surfaces mapped…first go…wasn’t a smooth landing, very firm but none the less.
Just to be clear for 100%, I took off, and landed first time with just throttles and flap, no other inputs just to be clear, and the runway I went to was not dead ahead either, and first time I ever flew an aircraft like this in my life. !
…feels like complete bull to me, I am ok at Sims but not a god, I find it hard to believe now as a result 
I am NOT A PILOT in real life btw…only got 30mins flying a 152 under my belt and about 30yrs sim experience.
=======================
Thanks
1 Like
I’m a little surprised no one mentioned the super elastic pitch feel or inability to trim normally.
Yes it’s pretty aggresive, specially in touch and go when you apply full power. In real life Rudder is much more important than roll, and you play with it nearly all the time thats for me the main difference in all sims in general.
3 Likes
They should be modeling loss of control authority at lower speeds a little more aggressively.
4 Likes
Hey NonGryphon80203,
Real life is like you see on the videos. The airplane will not divert much, but it does require continuous small corrections during all the takeoff roll to keep the centerline. It all depends on the amplitude of the command the pilot applies even on real life. If he/she applies too much “command”, the aircraft will act like a snake on the runaway (we call that chasing chicken 
). If you gently apply the command with small amplitude, the takeoff roll will be much better. The faster the aircraft goes; control surfaces will be more energized, and the correction needed will gradually lowered.
So why in the simulator we go all over?? (myself included ). You will have to decrease the control sensitivity a lot, in my case, I put -55%. I’ve also added a 10% null zone to simulate the pressure we need to apply to the command. I’m using the Saitek pedals by the way. Try that and see if it works for you.
Fly Safe.
Thanks!
2 Likes
1000h in GA aviation here. Mainly Diamonds and 5000 more on the a320.
Yes, GA is very nice, but you can definetly feel some difference between the c172 and everything else. They fly fine, just not like the real planes. And the trim is horrendous.
The a320 is an absolut disaster. I did not expect them to model all the systems, but if you include an aircraft, at least make sure that the flight envelope is correct and that it works as intended. The MCDU is total ■■■■ and nothing like the real deal. And the autopilot modes do very weird things. Eg: Flying in open descent through Fl100, it goes back to DES to reduce the speed to 250kts and then go back to OP DES. And what happens with the PFD and the FCU? When you select something on the FCU, even if you don’t activate it, it will show on the PFD.
The feeling that they achieved is very nice. It’s awesome to just fly around and look at the incredible graphics, but for more serious simulation, it still has a lot to do.
6 Likes
Perfect, thank you so much for your detailed reply.
thanks, in sims rudder seems to take a step backwards and most of us get rudder pedals at the very end
1 Like
There is an option to increase sim rate, you need to set up keyboard binding to use it.
2 Likes
I think this subject is important, but I think if the goal is to help Asobo make improvements, we have to get specific about which aircraft and which performance or handling characteristic needs improvement. It might be useful to try and collect specific feedback on specific models in their own threads and, as much as possible, consolidate that feedback into a concise and specific set of requests that can be implemented, rather than hundreds of subjective posts on ‘feel’ - because as accurate as those descriptions might be, developers can’t really action them effectively. Is there a way to engage Asobo directly on this initiative? I hate to think we’re just posting into the ether to no end…
I’d also kindly remind some posters that just because you have more hours than someone else, doesn’t in fact make you a better pilot, or have more relevant feedback. Plenty of accident reports tell the tale of the seasoned high-time pilot that ignored the feedback and input of their low-time right-seater to a fatal conclusion…and any serious professional pilot trained in CRM knows this. So enough of the ‘I have more time than you, so my opinion is more valid…’ 10,000 hours sitting behind automation in an A320 flying between Atlanta and Kansas City doesn’t make you a better judge of how a Bonanza handles on short final with a 20 knot crosswind in Valdez, Alaska.
So, with that in mind, here are my thoughts on the Baron…since I own and fly one.
-The takeoff roll is about right in terms of time, distance and speeds.
-The climb rate, however, is what dreams are made of. No way will a Baron accelerate through 140 knots with a 2000 fpm climb rate at 6,500’. 1,500 fpm at 120 knots down low, and more like 1000 fpm at 120 above 6000, temperature dependent.
-The control inputs required in the sim are much smaller than in the real aircraft. I compared a pattern that I recorded in my real plane with one I recorded in-sim - and under 100 knots, I would use up to 45 degrees yoke movement in each direction in the real plane…in sim, it was never more than maybe 10 degrees. So with a 1:1 sensitivity ratio on my honeycomb alpha (with the same 180 degree throw that the real yoke has), much less control movement is required in sim when compared with the real thing. At higher speeds, it is more accurate - so my conclusion is that the control surfaces are too effective at lower speeds.
