So you didn’t watch the video after all? The green things are floats and it takes off from the water. So you can also fly a donut in X-Plane.
As I said, this discussion is just too absurd for me. I will not comment any further on this thread and will only read along with a grin. I also don’t count myself among the simulator warriors who have to defend their sim to the knife. If I want study levels, I fly DCS. If I want to relax, I fly Flight Simulator. If I want to shake my head in disbelief, I fly one of the standard planes in X-Plane.
Isn’t it up to the engine what part of a model is used?
I compile an opinion on the basis of what I read about the simulator, what the developer says and what my experience with it is like. You are correct that we don’t know exactly how it works, but LR does go into some detail, so someone as knowledgeable as you might get some insight from it.
There are also a lot of videos on YouTube on the flight model by LR.
I watched the video and did not see a dougnut. So show me a doughnut in X-Plane, because while that rocket sled looked odd, it had lifting surfaces.
Of course anything that is not a rotating sphere creates lift as long as it goes fast enough in a dense enough medium. But nothing in the video was as silly as a flying pastry. Sure, X-Plane is not foolproof and I never entered this thread to defend it. But if the shape was inconsequential we would see things in X-Plane that are a lot worse than what that video showed.
But I think it’s time for me to leave the thread as well.
I scrolled through that video quickly so I haven’t seen everything indeed. Anyway, I don’t care which approach is taken as long as it results in an accurate flight model, so far the default MSFS aircraft have not been a good showcase for their approach. Not claiming X-plane is perfect, but in my opinion the default X-plane planes are closer to reality.
All I have to do is tell the ‘engine’ what shape the wing is, or the tail, fuselage etc. That has no bearing on what the user SEES. @anon50268670 nailed it when he said he has seen a helicopter rotor created using a string of text. Blade Element Theory is marketing. It was developed as a mathematical predictor in the late 1800s to assist in the development of propeller blades. It is a subset of equations used in conjunction with established fluid dynamics. In its simplest form it is used to predict the forces of an object through a fluid. LM has adapted their algorithms to utilize some of that math.
The use of various forms and complexities of fluid dynamics have been used before (Google - Flight Unlimited). From what I have read and You Tubed, as well, MSFS engineers are also harnessing that same horse. From my rudimentary experience in aviation, I have also learned to be able to do basic fluid computations. Lapse rate, true airspeed, mach equivelents, etc. are simple math to most accomplished pilots. The degree of sophistication and depth that math takes is what will determine whether an airframe will fly as predicted or will need to be tweaked with a variable.
While I take a breath, I am reminded, however that no-one from MSFS, P3D, Xplane or DCS has seen fit to hop onto YouTube and whiteboard the math for us. While we may have the rudimentary explanation that they use blade theory or tables or fluid dynamics we still have no idea what the math looks like. Based on the fact that Boeing, Airbus and McDonald Douglas have rooms full of computers calculating the flight dynamics of their next creation, I am reasonably certain that our simulators are not using the same math. I know my i5 would be a bit stretched.
Yes, I know Flight Unlimited. It was the first simulator this young man used as a child.
Although the CFD model used there is certainly not as complex as those used by the big aircraft manufacturers. I ran the game on a 486DX2 with glorious 66Mhz after all (in TURBO mode).
Well, I figure most people would be bored to hell with mathematical equations of flight.
I would not mind the water masking stuff if there was more about the actual flight model! But talking about things being “dumbed down” doesn’t make great PR I guess.
@anon50268670@MorsAbAlto84
Yup, should have qualified that statement. I have watched that vid too.
I even zoomed in to look at some of the math. Pretty sure those aren’t the algorithms used in XP.
At the very least it shows that someone in his office has a clue about aerodynamics. Who knows, could have been the janitor trying to make a point. As Nijntje pointed out, we wonder sometimes about those with the whiteboards at MS/Asobo. The variables needed to get stable flight with the CG and CP so horribly out speaks volumes.
Look, I am not trying to defend one or the other. Obviously the approaches being used are similiar even if the end results are different.
My biggest problem is Asobo taking physics out because they are afraid.
True, look at how many users post “Hey, how come my plane isn’t flying where it’s pointing??”
But, really, the only way users will learn is if you tell it to them straight.
But, I keep hearing one upon the other, “Oh, we didn’t include that physics because we were afraid”. Every time you do that, you cause problems in other areas, and soon, your Center of lift and CG are way out of whack and who knows how you’re going to get anything to fly.
Stop breaking things because you’re afraid users won’t get it. The tools are there, use them. The lift scalars should be 1.0 and everything should balance.
100% agree. Every XBox game out there has a difficulty setting. Let’s have the same thing in MSFS. I know… they put that under assists. So wityh all assists off, I should get a plane that flys according the known laws of physics. Not one that has the laws of physics adjusted to a layman’s understanding of how a car drives.
Easy - My 3 year old Grand Daughter can yank and bank and bounce off stuff.
