Where is P3DV2.3 better than FSX Dx 10

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

My flight progressing up the peninsula in PNW today.......  If v2.3 would have been the first RTM of the P3D franchise.....there would have been tears streaming down the faces of those installing and flying with it.  Wow........with this flight today, I declare that P3D v2.3 is Real World.

 

With the add-ons of Active Sky Next SP1 , Rex Studios Direct 4 SP3, ORBX Custom anything, and finally Pilot's Global Custom Mesh  2010FSX.....

 

Real world....

 

MItch

[twojastara 85]

Sounds like Accufeel, which will work with p3d.

 

Simulation of ground bumps -

Accufeel as rparson99 mentioned. This will give you all your squeaks and sounds. Use this with Opus DHM (Dynamic Head Movement) where opus models the effects of bumps, shakes etc all calculated on realtime data.

 

I have accufeel, but I am not satisfied with the results. It does too little. Adds some (mono!) sounds. Some physics... Not enough.  P3D/FSX landings are still "too scripted". In real world if your speed is too high during touchdown on grass airfield you can get yourself into real trouble. Here landings are done on flat, boring surfaces. You can't do it correct way. It is still untouched since 2006. And 8 years have passed...

 

If you guys own DCS P51 or any of their "sim" airplanes - you know how "ground physics" could be improved. I am dreaming of addon like this for P3D.

 

Cheers

[Guest]

 

 

You can create real life scenarios and go through that scenario one hundred times if you want, without risk to the aircraft or the occupants. There is a lot of "What if" to simulator training as much as there is "How to".

 

Exactly!  Not to mention training the brain to scan gauges/warnings and immediately understand a warning and how to respond to it ... simulators are a great place (and safe place) to learn these skills.

 

As far as flight dynamics, no simulator today can be 100% accurate with dynamics, BUT they can provide enough reality to train how one needs to respond/fly to situations.  Look at XP10's crazy wing behavior of the 747 ... that's not real and I don't need to be a 747 pilot to realize that.  Flight dynamics need to provide just enough so that one "gets the idea" of what is happening to the aircraft.  It will be many years before a simulator can approach real world flying ... that's why there are limits on how many simulated hours can be "counted" and flight hours towards one's PPL ... there must be "real flying" involved.  Who knows, maybe in the future this will change as hardware/simulations progress, but for here and now real flight is required in training.

 

 

 

 

What would FSX/P3D have to simulate for someone to think it's a complete flight dynamics simulation? I'm not talking about systems or ATC, but just flight.

 

The dynamics of air flow ... doesn't flow uniformly nor in a single direction, it's constantly changing ... to get that type of dynamics you will need more than just a few data points.  To put this into perspective ... there are modules sold for SolidWorks that simulate "flow" in whatever it is one is designing ... those flow calculates with sufficient resolution to be meaningful can't be render in real time ... they are rendered on server farms overnight (or however long it takes) ... if I flight simulator tried to be that accurate we're looks at "hours per frame" ... obviously not viable in today's hardware ... talk about "stutters"

 

And then we have air density that is also constantly changing ... combined with ambient temps there could be all kinds of bad mojo impacting flight ... all real time.

 

And then there is the drag ... drag on a aircraft is not a single constant, it varies across the aircraft as wind vectors and speed are applied from every direction and each and every part of the aircraft will induce different drag values and react differently.  The aircraft itself is a flight surface and all the calculations around that.

 

And then we have the propulsion system and how it impacts the aircraft -- torque, air frame stress, flex, prop thrust impact, turbines (10,000 - 50,000 rpm), drag, etc. etc. 

 

That's why I find it amusing when someone says XP10 physics are more accurate than FSX/P3D (and/or visa versa) ... Even if one were to assume that's valid, it's sorta like buying 100 lottery tickets rather than just 1 lottery ticket ... your odds of winning changes so imperceptibly as to be pretty much irrelevant.

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

Rob, you should look into soaring.

 

I like that idea!  More eco-friendly too.

 

 

 

Wow, must have been a sad day Rob

 

Yes and no, I don't missing working on it every weekend ... racing is A LOT of work if you aren't fully sponsored.  I think flight will keep my need for speed/drama in check. 

 

Cheers, Rob.

 

 

My flight progressing up the peninsula in PNW today.......  If v2.3 would have been the first RTM of the P3D franchise.....there would have been tears streaming down the faces of those installing and flying with it

 

Yeah, I did a quick tour around Jon Patch's PNW Victoria area and 10 minutes turned out to be 2 hours of just sight seeing.

[carlito777 725]

Well chaps...this discussion could go on and on over the merits of "...tell me why I should move to P3D, blah, blah...".

 

Very well said! I don't know what else needs to be said. There are always "pioneers" and there are fence sitters. If you like the view from the fence then stay there.

Edited August 23, 2014 by n4gix
Removed excessive quote!

[Guest]

Is the fuchsia bucket hat required to participate? If so, I'm out.

Yes it mandatory! Stick to simming :mad:

[charleslee201 19]

 

 Yes and no, I don't missing working on it every weekend ... racing is A LOT of work if you aren't fully sponsored.  I think flight will keep my need for speed/drama in check. 

 

Cheers, Rob.

