On ‎8‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 7:46 PM, ca_metal said:

You are the one implying they have a roadmap with this and that; that they are saying it's not up to them to build a live weather system; that they are not listening to the suggestion people are giving on the forums. I was justing pointing all Stephen Hood always was just the opposite of that, you don't know their roadmap, they just said they will work on a live weather system (they something like that should be in the core of the sim not to be an add-on), and Cryss is always aswering to people on DTG's Forum, at steam and on the FSW Break discord.
 

Anyways, I won't keep this sim war. I have more than one sim and I hope FSW will become my main sim in the near future, just because I like the way the sim is evolving.

Interesting, first I'm talking in their name, then I'm implying something about them. 

No need to imply - I said what I said directly. They had suggestions from simmers long ago about airliners, they did not implement them. I never said I knew their roadmap, they said they have a roadmap and it has not included even 1 jet, yet jets have been on the scene since the 1980's, so its kind of expected in a major flight sim. Flight School was for beginners and this FSW was supposed to be for non beginners, but it turns out to be Flight School II with a commitment to push on until its the best sim, we'll see. I hope nobody would be foolish enough to believe that there was a "plan" to cancel Flight School after a certain period! 

So they have not and are not listening to us (in the context of us designing an SDK and/or the core sim) , they are sticking to their roadmap. We did not make their roadmap, for if we did, it would at least include jets, real wx, and/or a healthy 3rd party base from the very start. In other words, it would include at least that which FSX has feature wise to be considered FS2017. Yes DTG responds to bug reports, but that is so different than leaving it to us to design an SDK or the core sim itself.  

FSW is not a terrible sim, its just that its not even close to being categorized as FS2017. With mostly "nickel and dime" updates, it may not be a "go to" sim for a few years at this rate. All the while the other sims are advancing too; FSW may never catch up for all we know.

I don't consider this discussion a war, just a difference of expectations. I base my expectations on what I already have and the want for more, but FSW provides so much less than even FS9 simmers currently have.  

1 hour ago, pracines said:

... I base my expectations on what I already have and the want for more, but FSW provides so much less than even FS9 simmers currently have.  

You're kidding right? Nothing wrong with having doubts about the further development of FSW, but this statement is utter bollocks to me 

Edit; on second thought, I figure you mean the greater diversity in default aircraft?

4 hours ago, tonywob said:

Please someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the increased autogen just a case of increasing the LOD range in the config file? It's been years since I messed with the fsx config file. I'd imagine the same would work in FSW.

 

 

As far as I know, the LOD only control the terrain mesh and texture, nothing to do with autogen range. That's why p3dv4 added a new slider to control the autogen range, as it went 64 bit. Really hope DTG add similar slider in future update.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess before even such an option is made available, they will need to improve and optimise the engine

1 hour ago, pracines said:

I hope nobody would be foolish enough to believe that there was a "plan" to cancel Flight School after a certain period!

DTG may not have had an plan to cancel Flight School after a certain period, but it's fairly obvious to me that Flight School was a (comparitively quick) R&D test run at making a 64 bit version from the ESP base sim platform. I don't think we'll ever see DTG admit that is what it was, but I remain convinced that was its main purpose. So, a bit like when PMDG made their DC-6 for XPlane, being primarily a stab at making something for that sim to see what could be done with it, but in doing so, also making a few quid off it along the way.

2 hours ago, DreadMetis said:

... the legacy ESPs (FSX, FSX-SE, P3D all versions) use only one wing to make the output from the table, FSW is using TWO WINGS ; the flight model in FSW is twice more precise for default plane (if tables are right of course) than the same plane would be in P3D.

I'd be interested to know where you got this information.

1 hour ago, DreadMetis said:

FSW does the same :reading  tables, still no prediction like Laminar Research. BUT if the legacy ESPs (FSX, FSX-SE, P3D all versions) use only one wing to make the output from the table, FSW is using TWO WINGS ; the flight model in FSW is twice more precise for default plane (if tables are right of course) than the same plane would be in P3D.

Hi, that's interesting! I have a couple of question.

How do you know those details?

When you say it uses two wings, what do you mean exactly? Does it calculate separately the velocity and angle of attacks on the left wing and the right wing and then calculate two separate forces?

