Major simulation flaws in P3Dv4

[NorwegianAviator 60]

1 minute ago, simmerhead said:

Good post Jan. I have no clue why there is so much negativity, but I couldn't care less if all my addons broke with a new physics model. I think sausage factory developers like Carenado has the most to gain from a better default flight model as they seem completely unable to make a single decent FDE on their own. 

Couldn't have said it better myself :) We need to prepare for the future, and not stay in the past. And yes, Carenado would definately benefit from an upgrade like this. I think we all would do despite the negativity towards breaking backward compatibility :)

[Skywolf 992]

1 hour ago, JanReidar said:

I completely agree with you :) Its time to move on and leave the legacy stuff behind. Those who cannot afford paying for updates could have the option to stay with the current version for now. I could move over to X-plane, but it's not an option for the time being due to lack of high quality addons that we have on the P3D platform. I have already posted this on the LM forum, but no response yet. I would be very impressed if any of this gets improved or added in the 4.2 release. Most likely it's bug fixes for the simdirector and a few other items graphics or lighting related. Maybe some of it gets a little overhaul in v5.

Yes!!! LM should fork out P3Dv4 in 2 categories...for example 4.1 is destined to be compatible and have minor updates to this code and another version which is designed to break compatibility from the past and has heavy updates and what have you.  I don't understand why LM does not do this.

1 hour ago, Rob Ainscough said:

No idea who will become the market leader, but Xplane doesn't have much of what you wanted either ... table lookups or blade element, both are compromises.  Typically simulator physics will be allocated a very small percentage of CPU processing time due to the overhead of everything else in the virtual world.  In P3D you can bypass and work one's own physics (similar to how the MJC Q400 was implemented).  I don't think one can go "outside" the XP11 physics engine, but I could be wrong.

But I would love to see what you've requested become a reality in any platform ... no one seems to be leveraging the physics capabilities of GPUs ... it would seem like a great way to be able to dedicate a 2nd or 3rd GPU to physics ... gotta be better than bitcoin minding which is destined for failure.

Cheers, Rob.

Rob, maybe you can persuade LM do some major changes to the sim platform.  We all know you are a beta tester and maybe you can have some pull with them on these matters.  P3D could use Nvidia's Physx implementation. 

[fluffyflops 1,858]

1 hour ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Are you on LM's Beta?  If you were, then you wouldn't have posted this very inaccurate information ... that's why we don't "realize".

Cheers, Rob.

we'll agree to disagree Rob,

do you think when theres relief flights to stricken areas and the airlines do the relief flights  do you think they do it publicity or for love.. 18 years in the game I can promise they do it for the publicity and the government contracts that come after.  Branson for example loves it, its free publicity for him and then PWC, CitiBank and Goldman Sachs senior management travel to the areas guess who they fly with. 

do you think orange airlines paint unicef logos on their tails for huge publicity which makes profits or because they care about kids in africa... once again 18 years on the job and (8 of them at that orange company) they do it for publicity. Not one of the managers could care less about kids in Africa with Malaria,they care about their bonuses at the end of the year from the targets.

do you think cargolux, silkway, volga, cargologic, gec, kallita etc etc all fought over the commitment contracts to take crates of bottles of water to Antigua after Urma because they cared about the lack of water in the Caribbean ??   No they did it because each commitment was worth 2 million US dollars.

So if you think for one minute that a government military contractor cares about a bunch of simmers then im sure your wrong.

Trust me I hate capitalism as much as the next guy and im sure theres some great passionate people in LM... but its always about the money. always.

 

 

 

[NorwegianAviator 60]

4 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Do you mean beta range of having a reverse thrust? Actually it is possible to have reverse thrust with the TD in P3d either by using certain keyboard commands or using FSUIPC 5.

So what's your opinion of the RW Designs Duke?

On a turboprop you use the beta range to control taxi speed and for stopping after landing. It's not reverse, but the props are at a very low pitch. You can clearly hear this if you've been at an airport where a turboprop airplane has started taxing. There is this distinct change in pitch and sound. This is simulated in X-plane 11 but not in P3D.