Mr Rob Ainscough: i've been reading you for all these years and i keep asking my self that with all your money and your intelligence why dont you go rent yourself or even by a plane and go fly for real, shouldn't be a problem for you: and maybe see a real video , speaking of video can we see some vids or share a link of you driving ?? ... chears

[Guest]

 

 

why dont you go rent yourself or even by a plane and go fly for rea

 

Already started doing that - my FBO is KCCR ... part of getting my PPL ... posted some pics of me in a RedBird motion simulator at my FBO ... aircraft rentals are pretty inexpensive, even the Twin seneca was only $255/hr + $75/hr instructor fees ... the 172R is $135/hr.  I haven't record any of my instructor flights ... I've probably just not dared to ask the instructor for permission ... but hey, I'll ask next week and see if he (or she) is ok with it (I have a GoPro Black edition that I can bring with me).

 

I've shared plenty of videos of my racing ... you really want to see more?

 

Cheers, Rob.

[Sesquashtoo 2,846]

Exactly!  Not to mention training the brain to scan gauges/warnings and immediately understand a warning and how to respond to it ... simulators are a great place (and safe place) to learn these skills.

I know what you mean, Rob!   I just ended a 3 hour non-stop session....man...I need a beer!  LOL

Rob, you should look into soaring. Coming from driving race cars I can see you loving the challenges of soaring.

WOW...........wow...........

Edited August 23, 2014 by n4gix
Removed excessive quote!

[nathanpinard 0]

Mr Rob Ainscough: i've been reading you for all these years and i keep asking my self that with all your money and your intelligence why dont you go rent yourself or even by a plane and go fly for real, shouldn't be a problem for you: and maybe see a real video , speaking of video can we see some vids or share a link of you driving ?? ... chears

 

His YT page is flooded with Lotus videos, and I tend to think a Cessna still costs more than a Lotus. It's a 250k+ plane brand new.

[CrownCityMisfits 58]

The dynamics of air flow ... doesn't flow uniformly nor in a single direction, it's constantly changing ...

 

 

Thank you and I agree that this squashes every "this sim is more realistic than that sim" argument.

 

Then again, this is the internet.

Edited August 23, 2014 by n4gix
Removed excessive quote.

[nathanpinard 0]

Ok, maybe not on such a huge level I was thinking.

 

More like:

 

- Tail winds

- Wake

- Real Turbulence (assuming it doesn't now?)

- Failures that are due to how you treat the aircraft (much like Real Air and it's flaps issues you can have)

- Stalling/Spinning

- Windshear

- Icing

- Contaminated Runways

 

Stuff like that.

My flight progressing up the peninsula in PNW today.......  If v2.3 would have been the first RTM of the P3D franchise.....there would have been tears streaming down the faces of those installing and flying with it.  Wow........with this flight today, I declare that P3D v2.3 is Real World.

 

With the add-ons of Active Sky Next SP1 , Rex Studios Direct 4 SP3, ORBX Custom anything, and finally Pilot's Global Custom Mesh  2010FSX.....

 

Real world....

 

MItch

If I didn't know better I'd say you were being paid by LM. P3D is great. But...tears?

 

I'm about to get a Titan. I'm curious to see if I see what you are seeing when things are much smoother. Though what I have is pretty smooth. Looks great. But...tears?

[Guest]

 

 

Thank you and I agree that this squashes every "this sim is more realistic than that sim" argument.

 

realism comes in many components ... flight dynamics is just "ONE" component of realism ... visuals are another ... ATC ... etc. etc. 

[CrownCityMisfits 58]

realism comes in many components ... flight dynamics is just "ONE" component of realism ... visuals are another ... ATC ... etc. etc. 

 

True, true.

[charleslee201 19]

will check your Fb Rob to see your driving

[fvapres 7]

But for simulating the actual physics of flight I'll stick to FSX until they sort out the runtime errors and include the kind of aircraft we teach people to fly in. Educational tool? I think not just yet.

 

Aircraft in FSX versus aircraft in P3D are nearly identical in performance, especially for those that use an external sim to supplement the failures of the ESP flight modeling engine, (which both use, but LM have modified it for the better, the only part I know of so far is the ground friction/braking, but I'd assume some more tweaks).  If you use the default aircraft in your flying, it's actually more whimsical that you're saying FSX is better than P3D when, in most cases they're identical.

 

Crashes to crashes, more people report issues with FSX than P3D as P3D with its advanced graphic features that offload data from the CPU to GPU make memory issues far fewer.  If you have issues with P3D crashing, it's probably due to you having mucked with it to the point that it is unstable (as can happen to FSX and did before we figured out what worked and didn't).

 

And FSX versus P3D being educational, only so far as the officially motivated addons, which is becoming a smaller gap, such as cases like A2A.

the Twin seneca was only $255/hr + $75/hr instructor fees ... the 172R is $135/hr. 

 

Lol, when I was training, I rented a 152 for $65/hr with $20 for the instructor.  When I was 14, I hit my growth spurt and was quickly cramped in front of the yoke and upgraded to the 172 at $95/hr.  When I was getting my Commercial Multi Instrument, I was paying $150/hr wet for the PA-34 Seneca and $40/hr.  Those are the reasons I couldn't continue with my flying.  400 hours more and I'd be able to fly Commercial PIC, but I mostly needed multi time and $200/hr I coulnd't afford.

 

God bless and keep the blue side up more than the brown (not always, just more :-) )