On 12/5/2022 at 11:22 AM, mSparks said:

Not as funny as people pretending its allowed by the MSFS software licence to use it for anything other than recreational use.

LMAO!

Ivory Tower much?

I've read PLENTY of anecdotes from IRL pro pilots who use XP for training. In VR, no less, where they can't even use representative physical controls!

You're right - using an improperly licensed simulator for IRL training is foolish.

BtW, care to show us your Pro certificate for your XP install?

On 12/5/2022 at 11:22 AM, blingthinger said:

Just like they generally skip the hot-garbage default flight model. Or spend years developing their own that will inevitably fall short of XP's decades of tuning and modeling improvements.

You must've missed the news today...

Or maybe you didn't read how XP's decades of "tuning and improvements" somehow never got around to accurately dealing with delta wings, ground effect and entrained flow?

(Which neatly explains why military jets in XP always sucked, but with v12's substantial improvements, the Default F-14 and F-4 now fly very well indeed)

 

20 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Mind elaborating on which aspects of v10 or FSX remain out of reach for MSFS?

Sure, FSX still has the best glider and helicopter tutorials of a generic flight simulator afaik.

Xplane is still the go to for real world training, has been for over a decade.

14 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

BtW, care to show us your Pro certificate for your XP install?

Mine isn't yet close to the meeting the requirements I need for certification, In fact the whole certification process here is something of a work in progress (not FAA/EASA).

I generally collaborate with

https://www.sf.bg.ac.rs/index.php/en/about-the-faculty-2

and

https://www.etf.bg.ac.rs/sr/fakultet/partneri-fakulteta

On aviation projects, end users buy the pro licences. Covid set us back a lot in terms of plans, but should be some decent movement there next year, especially with 12 resolving many of 11s issues.

Edited December 12, 20223 yr by mSparks

On 12/5/2022 at 11:58 AM, blingthinger said:

See...it's so easy with fs2020 to not even NEED to be an authority. Let alone make unfounded claims to it.

Which of your many *ahem* 'type ratings' look like the fs2020 flight model geometry? In case you didn't know, it's the Planform Model on the right. Garbage in, garbage out (the FM, not a personal attack on you).

And yet, somehow, the DoD is churning out highly competent combat pilots using a desktop simulator that's even more garbage-y than MSFS'.

Is it possible that there are training criteria for IRL pro pilots that are just as, if not more, important than a great flight model?

5 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And yet, somehow, the DoD is churning out highly competent combat pilots using a desktop simulator that's even more garbage-y than MSFS'.

The "somehow" is they have addons you can't buy or use.

e.g.

https://milviz.com/

vs

https://milvizusa.com/aircraft/military/

Edited December 12, 20223 yr by mSparks

Using a "predictive" FM is tricky, because it can turn into a can of worms...

While "solving" this part of the aerodynamics will grant a better calculation of lift near the transonic regions, on swept back wings, specially if Austin further incorporates the latest suggestions made by @Alecand @Murmur, the calculations Austin appears to be adopting for drag are not the best, as @Murmur explains in his comment to Austin's video:

---- Murmur's comment on Austin's video ----

Hello Austin, I suspect that if you're using the perpendicular component of velocity for force calculations, you're miscalculating drag for swept wings. Specifically, you're underestimating parasite drag and overestimating induced drag. Parasite drag: imagine 2 identical wings, one straight and the other angled 45 degrees (I'm excluding compressibility effects, so suppose Mach is way below critical): in real life, except for secondary effects, the parasite drag should be about the same. While in RC3, the 45 swept wing would have HALF the drag of the straight wing! Induced drag: imagine 2 wings with the same area and the same EFFECTIVE span, one straight and the other angled 45 degrees. In real life, for a given speed and a given lift, the 2 wings will have the same induced drag (provided the spanwise lift distribution is identical). While in RC3, for the sweep wing you would calculate an effective dynamic pressure one half that of the straight wing, and an effective Cl double that of the straight wing (hence Cl^2 will be quadrupled), giving DOUBLE the induced drag of the straight wing. My suggestion is to use the full forward velocity for force calculations, and use instead reduced Cl and Cm coefficients to account for sweep effects.

----------------------------------------------------------

So... while it's better now, other problems may be presented to developers.