Haven't tried the RW Designs Duke unfortunately. Only the Twin Otter.
 

[NorwegianAviator 60]

7 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

Yes!!! LM should fork out P3Dv4 in 2 categories...for example 4.1 is destined to be compatible and have minor updates to this code and another version which is designed to break compatibility from the past and has heavy updates and what have you.  I don't understand why LM does not do this.

Rob, maybe you can persuade LM do some major changes to the sim platform.  We all know you are a beta tester and maybe you can have some pull with them on these matters.  P3D could use Nvidia's Physx implementation. 

I think that is definately a good idea. Gives the users a smooth transition.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

I dunno, I have perfectly fine beta using just FSUIPC. The main problem is that the min and max power are fixed numbers in the AIR file and it ends up being all or nothing. That's what I meant in the above post. It's great for stopping when landing but momentary use for taxiing is not realistic in P3d. It's possible to do so but the precise control isn't there.

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

5 minutes ago, tooting said:

 So if you think for one minute that a government military contractor cares about a bunch of simmers then im sure your wrong.

LM had been very clear they weren't in it for the "simmers". No matter how "hardcore" that simmer is. They have some ambassadors like Rob who keep an ear to the "simmer street" but they are not in it for anyone's entertainment. Folks who use it for real flight training, not for playing pretend in a PMDG 747, are their target and that's why they focus consistently on scenario based training advancements. But they don't seem to care about graphics, native entertainment features and tools, etc. Otherwise there would be no need for 3rd party rain effects or camera tools along with the litany of other things we need. It's sold to be a broad and flexible platform, but not a value to simmers. 

[Bobsk8 12,732]

2 hours ago, JanReidar said:

 

In some regards yes, but not in every aspect of the simulation. That being said I have not been flying the newest level d flight sims by CAE yet. The one I did my type-rating on was an old one, but with updated graphics.

I flew in a couple right at the factory and one right after it was delivered to Delta. 

[pracines 823]

27 minutes ago, TheFlightSimGuy said:

LM had been very clear they weren't in it for the "simmers". No matter how "hardcore" that simmer is. They have some ambassadors like Rob who keep an ear to the "simmer street" but they are not in it for anyone's entertainment. Folks who use it for real flight training, not for playing pretend in a PMDG 747, are their target and that's why they focus consistently on scenario based training advancements. But they don't seem to care about graphics, native entertainment features and tools, etc. Otherwise there would be no need for 3rd party rain effects or camera tools along with the litany of other things we need. It's sold to be a broad and flexible platform, but not a value to simmers. 

I digress

Josh, once again you're speaking without knowledge or concern about truth. And your jabs at Rob, PMDG, serious flight simmers, and Lockheed Martin fall way out of the context of this discussion.

Learning can be very entertaining. Flight simmers have gone on to being pilots, and many pilots are flight simmers. I know a few myself.

P3D has a (probably the) most excellent third party base that was carried over from.....you guessed it, FSX ("entertainment"). 

You need to define the words value and simmers, then rephrase with honesty and speak for yourself.

Sorry, Jan and everybody else with their wonderful contribution to this most excellent discussion, let get back to it:

I think we can rely on the fact that with wonderful advocates for excellence like Elaine (Poppet) on the LM staff, realism is likely to be emphasized. By communicating details like Jan has, we can only serve the community well.

[WebMaximus 372]

Very interesting thread! 

Like many others, I wish P3D as a pro flight sim platform would one day drop everything related to backwards compatibility that has held real improvements in several areas back for far too long already.

I do realize though which has also been said here,  there are a number of reasons why this hasn't happened which is a pity.

That people would have to spend more money to get upgraded versions of their add-ons is an excuse I don't understand.

In most other situations in the world we live in, it's perfectly normal you'll have to pay to get the best and latest technology. Companies certainly won't stop developing new stuff or hold back inventing because some people won't be able to or like having to spend more money to get the latest products.

I think it's time for this "business" to follow the rest of the world in this regard but I won't hold my breath...rather keep wishing for it to happen one day...

[TheFlightSimGuy 514]

1 hour ago, pracines said:

And your jabs at Rob, PMDG, serious flight simmers, and Lockheed Martin fall way out of the context of this discussion.

