We need more discussion about the feeling of flying. Currently it feels BLAND! and is Immersion Breaking

Discussion Hub General Discussion
1

Personal opinions to start:

The flight model feels very arcadey, this is since my first try in the sim at launch. Yeah i’m talking about default aircraft so that we can set a baseline for expectations. Lets only use the Cessna 172 / Kingair / A320 to keep the discussion at said baseline.

I have real world flying expeience as follows:
Glider flying in a Cirrus Twin.
Cessna 172 laps.
Jumpseat in a 737-800 on a single 1.30hr city hop ((waay post 9/11, I was an airline employee at the time about 2015 and its not US based and was completely within the country’s aviation and company regulations (had to be in company uniform / display Aviation security ID / cockpit door locked during operations etc etc … )))

I know this isn’t significant experience, but i do KNOW that each experience gave me significant take aways.
I’ll use examples from each of my IRL flight experiences.

First off the Glider flying.
The current mod Discus-2c on flightsim.to is fantastic, and a great and convincing representation — buuut the SIM lacks convincing wind / thermals / ridge wind. (unless Asobo can show us otherwise with visual toggles I don’t believe it) yes they have shown videos in the past, but have also admitted that some weather features were removed / dumbed down / completely turned off to help xbox. This is not acceptable . The name of the product is in the title. “Simulator” thats final. Asobo should offer us the most realistic wind / flight model / weather possible … and then dumb it down with a big toggle saying arcade or whatever. At the moment it feels very confused, in that parts of the system feel enabled but others are not.

The lacking bits:

Ground handling is woeful, you cannot feel inertia, there are no bumps, there is no leaning. there is no feeling of weight.
C172.
the C172 IRL is very light you can easily push it by hand for example ( can you push a car as easily ? no )
737-800
As an airline employee we arrived at work in a literal wind-storm at 5am of course (no lightning - also the power was out - just lit up computers on backup gennys) it was gusting 50-60 knots outside passengers were asking at the gate if the plane would go, we just said oh a 60 tonne aircraft has no trouble in some wind. I closed the last door and what was most noticeable was the literal rocking back and forth of the aircraft in the wind along-side the stairs. it was moving up to 20 - 40 cm side to side in the wind. Heavy wind. Pilots were happy to operate and off it went.
My point is that ground feeling MATTERS a lot for a convincing SIM. Currently it feels like there is this horrible ON / OFF transition from flight MODE to GROUND MODE still ( as Asobo have admitted ) its IMMERSION breaking and that’s why i mention it.

Low level flight to FL 100. ( ie where most of the action occurs, most GA, All Landing / takeoffs hopefully … most of the FUN in other words )

737-8000
My ride in the 737-800 Jumpseat in 2015 was a real eye opener, i had flown many times as a passenger etc most of my other flying experience - I was an Airline employee at the time and was offered the Jumpseat by a captain I knew (all above board. all within Country / Aviation Authority regulations )
We departed on a summer day / windy. (not heavy wind but still noticeable probably around ~20 knott with gusts of 35.

First off on rotation the FO had to literally WRESTLE the control column from near full lock to full lock on rotation just to try keep her wings level - he fought the controls for a couple more minutes as we climbed through FL 060, this was the most eye opening of everything , if he weren’t “VERY ACTIVE” on the controls we would have rolled a lot more to either side. ( This was an at-capacity 737-800 . with 180pax + 6 Crew + 1jump. lol i was the jump. )
My point is my observation that you have to be much more ACTIVE on the controls IRL than the sim currently represents. there is a LARGE softening of the apparent speed by which the controls have an effect on the aircraft’s roll rate - at least.
Also the feeling of speed. we rotated at 161 knotts / 186 Mph / 300 Kph. iT FELT and LOOKED FAST because it WAS … currently the sim does NOT convey a feeling of speed very well. it just doesn’t actually look fast at all.
Things Happen MUCH faster in IRL than in the sim. it seems.

