Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

VegaSS

Could you imagin

Recommended Posts

If MS Flight was a combination of all these teams. MicrosoftX-PlaneOrbxReal EnvironmentOne can dream, huh? Big%20Grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

If MS Flight was a combination of all these teams. MicrosoftX-PlaneOrbxReal EnvironmentOne can dream, huh? Big%20Grin.gif
Get X-Plane out of the picture and it will be perfect.

Share this post


Link to post
Get X-Plane out of the picture and it will be perfect.
Xplane 10 looks VERY impressive. I am a little bit more excited about xplane than ms flight...

Share this post


Link to post
Xplane 10 looks VERY impressive. I am a little bit more excited about xplane than ms flight...
Good looks don't make a good sim. I've tried the X-Plane 9 demo, and was very unhappy with the user interface as well as how the aircraft handling was. Aircraft handling seemed very odd. The flexibility of the MSFS series is what wins me over. At least you can make the aircraft behave like they should.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, X-plane 9 was not very good at all. 10 Does look impressive though, if it has the "world alive" feel that MSFS does, it will be a success. Ground texturing in X-plane is very nice.

Share this post


Link to post
If MS Flight was a combination of all these teams.  MicrosoftX-PlaneOrbxReal EnvironmentOne can dream, huh?  Big%20Grin.gif
what does xplane bring?

Share this post


Link to post
If MS Flight was a combination of all these teams. MicrosoftX-PlaneOrbxReal EnvironmentOne can dream, huh? Big%20Grin.gif
If ORBX was involved I would be concerned about performance at the large hubs if they are anything like YBBN. I wouldn't mind if they were responsible for the ground textures however.

Share this post


Link to post
Good looks don't make a good sim. I've tried the X-Plane 9 demo, and was very unhappy with the user interface as well as how the aircraft handling was. Aircraft handling seemed very odd. The flexibility of the MSFS series is what wins me over. At least you can make the aircraft behave like they should.
Honestly the "good looks don't make a sim" can be applied to FSX and Flight as well.I agree with the user interface part. They would be doing themselves a big favor in upgrading that aspect of the sim.I have to disagree about aircraft handling though. I think X-Plane has a much more robust system. Just look at how many systems you can fail even on a single engine piston. Fly a 777 into a microburst and the thing doesn't fall out of the sky when you properly pitch to stick shaker. In FSX, the stall horn seems to indicate you're falling straight out of the sky.Flight dynamics in FSX seems to me to be this mysterious concept that few people really understand. For example, I have yet to fly a light aircraft in FSX that accurately reacts to rudder input without having to go in and tweak it a little.

Share this post


Link to post

Trouble is, if past form is anything to go by it will be X Plane 10, then X Plane 10.1 a week later, then 10.1.1 two days after that, then 10.1.1.1 a week after that etc.No developer with any business sense will dare commit to spending four years on making something decent for it because the goalposts will be moving around all over the place and it will be too risky a proposition. It's one thing to knock out a simpler GA aircraft for something like that, or a set of textures, but when you are talking about spending literally years developing a complex airliner, you need to know that it's going to work right on a platform that is the same as it was when you started out on that endeavour.Hopefully I'll be proved wrong and X Plane 10 will be a stable platform that developers can trust to remain that way, but we'll have to wait and see about that.Al

Share this post


Link to post
No developer with any business sense will dare commit to spending four years on making something decent for it because the goalposts will be moving around all over the place and it will be too risky a proposition. It's one thing to knock out a simpler GA aircraft for something like that, or a set of textures, but when you are talking about spending literally years developing a complex airliner, you need to know that it's going to work right on a platform that is the same as it was when you started out on that endeavour.
That's exactly what Ryan or Robert R. over at PMDG said when asked if they would ever do anything for X-Plane. Perhaps it would be a different story if Austin only published updates or a new version every 2 to 3 years.

Share this post


Link to post
That's exactly what Ryan or Robert R. over at PMDG said when asked if they would ever do anything for X-Plane. Perhaps it would be a different story if Austin only published updates or a new version every 2 to 3 years.
Playing devil's advocate here, but as I understand it Acceleration/SP2 gave developers its' own share of headaches. Still pales in comparison to the amount of patching that goes on over at X-Plane and I agree with you gentlemen that stability is crucial to develop a sizeable payware community over there.Anyways, going back to the OP, I think he was getting at a combination of all the GOOD characteristics of the sims. I am always for a more realistic depiction/simulation of weather (like with REX).

