Flight Dynamics- Same Plane, Different Sim?

[shazam 5]

Not sure if this is where the post belongs..mods, please move if inappropriate.

 

I've been using the Carenado T210/REP (XP10 and now beta 11 on both Win and Linux) for rw instrument procedures and scan currency. Love the flight dynamics. I also have P3Dv3, which I've been using for another aircraft.

 

What/who determines the actual flight dynamics..the aircraft coder or the simulator coder? I'm considering getting the T210 for P3D because (and this could be my inexperience) it seems to handle multiple monitors of different resolutions easier, being drag and drop views.

 

My question for the experts...Should I expect the flight dynamics to be the same/close using the same a/c on a different simulator?

 

I know...it's just a few bucks to find out, but I'm curious how the logic works. Thanks in advance!

 

Please..no XP vs P3D other than how it relates to the question. I see both good/less good in aspects of both. :-)

 

Jim

[jcomm 5,890]

Between FSX and P3D, the same model ( same brand, and installer for FSX or P3D ) will behave exactly the same way - there is NO diffference in the core FDMbetween MSFS and P3D.

 

If it was between X-Plane and either FSX or P3D, then differences would probably be quite noticeable.

 

ELITE IFR also has a great TB10 / 20 with true to real flight dynamics.

[Denco 48]

Considering you own the REP for the X-Plane version the difference will be huge.

[shazam 5]

Thanks for the heads-up on the TB10/20, Jose. The T210 panel is almost the same as a rw 182RG I have access to (other than a GTN650 rw), and by limiting the RPM/MP I get almost the same performance.

 

Denco...please clarify. Did you mean because of having REP for XP and not for P3D? I anticipate using the same T210/REP set-up.

 

Follow-up question for all....Is it possible to modify the flight dynamics at all in P3D? I know...my inexperience is showing...again. :-) Thanks!

 

Jim

 

Edit....Oops! I hadn't been aware or had forgotten REP was only X-Plane...inexperience again! Mistakes is how we gain experience, I guess. REP makes the airplane what it is, IMO.

[Chock 17,769]

Flight models for any flight simulator based upon the Microsoft ESP system (Enterprise Simulation Platform) will essentially have no difference between them. Prepar3d, FSX, FSX-SE and Flight School all use that ESP simulation platform, so the same simulated aircraft in any of those sims would behave the same.

 

Flight models in any of those sims use an LUT (Look Up Table), i.e. a list of parameters which, for each different part or aspect of a particular aeroplane's characteristics, has values entered. So, by way of example, here's a tiny bit of the Aerosoft Dimona's Flight Model:

 

elevator_up_limit =16.7
elevator_down_limit =16.7
aileron_up_limit =21.9
aileron_down_limit =12.2
rudder_limit = 26.50
elevator_trim_limit = 8.0
spoiler_limit = 90.0
spoiler_extension_time = 0.5:

 

Change, those numbers and you change the flight model. So if the numbers stay the same, the aeroplane will perform the same in P3D, FSX-SE etc, since they all use ESP. Theoretically this should make creating a flight model for FSX or P3D a 'no brainer', since you're just typing in numbers, but in practice it is a bit of a dark art, thus there are one or two people in the FS developer world who are known for being particularly good at that sort of thing.

 

X-Plane uses a different system to create much of its flight modeling, that system is Blade Element Theory (BET). Instead of solely having a table of parameters to determine a flight model (although in fairness, there is a bit of that going on in X-Plane too), X-Plane's BET system analyses the actual shape of the 3D model in the sim, then determines how the thing flies from that (i.e. the actual aerodynamic shape of the 3D model you see in your sim). BET was originally devised to analyse the behaviour of the screws used on ships to see if they were more efficient than the paddles which the first steamships used, so as a method for modeling and analysing behaviour, it has been around a long time.

 

Theoretically, using BET should make the aeroplanes in X-Plane behave exactly like the real thing, providing the model and its aerofoil shape is accurate, but in practice it usually requires a bit of tweaking of parameters to get something to fly right, so it's often more of a 'good starting point' rather than a guaranteed way to get your simulated aeroplane to behave exactly as the real thing, but you can at least say that it is a bit more of a 'scientific' method for creating things than the ESP's system of using a list of parameters alone. Needless to say, this means that you could have a plane behave exactly the same in X-Plane as it does in ESP, but it would require you to play around with things a bit to get them both identical, since they use completely different methodologies.

 

Beyond these two systems, most developers of high end add-ons (i.e. companies such as PMDG) will get into having routines running outside of the main simulator's core method of flight sim modeling in order to achieve certain things. This is why some things make it into FSX and X-Plane and some only make it onto one of the two, because there are some things X-Plane can easily do which ESP can't, and vice versa. Because the 3D model you see in fs has nothing whatsoever to do with how the thing flies in the sim, whereas in X-Plane, it can certainly have a bearing on that.

[Bert Pieke 7,584]

As explained above, P3D and XPlane are different enough that the flight model is going to be different, even if the addon vendor is the same, like Carenado for example.

[Denco 48]

Denco...please clarify. Did you mean because of having REP for XP and not for P3D? I anticipate using the same T210/REP set-up.

Well as you know REP completely changes the flight dynamics of the Carenadon aircrafts  and is consider A2A of X-Plane. It's also available only for X-Plane.

[shazam 5]

Excellent information, Chock! Thank you, and the others. I am constantly amazed at the depth of knowledge on Avsim.

 

Jim

[jcomm 5,890]

And to add to the above list, Flight Unkimited, and now Aerofly FS, also follow an approach which is in it's essence closer to the BeT model used in X-Plane.

 

Unfortunately ( because I would really like to see civil add-ons and sceneries available for those platforms ) DCS World a dn IL.2 Battle of... follow the same rigid-body system approach / BeT but due to the specificity of data covering their models, and the detailed work by their dedicated teams - ED for DCS with a few 3pds and 1C / 777 the fusion of some members of the former IL2 and Rise of Flight teams in the case of Battle of... series - still offer the most advanced flight dynamics modelling I was ever able to try in a PC-based flightsim.

[shazam 5]

Then there's the whole personal perception of the flight physics thing (both rw and sim). To me, a 182RG is a stable instrument platform, to others it's a heavy-on-the-controls 'truck'.

 

My wife flies FSI's mult-million $ sims twice a year, and this winter I introduced to her to Carenado's Citation. She has a theory...you learn to fly the sim.

 

She says even the big sim's have limitations, and one adjusts their 'flying' to suit them. She's impressed with the realism of ours sims for the price point. She uses it to practice her instrument scans, also.

 

Nice thing about that is, I say "I need...", she says, "OK" :-)

 

Jim