Thank's both of you.

@WarpDThis is great news as I was worried listening to certain quarters that the physics hadn't changed (could not be changed) and therefore XPLANE 11 was going to be a good idea as their in-house physics are more complex than P3D. I will now stick with V4 when released as I believe PMDG, FSLABS and Majestic all simulate flight dynamics outside the sim or at least most of it. With more options that is good news that was the main thrust of it allowing the SDK more flexibility.

 

Blessings 

 

Duncan Odgers

I hear about how this sim or that sim is always the "best" when it comes to the physics of flight... that's been going on for years and years.

Truth is, it's 100% subjective.  Each sim, and there are more than 2 now, has it's own strengths and weaknesses.  Despite what many attempt to claim, the physics of FSX is far more accurate than many think.  The actual problem lies in that most developers don't know the details of how to make the core sim perform correctly.  It has gotten better through the years, to be honest.  More and more addons are behaving like their real-world counterparts.

I have this thick book, wasn't a cheap one, titled "Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics".  It's considered one of the bibles of the physics of flight.  A great deal of what it covers I can locate within the flight dynamics parameters of FSX.  Now, mind you, I've been talking FSX.  Lockheed-Martin has provided greater access and control over the vehicle in Prepar3D than there is in FSX.

I will not discuss X-Plane in any regard as that tends to start fights, and I expect X-Plane diehards to refrain from commenting as well.  This isn't the X-Plane forum.

28 minutes ago, WarpD said:

I hear about how this sim or that sim is always the "best" when it comes to the physics of flight... that's been going on for years and years.

Truth is, it's 100% subjective.  Each sim, and there are more than 2 now, has it's own strengths and weaknesses.  Despite what many attempt to claim, the physics of FSX is far more accurate than many think.  The actual problem lies in that most developers don't know the details of how to make the core sim perform correctly.  It has gotten better through the years, to be honest.  More and more addons are behaving like their real-world counterparts.

I have this thick book, wasn't a cheap one, titled "Aerodynamics, Aeronautics and Flight Mechanics".  It's considered one of the bibles of the physics of flight.  A great deal of what it covers I can locate within the flight dynamics parameters of FSX.  Now, mind you, I've been talking FSX.  Lockheed-Martin has provided greater access and control over the vehicle in Prepar3D than there is in FSX.

I will not discuss X-Plane in any regard as that tends to start fights, and I expect X-Plane diehards to refrain from commenting as well.  This isn't the X-Plane forum.

+1

3 hours ago, duncanodgers said:

@WarpDThis is great news as I was worried listening to certain quarters that the physics hadn't changed (could not be changed) and therefore XPLANE 11 was going to be a good idea as their in-house physics are more complex than P3D. I will now stick with V4 when released as I believe PMDG, FSLABS and Majestic all simulate flight dynamics outside the sim or at least most of it. With more options that is good news that was the main thrust of it allowing the SDK more flexibility.

 

Blessings 

 

Duncan Odgers

Again, the x plane "blade" model is better than look up tables myth has been debunked many times on this very forum. The look up table method works very well when used properly by talented developers. 

The same applies to x plane. There are garbage flight models in that sim too. It just depends on the info fed into it. Garbage in, garbage out.......

 

28 minutes ago, GHarrall said:

Again, the x plane "blade" model is better than look up tables myth has been debunked many times on this very forum. The look up table method works very well when used properly by talented developers. 

The same applies to x plane. There are garbage flight models in that sim too. It just depends on the info fed into it. Garbage in, garbage out.......

 

The $30 million dollar sims made by CAE and other companies that  the airlines and military use, use lookup tables. Seems to work for them. 

6 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

The $30 million dollar sims made by CAE and other companies that  the airlines and military use, use lookup tables. Seems to work for them. 

But those sims are more procedure trainers than super accurate aerodynamic simulations, at least the civil ones.

At the edge of the envelope many of them are not even very accurate.

Furthermore one usually needs a few minutes on every sim check to get used to the different handling and control forces when you have been flying the real aircraft just a  few days ago.

 

18 minutes ago, J35OE said:

But those sims are more procedure trainers than super accurate aerodynamic simulations, at least the civil ones.

At the edge of the envelope many of them are not even very accurate.

Furthermore one usually needs a few minutes on every sim check to get used to the different handling and control forces when you have been flying the real aircraft just a  few days ago.

 

 

I spent two days touring CAE factory that makes those sims, and talked to airline pilots that use them for their training, and I also have about 6 hours flying a CAE 767-400 ER Level D sim. They are exactly like the real aircraft, in fact, the airline pilots use them for all their training prior to getting in the real aircraft for the first time with passengers. What is your level of expertise in these sims? 

25 minutes ago, J35OE said:

But those sims are more procedure trainers than super accurate aerodynamic simulations, at least the civil ones.

At the edge of the envelope many of them are not even very accurate.

Furthermore one usually needs a few minutes on every sim check to get used to the different handling and control forces when you have been flying the real aircraft just a  few days ago.

