We need these planes FIXED

I always wonder… who tested and decided that the airplane aerodynamics and performance are as realistic as possible to the real airplane ?, It feels in many cases that the development team just threw raw data and numbers in order to generate the performance of the planes in the sim.
I flew on many types of airplanes, as a pilot and as a jump seat observer, and former flight instructor. What bothers me the most in MFS is that the planes (Most important) are doesn’t feel realistic performance wise.
The issue is that every time I fly, I rarely fly with the standard 50% fuel and just 2 pilots 170lb in the front.
To test the actual (By THE BOOK) performance and compare them to the sim, there is at least a couple items to consider (talking about GA) :

  1. Airplane should be loaded to Maximum Takeoff Weight (MTOW) and most cases.
  2. Standard Atmosphere (ISA) with no winds

When I did the above, I tried multiple GA airplanes that I’m familiar with, and got some strange deviations in Power + Pitch = Performance.

I noticed that the planes fly more or less OK when loaded by default, 50% fuel and 170x2Lbs pilots, however the actual performance measured on full plane (some have performance for lighter), standard atmosphere (ISA), and plane in good condition. Yet I never achieved the POH / AFM performance on the sim ! Did anyone actually sit and tested to verify that those planes act as close as possible to the actual ones ?

The DA40NG barely climbing, the DA62 needs 50% power just to move ! (These are turbocharged engines for sake), the Bonanza G36 chokes out of power at 10,000 feet, most planes had some serious issues with high pitch and sink rate, Mixture need to be leaned when it’s actually doesn’t to achieve the proper range of static RPM, and so more !..

We need to stand our ground and demand to fix these as soon as possible !. I know there is mods out there but even they have sometimes conflict with the actual simulator since the development team changes things all the time.
The standard sim out of the box, for your typical user should come with decent accurate performance, while the add-ons can fine tune them if necessary.

I hope the development team is reading it and planning on taking it seriously… I almost want to take each and every airplane and make a video to compare actual performance with sim performance to make the point.

Who else think that it’s time to fix the planes first before anything else ?

24 Likes

Keep in mind these are all “free” planes so not sure what you are expecting.

That being said, the only plane that appears to have support from the company (or real life pilots) is the TBM930. Perhaps as they are both French (who knows).

I really do like the plane, and it’s a go to, but the rest seem pretty lacking. That’s why I call it the TBM simulator currently. Hindsight, I should have just bought the standard version. (Shame on me, I bought the hype) I flew none of the “default” planes in FSX and it’ll be the same in MSFS2020 at some point…

Good luck standing your ground as they already have OUR money. You can leave reviews but they may just remove them. They pulled the user feedback score on the Microsoft store, it was 3.5 last time they had it. Now they don’t even display it… odd. But they are actively working on it so hopefully things will keep improving!

3 Likes

Your post reads as if Asobo aren’t already actively working on the planes. This could be further from the truth. Better yet, the latest cooperation with the wonderful Fly By Wire addon team is a testament to Asobo’s eagerness to improve the plane systems and depth.

Additionally, the team have repeated their sentiments on past Q&A’s (Twitch) on their active work on improving the default planes. There are a plethora of default planes, not every single one should be expected to be improved at the same time. Have some patience, there has been nothing but willingness to improve and cooperate with the community to improve the current selection of planes - that alone speaks for itself. Yes, we all are eager to see the sim improve and want improvements - you are not alone in this sentiment. Submit your findings and bug reports to Zendesk so that they can be collated and prioritized.

14 Likes

I think what we are facing here is a misunderstanding from the community. Obviously Asobo/Microsoft brought that misunderstanding on themselves with the promotional material, but…
The production of a simulator of this ilk is to provide a venue for the development of future aircraft by the community and commercial 3rd part developers. @FlippinFlow nailed it when they said they never used the default aircraft in FSX. The were brutal. That said, over time the available aircraft we did use were in some cases nothing short of impressive. Some were terrible, worse than the default, but that is part of the allure. Anyone with the interest could learn to create aircraft, scenery and tools that we could weed thru to find our favorites. I will bet I had 50+ aircraft to choose from but ended up with two or three I flew all the time.
The default MSFS aircraft have their warts but are all a huge step up from the defaults Microsoft gave us last time around. It will take a while but eventually no-one will be flying these defaults. I, for one, find the current hanger choices more than adequate to keep me busy while waiting for the real aircraft developers to release the airliners and vintage birds that I will eventually have as my defaults.
I could be entirely wrong but I believe the aircraft we have now are merely tools to allow Asobo to develop and tweak the SDK that will allow the level of sophistication we all desire.
To paraphrase an old sweatshirt silkscreen… “Screw this, I’m gonna fly something…”. Thank-you, Asobo, for giving something to muck around with while waiting for the real airplanes to land. You are 100% correct @Angernerve, patience is the key here.

7 Likes

The TBM is a very nice aircraft to fly in the sim that most of us will never fly in real life. But to say it is the only good aircraft in the Sim? I disagree.

C172 (Steam Gauge in particular)
C152
DA62
G36 Bonanza (especially with the turbo mod)

All of the above fly very nicely and are lots of fun to tool around in. Combine them with the available avionics mods (G1000, G3000, and G3X) from the Working Title team and they are transformed into really polished aircraft.

