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

Okay, this MIGHT be the theory. I made measurements on FS2020 stock C152. The results are:
at 60 kts airspeed
0° 700 fpm
10° 825 fpm
20° 1045 fpm
30° 1300 fpm
The sink rate is for gliding, that is engine off. In FS2020 the lift DECREASES with flaps angle. Maybe you can change this behavior by configuration parameter, but this is how it is.

I wrote some/many Zendesk bug reports. It is like shovelling coal in a black hole: some days/weeks later you get state “solved”, BUT NOTHING HAPPENS THAT I CAN RECOGNIZE.

1 Like

It’s the official way to report bugs / make improvement requests. What they do with my feedback it is out of my control.

Fun fact I worked on a program, both managing and assembling( before promotion) the ATR 72 flaps. So cool to see this aircraft mentioned! Would love a good one for this sim.

1 Like

Yeah I only flew the -600, I did a conversion course for the 42-500 but haven’t flown it in real life. We used to call them flying tractor or Dusty the Crophopper. But they are good planes. Would be noce to see a nice -600 for flight sim. I know there one company making one for X-plane.

I’have done a trial flight one time, there i have flown a Piper Warrior by myself, the most of the flight. And I have flown many times as a passenger, on the right seat with my friend.
How do you compare the MSFS flight model with this from XP11?
I think today is only the turbulence effect in MSFS more realistic. For all the other mentioned effects MSFS has to catch up.
But the graphics are awesome, on some points you can forget that you don’t look at a real life picture.

X-plane has a much better flight model.

1 Like

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 :slight_smile:

3 Likes

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.
2 Likes

The lack of propeller slipstream, P-factor etc. is handled in this thread. More votes are welcome!

3 Likes

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

1 Like

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?

1 Like

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.
Cheers

I think it all comes down to expectation.

1 Like

Well they sold me a Simulator.

According to Google,
sim·u·la·tor

/ˈsimyəˌlādər/
noun

  1. 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.
cheers.

2 Likes