The solution is usually to fake the real aircraft geometry, use hidden bodies, etc... In the end you will probably find high-grade aircraft addons for X-Plane that if you open in Plane Maker or their airfoils in Airfoil Maker will show big discrepancies from their RW counterparts.

In the end, a parametric approach is the best option IF you have the necessary data. 

ASOBO's approach looks interesting to me, and promising, and as they say they're not finished yet! They are still working on a "modern" ground physics, and further fine tunning to their CFD. I think that in a few months with XP12 stable one or two new MFS SUs we will probably have more than good reasons to use both, each to it's best.

Edited December 12, 20223 yr by jcomm

1 hour ago, UrgentSiesta said:

somehow never got around to accurately dealing with delta wings, ground effect and entrained flow?

Prior versions of XP were not suitable for training on planes with swept wings (using default XP physics as intended anyway), on the plus side that deficiency undoubtedly helped keep P3D alive.

Edited December 12, 20223 yr by mSparks

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

Prior versions of XP were not suitable for training on planes with swept wings (using default XP physics as intended anyway), on the plus side that deficiency undoubtedly helped keep P3D alive.

Or P3D was kept alive because it is a procedural trainer for Lockheed's military contracts and handles training scenarios outside of flight simulation but sure, it was XP's deficiency that kept P3D going....  Do you read what you write before you hit enter? 

18 minutes ago, psolk said:

it was XP's deficiency that kept P3D going....

You seem doubtful, and that's fine, I'll just point out that P3D is still a big chunk of say Milviz's income, but now only in areas that up until very recently XP was deficient in, are being fixed as we speak, and MSFS will likely never be proficient in, especially not without:

2 hours ago, jcomm said:

one or two new MFS SUs

which, despite widespread denial, are not planned any time soon (2024 the earliest for the next one after SU12 in March?)

Edited December 12, 20223 yr by mSparks

4 hours ago, mSparks said:

You seem doubtful, and that's fine, I'll just point out that P3D is still a big chunk of say Milviz's income, but now only in areas that up until very recently XP was deficient in, are being fixed as we speak, and MSFS will likely never be proficient in, especially not without:

which, despite widespread denial, are not planned any time soon (2024 the earliest for the next one after SU12 in March?)

Doubtful, no, realistic, yes..

To infer that XP's deficiencies are what "kept P3D going" is just ignoring that they have multi million dollar commercial contracts and the fact they are showcasing their next generation platform in Unreal it just validates that XP is completely irrelevant to Lockheed Martin.  But sure, you "believe" that P3D stayed alive by the grace of XP's inadequacies...  Again, do you read and think about what you write or do you just need to be "right?"   Also, didn't Milviz say they were leaving the P3D enthusiast market and focus solely on commercial?  It had nothing to do with XP, they had commercial options in P3D which far outweigh the financial benefits of the enthusiast market and rightly took them... 

How does XP handle P3D's ground and underwater training scenarios by the way?  How is it a full world scenario simulator?  Come on man.... 

 

So there is already an SU12 in March but somehow "despite widespread denial" there aren't planned anytime soon? Well then what is planned in March?  Again, a complete contradiction of your own comment.   

Now you come back with some completely irrelevant off topic drivel to change the conversation and try to "be right"  I've seen this movie before and know how it ends.  

Edited December 12, 20223 yr by psolk

7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

Is it possible that there are training criteria for IRL pro pilots that are just as, if not more, important than a great flight model?

Absolutely, depending on the simulation requirements. That's why ESP was marketed as 'beyond a flight sim' in the first place: battlefield situational awareness training, etc.

What's more is that you're probably talking about P3D. Has any government ever turned down an opportunity to pay Lockheed Martin money? Not very often.

Doesn't say anything about the FM fidelity.

In fact, Asobo should have stuck with the FSX paradigm and done their best to extend it. Not take a dog leg turn into abstract art and try to call it advanced flight dynamics.

7 hours ago, UrgentSiesta said:

military jets in XP always sucked

And yet, they were still far more believable than Asobo's attempt at a F18.

And while we're at it, have you ever kicked the rudder in the Bonanza? It flops around like a fish out of water. It's absurd. That's the 'cfd' model at 'work': desperate attempts at patching the mess created by the Planform Model.

Red herring? Yup! Asobo's red herring for sticking with the baseline FSX model under the hood. fs2020 could/should...

