Long story short, I accidentally turned off both my A320 engines in mid flight. For whatever reason, Eng1 didn’t kick back on but Eng2 did. Plane flew fine on autopilot/autothrottle. When coming for a landing, disengaging them plane took a hard left. I just got my rudder peddles so managed to right the ship and land…more or less. The Company would’ve been proud! Anyway, I was wondering how realistic something like that truly is when an engine is lost. Any thoughts?
Not very realistic, I’m not 100% sure how the yaw control works on the A320. Most aircraft only have a yaw damper for coordinated flight, the autopilot has no authority over the rudder.
With an engine failure manual trim is required and therefore nothing happens when disengaging autopilot. On the planes I currently fly only the Embraer has an (optional) autopilot yaw servo which only works for autoland and go-around. That one can “abruptly” disengage, still manageable though.
Again I don’t know how the Airbus works but I doubt it will create any abrupt yawing moment when disengaging autopilot.
Trust me, the aircraft can still prevent exceeding the critical angle of attack, even without engines. The alpha floor function isn’t available obviously but the flight envelope protection won’t allow you to exceed max. alpha in normal law, you will be descending in that case but not stalling. It might work without APU, I don’t think the FBW will operate in normal law when using the RAT.
Yeah, I remember one morning. Sunshine at ground, but in the tower (70m above ground) only white soup. Or another day: exactly half of the runway dark clouds and rain and the other half dry and sunshine. I wait for FS2020 to simulate that. Probably I wait forever.
Well, I think so, too. But I think the CFD (computational fluid dynamics) have improved with version 126.96.36.199. I think somebody fixed/enhanced the “beast” (the simulator core) but did not redo the flight model parameters. We have to wait for the parameter guys.
For myself: I corrected my aerobatics flight model mods and I am more happy then ever!
With recent updates it seems that the aerodynamics has been improved with FS2020 and is pretty much up to par with X-Plane. The landing flare with small planes seems to be right. So much so that another day I fired up X-Plane 11 and I really didn’t like what I saw. So to me the scales are shifting heavily towards FS2020. If they could get the taxiways in default airports correct, it would be fantastic. At least the hand-crafter airports are great and it is very interesting to find a route to designated runway via givend taxi cleareance (which has to be written down due to length and surrounding traffic which adds quickly to the ATC backlog).
So I can claim some extra storage by removing X-Plane and FSX as well that I still have installed under Steam.
Still no propeller drag, slipstream effects, adverse yaw etc. Until at least everything is modelled to some degree I wouldn’t claim the MSFS flight model is any better than X-plane. I don’t care if its a little too sensitive or a little more or less control input in real life, everything should be there to start with. By the way airliners are still far off…
This has been a topic of intense discussion in many, many posts in quite a few threads, recently. The consensus opinion amongst real pilots and experienced sim pilots seems to be that the default plane flight behavior is not correct and hasn’t gotten any better. Specific problems seem to be torque and crosswind issues on takeoff roll, trimming for level flight, lack of inertia, flare during landing, veering after touchdown, and steering during taxi.
Are you talking about planes with mods? If not, could you describe in detail how you think the small plane landing experience has improved in your opinion? Perhaps an interesting discussion might be using the C172 for reference since most US and quite a few European pilots have considerable experience in it.
Well perhaps I am not as picky about airplane behavior as long as it behaves mostly as I expect it to do. I have 12 years of real life Cessna experience with couple of flights in few other light aircraft. Regarding Cessna experience I have flown 172M, 172R and also 172R with 180hp conversion and I can tell they all are different in real life. For example 160hp R requires considerably more rudder peddal during takeoff that 180hp conversion. The RPM’s are different and also during turning the amount of pedal requirement differs. So yuou really cannot take a reference even in real life. If the plane has veen polished then again it requires different techniques in landing as you need to think ahead more in order to remain within speed limits. I mean if you approace the base leg with flaps 10 and speed 80kts and want to start descending with polished C172 then my experience tells that if not done correctly, the moment yopu push the nose down, you instantly exceed 85kts needed for flaps 20.
