Yes - this year has been quite busy and fragmented for me (well…all of us). With the two kids home for much of the spring school season earlier in the year, and being unable to send them to summer YMCA week long camps or go on vacations or anything else…it has been a weird summer. Some of the things I’ve mentioned have been known about (in searching the beta forums for bug reports) but I’m sure the more they hear about things maybe the more they recognize it as a problem that needs addressing. They are going to hear plenty of that in a few days… 
Grippersim just posted a new video where he messes about at a random bush field in PNG…for generic scenery at a small bush field, I have to say I’m impressed.
2 Likes
Variations in performance based on temperature in the density altitude equation do not affect the flight model according to my tests. I ran tests with the Cessna 172:
MTOW (2558 lbs.)
Telluride
Calm wind
0C vs. 25C
Operating just rich of peak lean
Flaps 10
No difference in takeoff roll or climb performance. The altitude part of the density altitude equation works (worse performance at 9K vs. sea-level), but then adjusting the temperature makes no difference. Could be fixed in the release build…who knows…but in my build, it is not working. Bug report filed.
3 Likes
@BeachAV8R I think you are right concerning source data. I’ve heard the desktop app of bing maps has more resolution to which it can resolve but the website shows very low detail:
Man, if I were a rich man, I’d book a couple nights at nini’s guest house just to post pics at you lot of the kobuleti bombing cross 
It would be like the ultimate nerd vacation. Wife would never need to know, just a nice trip to an exotic land enjoying nature and fine climate.
3 Likes
Seems like a stupid thing to not get right. Why bother with weather beyond wind if you aren’t going to make it affect things?
Edit: I know I know, it’ll get fixed. It just seems silly.
1 Like
I thought that video showed spins developing from a stall, with what looked like terrifyingly real recovery?
The video showed stalls followed by spiral dives.
You can see that the airspeed increases the moment the nose drops.
In a spin, the aircraft remains stalled.
This could be because of the flightmodel or because the pilot initiates the recovery immediately. Would be nice to see if it is possible to actually spin the MSFS aircraft.
If you try to deep research how civil flight sims behave on after stall conditions you start to change your hobby
idk how in this msfs20, but until now if you want better and realistic pos-stall flight model physics you can only get decent ones on military flight sims.
I disagree.
Both XP11 and Aerofly FS2 simulates spins better than what we see in this video.
But hey, spinning in an earlier version of MSFS actually made it possible to gain altitude… 
1 Like
its true, aerofly fs2 and xp11 are the top in flight model physics in pos normal flight envelope. Sadly not happened the same in msfs family…
By the way, and the pt6 about ff vs rpm changes using the rpm lever in msfs20, sadly my question before was ignored 
But he’s right. X-Plane behaves better than anything out there but it is still way off. As I have tried to explain but miss the mark every time, spins, snaps, lamchevaks, and other post stall maneuvers are not fuzzy, slightly unpredictable events. Their entries and recoveries are totally controllable at the flick of a wrist. I get no predictable repeatability in X-Plane. The behavior at entry is plausible. After that it’s basically Mario Kart with wings.
The only doubt I have with 2 posts up is the assertion that military sims do it better. They might.
2 Likes
I agree that no sim has perfect flightmodelling.
It’s just that almost all sims I know does better spins than what we see in this MSFS vid.
1 Like
How are il2 box spins?
I remember you talking about the Christian Eagle II in DCS. I forgot what your conclusion was though…
The WW2 stuff is ok. To me they feel more like scripted behavior than an aerodynamically modeled response. But that’s good enough. DCS WW2 might actually have the edge on IL2 here but that’s just a hunch on my part*. I will never get to fly any of those machines and even if I did, I would certainly not do significant acro. The Flying Circus models behave indistinguishably to what I recall from Rise of Flight. Way off. I have always thought that this was because of the terrible reputation of the planes at the time. But it turns out that the planes designed after 1915 were actually quite good in terms of stability, controllability and balance. The problem was the pilots. There just wasn’t enough accurate information at the time about proper technique. The torque of a rotary at full power didn’t help and some pilots who didn’t know better probably thought that power equaled airflow over the tail which could only be good. Sounded right, but it was wrong. Anyway, RoF and now FC, have these crazy spin characteristics built in to some flight models that may match reputation, but not reality. It is so bad that it is actually not possible to fly sustained inverted flight in the Camel; it just snaps back upright. More winged Mario Kart.
I believe it is important for MSFS2020 to get this right. I don’t ever expect nor hope that it can be used for aerobatic practice. I do believe what I have read: post-stall math is just too difficult to model accurately enough for meaningful deep, asymmetric-stall practice. Spins though, even if just done with a script, must be correct. Many thousands of pilots will use MSFS for training and practice. Bad habits developed from poorly modeled spin behavior could be put into practice for real in a panic. The good news is that hundreds (and soon thousands) of real pilots like Beach are on the case. Microsoft surely must know its responsibility to get this right.
*for those who are keeping score, I’ve changed my tune on DCS props. Over the last few years they’ve become much easier to fly well and they now feel much more believable to me.
I agree completely.
4 Likes
I thought it was way off. It performed too well, rolled too fast, no torque that I could sense and lacked the tiny-bipe skittishness that gives the planes such a great reputation. But given my newfound love for DCS WW2 I’ll give it a go now. Thanks for the reminder.
So I tried it. It’s a mixed bag still. It is quite docile on takeoff and landing. The real thing is no beast but it does require a little footwork to stay out of the ditch. There is some torque but I don’t believe enough. In my plane, which is a little more feisty than the Eagle, If you are at full power and low speed (say 120) and you put your feet on the floor and try to draw a straight line up and down with the nose, the nose will track about 30 degrees from vertical just because of torque, slipstream and P-factor. The DCS Eagle seems to pay only a little lip-service to that. On the other hand, it is very unpredictable in pitch. Part of the problem is beyond ED’s control. The real plane provides gobs of warning about what it’s “thinking”. No plane on earth communicates as well to its pilot than a biplane. Much of that can’t really be modelled. The spin behavior is a low “OK”. The inputs for entry and recovery are correct. The behavior in the spin is close enough that no negative learning will take place. The overall behavior is not correct enough to be useful for meaningful practice to a real perspective Eagle owner. What is meaningful is that the DCS Eagle, like the real thing, is very fun to fly. For most of us that’s all that matters. But I hate flying the DCS Eagle. It is so off in so many inconsistent ways it makes me doubt everything else in my DCS hangar. It’s a little like having brain surgery done and just before the anesthesia, your surgeon starts a little conversation about his belief in a flat earth.
5 Likes
Handy little web-tool for guesstimating how long your download should likely take at your rated Internet speed. Assuming the servers aren’t swamped and it isn’t all going to heck, https://downloadtimecalculator.com/
Estimated size of the download is 90GB but some are saying the release version is back to 127GB