 

Quote

So you don't question the source then? what are you disagreeing with exactly? Have you seen ratings that low anywhere else?

   Look up "Statistical Significance". You'll see that your metric...isn't.

 

Quote

And Textron even said

Yes, Textron said, "...perfect...". Twice. Among other superlatives.

X-Plane's defaults have been sub-optimal right up until v12, where they've been substantially upgraded in every way, especially fidelity. Wonder why that happened just within the last 2 years...

I mean, if XP's were so great, why would we need your 744? Why would Austin spend half of a very lengthy blog post describing how the F-4 finally flies correctly? I mean, heck, he took the time to model fuel weight, but he didn't check his figures and put 16,000 lbs of fuel in the wings instead of in the rear fuselage where it actually resides IRL. And then he wondered why the thing wouldn't rotate at the correct speed...?

I'm not sure - would you clarify whether those are examples of Over Promising, or Under Delivering?

Quote

Well, lets first make sure we are in agreement on the actual question. What do you think makes something a simulator vs a game? can software be both?

You yourself described MSFS as nothing more than an Xbox game. Now you're getting all philosophical...? LoL.

Quote

You seem by your question to imply its an either or thing, which is not the case imho.

No, bud, that's YOU, and you already put it in writing.

Quote

If you believed all that, you should have listened to what the developers actually said instead of the marketeers promising things that were not planned and will never be delivered.

And yet here we are on the eve of the Aircraft and Avionics Update #1. And "#1" denoting that increasing the fidelity of the avionics, systems and flight models of the Default addons will be a Regular Thing.

IIRC, LR updated their Defaults at a blistering cadence of at least once or twice...every half-decade. Whether they needed it or not - LoL.

Quote

Here's a more important question - do you consider using software contrary to its EULA acceptable? Because I'm reasonably sure the MSFS EULA forbids getting paid to use MSFS for training, but for some inexplicable reason I can't find it anywhere online to actually check, but please, feel free to quote me the part where using it in situations with life and death consequences is something they endorse (which is what I consider to be "simulation").

A EULA is a contract between a company and a customer. In the real world, they are practically ignored except when it comes to money/piracy.

E.g., Lockheed Martin's P3D "Academic License", et al.

The "getting paid to use for training" is your gross mis-interpretation (hey, at least you're consistent!). What it applies to is using the software for commercial purposes, i.e., to MAKE money from other people using the software, rather than using it for personal enrichment.

I.e., what you do with your licensed software for your own use is up to you, and at your own risk.

And if you're so concerned about this alleged "license violation", why are YOU violating the same concept? Why are YOU using a non-commercial license for your own professional training?

You talk out of both sides of your mouth, and still manage to get everything wrong - LMAO!!!

Quote

Sure, FSX still has the best glider and helicopter tutorials of a generic flight simulator afaik.

Why in the world would I use FSX for anything related to the complicated aerodynamics of glider flight and helicopters? The weather simulation & flight model are so bad it would fairly be characterized as Negative Training.

Nope, there's a reason I prefer X-Plane for anything where highly accurate flight models are paramount.

Quote

Xplane is still the go to for real world training, has been for over a decade.

Who's "Go To"? The USAF (and USN) have deployed 210 Prepar3D-based flight sims across all their training squadrons, etc.

And we know there are plenty of others.

Yet I can't find a single video or other reference where X-Plane is deployed en masse for a large gov't or commercial training contract...

I mean, this info is all over prepar3d.com, but Laminar has nothing to brag about...?

Perhaps YOU have citations...?

Quote

Mine isn't yet close to the meeting the requirements I need for certification, In fact the whole certification process here is something of a work in progress (not FAA/EASA).

And yet you continue to use it in "violation of the EULA"? So it's okay for you because "it's a work in progress", but anyone else is a dirty violator? Man, you've got a great repertoire of jokes!

2 hours ago, psolk said:

is just ignoring that they have multi million dollar commercial contracts

So who were they competing against for those contracts for swept wing aircraft? certainly not XP or Alsim.

7 minutes ago, UrgentSiesta said:

And yet you continue to use it in "violation of the EULA"

No, I'm a developer for it, you don't even actually need to buy XP to develop for it, the demo is enough to test what you make works, SDK stuff like xlua is MIT licenced. 

Edited December 12, 20223 yr by mSparks