C172, its obnoxiously loud flying around in a Cessna. its not fun at all. you cannot hear a thing over the engine sound.
this should be more apparent by the use of my suggesttion where you can choose the type of headset used before each flight.

Bouns topic:
Sounds
Secondly in the Jump seat the SOUNDS were far more Visceral believe it or not you can HEAR the WIND . whistling / buffeting / accelerating . you name it … its very noticeable in the cockpit and sure different headsets are used, but I think the sim should offer an improved sound set- then offer the "dulling effect of a headset " ( i think when setting up a flight before loading in there should be the option to choose a few things: 1) Do you want to do a Walkaround 2) Left or Right seat ? 3) Co-Pilot visible or not. 4) Headset type ie None / Bose Overear (GA) / Bose In-ear Jets- these will add to the IMMERSION greatly, especially the Walk around option.
Currently you get into a DEAD quiet plane, hear the sound of some switches/ engine start up is not what it should be, its a little too quick and not loud enough. taxi without the sound of bumps / squeaks / nothing. takeoff no wind acceleration sound no high speed wheel sound . no sound of water-runoff / grip cuts along the runway - sounds like a GRRRRR - occasional thump…
Then NO climb sounds - no WIND buffeting / No convincing wind sounds at all in cockpit. Its boring and immersion breaking. Sound is a VERY important Que as to what is happening. Going faster ? sounds change… stopping … sounds change (break bite sounds), … you name it there are lots and lots and lots of subtle but important sounds missing.
Other sounds included the spinning trim wheel. it sounds loud and spins a-lot!.
The sound engineers for this Simulator so far have missed the mark.

14 Likes
3

Thank god the Airbus A320 has a fly-by-wire system. The Airbus is the epitome of a modern high-tech computer-assisted cockpit, where flying is not a gymn made for wresting a medieval iron steering column the whole time. Flying the Airbus exactly looks like the same in all YouTube cockpit videos and it behaves exactly like the real thing.
I personally don´t like flying the 737 anymore because you know what they say, once a cat had been spoiled by fly-by-wire you can´t sit that cat in a different cockpit anymore…

But I know what you mean, I have also watched a lot of GoPro camera cockpit videos from Cessnas and other airplanes, and they wriggle the yoke to the left and right like the pilot was having an intense fight with the controls. In YouTube videos flying looks a whole different like driving a car, one does not swing the steering wheel full left and right at least two times every second.
But this is how real flying often looks like, especially when landing or when flying low with some wind, in all YouTube videos.
Looks very exhausting!

I know exactly what you mean, the speed in many flight simulators look “off” and waaaaaaaaaay to slow when it comes to the pure feeling of speed.
Even in DCS landing the F-16 feels rather slow, while for example driving a car with 150km/h feels very unpleasant (and absolute 101% DEADLY fast, if someone happens like for example when a wheel comes loose) in real-life.
In the meantime I have enjoyed car racing games in 3D VR like Gran Turismo, and even these feel too slow, and unrealistic slow for me.

I don´t know why this subjective feeling is always there that car racing games and flight simulators don´t feel fast enough and too slow somehow.
Maybe it´s because it would only feel realistic with 120 FPS on ultra settings, while 25 or 30 FPS have some slight slow-motion effect slowing everything down.

Flying big planes might feel a bit slower than driving a car with the same speed because of the sheer size of airplanes and airports.
A runway is… I don´t know but I guess 20 meters broad?
In a car you see the guard railing rather close, you could touch it when holding out your hand of the side window.
In an airplane there is nothing 50 meter to the right and 50 meter to the left of your cockpit windows except flat mowed grass wile being on the runway, and having no real points of orientation race by close to the cockpit window to feel the speed, except the wiiiiiide stretched centerline markings, makes things feel a little bit slower than it really is I guess.

When watching YouTube videos simulator flying looks not that different than having a fast graphics card and having the sim run with 60 FPS.

