Xplane link to FSBUS

[Guest captain777]

Is anyone using XPlane as the sim platform for a cockpit? Trying to figure out how to use XPlane as the sim base, and MSFS for external visuals. Also need to hook FSBUS into the XPlane variables.Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[tigert 0]

>Is anyone using XPlane as the sim platform for a cockpit? >Trying to figure out how to use XPlane as the sim base, and>MSFS for external visuals. Also need to hook FSBUS into the>XPlane variables.>>Anyone have any thoughts on this?>>I guess you aim for good flight models with X-Plane. I think that if you add good cockpit controls and a good visual system and sounds (vibration and such) and other things that add to the feeling of realism, I dont think the FS2002/4 flight model is that bad for it - I mean, even if you put X-plane to it, it is still on your living room running on your PC.Dreamfleet's Archer and Real Air's Cessna 172 flight models are pretty okay, I'd use those for a home simpit. Our sim runs on the RealAir, and I am impressed wiht the dreamfleet Archer's feel, it is very convincing.Beyond that, I dont really think a "better flight model" is really needed, it's all the rest that makes the thing, the sounds, the visuals, your sectional chart and the ATC guy in Vatsim, your GPS etc..Just my few euro cents.I mean it is probably possible, but I dont think it is worth the effort.//Tuomashttp://aerodome.net/gallery-kuvat/album21/IMG_6361.sized.jpg

[Guest captain777]

Tuomas,Thanks. I would tend to agree that the MSFS flight model works ok for this application. Especially since, as you so gently put it, I am still sitting in the living room with a PC! However, I am VERY impressed with the precision of the XPlane modeling system. There is a distinct 'feel' with XPlane that I don't get with MSFS. Let me explain:When you set the throttles for 92% thrust in a 777...- Xplane takes 2-3 seconds before moving and then slowly accelerates until you reach v1 and rotation speeds...upon which you slowly and smoothly lift off the runway. - MSFS starts moving instantly and JETS to v1, vr and then JUMPS into the air as if it is an aluminium can, not a 270,000kg beast!(oh...and if you abort takeoff...MSFS stops like a cartoon character at the end of a cliff. XPlane will light all the tires on fire and brakes heat up, and it takes TIME to stop. Like the real thing)I suppose I can just play with the model in MSFS and make it get the same feel. Just thought I'd try to use the work already done by the XPlane team!Anyone consider using 747-400 PS1 as the base model?

[Guest MikePowell]

http://www.x-plane.info/cockpit/

[tigert 0]

>(oh...and if you abort takeoff...MSFS stops like a cartoon>character at the end of a cliff. XPlane will light all the>tires on fire and brakes heat up, and it takes TIME to stop.>Like the real thing)Oh yea, if you are talking about the default 777 and other jets - you ca n fly them inverted and other stuff just fine - they are not exactly the most realistic things and are generally frowned upon by many.I wonder how good the project magenta flight models are? I mean, the default Cessna is also pretty terrible if you get close to stall speed, in reality it's quite not THAT prone to spinning .. well.. althouhg it doesnt spin in FS, it just swings around wildly until it overstresses the aircraft :)I think it is possible to hook those two up - but I guess I'd just go full into X-plane then, but I know what you mean - FS has all the add-on goodies and such. It's a two-edged sword.//Tuomas

[Guest captain777]

Thanks. The UDP data variables in XPlane exceed MSFS IMHO. You can select 'Inverter' and 'Generator' status, as opposed to simply 'battery on'!The trick will be to convert XPlane UDP variables to FSBUS state variables. Cockpit looks great too...looks like keyboard controllers used vs FSBUS. If anyone has any bright ideas on XPlane+FSBUS...feel free to comment.

[Guest PANTU]

If I recall it right Dirk is thinking about implementing UDP in a later version of FSBus.Best rgdsPeter

[Guest SHORT360]

Hi,Just to add my two cents. I always dreamed about a simulator which would work on following basis.Server= flight Model only - could be Elite - PS1 - X-Plane or any upcoming challenger. (Not MSFS)Client 1= Instruments - could be real ones(servo driven), Magenta or any GC Freeware.Client 2 = Systems - Electrical - hydraulics - Pneumatics etc...Client 3 = All sounds except ATC - PMsounds could be an example but has to be expanded.Client 3= Sceneries - External view - MSFS or any upcoming challenger offering good sceneries and accurates datas.Client 4= ATC only. This network would allow the use of several cheap and older computer even for the external views and it should allow a permanent rock steady 50 fps.The real simulators are build that way. In their early stages they only had a flight model without any outside view. You still can have some trainer with or without outside views.ELITE has the best flight model just behind comes X-plane but ELITE is expensive and X-Plane cheaper.MAGENTA announced an System Software and has from far the best Instruments simulation.MSFS has the best sceneries.As regards ATC software I have no experience with IVAO or equivalent but I believe there are some software able to manage that.Basically the only thing needed would be a new FSUIPC able to get all that software talking together.I strongly believe that this is the best way for us cockpit builder.I cannot accept to spent thousand of Euros or Dollars for the cockpit items which will run on an unsatisfying MSFS, coughing every ten seconds and with very poor flight models.Roger

