52 minutes ago, pete_auau said:

wheres  is  the link  where  he  actually  said  this

Not the only one.

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Honestly, I felt a bit disappointed when I read:

"First , this simulation has it own flight model, rather than coming from X-Plane. "

So.. even after Austin saying he is supporting the FBW modelling in X-Plane, it is not yet good enough ? Wan't X-Plane supposed to be a "ultra-realistic" flight simulation ?

Well, appears to me it really isn't since, after all, and just like in good old MSFS and derivates, to do the thing right, you've got to do it outside 

You are jumping to conclusions.  At IXEG we have also been contacted by a couple of simulator companies wondering if we could make aircraft models using "table based" like FSX etc does. In fact since our FM is so accurate, one company assumed we already were using tables....and we off course are not.  What these training sim companies usually are after on the flight model side is pitch/power accuracy (AoA/N1/IAS/ALT/Weight) since this is essential to pilot training.  This is much easier to achieve with "tables" than with XP's blade element theory.  But it is off course indeed possible to do also in XP - as we have proven - if you know what you are doing and have extensive data on your aircraft.

The downside of using tables (unless extremely well done like the big level D-sims) is as many have noticed, you loose a lot of the dynamics, fluidness and feel.  Also stability (short and long periods etc) is really hard to get right plus a few other things.

Regarding this aircraft, I'm not 100% sure what exactly they do, but to me it sounds as if they are using the relatively new option in XP, the ability to ad forces.  We use it as well, only very small scale in one or two cases if I recall right.

Anyway, this is great news for XP, the more quality aircraft, the better, and I'm sure their flight model will be better than anything FSX/P3D has to offer :)

M

3 hours ago, jcomm said:

Honestly, I felt a bit disappointed when I read:

"First , this simulation has it own flight model, rather than coming from X-Plane. "

So.. even after Austin saying he is supporting the FBW modelling in X-Plane, it is not yet good enough ? Wan't X-Plane supposed to be a "ultra-realistic" flight simulation ?

Well, appears to me it really isn't since, after all, and just like in good old MSFS and derivates, to do the thing right, you've got to do it outside 

Don't forget that the programming of this A320 has been started some time ago (the shown video is XP10), while the native implementation of A320 FBW is more recent. But I think the reason is not this, but another more important one.

I may be wrong, but I find unreasonable to expect that a general flight simulator would support (as default) the complete implementation of the FCS of a specific airliner. The recently added support for A320 FBW in Plane-Maker, may be suitable for some types of Flight Training Devices, but I never expected it to replicate a Level-D sim implementation (as it should be in a study level add-on like FSL or this FF A320).

If you think about it, in order to replicate the A320 FBW at that level, X-Plane would also need to replicate all the flight control computers and sensors that are part of the FBW. That is unreasonable to expect as a default feature (and more importantly, would also be a very bad use of LR resources).

Regarding the use of an external flight model, well in principle I agree with you. But using an external flight model is sometimes also done in FSX/P3D, and in theory it should be even done in AeroflyFS2 if one wants to correctly model anything faster than a piston GA.

From what I understand, DCS has an open flight model and the various add-ons developers can implement their own custom one. So, using a custom written flight model is fine in DCS but not in X-Plane?

 

4 hours ago, jcomm said:

Honestly, I felt a bit disappointed when I read:

"First , this simulation has it own flight model, rather than coming from X-Plane. "

So.. even after Austin saying he is supporting the FBW modelling in X-Plane, it is not yet good enough ? Wan't X-Plane supposed to be a "ultra-realistic" flight simulation ?

 

did you read the post ?  For over 2 years in development. When this started Austin probably didn't even think about Airbus. probably barely started developing XP11

7 hours ago, Murmur said:

From what I understand, DCS has an open flight model and the various add-ons developers can implement their own custom one. So, using a custom written flight model is fine in DCS but not in X-Plane?

 

Yes, I believe DCS's fdm is quite open, and aircraft modules are fine tuned to "the limit" to get the best they can out of it.

But given that X-Plane has such a sophisticated FDM, I would think that part of it could have been used to model the A320, while other more detailed aspects, like engine performance and modeling could be left to plugins.

12 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Yes, I believe DCS's fdm is quite open, and aircraft modules are fine tuned to "the limit" to get the best they can out of it.

But given that X-Plane has such a sophisticated FDM, I would think that part of it could have been used to model the A320, while other more detailed aspects, like engine performance and modeling could be left to plugins.

As Murmur mentioned above, it does look like XP now allows considerable leeway in passing data back and forth to external software that can do most of the heavy lifting, apart from the default flight model in XP.

Over at the .org, here's what one of the FF devs (Assert) said when asked about this, in regard to coupling with weather effects on the flight model:

"There is a legal way to integrate external aerodynamics model into XP... i.e get current airstream velocity (including variation, updrafts etc) and other required parameters from the sim, then apply computed forces to the aircraft eleminating standard aerodynamics. Turbulance simulation is integrated in own aerodynamics."

I wouldn't read this as a weakness in X-Plane. Rather, it's a strength of the simulation, that it allows a plane developer to extend the flight modeling as needed for a specific application. And this new project may still be using some part of the existing default flight model, for all we know. I imagine that the details are proprietary, so we may never know exactly how this is working. 

I did observe in the vídeo above that the aircraft reacted more plausibly to wind variation - one of the problems with the way weather is modeled in X-Plane and integrated in the FDM cycle, IMO.

So, if this is indeed one of the side effects of that new "external flight model" use, I admit ii is more of a positive than a negative aspect.

On 5/12/2017 at 0:42 AM, ryanbatcund said:

My PC will die lol...  after I upgrade someday I'll look into a study sim for XP.

No Ryan, I still have a Core2Duo that is still running fine after almost 15 years!  You will have to make the decision to get anew system ;-)  I am not into complex airliners anymore due to total lack of times, but I agree that this development is amazing.

How?  You must run no HDR with low settings and default addons?

ortho4xp is the toughest on my system - maxes my vram and system ram.

11 hours ago, ryanbatcund said:

How?  You must run no HDR with low settings and default addons?

ortho4xp is the toughest on my system - maxes my vram and system ram.

hi Ryan,  sorry,  no I don't run XP with that CPU, I have a i7-2700K OC to 4.8 GHz with 16 GB of RAM and a GTX980 4GB.  What I meant was that if you wait for you current system to die, you will wait for a long time, as I expect mine to still work 5 more years at least, given that I still have the core2duo working (but not for flight sim).  

Does anyone know if this program will support failures and associated ECAM alerts? 

 thx

John

New video!

 

The plane looks good, but presentation-wise...I don't know... X-Plane 10? No voice?

1 hour ago, Airfighter said:

The plane looks good, but presentation-wise...I don't know... X-Plane 10? No voice?

I'd imagine they're using a totally clean version of the stable and mature XP10 to get all the systems tested properly without any chance of interference by addons or XP11's new features. Hopefully once testing moves along we'll see it in a more graphically pleasing environment. 

And what do you mean by "no voice"? The video had volume and featured all the proper callouts. 

Would be nice if they can finish up with their A350XWB first, sigh.