But hmm… I don´t know how sitting in front in a cockpit ist. I hate driving my (real) cars fast, and I have never flown while having the view of a cockpit seat so I guess I can´t compare the feeling of speed between simulators and real world.
But yes driving and flying always somehow feels too slow in games, I know what you mean. It´s hard to explain, maybe it´s a matter of FPS because the eye sees the real world with 120-200 FPS and videogames all have 25-60 FPS…

1 Like
4

Thanks for mentioning the sound. The only convincing sound so far is only in the Fenix Airbus. That thing roars intense when going to the outside camera (the most impressive engine sounds ever made in any simulator!) and inside in the cockpit it sounds exactly like in the YouTube videos.
But in all YouTube videos I have never heard the sound of wind inside a cockpit. Is the sound of wind noticeable over the loud sound of the engine? Unfortunately I have never been inside a real cockpit that´s why I don´t know. In cars you can hear it when a storm is outside, but the rolling of the tires and the engine sound is louder than the wind streaming over the windshield.
Can the sound of wind really be heard over the engine noise and the headset?

I recommend trying to the Carenado twin GA´s, there are squeaking noises coming from the gear and the main brakes.

1 Like
5

It might sound weird but one of the things I find that affects immersion a lot for me is the camera angles. A lot of the stock ones make things look really flat. Take for example the stock 172 with default camera views. It’s lined up in a way that almost makes the cockpit look 2D and reminds me of older flightsim games. Whereas a plane like the JF Arrows has you looking at enough of an angle to see a the nose of the plane and the instrument panel looks more 3D as well because it’s not just exactly straight on

5 Likes
6

I have flown (not as a pilot) in SNJs front seat doing aerobatics (lots of fun), many helicopters, including in the pods on the skids; very noisy. No, I don’t expect that type of ‘realism’. This is ‘make-believe’.

7

No complaints here, using VR, FS Realistic Pro and of course my hardware seating position.
All I need is some decent FFB for the cherry on top.

1 Like
8

Hmm, besides that is one of the thousand other complaint topics I want to bring up a few things to take into consideration:

  1. You write about the default aircraft which come with the sim. Default aircraft on any simulator usually lack realism and details. There is a reason one have to pay additional 50+ bucks on a decent payware aircraft. The simulator itself is capable of much more than the default aircraft can offer.
  2. Comparing a 737-800 to the A320 does not work when it comes to flight dynamics. Full stop.
  3. Ground handling is in progress to be reworked, the parameters are already in place on SU10 beta but not yet used
  4. There is a completely new flight model since SU9, currently it’s only used on the C172 and add-on aircraft. This FDE simulates laminar flow (it’s called CFD simulation)
  5. In live weather on SU9 gusts are missing, these are back in SU10 Beta. This increases the need to fight wind :wink:
  6. The feel on the simulator is bound to the hardware you use and how the hardware is configured. If you want a realistic feeling you have to set up custom curves on your axis - likely you have to adjust these for each aircraft you want to fly for now. There may be profiles per aircraft in future. Don’t expect stuff to feel right after just plugging in a yoke.
7 Likes
9

Sorry, if you’re looking to feel the effects of gravity, I highly recommend you take lessons and fly for real. We are a loonnnnggggg way from consumer Level D flight simulation.

Regarding speed, I highly recommend you get a set of VR glasses and a high end computer. It won’t totally fix it, but it will improve a bit. Most of the sensation of speed is the acceleration you feel, which is impossible, and your peripheral vision. If you’re using a flat screen, then yeah, that feeling of speed is going to be practically non-existent as there is no physical depth perception, just like it’s hard to judge the speed of a baseball when you’re standing behind the pitcher. Do you feel any speed when you get to the flight levels when you’re sitting in back? Without a frame of reference, the “feeling of speed” is impossible to attain.

3 Likes
10

You should look into RealTurb CAT Areas Global works well with FSRealistic! The flights are way more enjoyable.

