P3D V4 speculation thread - may as well

[Potroh 14]

 

 

But above all, they should invest on a new Flight Dynamics engine...

 

No need for that...

The old flight dynamics engine is actually a masterpiece and is still way ahead of anything that one could find for the PC.

Even the 10-15 years old multimillion bucks Level-D simulators have less dynamic capabilities compared to this small old one.

 

Of course it only works well if a given aircraft is designed very well...

 

Potroh

[Novation 534]

For me an improvement in terrain loading and LOD would be nice. To extend to autogen radius and push out the tile loading be welcome as long as its able to scale to maintain performance, not that I expect this to happen with the move to 64bit, but it might make these changes more feasible. I don't suffer from OOM's as I only do short GA or bush flights, so the main benefit will be lost on me. Unless there are some amazing new features I will stick with the 32bit version to start with.

[jcomm 5,890]

As a real world pilot with many hours, I don't see what is wrong with the flight dynamics as they are now, providing the aircraft is designed well. 

 

Many things, starting with limitations imposed to prop effects, for instance... It all depends on what sort of aircraft you want to model.

 

For a C172 or a C182, it's probably as good as it get's, but users of this sims also want to model many other aircraft types, engine types, rotary wing, and so on... and in this area MSFS's default ( aged ) FDM is showing it's limitations already...

 

I didn't mention X-Plane, because I don't find it any better as a matter of fact....

 

If we could have something based of AEFS2's approach, DCS. or IL.2 Battle of... then we would be talking top notch flight dynamics modelling for a PC-based sim.

[simmerhead 885]

Oh, I'll be jumping in with both feet. Can't wait to get rid of my 2 terrabytes of 32 bit addon baggae... I like the idea of starting fresh after 10 years using FSX in all its shapes and forms.

[Murmur 3,941]

If we could have something based of AEFS2's approach, DCS. or IL.2 Battle of... then we would be talking top notch flight dynamics modelling for a PC-based sim.

 

What do you know in detail about DCS and IL2 flight dynamics engine?

[Bobsk8 12,584]

Many things, starting with limitations imposed to prop effects, for instance... It all depends on what sort of aircraft you want to model.

 

For a C172 or a C182, it's probably as good as it get's, but users of this sims also want to model many other aircraft types, engine types, rotary wing, and so on... and in this area MSFS's default ( aged ) FDM is showing it's limitations already...

 

I didn't mention X-Plane, because I don't find it any better as a matter of fact....

 

If we could have something based of AEFS2's approach, DCS. or IL.2 Battle of... then we would be talking top notch flight dynamics modelling for a PC-based sim.

 

 

I have a few hundred hours in C 172s. I have the A2A 172 in P3D and I find it pretty close to real . I have flown two 172's in X plane, one a payware which is highly rated, on a friends PC ( who is a CFI) , and I find it was unstable and a chore to fly vesus my experience in a real  172. When you fly the real aircraft, and then fly a simulation, it doesn't take long to figure out if the sim is an accurate representation. 

[Sethos 4,304]

I sincerely hope the 64-bit upgrade allows them to increase the terrain rendering area. That is my number one issue with the ESP-platform; the blurry terrain. If that could be fixed, along with the constant nagging at the back of your head that the game might OOM at any minute and I might consider coming back.

[ErichB 3,638]

I have a few hundred hours in C 172s. I have the A2A 172 in P3D and I find it pretty close to real . I have flown two 172's in X plane, one a payware which is highly rated, on a friends PC ( who is a CFI) , and I find it was unstable and a chore to fly vesus my experience in a real 172. When you fly the real aircraft, and then fly a simulation, it doesn't take long to figure out if the sim is an accurate representation.

 

To be fair, a large component of 'real feel' is also the hardware you are using. Flying an A2A C172 (or any other quality aicraft) using Saitek's crappy yoke vs flying the same aircraft with a Cirrus/PFC yoke is almost the same as flying two completely different aircraft models. Don't underestimate the significant difference that good hardware can have on your perception of a 'flight model' .

 

I know that is not quite what you were getting at Bob, but I thought I'd put that in there.

[shivers9 1,174]

I expect to see a pretty clean break in backward compat. with Version 4. One reason is that LM has been quitely applying pressure and hinting to developers to use the new interfaces and the advantages of having more of the add ons work outside of P3d. Future aircraft are going to be more like we see from A2A and some of the others who have evolved with the tech. This expected progression may very well be one of the reasons that Real Air picked this time to pull the plug. 

 

Given the fact that we are not seeing much progress these days for faster processors like in recent years, this operating outside the main Prepar3d program may make a lot of sense. I would not be surprised to see future add ons being designed to run on a seperate computers and feeding data via the network as the norm for Prepar3d. Actually Flight 1 tech already uses that set up for their processional simulator. Home cockpit guys have been hacking this kid of stuff together for years. 

 

We may have reached the point that we have to stop trying to stuff 10 pounds of po-po into a 5 pound bag.

[Bobsk8 12,584]

To be fair, a large component of 'real feel' is also the hardware you are using. Flying an A2A C172 (or any other quality aicraft) using Saitek's crappy yoke vs flying the same aircraft with a Cirrus/PFC yoke is almost the same as flying two completely different aircraft models. Don't underestimate the significant difference that good hardware can have on your perception of a 'flight model' .

 

I know that is not quite what you were getting at Bob, but I thought I'd put that in there.