 

Without knowing what computer you have, I can bet all my future income that you don´t have any computer powerful enough to discover the difference. For your computer they are equal accurate. If you go to NASA and use their combined computer power, you maybe might discover some differences.

52 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

 

1. I also have about 6 hours flying a CAE 767-400 ER Level D sim. They are exactly like the real aircraft, in fact, the airline pilots use them for all their training prior to getting in the real aircraft for the first time with passengers.

2. What is your level of expertise in these sims? 

1. Maybe the 767-400 Level-D sim is more advanced but I can definitely tell you that the -300 sim handles different than the real 767-300ER and this is applicable to many other 'real' simulators as well.

Of course you are doing the type rating on the Level-D sim, but nevertheless you need additional (very expensive) flight training in the real plane before flying passengers.

In fact, a long time ago a company thought that they could cancel the flight training for the highly experienced pilots.....they cancelled this money saving project very soon....

2. A sufficient level I'd say. 'Flying' Level D sims every few month since 1989.

However, most of these simulators are more difficult to fly (which usually means less stable) then their RW counterparts.

 

 

 

Tables-based and BET-based flight models are two different approaches. Each of the two has advantages and disadvantages. How the specific flight model is implemented is more important than what of the two approaches is used. Each specific flight model used by each specific flight simulator has its own specific limitations. For example, JSBSim (a table-based flight model) is more capable compared to FSX flight model.

In general, the BET-based approach has some specific advantages over the Table-based approach. Some examples:

.easier modeling of damages and failures, or any other asymmetric configuration;

.easier modeling of rotorcrafts (if props and rotors are modeled with BET) and other unconventional configurations;

.a tridimensional flow field for atmosphere, allowing the modeling of certain phenomena like gliders banking away from a thermal, or upsets due to wake turbulence.

In theory all of these could in principle be modeled also using a table based FM, but with a lot more difficulty. Moreover, most of these things are quite specific and not of interest to most simmers.

It is a fact though, that all of the flight sims focusing on flight models (condorsoaring, IL-2, in some sense DCS) use a BET-based flight model.

28 minutes ago, J35OE said:

1. Maybe the 767-400 Level-D sim is more advanced but I can definitely tell you that the -300 sim handles different than the real 767-300ER and this is applicable to many other 'real' simulators as well.

Of course you are doing the type rating on the Level-D sim, but nevertheless you need additional (very expensive) flight training in the real plane before flying passengers.

In fact, a long time ago a company thought that they could cancel the flight training for the highly experienced pilots.....they cancelled this money saving project very soon....

2. A sufficient level I'd say. 'Flying' Level D sims every few month since 1989.

However, most of these simulators are more difficult to fly (which usually means less stable) then their RW counterparts.

 

 

 

After getting the  type rating in the sim, the pilot takes a check ride with a check pilot and if he or she passes the check ride,the next flight, they are on their own and are carrying passengers. This is the way Delta airlines does it and I would imagine that all major airlines follow the same protocol. 

 

https://thepointsguy.com/2015/10/insider-series-how-are-major-airlines-pilots-trained/   

Wow, things are apparently quite relaxed in the USA. Recurrent training every 9-12 month. In Europe it's usually 6 month.

Even if the 'new' pilot can fly with passengers right after the simulator, don't forget that he's flying exclusively with flight instructors for quite some time which means he's definitely not 'on his own'.

If it's with passengers or without, the new guy will notice the handling difference on his first flight right away ;) 

 

 

8 minutes ago, J35OE said:

Wow, things are apparently quite relaxed in the USA. Recurrent training every 9-12 month. In Europe it's usually 6 month.

Even if the 'new' pilot can fly with passengers right after the simulator, don't forget that he's flying exclusively with flight instructors for quite some time.

 

 

Totally different in the US, and sim check rides are done every six months. Most US carriers hire pilots with a great deal of regional carrier experience, so all they need is type rating in the aircraft they are going to fly, all done in the sim. The days of doing touch and goes in a 747 have been gone for decades. 

The care that the sim manufacturer takes in making sure that the sim is exactly like the real aircraft in all areas, is amazing. Each switch in the cockpit has to have the exact same feel and sound as in the real aircraft, The motion platform, which costs over $3 million alone, has to duplicate the same feeling you get in the real aircraft On takeoff, if you do an RTO and don't have your seatbelt harness on, you will fly right out of your seat and smash into the front of the flight deck. In the very early days of motion sims, if the pilot made a really hard landing in the sim, the hydraulics could actually try and duplicate this "crash" and the hydraulic pistons were damaged resulting in very expensive repairs and downtime for the sim. After that, limits were put on the hydraulic force that could be generated. Anyway, if a pilot landed like that in the sim he would be in a great deal of trouble with the airline anyway. 

1 hour ago, J35OE said:

In fact, a long time ago a company thought that they could cancel the flight training for the highly experienced pilots.....they cancelled this money saving project very soon....

Many European pilots are currently trained in "zero flight time type rating" sims and carry out their first live flight in the actual aircraft with passengers on a scheduled flight. See: https://www.easa.europa.eu/system/files/dfu/Part-FCL.pdf page 833 for the requirements.