I’m sorry, what does this mean?
And, secondly, just because they have data (what data?) from a manufacturer (why doesn’t MS/Asobo have the same access on the same planes?), how does that get related to a flight model improvement in a meaningful way when the flight model constituents in the other sims are MUCH MUCH more coarse than those found in MSFS? The last I heard the difference was over a thousand surfaces (MSFS, each interacting with each other and now off the surrounding air) vs on the order of tens of surfaces (not interacting with each other last I knew, i.e. surfaces don’t shadow airflow from other surfaces like they do in MSFS).
I’m asking, as you are a developer and I imagine have developed for both simulators.
As another example, the flight model for the C-172 in MSFS was developed from instrumented data of a real aircraft, as opposed to maybe wind tunnel data from a manufacturer, which is at best an approximation of data in a couple of regimes. Hence I’m wondering what data they have that makes their “flight model” special? (which really isn’t a definition of flight model. It might only mean the initial conditions are closer than those used in one vs the other, which has a meaningful effect, but is not relevent to judging one flight model tools / methodology vs another per se. Hence, my confusion.).
Granted, we’re talking PC’s here, so, what’s really inevitable is it’s an approximation for all of them with much simplified calculations… Secondly, it’s a little early to really judge the answer to the OP’s question at this point as developers haven’t had a chance to exploit the advantages of the new SDK flight model tools yet if comparing current planes to the same in the competition.