Murmur

I always loved brunettes. They may be a little less eye-catching, but often have more substance.

Had to join the DLSS 5 meme wave.

Have you checked "B737" to the question "what aircraft would you be able to land in real life"? 😆 (or maybe it was only shown for participants who were not real pilots?)

Just for a laugh... 😆

The calculations are different. The "geometrically similar" speed scales linearly with the scale, hence the dynamic pressure scales with the square of the scale (1/19 scale = 1/19 speed = 1/361 dynamic pressure). The wing area also scales with the square of the scale (1/19 scale = 1/361 wing area). So for the same Cl, the weight scales with the fourth power of the scale (1/19 scale = approximately 1/130000 weight). 236 tons / 130.000 = approximately 2 kg. Whereas that A350 weights around 20 kg, i.e. 10 times more. It will hence have characteristic speeds that are around sqr(10) = approximately 3 times higher: it will appear to fly at about 3x the speed compared to a real A350. In other words, set the video speed to around 0.3 and it will appear to fly like a real A350. 🙂

It's the opposite, a heavier aircraft needs to fly faster for the same wing area. For that RC A350 to fly at the same proportional scaled speed of the real A350, it should be much lighter than it is.

Well said! In theory to keep the same "scaled" speed, the mass ratio should decrease with the 4th power of scale! So for example an A350 with a 2m wingspan, would have to weight at most 250g. Maybe not even aerogel would be light enough! 😆

We've had this exact conversation multiple times, and so the reply is again the same: this feature is basically purely cosmetic and has nothing to do with flight model realism. Reason is, PC flight controls differ from real flight controls, in that they are not reversible (a real yoke will be pushed forward when the elevator droops under its weight, whereas a PC joystick/yoke will stand still). One could even argue that introducing this feature, in some specific sense, decreases the realism, because one'll lose the biunivocal relation between the position of the joystick/yoke and the position of the virtual flight controls. I remember XP introduced this feature in some past release, but I just tested the default C172 and apparently now it's not there anymore? Not that I'm complaining, as a matter of fact maybe I'd even prefer it to stay that way.

The inertia tensor is radii of gyration in another form. To be precise, the diagonal terms in the inertia tensor directly correlate with the radii of gyration. The inertia tensor is more versatile though, since it allows to also specify the cross inertia terms, which I think are still lacking in XP (but they can usually be neglected, being order of magnitudes smaller). I find it very strange though that MSFS2020 lacked some way to specify moments of inertia. Even FSX and predecessors modeled them.

You wrote: "they wear their engine mass [...] at the rotor hub, which makes them top heavy", and "with all that mass on top, it handles like an egg on an inverted spoon", so I assumed you were talking about the vertical position of the CG. Anyway, I think X-Plane dynamically calculates the radii of gyrations during runtime (when their values are left blank in Plane-Maker), so probably the difference in radii of gyrations caused by the difference of engine position could be analyzed looking inside a FM cycle dump.

I don't think the position of the engine in Plane-Maker has any influence on the vertical CG. Infact, Plane-Maker has an explicit entry for the vertical CG position (in the "weight and balance" screen), so I assume that in order to calculate the vertical position of the CG, XP only uses that entry + the position and weight of the fuel in the tanks. So, changing the position of the engine in Plane-Maker should have no effect whatsoever on the aircraft being top heavy or not. If anything, the position of the engine could be used by X-Plane to estimate the radius of gyration, which doesn't affect the aircraft being top heavy or not, but might just change its rotational inertia around the 3 axes.

I also have no doubt that the new raster approach used by LR will give us some very good next-gen scenery, in some aspects even better than the satellite-scenery approach (which has its drawbacks). What I'd also like to see though is detail up close, in terms of 3d meshes and textures, for example when flying very close to a mountain. That's one area where MSFS2020 (last versions I tried) gave spectacular results, whereas XP was still lacking.

Hopefully it doesn't happen while you're in the workplace up there! 😆 (Just kidding, I know what you mean. Actually, I've been forgetting things forever!)

Or uninstall!

Don't forget the "wrong roll torque direction in propeller aircrafts" bug, as often mentioned by our @jcomm 🙂

The website states SteamDB is not affiliated with Steam, it's apparently managed by some guy, so I think it's estimating figures using publicly available data.

I don't know who is "them". I for once am not scared by AI, I just think that, as any new technology, it will have good and bad effects, and it is up to us to use it in a way to minimize the bad ones. Infact that is an appropriate use of AI (provided you know how to best use it and what are its limitations, just like the same is true when doing Google searches). Maybe outright banning it isn't necessary, but I agree with Litjan that reading forum posts made up mostly of AI content isn't great. Just as it wouldn't be great to read forums posts consisting mostly of pasted Google searches. Maybe someone will make a "Let me prompt AI for you" website just like the already existing "Let me Google it for you" website. I think the potential impacts (mostly for the best) of AI will be orders of magnitude bigger than not only Google, but most other technological advances in the history of mankind. Today's LLMs are just toys compared to what we'll probably see. So it's reasonable to discuss the implications of a new disrupting tech on humankind. E.g., smartphones/constant connectivity/social medias have been incredibly useful technologies, and yet their misuse can (and has) produced dramatic consequences on many people.

I think both are valid points of view and I'm about halfway between them. I think Litjan is right: modern technology relieved us of the need to exercise, to be strong, etc. and yet, over-using pretty much any technology has long term negative consequences on the well-being of the individual person. Now AI could relieve us (at least partially) of the need to think, but what consequences will it bring? Exercising can produce pleaurable endorphines; being strong and muscular can be good for self-esteem; and both can improve our long term health, so a lot of people fortunately still do these things. But for most people, mental effort is just tedious and with little reward, so it's easy to over-use AI. Infact, I'm already over-using it myself. So I think the key is "when used correctly", just like most other modern technologies. P.S.: Ironically, I used ChatGPT's help to write this reply, but only asking it to translate some expressions of which I was not sure, since english is not my first language. 🙂

I can positively picture Austin wanting to add this feature in the failures screen of X-Plane. 🙂

Performance has nothing to do with using DX12 vs Vulkan. They're pretty much equivalent.

I personally prefer the way XP12 models real weather, i.e. by using both past weather observations and weather forecasts, and interpolating them in space and time to produce present weather. Even if it's tecnically not as "accurate" as only using METAR data, I think it's the ideal compromise and is in some way more realistic, since it allows total control and smoothing of weather in space and time. But I reckon that it can cause issues when there are multiple add-ons making use of different weather sources.

PAA (Presbyopia Anti Aliasing) 4x.

I can picture some simmer going like: "I just tried the latest B737 level-D simulator yesterday, thanks, but no thanks. The scenery was not good enough."

I particularly liked this one, where a quadrotor was simulated in X-Plane obtaining an all around accuracy of 92% compared to real flight tests, which is very good!

Wow, that's the best representation of a thunderstorm system I've ever seen in a flight sim! Can't wait for the upcoming weather radar!