So I flew X-Plane yesterday

We got people raging here who went on record saying that the CRJ is “default level.” What exactly can you expect from such shining level of expertise? :joy:

But I wouldn’t worry. More and more talented developers are jumping on board and abandoning obsolete platforms, accelerating their schedules, and finding more ways to work with MSFS. For instance IndiaFoxtEcho is working on an helicopter with its own custom flight model directly countering some of the misinformation included in this thread.


It’s strange indeed, I’ve seen people say they feel they have wasted money because “It’s way too hard and if I wanted to learn how to fly the real thing I would go do it in reality” (I’m paraphrasing here).

1 Like

If I had a dime for every post in the Aerosoft forums that could (and likely should) be responded with “RTFM” I’d be able to buy the 900/1000 when it releases, and probably the Twin Otter as well without having to touch my own wallet. :joy:

Truth is that a lot of the people raging around this forum and demanding “study level” aren’t even ready for mid tier.

1 Like

If you’re willing to call Asobo’s direct, unambiguous statement “misinformation”… I guess you know better than Asobo, right?


Oh, it’s almost like the fact that the SDK doesn’t have features that allow you to directly swap flight models means that you can’t do it at all.

You do understand that that livestream was about the SDK right?

I quote “rigtht now the SDK is not planning to let you override the flight model”

Emphasis on “The SDK.” May want to pay more attention next time.

Also, you do understand that most of the custom modifications included in advanced add-ons for other sims aren’t done with their (often very poor and incomplete to this day) SDKs, but literally by hacking the sim’s features?

Misinformation is falsely extending a statement made in a precise and explicit context (the SDK) to represent the whole range of what third-party developers can do.

Misinformation is turning “The SDK isn’t planning to let you override the flight model” into something entirely different (and evidently false) like “Not allowing specialist, professional 3rd-party developers to override the default flight model.” No one is “not allowed.” People are already doing it.

While Eric isn’t speaking in his first language, the difference should be pretty obvious to anyone who actually cares to understand the situation instead of using it as ammo to disingenuously bash this simulator and its developers.

But hey, call IndiaFoxtEcho liars, if that’s what floats your leaky boat. The quality of their products speaks for them.

You might want to also indicate the next statement following Eric’s. (I’m French speaking so I can also relate what they mean vs how they say it):

"Instead of allowing you to override, this is not where we want to go for now. We are confident with the quality of our flight model today". (at 53:40)

They are developing the idea they rather prefer 3rd party having a question or something they can’t do, asking them instead so that they can, I imagine, better their own flight model simulation.

I’ve not issue whatsoever with the general idea to helping them better the core simulation (and not just the flight model), but:

  • Helping them better their flight model is not a reason not to also provide overriding solution for those who’d prefer implementing their model in a certain way Asobo can’t help them with (for example using an externally validated flight model component to drive an aircraft in the sim)

  • Otherwise I’m willing to discuss with them about any issue I can have with flight models, but if experience tells me anything about the lack thereof of communication between Microsoft/Asobo and Reality XP, I’d rather have an override system and doing it myself otherwise I’d wait another 12 months to get any answer back if I were to send my flight model question today.

NB: I’m not saying in any way there aren’t other ways to “trick” the existing flight model system to make it do something it is not meant for (and I’m not trying in saying so to place a joke because some could even say it is easy a proposition, there is so much the default flight model is not meant for). Their communication is making clear to me though these tricks could break in a future update because this is not what they are wanting (for now).

PS: For those wondering whether my post is a bias opinion about the flight model, please read my comments about this here:

Physics and Aerodynamic on Directional Stability - Part 2 - Getting to the Root of the Problem - #30 by CptLucky8

TL;DR: I find their approach innovative but I’m wondering: in making their normalization algorithm "bending’ their 1000 element model to match the FSX historical flight model behaviour, didn’t they just cut out what could have made their new engine a key differentiator from the past and from competing simulators?

I’ve forgotten to add: SimConnect does offer some (only too few in my opinion but at least some) variables you can write. Among these are the LAT/LON/ALT (tuple) which you can then use to make the vehicle moving in any place in 3D. This is probably one avenue you could use today to make the aircraft moving in a way which is bypassing the core own flight model translation. I’m not sure you can write the PBH yet (Pitch/Bank/Heading) but if this is possible, you’d get some basic overriding capabilities. Of course, overriding flight model also means having enough sample points to make it worth (atmosphere, moist, wind, ground friction, ground type, etc…) otherwise I believe it would be quite hard. Overriding the flight model is something complex because it is rooted into the lowest layers of the simulation, with a strong coupling to the simulation environment.

1 Like

I gave X-Plane the two hour Steam demo. The only thing I can say about it is what a terribly poor user experience the game offers the player. Visually it is, of course, quite appalling but the flight model and systems are there, especially in a Cessna. However, just simply interacting with the wretched thing is poorly thought out to the point of being obnoxious and only God alone can tell us how much money it would cost to get it into a useable state. No amount of systems simulation can make up for such a bland, hostile design methodology.