-PlumAbyss6 got it right on with his #5 on rotation - the bobbing effect is real and as observed; I’ve learned to control it in sim over the last month, but it isn’t true to life. It is exacerbated by the fact that the real world yoke has much more throw than the sim yoke (the Honeycomb has 5" if elevator play, whereas in the Baron I think it is 2x to 3x more throw between full AND and ANU elevator).
I’ve also spent some time in a Bonanza - my only feedback is that in the sim, at 2500 RPM and wide open throttle at 11,500, it won’t break 140 TAS; that’s about 20 knots too slow compared with the real deal (depending on engine model and weights).
So, the Baron is too fast and the Bonanza is too slow. Roll control is too pronounced at lower speeds, though not nearly as much as pitch control, which is prone to bobbing and hard to trim (but that’s complicated by our simulator controllers).
On systems, my real ask is that the G1000 be built out more completely, with specific attention to the following features:
-The ability to fully add/remove waypoints from a flight plan from the interface.
-The ability to go direct to any waypoint in the flight plan from the FPL screen - you should be able to scroll to any waypoint along the plan, hit the Direct To button and be able to activate direct to that waypoint and then have the flight plan continue to sequence the rest of the flight plan from that fix.
-The ability to add or change the arrival or approach procedure from the PROC menu and for that to correctly sequence into the flight plan, including the ability to load an approach, select the transition fix and then go direct to that fix and resume sequencing the approach.
-The ability to use the “Activate Vectors to Final” function in the PROC menu, which should then sequence correctly by removing all prior waypoints.
-When “Activate Approach” is selected from the PROC menu, it should not change the active leg of the FPL back to the first leg of the flight…
-The list of procedures needs to show the full name of the procedure. Right now, if there are three approaches to a runway that are all RNAV (for example, RNAV X 16, RNAV Y 16 and RNAV Z 16) they are all listed with the same name…there are three entries “RNAV 16” - with no way to tell which is which and they often have different fixes and transitions, so they’re not interchangeable. The full procedure name needs to be shown.
-The option to auto-tune an ILS frequency for ILS approaches, and the option to automatically activate VLOC are nice to haves, but I don’t mind manually making those changes.
I’m sure there are others, but the G1000 feels so close to being usable for full navigation - the above issues, in my opinion, would make it completely usable. Moreover, if it is finished right, then third party devs won’t need to build their own G1000s and we won’t end up with yet another unusable Caranado G1000. They put the MSFS version in their C182, so that bodes well - now we just need Asobo to get it closer to 95% done!
Other more general items:
-In flight, especially in the turboprops, the fact that the rudder trim is rarely needed is disconcerting. I have double checked that I don’t have on auto-rudder, yet in flight, I basically never need to adjust trim, whether in climb, cruise or descent. And in turns, I seem to always be coordinated even without rudder input except when approaching stall. In my Baron, I don’t need a lot of rudder above 110 knots, but I do need some on turns, and there’s definitely some trimming required between full power at 100 knots and cruise power at 140 IAS at 12,000’.
-On the ground, however, I think weathervaning is causing an over-exaggerated yaw moment. The moment the mains touch down, even with only a 5 knot crosswind, the plane veers wildly into the wind. I double checked my real world landings that I’ve recorded…and yup…I don’t have a problem in real life with the centerline…but man, in sim, I’m a slob on the runway.
That’s as far as I’ve gotten. But, yea, I think we need to give Asobo actionable feedback on specific airframes with which we, as real world pilots, have actual experience in. That way they can work to address these specific issues rather than the ‘feelings’ of the masses…
32 Likes
Most of the props are fine. Smaller jets and airliners are quite bad. These 9000+ fpm climb rates are hilarious.
3 Likes
The flight model for the single engine piston aircraft feels really good. Slips work well, landing physics feel good. The bumps and burbles in the air (presumably from the new weather engine) are very immersive.
The only thing missing is adverse yaw, especially on the Cub types. This is a big deal, especially in that type of tailwheel aircraft where it tends to be a more prominent force than in, say, a C172. Hope adverse yaw is added in a coming update!
2 Likes
I am flying the A320 in real life, not the neo but close enough for a judgement on the behavior of this plane in MSFS. I have to say…either it has in fact never been tested by real Airbus pilots, or their feedback just didn’t find it’s way to the programmers.
-
strange behavior during rotation (even with “corrected” trim to avoid nose wheel airborn at 80kt)
-
completely overpowered…far from realistic
-
LDG: after steady approach with no input needed, one need to force the aircraft to the ground with a
lot of nose down command. Thats’s just not how it works in real life. I don’t know wheter it’s an issue
with the goal to simulate ground effect, or if it’s a trim issue, but that’s also just not how it works -
MCDU/FMGC/FCU: MCDU not fully funktional (a lot of deviations from real life handling), A/THR
doesn’t follow real life logic -
pitch authority insufficient
But still…impressive graphics and amazing sound! Thank you for that! I hope for improvement regarding the airliners.
16 Likes