Flight dynamics: any evolution from FSX to P3Dv3?

[adler58 2]

Most of us know and understand how many important graphic and programming improvements have been introduced from FSX to P3Dv1, v2, v3... producing what now is a very stable and fluid simulator which I like and appreciate very much.

 

But I would ask a question to simmers more expert than me: what if any evolution in the flight dynamics compartment has been made from FSX to the present version 3 of P3D?

 

Flying in P3Dv3 an old but very good aircraft like the SF.260 by RealAir, born for FSX and never updated since 2007, I can barely see any difference...

 

Perhaps there are some subtle changes one can notice on more complex aircraft like supersonic military jets or big liners... but on most GA planes I fly, I am not able to see differences...

 

Am I wrong?

[Potroh 14]

Be happy for nothing has changed in flight-dynamics...

Even FS2000 was way ahead of its own time in this regard and FSX-ACC was significantly improved later.

 

The known FS-dynamic engine is quite similar to the million $$$ Level-D simulators and from many angles it's even better than most of the older Level-D ones.

A skillful aerodynamic-designer can make an almost perfect flight-model in FS-P3D, if you find poorly designed planes, it's usually the shortcoming of the designer and not the engine, which is almost a masterpiece.

[JYW 2,980]

I can't see a difference in flight dynamics between FSX and P3Dv3, but like Potroh above, I don't have any issue with that, as I think the FD engine is remarkably versatile and enjoyable.   Translating flight motion to pixels on a screen is always going to be essentially subjective so I think it's harder to get "better", only "different".

[hychewright 46]

I can't see a difference in flight dynamics between FSX and P3Dv3, but like Potroh above, I don't have any issue with that, as I think the FD engine is remarkably versatile and enjoyable.   Translating flight motion to pixels on a screen is always going to be essentially subjective so I think it's harder to get "better", only "different".

+1

[Mallcott 23]

Freeing of resources previously used in image generation for the `behind the scenes` simulation of systems and dynamics seems to have reset the balance so that accurate flight models have more `life` to them in v3, but in truth there has been no work done on the flight modelling side. 

 

As I recall the FDE engine was licensed by MS not originated or owned by them. Unless that changed with P3D under L-M there will be no changes in the near future.

 

But the longevity of the structure seems to be showing considerable rewards with addon developers who program outside the core engine. A2a accusim continues to improve with every update, PMDG have really conquered the `feel` of the 737 and Majestic seem to have mastered the curious dynamics of the Dash 8 - Q400, right down to the very different flying (landing) characteristics between partial and full-flap.

[WarpD 824]

The flight model gets adjustments all the time. There were changes in FSX from FS9 and I've seen more changes between FSX and Prepar3D.

 

They're subtle and unlikely to be noticed by users, but I know they have been done.

 

P3D v3 has flight dynamics changes from v2.5... revolving around break-away thrust requirements on the ground.

[adler58 2]

Thank you all,

 

I'm glad to know some subtle changes and adjustments are currently made by LM.

 

Anyway, the good fluidity obtained in P3Dv3 (no stuttering if the graphic settings are adequate to the hardware) helps to improve the realism of the simulated flight, obtaining a faster response from the sim to the controller inputs.

[Mallcott 23]

The flight model gets adjustments all the time. There were changes in FSX from FS9 and I've seen more changes between FSX and Prepar3D.

 

They're subtle and unlikely to be noticed by users, but I know they have been done.

 

P3D v3 has flight dynamics changes from v2.5... revolving around break-away thrust requirements on the ground.

 

 

AFAIK, none of the .air file features that were disconnected in the change between FS9 and FSX have been re-implemented since, in any version of P3D.

No additional entries to the aircraft .cfg file system have been introduced in P3D, from v1 all the way to v3.

 

The changes you describe amount to tinkering, not changing unless you have documentation that confirms something else ?

 

If it were not so, why would L-M have enhanced the `hooks` to enable more complex interaction with `outside` models ? And why would aftermarket developers be resorting to such complex programming if the core model was improving ?

[WarpD 824]

So... changes only mean changes if you say the changes mean they're changes?

 

Ok... got it! :wink:

[Mallcott 23]

No, changes are only changes if YOU can show what they are, rather than just talking about them as if.

 

You will recall the awkward silences during beta when this subject was brought up and the non-committal replies from L-M ?

 

Pete Dowson has more knowledge on the down-dirty infrastructure and changes between versions and he hasn't detected any material changes. Bit of tinkering on the periphery, but that's it so far. Herve Sors also finds very little change between FSX/P3Dv1/P3Dv2/P3dv3 as far as .air file interpretation.

 

The Prepar3D SDK refers to modeling changes in .xml gauges and .cfg files using simconnect (for the former) and direct modification (for the latter) but no reference to any changes in the air file structure.

 

Proof of the pudding and all that. Making a change to a number is a tweak, unless it also leads to a raft of other changes that shows things have been developed, not merely changed.

 

My educated opinion is that the .air file is and remains a fixed point and that the SDK now recommends all changes are made through .xml files or aircraft.cfg modification for a reason - suggesting that `outside looking in` is the way in which flight modelling is changed in v3.

[Thomas Andersen 45]

I am not as pleased as the crowd here. Sure I am thankful that we have a simulator that gets continued developent, and combined with great addons we have an amazing flight simulator. However it could be better. That the flight dynamics code have not received a major revamp over the course of a 10 year period, says something about the niche character of this market, where market size is not high enough for someone to dare making significant investment in optimizing the code.

 

As a private pilot I can tell that practising crosswind landings in P3Dv3 leaves a lot to be desired compared to real life situation. In P3D once correct path on the extended centerline has been established, very little correction is required even in windy and gusty conditions (say a 15 knot crosswind). In real life I find myself constantly making stick adjustments to stay on the right path. In particular in real life as you are flaring the plane, and as speed is bleeding off, I might have to do quite significant adjustments to stay on path. I dont see this effect in P3D, even when using active sky next and nice addons like the a2as.

 

I am quite happy with what I've got, but things could have been better

[Potroh 14]

I am not as pleased as the crowd here. Sure I am thankful that we have a simulator that gets continued developent, and combined with great addons we have an amazing flight simulator. However it could be better. That the flight dynamics code have not received a major revamp over the course of a 10 year period, says something about the niche character of this market, where market size is not high enough for someone to dare making significant investment in optimizing the code.

There are nicely designed planes that do just what you wish for.

Don't necessarily blame the 'engine' if you find aircraft with poor performance.

 

I'm also a RW pilot and guess what I did when found flight-model discrepancies? Well yes, I tried to dig into the given flight-model and could always achive what was needed to get much better performance.

 

In case the dynamic-core was touched here and there, the only "advantage" we could experiences would be to fly without a single useful plane for MONTHS!

I say 'months', because to carefully design a plane or A/C takes long months and unfortunately many designers try to circumvent that period by cheap compromises...