Beginner - A grade school ‘pilot’ can learn what the control surfaces do.
intermediate - Without some tutorials you will not only crash a lot but will be on this forum asking a lot of questions.
Advanced - Do it right or you will begin to learn the difference between a spiral dive and a spin.
Pro - Years of sim experience or an ATP rating required.
Too much to ask for? If we want dumbed down we can set it until we learn enough to turn it up.
Release as it is now for XBox and call it as it is called now (actually you might be wondering sometimes if the whole purpose of the early release for PC is not just beta testing for Xbox release).
.
→ Dumb down (I mean keep the existing) flight model with unreal limitations solely meant to helping people not be surprised an aircraft flies like it is supposed to (re: toning down updrafts Sebastian is repeating in each Q&A), keep the sandbox meant most likely and only to keep DRM hacks away so that the market place, which is central to the product, remains relevant, and let controllers setting meant for XBox first and foremost (both GUI and customization) as it is as well.
Release another version for PC, call it MFS Pro (dubbed “for simmers”), without all the restrictions there are currently just because they’ve chosen to ship a single code base for both.
.
→ Example of restriction: not using DirectInput for ForceFeedback (check my post history), Sandboxing preventing in-process DLLs and shielding developers from using the best of your hardware for their addons (video card included), antiquated FS5 area SDK limiting gauges and system creativity* (I can spend a lot of time on this topic alone) and certainly much more but this would warrant a topic in itself.
I find it hard believing in “a simulator for simmers first and foremost” when there are so much product design decision and technologies, let alone messages and Q&A answers, giving the opposite impression. I just hope they’ll prove me 100% wrong and if they do, I’d be the first to apologize for my naysaying.
*to make it clear, the FS2020 SDK for everything visual is great, and the JS/HTML layer is a great idea too. However, the foundations at the core might be new, but they are exposing an FS5 area antiquated interface to it, which begs the question whether it is JS/HTML on top of FSX code and they are building a bridge between FSX core and the JS/HTML layer, therefore perpetuating the very flawed foundations of the FS5 area SDK concepts, or, is the JS/HTLM layer the visible part of a new foundation and simulation layer, with the SDK being the bridge between the older FS5 area APIs and the modern and new underlying architecture. In both case though, they are not offering any SDK access to any new foundations, only to the visible portion and the user facing layer (JS/HTML) and this is key to limiting some of the creativity. Especially more so if Asobo is not told about the very limiting principles inherited from FS5 area SDK. I can’t blame them not knowing and since they are working with aircraft vendors not dealing with these specific questions I’m raising they won’t know either until someone tells them. I can assure you it is not a problem of me trying to tell though… which poses the question again what population of “simmers” do their “for simmers” message is addressed to?
Here is an example you might want to read twice or more:
Simply… No.
On the surface it may seem like a good idea. Until you consider the number of new ‘pilots’ that would be forced to buy a new PRO version if they wanted to experience “the Real Thing”.
I don’t see any reason they can’t have one code for all and a slider to go from “yank and bank and bounce off stuff” all the way to the “ATP Rating”.
If someone wants to try to fly ATP level with an XBox controller, have at it.
From a marketing stand point, I am going to bet there will be a ton of simulator hardware products for XBox show up once the sales figures start to show up. I guarantee that will drive innovation. Maybe we end up with affordable yokes with integrated MCPs.
No, we already had a go around here on the concept of a PRO version. Even though I would be all over it myself, I would call it elitist and we would get the least amount of aftermarket support, because we would be the minority.
Yes, X-Plane has been held up as being the gold standard. But real life is the gold standard and X-Plane does not meet that either.
I love X-Plane in some ways myself but asking Asobo to do 15 years of development in a 1.0 release is just crazy. Sure they could do it, if we want to wait another 10-15 years to get the MSFS. But then X-Plane may have continued to enhance their game too…
Personally I’m glad they didn’t wait.
I know myself and plenty of other real pilots find it very usable.It can seem kind of ironic that simmers demand more “realism” (even when what they are demanding is actually less realistic) than many pilots.
The main issue, besides a few bugs I’ve talked about, I have is avionics are so limited. But that is the job of third-party developers to address and always has been. Many here seem to want Asobo to provide all the functionality of every aircraft and airport developer in thew world by themselves and in a 1.0 release while doing all the physics at least as well as a 15+ year old product that is always improved upon!
I guess I’m a glass is half full kind of guy. Others are certainly “half empty” people.
I have over 30 hours (long ago) in the C172, and I agree. The default X-Plane version seems really stiff and resistant. A poster in another thread confirmed my memory of it being much more slippery and responsive.
We both remember practicing power off landings in the 152 and 172 starting abeam the end of the runway. But in X-Plane, you have to carry 1500-1700 rpms to make it even with a very short base and final. It just doesn’t feel right.
MSFS’s default version seems much more realistic to me, even if it isn’t completely right yet.
)