Share this post


Link to post

I have both FSX and X-Plane 9. Although I KNOW that FSX is miles better, as a real pilot, I must say that X-Planes "Flight Dynamics" are much more realistic. I'm not saying, but just saying. :(

Share this post


Link to post

I’m not familiar with Xplane, but I suspect at the core they use the exact same formulas as FSX. There’s a conventional way to simulate aerodynamics and that engineering has long been publicly documented. So I don’t think either is reinventing the wheel here. But the FSX SDK makes no attempt to teach the details and concepts of aerodynamics...which are really complicated. There’s a lot of very sensitive and interconnected data that goes into making a model(data). At the core the formulas are sound, and that’s why we have some very polished sim aircraft that do fly well – because it’s all about preparing good data. The sim is just an approximation, but I think it’s more sophisticated and complete than we generally think. Lot's will disagree with me - and that's fair :(

Share this post


Link to post
At the core the formulas are sound, and that’s why we have some very polished FS aircraft that do fly well – because it’s all about preparing good data. The sim is just an approximation, but I think it’s more sophisticated and complete than we generally think. Lot's will disagree with me - and that's fair :(
+1

Share this post


Link to post
I’m not familiar with Xplane, but I suspect at the core they use the exact same formulas as FSX.
Actually they don't. X Plane uses Blade Element Theory (BET), which was originally developed to try and settle arguments about whether paddle steamers were either more or less efficient than ships with underwater screws. BET calculates the forces generated by shapes, which means X-plane reads the shapes of its 3D objects and then calculates how they will act in a fluid (air in the case of X-Plane of course).FSX is completely different, in using 'look up tables' to determine the effect of values in the aircraft configuration files, which it then translates into how the aeroplane should fly, so the 3D model itself has no bearing on how it acts in the sim.You'll get a lot of arguments over which one would be more accurate or flexible, they both have plus points. Of course if you drill right down into all that, both sims do eventually have to emulate the laws of aerodynamics, lift, weight, drag etc, but they get there by very different routes, as far as the computing aspects go.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Actually they don't. X Plane uses Blade Element Theory (BET), which was originally developed to try and settle arguments about whether paddle steamers were either more or less efficient than ships with underwater screws. BET calculates the forces generated by shapes, which means X-plane reads the shapes of its 3D objects and then calculates how they will act in a fluid (air in the case of X-Plane of course).FSX is completely different, in using 'look up tables' to determine the effect of values in the aircraft configuration files, which it then translates into how the aeroplane should fly, so the 3D model itself has no bearing on how it acts in the sim.You'll get a lot of arguments over which one would be more accurate or flexible, they both have plus points. Of course if you drill right down into all that, both sims do eventually have to emulate the laws of aerodynamics, lift, weight, drag etc, but they get there by very different routes, as far as the computing aspects go.Al
Thanks Al, I see. I was actually aware of Xplane’s use of 3d geometric aerodynamic models – but I thought they were moving away from for some reason. But you tell me, the geometric models are used to generate the data. That data, I suspect, goes into standard Roskam's equations. You could use AVL (too slow for realtime) to do the same to generate FSX tables - I've tried this. And this process is used in at least one professional prototyping sim I've found, so it works. Xplane has a more user friendly processes...but it doesn’t follow that the core has better potential. The process is different, yes. Getting tables correct by hand is harder but there is no intermediate geometry that must be interpreted by code (sometimes incorrectly or primitively). I had a long talk with Xplane at Oshkosh years ago….trying to convince them that the visual geo and the dynamics geo needed to be separate – each limited the other. They weren’t pleased – but I don’t blame them – it’s Oshkosh ;) and I was all enthusiasm and no tact, so maybe a jerk :( Again I haven’t tried Xplane, but because building an accurate geometric model is more intuitive, I think the Xplane process will make the average flight model better. But hand editing the tables directly in MSFS produces a more refined and subtle flight model in the hands of an expert…like realAir. And I’m absolutely convinced using tables directly is better for hardcore users - if there's any doubt ;)Dannyand...Go Canucks Go!

Share this post


Link to post

I agree, I bought X-Plane some time ago to give it a shot, but to be brutally honest, I wasn't hugely impressed with the flight dynamics it created. Although BET sounded brilliant in theory to me, in practice it appeared to only be a basis upon which to start further refining things, and if one has to do that, I felt that I might as well have been doing it from charts in the first place in the manner that FS does.Of course X-Plane has developed considerably over the years, so all that may very well have improved and I daresay it has, but I'm awaiting the reports of version ten before I'll commit to it again.Al

Share this post


Link to post
I agree, I bought X-Plane some time ago to give it a shot, but to be brutally honest, I wasn't hugely impressed with the flight dynamics it created. Although BET sounded brilliant in theory to me, in practice it appeared to only be a basis upon which to start further refining things, and if one has to do that, I felt that I might as well have been doing it from charts in the first place in the manner that FS does.Of course X-Plane has developed considerably over the years, so all that may very well have improved and I daresay it has, but I'm awaiting the reports of version ten before I'll commit to it again.Al
no real improvement ..... in comparison to MSFS 