[Guest mbessler]

Hi Roger,>Just to add my two cents. I always dreamed about a simulator>which would work on following basis.>>Server= flight Model only - could be Elite - PS1 - X-Plane or>any upcoming challenger. (Not MSFS)>>Client 1= Instruments - could be real ones(servo driven),>Magenta or any GC Freeware.>>Client 2 = Systems - Electrical - hydraulics - Pneumatics>etc...>>Client 3 = All sounds except ATC - PMsounds could be an>example but has to be expanded.>>Client 3= Sceneries - External view - MSFS or any upcoming>challenger offering good sceneries and accurates datas.>>Client 4= ATC only. Some of what you describe above can already be done.But you've got to download another simulator for that, FlightGear. (see my signature for links)Flightgear supports (out of the box) networked views and external flightmodels.I'm not sure how far the "headless" (=programm running without graphical output) option is, but I remember that there has been some work done in the past for that.Systems: Flightgear has them, but not sure whether you can run an instance with just the systems. Sound/ATC: I believe that this can be done, not sure though.>This network would allow the use of several cheap and older>computer even for the external views and it should allow a>permanent rock steady 50 fps.The cheap/older computer idea is what I have had in mind with my Glass Cockpit software development as well. Why use OpenGL or D-X for 2D stuff? All you draw is based on lines, circles and rectangles in the plane. No need for 3D stuff. That way you can use even a 5-10 year old cheesy VGA card.One thing about running the flightdynamics on a seperate machine:I think that this would be overkill, since the computation time for the flightmodel is so short compared to the scenery/3D stuff.Manuel

[Guest SHORT360]

Hi Manuel,Will take a look at Flight Gear. I remember having tried some earlier version. >>>All you draw is based on lines, circles and rectangles in the plane. No need for 3D stuff. I do not have good experiences with GC without Open GL. There are ( dont ask me why) nit that smooth and precise. My Eicas is running like that and it is rather slow and goes step by step. >>>>I think that this would be overkill, since the computation time for the flightmodel is so short compared to the scenery/3D stuff.I am not an expert, but based on my experience with MSFS and X-Plane I guess that a complex flight model is eating a lots of resources.Anyway, I have the strongly believe that 3D outside views and a complex flight model do not work well together. Waves and Bitmaps either.I think there will be big changes in our hobby in the next years.RegardsRoger

[Guest mbessler]

>Hi Manuel,>>Will take a look at Flight Gear. I remember having tried some>earlier version. There's always a lot going on behind the scenes... the flightgear homepage doesn't get updated that often. Most of the interesting stuff is taking place on our mailing lists.eg. currently the old plib based sound manager is getting replaced by OpenAL (essentially the OpenGL for audio). That was something I've been looking forward to.>>>>All you draw is based on lines, circles and rectangles in>the plane. No need for 3D stuff. >>I do not have good experiences with GC without Open GL. There>are ( dont ask me why) nit that smooth and precise. >My Eicas is running like that and it is rather slow and goes>step by step. Well, true, if there is no antialiasing going on, it can look 'ragged'if lines are other than 0,90,180 or 270 degrees.Either your graphics card can do some AA, or you have to do it yourself in your software. I am considering that... but of course there is quite a performance penalty. But if you are running OpenGL without the hardware support (ie. software renderer) then the renderer has to do this too. In this case, the 2D solution with AA can still be faster than software OpenGL.As for the slowness... that depends on the application. >>>>>I think that this would be overkill, since the computation>time for the flightmodel is so short compared to the>scenery/3D stuff.>>I am not an expert, but based on my experience with MSFS and>X-Plane I guess that a complex flight model is eating a lots>of resources.I don't think its taking that many ressources. All its doing is to recalculate a bunch of numbers at a rate of 30-200 Hz maybe.I'd guess that the flight model to 3D stuff calculation ratio is about 1:50. (a wild guess for flightgear)>Anyway, I have the strongly believe that 3D outside views and>a complex flight model do not work well together. Waves and>Bitmaps either.With todays common desktop computers in the range of several hundred to a few thousands of Megahertz, (thats hundreds of millions of instructions per second!!!) we often loose the feeling of how much these machines are actually capable of doing. Compare that to a C-64.Even many microcontrollers costing not more that 5-10 bucks have more processing power than a C64!!Manuel