 

My friend with X plane had a yoke that he paid around $400 ( way more than I have invested in my controller, which is pretty realistic) .$ 400  yoke should have been good enough. How much would one have to pay to make a 172 in X plane fly like a real 172, $1,000-, 2,000 or more...?  Just curious.  :wink:

[Gordon Hutchison 76]

To be fair, a large component of 'real feel' is also the hardware you are using. Flying an A2A C172 (or any other quality aicraft) using Saitek's crappy yoke vs flying the same aircraft with a Cirrus/PFC yoke is almost the same as flying two completely different aircraft models. Don't underestimate the significant difference that good hardware can have on your perception of a 'flight model' .

 

I know that is not quite what you were getting at Bob, but I thought I'd put that in there.

Couldn't agree more; it saddens me to see simmers spending hunders, maybe thousands of (pounds, dollars whatever) on aircraft, screnery and other addons; then I see they are flying with a cheap and nasty $15 joystick.

 

A quality yoke/joystick, rudders, throttle unit and maybe some switch panels adds so much to the sim experience. I'm sure those with replica cockpits (FDS/Jetmax etc) would agree with that.

 

Getting "off the mouse" is the best way to increase tactile realism and enjoyment of any sim.

 

It actually annoys me how much I've spent over the years trying to gather all the addons that I felt I "needed". If I was to go back and start all over again, I'd go in a very different direction with my flight sim spending.

 

The main reason I don't fly tubeliners (PMDG,Aerosoft etc) anymore is that I HATE using the mouse to click all the switches; I had a pretty respectible generic GA simpit that allowed my to map 95% of switches and buttons to my golfight, CPFlight and other panels for such aircraft like A2A, Realair. After flying the sim using all that hardware I just cannot go back to standard mouse click flying with tubeliners.

 

I'm in the process of saving up for a full hardware G1000 like this: http://www.flight1tech.com/Shop/ProductDetails/tabid/91/ProductID/24/Default.aspx

 

Plus a large curved projector screen.

 

My eventual aim is to be 100% away from mouse and keyboard from the start till the end of a flight in a G1000 equiped GA plane.

[jcomm 5,890]

What do you know in detail about DCS and IL2 flight dynamics engine?

 

About the internals ?  Practically nothing apart from excerpts of what the Developers sometimes make public...

 

About the feel and experience, when compared with similar models for other platforms, and based on the real pilots descriptions, as much as I need to infer that they're, for sure, ahead of what I have been able to taste in either the best for FSX or X-Plane.

 

I'll give as examples some glider models I have flown IRL and how they performed comparatively between FSX/P3D and X-Plane, Condorsoaring, SilentWIngs, and AEFS2.. My best experience, the ones that bring the sensation of realism closer to the my experience are by far those in Condorsoaring, SilentWings and AEFS2, followed by X-plane and then FSX/P3D.

 

The many times I've jumpseated in Airbuses and other commercial jet's, or used the CAE A320 simulator at LPPT ( for 1hr ) were so far replicated closer than any other thing by AEFS2 with even the default Airbus A320, and I refer to the feel of inertia, pitching moments due to thrust ( yes, even I the FBW A320 they're threre... ), and in the CAE sim, the sensation of an engine failure after V1.

 

I agree the base FDM of MSFS is good, robust, but if we go through the excellent document by Yves Guillaume  can expose some major limitations. To mention just a few, the fact that trims ( elevator ) in MSFS are always represented as stabilator based and not trim-tab based, the fact that torque-induced roll is made nill starting at flaps up stall speed, etc...

[bonchie 2,305]

I have no idea what will be in it, but I can tell you what I hope for and what it would take to get me back in the fold.

 

1) 64 bit and that's basically confirmed

2) A new, global lighting engine

3) A much greater LOD for autogen

4) Make it possible for higher resolution land class textures OR a different scenery system all together that does away with the disjointed splatter approach and instead has individual roads and buildings built in a scene from the ground up

 

That's asking a lot, but it's time to start seeing some major changes in the platform.

 

As for flight dynamics, I own a 182P in real life and no simulator will ever really get it right, mainly because so much of flying has to do with feeling forces and trim. So as long as there are well designed planes like the A2A stuff, I don't feel like it needs major changes.

[ErichB 3,638]

 

 

My friend with X plane had a yoke that he paid around $400 ( way more than I have invested in my controller, which is pretty realistic) .$ 400  yoke should have been good enough. How much would one have to pay to make a 172 in X plane fly like a real 172, $1,000-, 2,000 or more...?  Just curious

 

I don't use Xplane so can't comment.   I guess, you, like me,  are just not an Xplane fan Bob.  In which case, everything is always awful, all the time.  :smile:

 

 

it saddens me to see simmers spending hunders, maybe thousands of (pounds, dollars whatever) on aircraft, screnery and other addons; then I see they are flying with a cheap and nasty $15 joystick.

 

Yeah I don't get that. 

[Novation 534]

 

 

Yeah I don't get that.

 

I often fly with just the mouse, so bite me

 

I did have an MS Sidewinder that was quite nice until it broke, so I now have an awful Saitek stick for the time being. But, and its a big but, unless you have space for a decent separates, which I really don't have currently, it makes very little difference. I'm not a pilot, but I been lucky enough to take the controls of a Cessna more than once and even a half decent control setup is a million miles away from the real thing. So for me its mostly about getting the visuals somewhat right and enjoying it for what it is as best I can.