I have high hopes for the SR22 as well, and the Beechcraft 58 Baron for that matter. Those are also nice models, but in need of some additional work and fine tuning at this point in time. They’ll get there. In the meantime, lots to see and do.

Oh… and can’t forget the XCub and the available mods for that A/C. It’s a blast to bop around in, and presently the only STOL aircraft that seems to work as it should.

Special thanks to the great modding community for producing such great add-ons and upgrades for our aircraft… it is much appreciated!

4 Likes

Are you kidding :crazy_face::rofl:Then what am I paying for?:thinking::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

8 Likes

You don’t really believe that you bought PLANES when you bought this program do you? You bought a platform. A place where future aircraft will fly.

5 Likes

The great folks over ar Bush League Legends have been working hard on getting a realistic experience for the XCub and it’s definitely a fun one. Calling MSFS ‘TBM Simulator’ is pretty whack, I’ve had the privilege of flying around in one of these for vacation one year and man has it got speed and technology wrapped in it. There are many things the TBM is missing - no more or less than say the King Air or DA62. Perhaps reading up on these aircrafrs in-depth whether that be POH/AFM/Manufacturers brochures even - you’ll easily see how far off the TBM is. That being said, many of us choose to appreciate what we have, kindly submit our findings on Zendesk and do our part that way.

Convoluted posts unfortunately take longer to make than a bug report to Zendesk - which is going to be more effective. It’ll be a zero sum game if posts continue to push this “I want it now!” demeanor.

5 Likes

The mods available for the Bush League Legends A/C are really fun… I fly around Papua New Guinea in the League modded XCub a lot (thanks Missionary Bush Pilot!) and can’t wait for some 3rd party dev to get us set up with a Kodiak. I understand Daher bought Quest, so the Kodiak will be the TBM’s rowdy 1st cousin! :slight_smile:

Overall the dynamics for turboprop power plant behavior are pretty poor, but it’s on “the list” to be fixed… that’s all I care about.

It is super encouraging that the development team (along with the team at Fly By Wire) have already nailed down the issue with non-linear lateral tracking and will have that fixed on the next update. And they’ve let us know about it here on the forum in advance of release. I think that’s really great, and proof that our voices are being heard.

2 Likes

That means if someone pay the price of a Mercedes-Benz but without tyres is reasonable. And someone have to wait and buy those tyres sometimes later with extra money is reasonable too?:crazy_face::rofl:

1 Like

Considering the only thing that differentiates the versions is PLANES and airports this is kind of a weird stance to take. Nothing wrong with expecting default planes to operate properly and the excuse of “Well default planes are always crappy” isn’t really a valid one.

That said I’ve had very little issues and don’t know enough about particulars to really complain, just found that to be a weird argument to make.

5 Likes

I would rather compare it to buying MS Windows and getting Wordpad for free. Yes, you can write text in Wordpad, but for serious users, either MS Office or a free alternative like LibreOffice is a must-have.

2 Likes

I suggest you write detailed check rides/check lists for each plane, from cold and dark to landing.

Then anyone, including me who hasn’t flown them, can test the planes for realistic behaviour.

It might be fun to go through a test flight - we would learn a lot.

Edit: Written checklists ensure the plane is setup and flown repeatedly for each test.
It takes some time to produce a detailed written test, but that test helps the community move forwards.

Of course he bought planes. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been more PLANES included in the more expensive packages of the sim. Interesting how low expectations people have of included aircrafts when buying a sim. If they barely fly doesn’t seem to matter to some.

6 Likes

I guess it depends on what sort of deal you’re negotiating. A Merc. without wheels could potentially be a sweet deal with a £7k discount.

That’s what Del Boy (Fools & Horses) told me the other day anyway.

:smiling_face:

I did, atleast what comes deluxe planes. Of course those were cheap planes and I am satisfied my baron. They should fix bugs and performance in different loads and I think they are fixing. IMO we have many good aircraft now (C172 both versions, Baron 58 and XCub are my favs). When we get very good third party GA plane I think I will buy it but now basic and deluxe planes are enough.

I need a helicopter and Harrier but I think I can wait them (I have those in DCS). What comes about helicopters FS2020 will be a platform, there is no need to buy helicopters from asobo.

I had to pay for the sim. I was expecting it to work as advertised.

6 Likes

Well, we’re expecting to have aircraft working for all this money we gave away. A working product to some extent. Devs could really do a much better job with this sim.

3 Likes

I agree airplanes should be a priority in a flight sim.

However, it seems for the community it is more important to remove the “hit fly” button or the replay system.

I mean, they don’t need us to vote to have working airplanes. It is just common sense. it is like buying a racing game and the cars don’t accelerate. Or buying Age of empires and the tribes couldn’t throw arrows.

Anyways. I want to think they have reasons to do what they do, and since my voice won’t change anything, I like to think they are doing their best.

Personally, I don’t want all the planes working, I don’t want a PMDG quality airplane. I just want to fly any , more complex, airplane like a Baron, a Cj4 or any other, without problems. Just one airplane would be good, anyone.

6 Likes

The pilot operating handbook (POH) figures for the Bonanza are at 3400 lbs. not MTOW.

Besides the aforementioned mods a simple one line change to the engines config file of the line “power scalar” to 1.54 instead of 1 as set yields POH book figure of 176 KTAS at 6000 ft. 2500 RMP, 3400 lbs. and 17 GPH at ISA.