In fact, it is so advanced that it belongs to an era in flight simulation when it will become a lot easier for developers to deal with the physics of flight! By that time scientists have already discovered the truth beyond gravity and engineers started implementing it on most fields, including aviation.The ZERO in the next youtube is from a simulator that being light-years ahead of the others, already provides for anti-gravity. It's FM is so good that nothing will now make me buy the ZERO for FLIGHT, or invest in any further DLCs...Skip to minute 4:51It's HERE THE PROOF THAT ONE DAY SIMULATORS WILL HAVE ANTI-GRAVITY MODELLED!!!P.S.: It doesn't have to do with the great ZERO model itself in the tube, a true masterpiece, but rather with the underlaying exquisite physics engine...

I've never flown in the really sophisticated simulators that are used by airlines or academics. The best I've used is ESP during my training, and of course just about every flight sim available for the home market.All the flight sims suffer when one goes outside the envelope of normal flight. The envelope in the case of some sims does not include slow flight and soft field takeoffs which is a real shame.I have GAINED 1000 feet of altitude in Flight while in a spin after falling for some time. I then fell again, and then climbed and fell. I have also seen this behavior in FSX, X-Plane and many other "realistic simulators". They just aren't designed for this purpose.I do not have a background in aerodynamics or fluid dynamics, but I can imagine that the mathematics for simulating a turbulent flow around the aircraft is quite a bit more complex than one for a laminar flow.

Yeah, indeed every simulator fails when you go too far away from normal flight conditions. The difference is that X plane flight dynamics feel like flying in normal conditions, when FSX / Flight are more like driving a train. At least FSX still allows me to get some real nice products with better flight dynamics, unlike Flight with all Microsoft rubbish.

X-Plane forum is that way ----------->All these threads comparing Flight to X-Plane are getting rather annoying.

I do not have a background in aerodynamics or fluid dynamics, but I can imagine that the mathematics for simulating a turbulent flow around the aircraft is quite a bit more complex than one for a laminar flow.

Trust me, no one is simulating fluid dynamics, no matter what their press releases say. It's all smoke and mirrors. Actually, it's better that people don't know just how much "smoke and mirrors" goes into a simulation.Hook

Actually, it's better that people don't know just how much "smoke and mirrors" goes into a simulation.

*rambling alert*This is just speculation on my part, but my guess is that the engine has abstracted the process to performance "tables" to derive lift/drag ratios at various AOA for a given airfoil at various load factors along with dozens of other performance parameters for the rest of the aircraftIt probably starts out that way, and then the smoke and mirrors begins to use this basic "model" to try to model the behaviors of a specific aircraft under "normal" flight parameters. I've never seen published performance data for stalls, spins.I've never played with .air files, but a glance at the structure makes me think this is the way it works, and it works well.I guess it all boils down to the fact that the "normal" range of performance is structured and predictable, whereas stalls and spins are dynamic situations where a constant modeling of the airflow interaction with the airframe and the weight distribution of the aircraft is essential for any approximation of reality.Then again, most of the combat sims out there seem to have a "spin mode" where the aircraft goes into a preprogrammed clockwork spin behavior whenever you stall. I think those work pretty well, though I wouldn't have a clue as to how well they are modeled in any of those old warbirds.

Well Oracle, I did experience it in FSX, and even recorded a video (in 2006)

 

 

but am yet to reproduce it in FLIGHT...

 

 

 

I have GAINED 1000 feet of altitude in Flight while in a spin after falling for some time. I then fell again, and then climbed and fell. I have also seen this behavior in FSX, X-Plane and many other "realistic simulators". They just aren't designed for this purpose.

I did it in an RV, but I don't own Fraps. I'll see if I can record it the moment it happens as I only get 30 seconds. Yeah I'm cheap... :)

Thx Oracle, looking fwd for it....

