Yes I've also landed on ORBX dirt and grass runways that are sloped.

There's a courchevel scenery from LLH also with sloped runway like a real one. Orbx PAKT is another example, it has a sloped taxiway. They create it as a scenery object with runway texture on top. It's not a real runway technically. I think this is creating elevation issues time to time like in Orbx PAKT. Afaik LM didn't make sloped runway possible in P3dv2.

Do Prepar3d AI aircraft work with sloping runways? I understand they do not with FSX

 

 

Do Prepar3d AI aircraft work with sloping runways?

 

Hey Gerry,

 

Apparently FB's KDEN has sloped runways, too bad it's under the Virtuali umbrella otherwise I would buy it and find out.

 

Cheers, Rob.

Flightbeam KDEN runways are not sloped. The terrain between the runways and taxiways are, however, not flat. It's a good idea to stay on the centerline.

 

Another great feature of P3D is flying through clouds is much more realistic. Clouds don't just disappear as you fly through them. Very immersive.

 

Todd

Desktop based simulations do their best work as IFR simulators and system trainers. The flight dynamics could be better in FSX/P3D and yes, even XP10, but in the end the platform just doesn't lend itself to realistic flight dynamics and training in those areas. No matter how much work you put into it.

 

The pressures and dynamics felt flying a real plane just don't translate to your joystick and keyboard. I will say the A2A 172 is pretty dang good.
 

 

 

The pressures and dynamics felt flying a real plane just don't translate to your joystick and keyboard.

 

Well I haven't tried that $2000+ FF Yoke so I can't say for sure, but for my cheaper Saitek Cessna Pro Yoke, and the Redbird motion simulator, I'll agree.

 

 

 

The flight dynamics could be better in FSX/P3D and yes, even XP10, but in the end the platform just doesn't lend itself to realistic flight dynamics and training in those areas.

 

But just so you are aware, FAA approved training simulators are using older versions of LM's Prepar3d and/or ESP ... I can positively assure you of that (there are two at my FBO in KCCR that I've used) -- but my actual flight lessons feel drastically different, but I'm new to real world flying (as in making a dedicated effort to getting my PPL single land).  

 

Some of the similarities I've noted was just how much input and correction is required in real world flying and in the A2A C-172 even in moderate to light winds -- it was pretty cool feeling to get that same process out of both real world and simulated.  Also other similarities on how the aircraft does tend to "float" with flaps down at low speed (again compared to A2A C-172).

 

Cheers, Rob.

The FAA requirements are not very demanding:

 

e. Flight Dynamics Requirements

(1) Flight dynamics of the ATD should be comparable to the way the represented training aircraft performs and handles. However, there is no requirement for an ATD to have control loading to exactly replicate any particular aircraft. An air data-handling package is not required for determination of forces to simulate the manufacturing process.

(2) Aircraft performance parameters (such as maximum speed, cruise speed, stall speed, maximum climb rate, hovering/sideward/forward/rearward flight) should be comparable to the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented

(3) Aircraft vertical lift component must change as a function of bank, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft being represented performs and handles.

(4) Changes in flap setting, slat setting, gear position, collective control or cyclic control must be accompanied by changes in flight dynamics, comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles.

(5) The presence and intensity of wind and turbulence must be reflected in the handling and performance qualities of the simulated aircraft and should be comparable to the way the aircraft or family of aircraft represented performs and handles.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-136.pdf

P3D feels like a next-gen version of FSX. The HDR lighting alone has a massive effect on the overall atmosphere. That along with improved autogen is worth the price tag imo. The performance improvements, while there, are nothing to write home about and you'll probably have to make some tweaks to fix blurries (such as the affinity tweak) - but it's really not that much work compared to FSX.

 

The only downside will be compatible addons. I have the GTX770 2GB and it coped fine - memory use was not an issue.

Well I haven't tried that $2000+ FF Yoke so I can't say for sure, but for my cheaper Saitek Cessna Pro Yoke, and the Redbird motion simulator, I'll agree.

 

 

 

 

But just so you are aware, FAA approved training simulators are using older versions of LM's Prepar3d and/or ESP ... I can positively assure you of that (there are two at my FBO in KCCR that I've used) -- but my actual flight lessons feel drastically different, but I'm new to real world flying (as in making a dedicated effort to getting my PPL single land).  

 

Some of the similarities I've noted was just how much input and correction is required in real world flying and in the A2A C-172 even in moderate to light winds -- it was pretty cool feeling to get that same process out of both real world and simulated.  Also other similarities on how the aircraft does tend to "float" with flaps down at low speed (again compared to A2A C-172).

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

Yeah, I know. But I'm saying that (most) schools aren't using those simulators to teach stalls, steep turns, and crosswind landings because those are things you have to have physical feedback to really practice.

 

They are using them to teach basic navigation, systems, and maybe basic fundamentals like "this is how you fly a traffic pattern."

 

The greater point is that I don't foresee LM spending a ton of time on flight dynamics in the future just because it's not that big of a deal in the training market. Flight dynamics are learned in the plane, not on a desktop. 

Flight dynamics can be changed by third party as kind of a plugin with P3D2.  I think its only a matter of time before someone digs into that toybox.  Isn't that why/how Laminar Research got started?  Maybe they can make a plugin.

Maybe they can make a plugin.

Where would they get the real-life aerodynamic data from?

The smoothness of animation, that add to real-world flight viability..is DEADLY!

 

That alone, in my opinion, would be enough to purchase the sim at the Student license level.

 

There is much more...believe me, that eclipses FSX (even at DX10), but you truly have to 'drop the dime' and see what is...and how the 'what is', is running on your own system, to be the judge. I would dare say from my most meager usage to date...that there are going to be not too many user-requests,  for a refund.  I for one will not be...(large smile).

 

Mitch

 

 

Where would they get the real-life aerodynamic data from?

 

No current desktop computer (or dare I suggest even 10-20 years from now) can calculate air flow over surfaces in REAL TIME with any high degree of accuracy.  LR evaluates sections and subsections with each section being calculated for lift and drag ... I think the maximum concurrent calcs (to determine drag/lift) is 40 for any aircraft in XP10.

 

I'm not debating which method is better or worse, both are compromises based on available computing resources that can implemented in real time.

 

XP10, FSX, and P3D all allow one (3rd party) to expand on the current flight dynamic ... not for the faint of heart.

 

 

But I'm saying that (most) schools aren't using those simulators to teach stalls, steep turns, and crosswind landings because those are things you have to have physical feedback to really practice.

 

No idea what "most" schools teach, I'm only exposed to one school.  Simulated crosswind landings, steep turns, stalls can certainly provide a student with understanding what will happen as they are simulated.  Simulators can and do provide the basic "this is what you do in these situations" ... so I'd debate it's a very effective training tool.  When it comes to real world application, it's not a surprise ... the basic concept of what to do is already there, it just becomes a matter of degree and frequency of input but the basic inputs/process is the same.

 

Cheers, Rob.

No current desktop computer (or dare I suggest even 10-20 years from now) can calculate air flow over surfaces in REAL TIME with any high degree of accuracy...

So, where would they get the real-life aerodynamic data from?