 

25 minutes ago, Murmur said:

When you say it uses two wings, what do you mean exactly? Does it calculate separately the velocity and angle of attacks on the left wing and the right wing and then calculate two separate forces?

That would explain a lot to me.  I did some experiments in P3D with ESP a year ago and found that there was zero response from having an updraft on one side of the airplane and a downdraft on the other...inches apart from the center of the airplane.  Basically, what I did was to create up and downdrafts along my flight path dynamically.  I wanted to see if it was possible to get realistic air movement in P3D and, after experimenting, I decided it couldn't.  At best, one of the drafts affected the airplane.  Further, the wind seemed to only be updated once per second...airspeed indicator jerking and jerking and jerking.  Guh!  One reason I moved from flying GA to heavy metal where it doesn't matter as much. 

39 minutes ago, Murmur said:

Hi, that's interesting! I have a couple of question.

How do you know those details?

When you say it uses two wings, what do you mean exactly? Does it calculate separately the velocity and angle of attacks on the left wing and the right wing and then calculate two separate forces?

 

The Tables which DreadMetis refers to are in the .air files in each aircraft folder, you can open the .air files with AirEd by William Roth. I haven't checked the tables myself (I'm at w*rk at the mo!) but they could be the Lift and Drag tables, and Yes they must be calculated independently - I can't see any other point in having two if only one would do!

3 minutes ago, A32xx said:

The Tables which DreadMetis refers to are in the .air files in each aircraft folder, you can open the .air files with AirEd by William Roth. I haven't checked the tables myself (I'm at w*rk at the mo!) but they could be the Lift and Drag tables, and Yes they must be calculated independently - I can't see any other point in having two if only one would do!

If true then DTG have adjusted the dynamics engine. Something I dont believe.

They only focussed on eye candy yet, and removed features.

I suspect that the core will not change.

19 minutes ago, Gregg_Seipp said:

That would explain a lot to me.  I did some experiments in P3D with ESP a year ago and found that there was zero response from having an updraft on one side of the airplane and a downdraft on the other...

Interesting experiment!

In theory, even if using a "single wing" flight model (like the MSFS one), there is a way to approximate the effect of asymmetrical updrafts, by modeling them as a rotating air mass (and hence producing rolling effects). I think this is how professional flight simulators do it, even if they use a classic look-up-table flight model. In other words, turbulence is modeled as perturbation of incoming airflow in the three velocity axes, and also in the three rotational axes.

I don't know if the turbulence/updraft modeling of MSFS and its derivatives models that though.

In any case, if FSW flight model has been really modified to model two separate half-wings, that could make the modeling of asymmetrical situations (spins, updrafts) easier.

 

28 minutes ago, Johan_Dees said:

If true then DTG have adjusted the dynamics engine. Something I dont believe.

They only focussed on eye candy yet, and removed features.

I suspect that the core will not change.

I believe they had to re-write the core to make it 64-bit, surely a golden opportunity to make some other changes.

2 minutes ago, Murmur said:

In any case, if FSW flight model has been really modified to model two separate half-wings, that could make the modeling of asymmetrical situations (spins, updrafts) easier.

Yeah, it did explain to me why the sim was on rails.  If FSW has done that then it makes real wind effect, at least, possible and that probably would be their goal.  In P3D we have a view system (EZDok) trying to mimic what P3D can't do with turbulence.   

46 minutes ago, A32xx said:

you can open the .air files with AirEd by William Roth

I've downloaded AirEd. Where would you find those tables within the .air file?

If it is true that there are both starboard and port wings modeled, that would indeed be useful for something close to my heart, i.e. gliding.

It is when you feel one wing go up that you know you've just clipped the edge of a thermal, and the reacation then is to have a quick look to that side to makie sure it is clear to turn and then to throw the thing into a sixty degree bank to try and centre in that thermal, so that capability in a simulator would very closely reflect what I'd like to see in terms of capability because it would be great for practicing the dark art of centering in a thermal.

Thus I'd be intrigued to know if it is really true that FSW could do this, because as far as I'm aware, even the few gliding sims there are don't manage to pull that one off convincingly even though when in a real glider with a big long wingspan, it is a phenomenon which occurs regularly and of course it would also mean a spin could be modeled correctly, which is something that would be incredibly useful for training pilots.