 

I did it in an RV, but I don't own Fraps. I'll see I'd I can record it she moment it happens as I only get 30 seconds. Yeah I'm cheap... :)

I just watched your video and that was impressive! What I saw was similar, but when I tried to do it in an RV tonight I couldn't. Now I'm wondering if it was a Stearman that I was in... It took so long to get up to 14K for that dissapointment. I wanted my Anti Grav!

 

I have a business trip in a few hours, so I'll see if I can try it again in the Stearman when I return.

*rambling alert*

 

This is just speculation on my part, but my guess is that the engine has abstracted the process to performance "tables" to derive lift/drag ratios at various AOA for a given airfoil at various load factors along with dozens of other performance parameters for the rest of the aircraft

 

It probably starts out that way, and then the smoke and mirrors begins to use this basic "model" to try to model the behaviors of a specific aircraft under "normal" flight parameters. I've never seen published performance data for stalls, spins.

 

I've never played with .air files, but a glance at the structure makes me think this is the way it works, and it works well.

 

I guess it all boils down to the fact that the "normal" range of performance is structured and predictable, whereas stalls and spins are dynamic situations where a constant modeling of the airflow interaction with the airframe and the weight distribution of the aircraft is essential for any approximation of reality.

 

Then again, most of the combat sims out there seem to have a "spin mode" where the aircraft goes into a preprogrammed clockwork spin behavior whenever you stall. I think those work pretty well, though I wouldn't have a clue as to how well they are modeled in any of those old warbirds.

 

I've seen it stated that FSX does indeed operate via the 'table' method. X-Plane claims to use 'blade element theory' to model the airflow over the wing. As for correctly modeling stalls, even real life level-D simulators break down and cry when asked to do that. Approach to stall can be modeled realtively accurately, but once your are completely stalled the fidelity of the simulation breaks down fast. Both due to the difficulty of modeling the airflow and the lack of sufficient aerodynamic data.

Looking Glass' "Flight Unlimited", back in 1995 was the only reputedly the only sim ever to use proper fluid dynamics to model aircraft behaviour.

 

The proof was considered to be the ability to correctly perform a 'lomcevak' or 'torque roll' in Flight Unlimited - something impossible in any sim since then (please correct me if I'm wrong, but you have never been able to do one in any version of FS, nor is it possible in Flight.). They could be performed in Flight Unlimited by following the standard method for entering one - hard pitch up to 45, full left aileron & rudder (for clockwise prop) and throttle suddenly pushed hard open. IRRC it is gyroscopic procession of the engine's torque that pulls the aircraft into the pitch roll.

 

Lomcevaks in real life are very distinctive - for a start it just looks WRONG - the plane rolling around it's pitch axis (ie, the axis of the wings) and if it is trailing smoke the smoke appears to 'pool' in the stalled air under the wing and is emitted straight 'down' from the aircraft - see this video -

 

The Lomcevak is so far from a stable flight condition that it would be simply unthinkable to bother modelling in any sim, even a professional one. For a start it is impossible to perform in a jet or twin, and probably impossible for a glider (probably - though gliders can do all kinds of freaky stuff at times).

 

Xplane might use BET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_element_theory for props, but BET won't give you everything. I suspect that if you really did use 'on-the-fly' CFD you wouldn't get much frame-rate, even with modern PCs. Flight Unlimited was 'hardcoded' to model about 4 aircraft, and was 'spaghetti code' assembler, which is why it has never been seen since. Look-up tables make good sense for the most part, and can be implemented as algorithms rather than 'tables' as such.

I would love to see an Xtra 300 in Flight.

( it's also interesting to note, that a 20 million dollar Level-D Boeing 737/747/777 simulator.....can't simulate realistic windshear or very strong cross winds properly !)

 

Fred.

So I said I would do it and I have (once I got back from my business and vacation trips).

 

I present to you...

MS Flight Stearman Antigravobatics

 

No it's not a not very exciting vid but if you watch the altimeter you'll get the point. :Sick:

 

http://youtu.be/YA30Cd8F-oU