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

Sure, Avidyne – they make the more Modern, more feature full GPS systems, that leave the old Garmin stuff in their rear view mirror :stuck_out_tongue:

Hey! You’re flyin’ up by me :slight_smile:
I grew up in Bedford, haha
I live under that storm cloud just north of Fitchburg (KFIT) now

Don’t forget Trimble, “the future of air navigation”, their company logo is a sextant for a reason, its quicker to hang out of the window with a sextant than using their GPS… There was one nice feature however, you could change the start-up message to “arming ejection seat” or when the next crew had early morning shift “Nijntje is sleeping zzzz” :joy:.

image

2 Likes

Well, that is one thing you can simulate and train for in the sim quite well.
Instrument scan, and not getting distracted for too long on any one particular thing, at the expense of others.

1 Like

As a 172 and 737 pilot I can say that the GA plane is close to the real thing but more work is needed which I feel they will do in upcoming updates. I still like this sim better then P3D V5

Is it just me or have the stall characteristics changed recently and not for the better? Using any MSFS aircraft, keeping full up elevator I can fly completely controlled (using ailerons) to the ground. It is way too stable, no wing drop whatsoever. Even giving full aileron deflections does not introduce any wing drop. Only stalling with power on creates some torque induced roll.

Also the Cessna 172 (maybe also others) initially pulls to the left during take-off roll (right rudder required as it should be) but as speed increases it starts to pull to the right and left rudder is required (no wind).

I also realized that the aircraft is not responding to wind effects at all when on the ground. You can put a Piper cup on the ground with 150 kts X-wind and its steady as a rock. Only if you turn the aircraft into the wind it start to lift-off and bounce around. Parking with 150 kts on the tail or cross = steady as a rock, no weather vanning into the wind or banking. Maybe this has always been the case but I just haven’t noticed this before. I did notice before when taking-off or landing in X-wind that ailerons do not induce bank when applied too much or too little. I assume this is related.

Could someone else give it a go to check its not just me? Take the Cessna 172 for example, stall it at 1g with power off, keep the stick full back and control the airplane using ailerons, in my case it is unrealistically stable and controllable. I can’t create wing dips using ailerons, even full aileron deflections while stalled will not induce wingdrop or give opposite response.

I need some help from an a320N pilot…when I across rainy clouds, the speed tape gets crazy! It just roll from top to down, top to down lots and lots of time while I am inside the cloud (and it affects the climb too, because the aircraft doesnt know how fast it is to thrust or reduces). Is it “normal”? Or is it a bug?
Sincerelly, I am facing so much issues that I dont know whats is a bug, or whats is my fault.
I am using the default a320N (not the FBW mod).
Thanks guys

Do you use the default A320? Or the FBW mod? There was a bug in the default A320 where the probe heating does not automatically turn ON after engine start, I don’t know if they’ve fixed that. See if manually turning ON probe heating solves the problem. Otherwise, avoid flying in thunderstorms might solve the problem :upside_down_face:.

1 Like

To really appreciate the quality of a flight model (and also from both ground model and airplane model) you should have a set of tests like the ones done in a Level D flight sim, namely QTGs. No need anyway to go for level D since we can customize the flight control curves messing up with real handling when flying manually.
The ground model is somehow simplistic giving real weird things during crosswind landing and taxi. I have not tried with all possible contaminants but others sure did.
In the flight model, the most disturbing part is the ground effect that is not present at all. Miss high-speed buffeting, high G load buffet, ground friction, landing gear buffet. Do not see a change in pitch when changing airplane weight, nor does it change performance (for a fixed power setting you should see a change in speed other parameters being constant). Side slip is modeled, aileron drag is not visible. Ice on the airframe should have an influence on drag and lift and it does but when you deice the leading edge the change is abrupt and does not consider ice remaining on the airframe. For me, the worst part is related to IFR (buggy FMS, no ATC transition to STD, icing model…) since my flying experience is 99% based on that. Well, it is just a game, if you want something real then out there there is a simulator that has approved flight model for a steeper price. It as the merit of drawing attention to icing dangers. If you curious about evaluating flight simulators you can look up to 14 CFR part 60 (my bible) a whooping 643 pages document… It is just a game.

2 Likes

+3000hs in jet airplanes here, Learjet 60, Learjet 45, Falcon 7X, Falcon 900.

Small airplanes feel great, like C172 or any single engine prop. My biggest complain is about the B747, it behaves like a much lighter plane, it’s specially noticieable when flaring, it’s really hard not to overshoot the flare and bounce back flying under 110, 100 kts which for an airplane like this is not realistic.

Also I’ve done landings on the B747 in less than 80 FT, touching down around 145 KIAS.

So in general I would say that small airplanes are super realistic but big airplanes have not been developed well enough and still use lighter plane models but with some tweaking.

I think they’ve focused on single props just because in general it’s probably more fun to fly (e.g. Bush trips in the game)

4 Likes

Appreciate the feed back as it is a dream to fly and a little old to start, being why I buy simulators.