2 Likes
11

When flying real life in small or airliners planes there is very little feeling of speed unless in bad turbulence and when pulling high g’s etc. The world moves slowly by except when low level so the sim is pretty close to the real thing visually for me anyway.

1 Like
12

You may want to consider whether your “experiences” have given you valid take-aways–particularly in the context of flight simulation. If you were actually a pilot in real-life you would likely be extremely impressed with how well MSFS simulates the total flight experience. Which is not to say there aren’t many areas to improve, but many of your specific complaints seem to arise from perhaps unrealistic expectations about what the base simulator can or should deliver versus how to improve realism and immersion by investing in third party software (especially aircraft) and hardware.

It is interesting that you use the term “bland”, but for real-world pilots, “bland” is good. It means you aren’t getting bounced around or otherwise abused by weather, getting ammended clearances, holds, diverts, or encountering failures or emergencies. In real life, the best flights generally involve nothing more than watching the scenery go by. That said, it is certainly possible to have very “exciting” flights in Microsoft Flight Simulator right now. Fly the simulator long enough and you will encounter weather conditions that will exceed the capabilities of your aircraft to land. Plus, top quality payware aircraft include random failures and even engine fires.

You might do better by asking questions instead of making pronouncements–particularly when you consider how much experience exists on this forum–both in terms of real world pilots and experienced flight simulation enthusiasts. There are airline pilots on this forum with over ten thousand hours and there are GA pilots with thousands of hours and advanced licenses and ratings.

7 Likes
13

Part of the issue is whenever realistic effects are introduced Asobo get a stack of “xxx is too severe” “xxx makes me air sick” “xxx is overdone” etc so generally speaking things over time tend to get toned down.

A few things will help with immersion, FSRealistic, a VR headset, an FFB joystick or Yoke are all options.

Also consider changing the weather, adding a bit of rain and low cloud helps a lot with the feeling of movement.

6 Likes
14

Do u know what is immersion breaking? CTD…all the time…
And not be able to look around with the mouse without lock the controls (it really makes my angry)

2 Likes
15

Great to hear that ground handling is getting re-worked.

About he CFD simulation, thats very exciting, it’s just that I had hoped that kind of thing would have already been in the sim from launch. not 2 years later - and still in alpha.

I’d like to say that all I want to see is a CFD simulation that can work with any “shape” 3d model you put in - annnd interact properly with wind.
They are heading in the right direction.
I was very impressed when I saw the Kingair Prop feather properly in the new CFD.

Thanks for comment, :upside_down_face:

1 Like
16

LooL - totally, I’m sure you’re pretty savvy with your setup, but I found setting my rolling cache to 500+Gb helped me.
I Also fly around an area first / IE: pre cache it … take-off , mess around ( kind of fly in expanding circles around the airport further and further ( ususally use a Hornet - do the same for the city you want to fly to … then exit and plan your flight from scratch that way bing/azure servers don’t cause hitches / also no melty buildings… Give it a try , no harm.

17

Unlikely in real time any time soon. Watch this excerpt from a Mike Patey video on wing design:

18

thx for that, I guess I would have liked the SIM to be setup as “realistic” by default so that WE don’t have to do all the heavy lfiting modding / tweaking all the time.
Also where’s the “Live-Traffic” and “Live-Weather” they’re so poorly implemented I don’t even think i’ve even seem them accurate once.

19

Mike’s got a great looking shop, and he clearly knows what he’s doing in fabrication etc, but realtime CFD already exists, his software is most likely tuned for maximum detail - and really - if he had some good advice he’d be running that software on a rented cloud instance with 20 Quadro’s. much cheaper. much faster.

