Flight Dynamics

[jcomm]

Any ways... a very interesting compilation of useful info on MSFS's internals :-)

[BIGSKY]

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/00-80t-80.pdf

[ZG862]

Any ways... a very interesting compilation of useful info on MSFS's internals :-)

 

I thought so too. It struck me that there is an interesting implication of LM addressing deficiencies in behaviour such as those identified: If an aircraft designer has tweaked values in the .air file and/or aircraft.cfg in order to get the aircraft to "fly right" in FSX, then by implication it will NOT do so in P3D.

 

 

Whilst having sympathy for commercial sensitivities (I don't begrudge the fact that LM exists to make money for its shareholders) it strikes me as nonsensical that there is a secrecy around how the FDE is actually behaving. The real intellectual property is surely in the real world aircraft design and resultant performance. There is derived value in converting the RW aircraft data into simulator configuration files to feed the FDE but I struggle to see how the value is enhanced by obfuscating exactly which bits of the engine work as implied in the SDK and which do not. You could argue that the SDK should be a chargeable thing (as I believe is the case with DCS if you want to use the more sophisticated FDE) but as it is not I kinda feel that the providers (i.e. MS & LM) have a moral if not legal obligation to provide the sort of documentation that Yves has had to derive from experimentation. It shouldn't be a black art.

 

Z

[WarpD]

It's a "black art" because no documentation exists. Not even MS has any.

[ZG862]

It's a "black art" because no documentation exists. Not even MS has any.

 

That's just poor development management then. It means that the actual value of the asset that they have created is far less than its potential.

 

I suppose if I were LM and I'd bought a licence then I'd want to recoup the costs of having to reverse engineer the source code (so that I could actually take the product forward) by making 3rd parties pay handsomely. Ah, but then I'd struggle to gain the obvious advantages of an extensive base of 3rd party developers building highly realistically performing aircraft to make my commercial training tool a reality. Hang on...

 

It strikes me that this is perhaps what lies at the core of the ESP vs XPX FDE debate; it's not that a tables approach is inherently better or worse than FEA, just that black arts and hocus-pocus has little place in a mass market recreational sim - particularly if it is going to evolve. I wouldn't imagine that this bothers LM unduly but Dovetail may lose some sleep.

 

Z

[WarpD]

Well 'Z'... you misinterpreted what I stated. While I stated there's no documentation... I didn't state anywhere that they had to reverse engineer anything. The fact is, a great deal of what wasn't documented in the .air file contents... is no longer in use in Prepar3D.

 

The system is ever changing, despite everyone claiming nothing's changed.

[ZG862]

Hi Ed. Sorry if I misinterpreted your comment. Thing is, in my experience if there is no documentation, then there are only 2 ways of understanding how a piece of software works:

 

1) Get the developers to tell you

2) Read the source code

 

I appreciate that a number of the ACES team transferred to LM (meaning that there is an opportunity for 1 above) but I would deem 2 to be a form of reverse engineering, since even well-commented source rarely embodies top-down design.

 

I accept that LM are indeed developing the FDE. If we differ, it would seem to be on what I sense to be your position on what information should or shouldn't be put in the public domain. My opinion is that if MS (who, don't forget, still retain rights to exploit the recreational market as they see fit) and LM want to see a thriving ecosystem of 3rd party developers it is incumbent on them to help ensure that the aircraft they produce are realistic in their flight dynamics and consistent in their behaviour. You appear to support the notion of protecting the incomes of a select few who have the necessary contacts. If that were my bread and butter then I might well agree with you but I could hardly claim it as a sustainable argument.

 

As I said, no personal offence is intended; I don't doubt that your products have exceptionally realistic behaviour.

 

Z

[WarpD]

The information I won't allow in the public domain is the knowledge I have of creating flight dynamics in the sim. That's what I get paid for... to know how to make aircraft for training sims.

 

Why would I tell everyone how to do that? LOL

 

I don't care what Lockheed-Martin tells everyone.

[airtran411]

 All I want is flight dynamics that are just like or similar to FS2004. I can not stand fsx flight dynamics when it comes to landing aircraft. For say when in FS2004 you can actually hover and practically hold off like by 1 or 2 feet and kiss the runway or climb again, just think about a fighter jet flying low against the runway for a fly by or air show or something.

 

When you watch real world airplanes on videos or in person, past or present, they can hold off and achieve that perfect landing. Now I'm not trying to bash FSX (like I believe I had before) an any way, but landing in FSX and even watching FSX landing videos you can tell that the simmers even anticipate a flop landing because they know FSX won't let them hover like 1 or 2 feet above the runway (in some videos, some people can pull it off) but most people just try like at 10 feet or so to initiate their flare and then plop jerk the main gear right onto the surface.

 

Now I mean if we did all those FSX landings in real life, I think aircraft landing gears and such would need frequent maintenance and passengers would feel those hard landings considerably, and I just can't stress to you, even though you love, adore FSX, I just can't get over those unrealistic landing properties and characteristics, I mean FSX simmers are landing their aircraft like AI Airplanes, just plop flop smash crash right into the runway; EVEN after attempting to pull off a smooth landing.