My dear, the principles of flight are quite simple. Being unpleasant and obnoxious is, also, simple but unwise.

To be fair Abriael is quite right. There is a new Heli coming out on Friday which does indeed include its own custom flight model.

1 Like

It’s entirely fine if you want something different from what they’re planning, but there’s a massive difference between not being entirely satisfied with the current plans and literally lying about what the developers have said.

In this and other similar threads, there isn’t much of the former and a lot of the latter, always from the same people.

Besides, you correctly quote the “for now.” It’s entirely understandable that they’re focusing on improving the default flight model that the vast majority of third-party developers will use first, and possibly look to other solutions at a later date.

You want to make your first wheel perfectly round before you start making other wheels.

Thanks finished all the VFR ratings but was a little intimated to start the i-ratings with a plane I’m not 100% comfortable with. I was wondering if I could complete them on something simpler like the TBM 930 with WT 3000 mod.

I’m really not certain to follow you there though. When reading the posts and your answer, I feel like you’re putting a form of emphasis to his comments with a Manichean view. For example, when @CristiNeagu is pointing to the Q&A comment, it doesn’t mean to me he his a liar. There could be as many interpretations to the Q&A comments as anyone wants, but the fact is that overriding the flight model is not something they want (for now), for many reasons, which I believe both you and I are explaining as much clearly as possible. I believe what he was saying with “they don’t want” is that regardless of “what you can do now”, you’re not protected from them breaking this in a future update because it wouldn’t be a sanctioned way to do “what you want”.

The context of that statement is explicitly applied to the SDK, in a live stream about the SDK. There really isn’t much room for interpretation.

There isn’t a single mention in the statement of any of the developers included in that live stream that actually says that “They don’t want you to override the flight model.” outside of the SDK. Taking statements out of their intended explicit context is the basic of the basics of misinformation tactics.

The SDK will never cover all of what third-party developers want to do. Expecting that is naive, and no SDK in existence for flight simulators covers everything.

Keep digging that hole…

“We will try to give you more documentation about how to really adapt the flight model, instead of, like you said, allowing you to override it, that’s not where we want to go.”

I would say that’s pretty clear. Allowing you to override the flight model is not where they want to go. Clear as day. Only person here spreading misinformation is you.

1 Like

I love MSFS, I love its ambition. Scenery wide it’s superior to every other sim. But I also love XP and with ortho scenery it’s almost as good looking. The chief consideration for me though is the feeling of flight you get in XP and DCS. I think that these are the benchmark that MSFS must aspire to. That feeling is so important for immersion and if you are into flight sim to learn what it might be like to fly then plainly it is important. That said, I don’t think I am using tte MSFS camera properly, would anyone please advise me refard8ng best way to obtain sensation of movement in MSFS. Thanks all.

1 Like

Oh yeah that is probably my biggest issue with that sim. I can just about live with the clouds redrawing (evem though I cant believe something hasn’t been done with that after all these years) but the aliasing just kills my enthusiasm stone dead!

Just because something is newer doesn’t make it better.

FS 2020 is stuck in the 80s (ironic, isn’t it? ) because it’s still using ONE single 2D monitor. What’s so futuristic about that? Yes, the eye-candy is great but that single monitor thing is so… last century. I want to “clear left, clear right” without being forced to use a hat switch to do the panning. In VR you just LOOK, like we do in real life. With multi-monitor wrap-around, we just LOOK, like we do in real life. With FS 2020 we have to pan the WHOLE view with a toggle switch (or a “track-ir” device) which messes up the simulation. That’s what we were doing back in the C-64 SubLogic days. :slight_smile:

The day FS 2020 has multi-monitor support will be the day many XP fans will likely move from XP11 to FS 2020. Until then, it’s still a diamond in the rough. It’s going to be at least another year, but I’m willing to wait.

But when people come in here posting how fantastic FS 2020 is and how useless XP has because as a result? Well, one has to wonder if they’re using either of these programs as a flight simulator or a game where they fly using an outside view (as we see on many Youtube video’s) like it’s just some game. I’m a licensed pilot. I want FS 2020 to be more than just an expensive game. :slight_smile:

1 Like

He really isn’t. Just because someone found a way to override the default flight model (we don’t actually know that is what they’re actually doing) it doesn’t mean Asobo never said that they don’t want you overriding the flight model.

If your grievance is specifically multi monitor support, there is great news… they have actually started working on it, with a possibility of being released later this year. The great thing about MSFS is the transparency and support behind it. I am easily able to look up all the glorious things they are working on and have planned for the future. Always remember we all have opinions, doesn’t mean we all have to agree with one other.

1 Like

Is there really that much hype over multiple monitors? I’m only using one for XP (and P3D) itself (I use TrackIR too). I know what you can do with them but I didn’t know it was so desired.


Sorry for the terrible image quality.