But still it boils down to how much detail you want from the CFD. Theoretically (i’m no expert) but I don’t see why it can’t be achieved with say 100 lines of interaction accross the 3d geomety ? I know my 6 core 12 thread cpu from 2017 can CRUNCH math, its just a matter of coding it properly. Mind you there is something to mention, Asobo careers were hiring for a Aerodynamics programmer early in the year, oh i see they are still looking for one / or and additional one … Aerodynamicist Programmer (FLIGHT SIM) | Asobo Studio
I 'm not sure what to make of that, but I hope they find a passionate and realism focussed person

20

Pretty much. For example XPlane with it’s Blade Element Theory gives a very rough approximation based on the 3D shape but good aftermarket addons require a LOT of tweaking with tables etc to get the final behaviour right, especially if ( as simmers are wont to do) you start getting outside the envelope. You could add more elements and refine the core results but you very quickly run out of computing power if you add too many.

Yes XPlane does let you create a fantasy aircraft shape and get a rough approximation of how it would fly in real life. But that is different to trying to simulate all the idiosyncrasies of a real world aircraft in all possible flight regimes. The second one needs tweaking with tables.

FSX was all tables. MSFS does have a CFD system which is theoretically more sophisticated than XPlane but it is in it’s infancy and needs work and also suffers the same issue that adding more elements will eventually bring any reasonable computer to a screaming halt regardless of how good the programming. We are going to need to tweak with tables for sometime to come and good FM people such as Pamela Booker who can do a good job quickly are hard to come by.

Soo … why is MSFS struggling if its CFD is supposedly better than XPlane. According to a lot of devs it is a combination of some things (like inertia and ground friction) not actually being in the model yet and the fact that the SDK is quite opaque and poorly documented. People can do wonders with Xplane because they have been working with it for years and know how to work with it’s oddities. MSFS is still a bit of a mystery box in some ways and the lack of documentation means devs need to work out what can and cannot be done by trial and error as they go. An example of this is the JF Pa28’s from last year. The FM of the Arrows were very good compared to default aircraft, ground breaking for MSFS in many ways, but their Warrior II which came out later was even better again.

It is only now with things like the c310 and Sting S4 that we are actually getting really good flight models and that is as much a result of devs finally getting the hang of the system as it is to Asobo improvements.

3 Likes
21

“SDK is quite opaque and poorly documented. People can do wonders with Xplane because they have been working with it for years”

Absolutely, the SDK was in such a sorry state at launch and is still receiving major changes / improvements - the FENIX guys have said they still can’t fully access some engine functions i beleive.

X-Plane also has a great “Plane Maker” and I’m looking forward to XP-12 soon, they already have my money based on how good flying feels in Xp11.
Austin at Xplane is such a beast and is soo passionate about getting things right. If Asobo had an ounce of Austin’s enthusiasm the project would be totally different. if you want to be wowed by the enthusiasm over at the Xp12 check out the “X-Plane 12 Flight Model Update” blog post and the “wake turbulence” over at Blog - X-Plane Developer riveting reading.

Yeah, overall, I just wish we had a more convincing underlying enthusiasm shown by the staff at Asobo - i watch all the dev blogs and they’re nice people, but are clearly doing it as a job, not a passion. Its very telling, and basically FSX had a team that were very much into aviation etc they thought they were creating an actual flight training tool. I looks like asoba have taken on the project and the results are nice of course, but lack underlying passion. It explains why they launched with all the eye-candy stuff before the “simulation” suff was nailed. Also explains why they even bothered to include the old FSX blade element model, i mean honestly if you take a gander at this guy who’s a doctor of computer physics modelling science https://www.youtube.com/c/KárolyZsolnai he refers to literally hundreds of new and constantly improved models for physics / computation / smoke / CFD / that come out all the time. actually maybe he would like to consult a bit for asoba.
in fact there are so many that i stumbled accross one of the recent smoke papers ( which is bascially the same as wind in a CFD - hence wind tunnels + smoke trails etc.). anyway he states that the tech / paper / algorithm came out in 2008 ! and could have been dumbed down to run in real-time.
Wow, Smoke Simulation…Across Space and Time! 💨 - YouTube - okay maybe I don’t know everything, but man I just can’t help but wish for the best.

ultimately the project needs more passion, and its most telling as of late in that I think the team was reduced from late 2021 while they focussed on their other Plauge tail game.