 

I'm just hoping that P3D will be so much, so much much better than FSX eventually and that its handling properties will be just like or similar to FS2004. I mean I want butter smooth landings, popcorn butter smooth landings like Edetroit's landings.

Even amateurs,i myself, and everyone else, even you yourself landing in FS2004 can pull off a easy smooth landing with nothing to it, like take Sanmalav for example, here's his channel link. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQOGZveniQv7A-wfOh41tEQ

Even though he crosses the threshold pretty low, he's set himself up for a butter smooth landing at no cost every time.

 

I hope someone gets me as to why I love fs2004 so much, I even wasted money on the Captain Sim L-1011 even though I believe it's probably really good, I just can't enjoy it at all, I have a weak pc, but soon next year i will be getting a powerful one,(even though i'll be sticking to FS2004 until I buy P3D or something) and the approach in that plane is insane, it's like flying a roller coaster, up and down, up and down, low airspeed dropping to like 130/120 up and down with those handling characteristics and FSX flight dynamics and just forget about trying to pull off a smooth landing whatsoever.

 

I just want to enjoy advance airplanes like for say PMDG 777 and QWsim 787 in a GRAND flightsim such as P3D, and I hope P3D in 64bits will fix all my problems or something close lol.

 

Thank You, that is all!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

 

1-800 AirTran!!!

I mean just look at this video for example and other countless FSX videos for examples.

I mean that landing is not bad but not smooth or realistic for a 777 in real life either no offense.

 

http://youtu.be/c0jkQLghgfM

[WarpD]

Actually... I just watched a landing by 'Sanmalav'... very incorrect and unrealistic.

[airtran411]

 

 

 

Actually... I just watched a landing by 'Sanmalav'... very incorrect and unrealistic.

Yes I know his approach is probably too low and too slow but it is sooo easy to land smooth in FS2004, too easy in comparison to FSX lol.

[WarpD]

Well AirTran... ever landed a real aircraft? They don't land like what is in the video from 'Sanmalav'.

 

The flight dynamics in FSX/Prepar3D are actually more accurate than in FS9.

[airtran411]

Well AirTran... ever landed a real aircraft? They don't land like what is in the video from 'Sanmalav'.

 

The flight dynamics in FSX/Prepar3D are actually more accurate than in FS9.

 

 lol I wish I could fly but no, but yes you are right, they don't land like in Sanmalav's video.

 

I believe you are right also, it's almost like they have multiplied gravity or have thinned out the air like at high altitudes or something in FSX lol I don't even know.

But again, even though it may be more realistic, the landings are admittedly rough and brutal.

[molleh]

 lol I wish I could fly but no, but yes you are right, they don't land like in Sanmalav's video.

 

I believe you are right also, it's almost like they have multiplied gravity or have thinned out the air like at high altitudes or something in FSX lol I don't even know.

But again, even though it may be more realistic, the landings are admittedly rough and brutal.

 

Not sure I can really contribute anything to this thread, but whatever you've experienced in FSX is wrong.  You can do what you said with landings and then some.  I won't argue this more, but you should be able to find about 37,000 videos on youtube with all kinds of gentle landings in FSX.

[airtran411]

Not sure I can really contribute anything to this thread, but whatever you've experienced in FSX is wrong.  You can do what you said with landings and then some.  I won't argue this more, but you should be able to find about 37,000 videos on youtube with all kinds of gentle landings in FSX.

 

I see FSX landings all the time, but the ones that do make it happen, have to work really hard to pull it off, FSX aircraft are almost it seems, almost heavier in mass, so when I see someone flare early, they still seem to sink even after preparing their flare ahead of time it seems(maybe they just cut power early), in other words you would think they would have leveled off at the runway at that appropriate angle-of-attack of theirs and still carry over, but instead, they sink onto the runway and break their necks and spines. Just my 2-cents.

 

You know I think FSX really doesn't give you enough time to correct during a landing, its almost like if you cut power you sink right away, if you have a little to much power you climb back up again so there's really no in between. What I happen to see in these landings really, to be precise, to be really precise, they give hardly any flare at the last moment, BECAUSE they can't give anymore, there's no in between unlike FS2004, you can't really correct fast enough or be precise at the last second to perfect that landing, that's why when it comes to FSX people just shoot for the touchdown that is it, the momentum has to much control, no more really milking it unlike FS2004!  Almost like the runway is sucking/pulling them down.

 

Lol let me throw the infamous Flying Brick in there lol.

 

FSX is a new breed, a new style of landing, you know when you heard that the a300 is meant for firm landings(well that's what I read one time anyway lol), that's what everyone is doing in FSX, it's almost like they're in a rush(but they're really not) to just get her on the ground, no more in between milking her. There's no more gliding, it's just pin the tail on the donkey type landings.

 

They have to settle, they have to let her down, they have to give/cave in to the force almost.  The Airplane gives in too easy!!!