Kind of enjoy the Cessna, and the Zlin cub and shock cub.

Flying airliners a little too complicated for me as I probably get a heart attack from too much worry and checks, so being a passenger is OK for me.

Take care

2 Likes

Well that’s disappointing. I’ve checked back in to see if the game had been fixed. I shelved it a long time ago.

It looks like it hasn’t really been fixed, unless someone would be kind enough to point out where flight modeling and autopilots have been repaired.

I always thought the scenery was good enough.

I’m not 100% sure but I believe the flight model is getting worse. I don’t remember the stall characteristics were so far off in earlier versions.

CPL/ATPL (frozen), 400hrs, on Piston (C172, C182, DA42, PA28), former professional Full Flight Simulator (FFS) engineer

I now also enjoy flying with a HP Reverb G2 Headset. It’s incredible to fly especially those small pistons with it!

I just have a comment on the C172 so far: I RL i flew it approx. 70 hrs. Yesterday I tried to play around with longitudinal stability. I trimmed the A/C for example 110 kts in horizontal flight and then pulled out power to see the effect on it, actually these kind of tests are also made in Level-D full flight simulators. After some small oscillations, it perfectly established again the trimmed speed. I think at least this behavior is very well modeled. Also for the landing flare I feel like in the real aircraft. What might feel a little bit strange is the rudder during the ground run… But it really depends so much on the controls and the settings.

I would really be interested in running a subset of some tests of the QTG (Qualification Test Guide, EASA QTG), like you do it when you want to certify a simulator for training. Would be interesting to develop a small “QTG addon” where people can run different tests with different hardware and software equipment under equal conditions. I think that makes the most sense to come to a conclusion on how good the models are.

4 Likes

During stall the ailerons remain effective all the way up to full deflection, it doesn’t seem possible to exceed the local angle of attack by the use of ailerons in MSFS, and whilst airborne there is absolutely no rudder required for coordinated flight, those are my 2 comments on the C172.

My biggest annoyance is the Kingair flight model, I flew the Kingair in real life (although long long time ago) and the MSFS model is a complete joke. It doesn’t slow down at all when you pull the power to idle, floats for miles in ground effect etc. Problem is the lack of propeller drag and other prop effects in MSFS.

  1. They recently changed the ground effect strength and it is more realistic – at first – but it doesn’t bleed off realistically (more below).

  2. The elevator effectiveness doesn’t decrease with speed – specifically, during the flare and landing, as you slow, you should have to pull further and further back to keep the nose wheel off. As it is now, you pull back and it will continue to lift the nose, and you’ll just float all the way down the runway at zero throttle.

  3. Propeller drag is not modelled yet – there is no parameter in the flight model config file for that. And the other prop and mixture effects are not well modelled yet.

In the small GA planes, the modeling is not terrible, but it’s still far from realistic. If you have never spent hours and hours in the 152, 172, or Cherokee learning to fly and taking SLOW cross-countries, then the sim’s default aircraft are pretty decent.

But the gap between sim and reality gets farther apart as aircraft get bigger and more complex.

B

1 Like

Didn’t do stalls in the sim for some time (and IRL not in Cessna) but I remember the C172 of the first versions going into a spin immediately after a stall. That behaviour has improved a lot. Also right turning tendencies are now simulated much better - with some work still necessary. I see your point with the aileron effectiveness though.

But all in all it’s improving.

They are getting better. Like other guys already said here, the problem is that, no matter how good they look, is impossible to add the “real feel” you would have on a real aircraft. Another major factor is the “fear factor” which most real pilots deal with on a daily basis. You have to be aware of the real and potential dangers if you do not follow the right procedures, so if something happens, say like, loosing an engine, there is a real fear factor that can be controlled by training and experience. With the sim that risk doesn’t exist so many users don’t even try to learn the proper procedures, or at least as much as you can on a sim. Point here is, as much as I love this sim, is just not possible to compare the aircraft in it with their real life counterparts.
Main problem, in my opinion, is sensation and spatial orientation, whit VR being the closest thing. Who knows, maybe eventually they will recreate those factors, in which case, simulation and reality might become really close.
Time will tell.

1 Like

That may be a result of the missing adverse yaw – all turns are coordinated right now without using rudder. So if the rudder is always coordinated during a stall, then when one wing stalls more than another, the correct rudder adjustment is going to kick in to avoid a stall – or at least make it so mild as to be barely noticeable and thus easily recoverable.

I’m reminded of my first flight instructor endlessly nagging about staying coordinated during turns to final when in the pattern and when doing steep turns. Not only can you experience accelerated stalls, but in anything but the docile 152 you had the danger of spins!

Not so in the sim right now.

1 Like

I tried to stall the A320 today and it didn’t work. The plane had 135 knots airspeed, I pulled the nose up to prevent it from gaining speed again but it just floated like a helicopter without losing altitude. It would stay in the air like that for hours (as long as the game didn’t have another CTD lol :woozy_face:).

Another problem is the 747 bouncing like a rubber ball when landing.