So perhaps therefore I am not so picky about details like adverse yaw during flight in the sim. The plane behaves generally in an expected manner.
For example the default C172 in X-Plane is a complete disaster. It has very high drag and in order to maintain proper speed during landing, you literally have to keep RPM at around 1900 which is not realistic, also the nose has to be pointed down way more than it should be. No such problems in FS2020. In X-Plane default C172 drops like a stone once you cut the power and start flare maneuver. It takes abut 3 seconds to get the wheels down whereas real plane (and also in FS2020) it floats about 8 seconds. There is the Enhanced Flight Model (EFM version) of C172 for X-Plane and that is quite good but thats about it.
Once you look out the window, I really get tired by unrealistically hazy and washed out world of X-Plane. In FS2020 the world is crisp and beautiful (or stormy if you so choose). Also when flying VFR, in X-Plane only roads and waterbodies (lakes, rivers shoreline) are realistic but all else is just autogen whereas in FS2020 I make a cross country flight which very much resembles the one I do in real life as I fly over actual satellite images.
So FS2020 the experience is great, the planes behave as expected. Perhaps I intentionally fly other planes that wht I have access IRL. For example I really enjoy the DR400 and also X-Cub. Really nice planes.
So to me FS2020 beats X-Plane but I am also not looking for study-level experience. Just a fun where I can practice the visual appraches and landings that I can also apply to real life.
Yet another observation I recalled is that it is thoroughly enjoyable to feel the elevator effectiveness to reduce during the flare of the plane - you constantly pull the nose up during the flare to maintain the floating above runway and as the speed drops, the plane gets more and more reluctant to raise the nose as it gets heavier and heavier. It kind of falls through and sinks towards the runway like the plane should do as it approaches stall. This is very realistic behavior and the fact that I can feel the heaviness of the nose and elevator effectiveness through my cheap CH Eclipse yoke is an indication of great aerodynamics. The forces and hand-eye coordination during theflare is very good IMHO. Totally enjoyable and makes me feel great after landing.
You’re closer than most of what I have read in this thread. It appears that many people would rather make speculative comments than actually read and understand what is in the SDK and experiment with what is currently available.
Hello every real life pilot! You may know me for my turboprop flight model mods. See MSFS 2020 sailplane
If you like to give feedback, I can give the C172 a flight model mod after YOUR suggestions. Here is the deal: I will use the plain vanilla Asobo C172 and will build a flight model mod for that. Somebody else can include the modded CFG files into a larger C172 mod that includes 3D changes, flight computer changes and more.
Update 10-feb-2021: The C172 flight model mod is out. You find it on MSFS 2020 sailplane
Please test it and give feedback!
Asobo writes in the SDK documentation MSFS SDK/Documentation/03-Content_Configuration/SimObjects/00-Aircraft/Flight_Model.html: “To this aim, an original normalization algorithm has been developed, that helps redistribute global aerodynamics coefficients and tables as provided by user across all surface elements so that the final forces and moments match the ones computed by FSX. Of course, this does not mean we are finally equivalent to FSX modelling, as forces are now distributed over all the aircraft geometry. It rather means that, when suming up all contributions, and thus losing geometrical distribution information, our more general model reduces to FSX historical model. This makes our model an extension of the historical model, which is in accordance with the objective of retro-compatibility. One great advantage of this is to guarantee a consistant behavior for aircrafts designed with the historical model when used in the new model. This requirement is actually of the utmost importance for our client Microsoft.”
What I see in my flight model mod work is the following: Asobo did not fulfill the Microsoft requirement of “retro-compatibility” completly. The success of my flight model mods - specially the Extra 330LT mod - comes from the differences between the “new surface elements model” and the old “mathematical vector model” .
Some forum members like to tell the fairy tale “MSFS 2020 flight model is the same as FSX”. If you believe this talking, please bring facts for your opinions.