Share this post


Link to post

I personally have always wanted to model for Xplane. It sounds so promising in the fact that the FM is partly calculated by the way the aircraft is shaped. Its a modelers dream! The only problem is, the dev's make 3rd party life a living nightmare with constant updates that brake 3rd party aircraft. So even after you release a product, you CONSTANTLY need to do updates for almost every version, and there dev cycle's are in the weeks. So every few weeks, you need to revisit old models to make sure they work, or have a bunch of customers angry at YOU, and not the developer of Xplane. Everyone I have ever spoken with about developing for Xplanes laugh it off, or turn faint at the thought. Its just not 3rd party friendly like FSX. I really hope Flight is 3rd party friendly, and considering they want an online store, they NEED to be. Whats the use of having your own store if you have nothing to put on the shelf to sell?

Share this post


Link to post

Before we get too deep into a discussion of the relative merits of X-Plane's and FS's areodynamics let me quote from the X-Plane website. http://www.x-plane.c...de_X-Plane.html"Downwash is found by looking at the aspect ratio, taper ratio, and sweep of the wing, and the horizontal and vertical distance of the "washed surface" (normally the horizontal stabilizer) from the "washing surface" (normally the wing), and then going to an empirical look-up table to get the degrees of downwash generated per coefficient of lift." (My emphasis)So it's not all calculated on the fly.I'm pretty sure I understand how FS deals with flight dynamics. I'm not at all sure I know how X-Plane does it. Can anyone provide links that explain X-Plane - going beyond the general words in the previous link?

Share this post


Link to post

If the methods used to calculate flight dynamics in XP9 were any good, the default planes would not have a roll rate like an F16, among other things. It makes no difference how you get to an incomplete flight model if you have to manually tweak it just the same.As for the constant updates and user interface, I think this all comes down to the fact that XP has no professional programming roots. It is clear that there are no such things as functional specifications before development starts and no attempt is made to be backward compatible with previous versions.XP seems to be going down the path that all other games are taking. Putting more and more eye candy in, but not paying attention to many other things that are more important.The problem is that we can't blame them as people buy games based on screenshots, not game play.

Share this post


Link to post
XP seems to be going down the path that all other games are taking. Putting more and more eye candy in, but not paying attention to many other things that are more important.
Couldn't agree more. Many people are going into raptures about the way Flight looks based on the paltry number of screenshots that have been shown. I couldn't give a toss about how it looks, what does it fly like? The name of the product is 'Flight', not 'Eye Candy'.Al

Share this post


Link to post
Couldn't agree more. Many people are going into raptures about the way Flight looks based on the paltry number of screenshots that have been shown. I couldn't give a toss about how it looks, what does it fly like? The name of the product is 'Flight', not 'Eye Candy'.
I think "eye candy" is an important part of the sim. The popularity of scenery add-ons show that many agree. Off course realistic (or at least believable) flight characteristics and simulation of aircraft systems is equally important. It all depends on what kind of flightsimmer one is.

Share this post


Link to post

In reality the experience provided by XP 9.6.7 (or higher...latest 9.7 is just a couple of minor tweaks) is quite enjoyable and plenty of quality payware options as well.As far as speculating about XP10/MS Flight....as far as I am concerned they are vaporware until they go retail and real comparisons can be made.The bonus for every sim enthusiast is-obviously-choice....errrr....unless you happen to be on a Mac/Linux OS where XP afford everyone the opportunity to enjoy the hobby-not just MS WIN users :(.And by the way-as far as dev houses "running away from XP"....you will note that dev houses ranging from the large (Aerosoft) to the smaller (Carenado) and even one man bands (Air Hauler) have made successful entry to the XP market. Not to mention the growing number of quality independent developers native to XP.Just sayin!

Share this post


Link to post
I think "eye candy" is an important part of the sim. The popularity of scenery add-ons show that many agree. Off course realistic (or at least believable) flight characteristics and simulation of aircraft systems is equally important. It all depends on what kind of flightsimmer one is.
Oh I'm not disputing that, otherwise I would never have bought any sceneries for FS. But when MS releases screenshots, but nothing about improvements to how it actually simulates flight, which when all is said and done is the whole point of a flight simulator, then it doesn't exactly fill me with optimism in regard to where their priorities lie.If one only cares about how a flight sim looks and not what it flies like, then there is no need to wait for Flight to come out, because you can get all the eye candy you need in other games that concentrate more on looks than fidelity. Frankly, I'd put up with Flight Sim looking like FS98 if it actually simulated flight and air mass modeling better.Al

Share this post


Link to post