Learning can be very entertaining. Flight simmers have gone on to being pilots, and many pilots are flight simmers. I know a few myself.

 

Those weren't jabs, they were the truth. No one is studying for their 747 check ride when the equipment is being retired. I am a "serious" flight simmer as I have my PPL, in fact my buddy who I started flying with just got the right seat in a 777 for American. But both of us know the difference between simming and training.

Seems that using others training as a scapegoat for your "simming" for entertainment is your reality, and that's fine. Enjoy your "learning"! 

[harrry 322]

5 hours ago, Rob Ainscough said:

Are you on LM's Beta?  If you were, then you wouldn't have posted this very inaccurate information ... that's why we don't "realize".

Cheers, Rob.

This kind of atitude is unfortunately why I filter information from the very people I know have the ability and understanding to help us know the actual behaviour of aircraft etc we are interested in.  Sadly if you are in the in group it seems you must not tell how you actually feel about things,  I agree you should not release information before product release, that is wrong but outside that it is wrong to stop people sharing their views with the community.

[whamil77 183]

13 hours ago, JanReidar said:

Hello,

I recently posted in LM's "Feature requests" forum a few major issues in P3D v4.1. Been using P3D since v1, and before that FSX and FS2004. Love the sim, but I've been annoyed by the major flaws in the simulation of basic stuff in P3D. And now, in version 4.1, we still have major flaws in the simulation while LM are focusing on improving the graphics. Here's a shortened list:

• ground friction bug (been on the platform MS Flight simulator times)
• adf dip not simulated
• turboprop simulation is severely broken. No beta range is simulated or a realistic startup. It's not even close to realistic.
• piston engine simulation also has a few issues (try a constant pitch propeller plane. If you add power without changing rpm, you will hear the engine working harder. In a real airplane, you will not hear this. Only if you change rpm. The opposite happens in P3D)
• water dynamics also severely broken. It takes quite a bit of power to get the airplane to start moving on water.
• no icing simulation
• no slippery runways simulation
• ground handling is lacking in several areas
• general physics should have been better
• flight dynamics are not the best
• helicopter simulation is a big joke and far from realistic
• startup animations could also have been improved for all engine types (piston, turbofan, turboprop)

Other issues:

• outdated nav database world wide (data from 2006?)
• missing winter textures for taxiways and apron (we have them on runways)
• 2D sprites cloud system (Sky Force fixes this somewhat, but not perfect)

The most major ones in P3D right now is the ground friction bug, broken turboprop simulation and the water dynamics. Since P3D is a professional product, I'd expect more from it on the simulation side. Still, people are complaining about the graphics, and requesting graphic related features. Before they start adding new features or do anything else, they should fix the severely broken simulation of basic stuff and fundamentals first. It's a flight simulator, not an arcade game.

Hopefully more people will start to question their simulation of basics, so LM might consider fixing these long standing problems and issues instead of focusing on new features.

The turboprop simulation is really bad.  The startup issues can be fixed using XMLTools and the Beta range issue can be mitigated somewhat with the same.  The thing we can't fix (at least I haven't heard anyone being able to fix it) is the terrible controller for power.  In a real TBP, torque can be set as easily and as quickly as MP in a piston engine.  In FSX/P3D, accurately setting a torque number takes longer than the average takeoff roll with multiple overshoots and undershoots.  And only a free turbine TBP (PT6)  is modeled.  There is no provision for a direct drive TBP (TPE331) at all.  None.

The piston engine sound issues are mostly a product of bad developers not knowing what they are doing.  Most sound quality can be recovered by swapping engine and prop sounds in the .cfg.  The basic premise, however, is missing.  That is, for truly accurate engine and prop sounds, we need the ability to modulate volume with throttle control and pitch with prop control.  In a real airplane you can hear the engines straining at high power and loping at low power.  The pitch of the sound varies only with a change in prop RPM, but the strain which could be simulated by volume is not there in the sim.

Autopilot programming in FSX/P3D has some serious errors.  For instance, using VS hold without an Altitude Lock is not allowed in FSX/P3D.  Vertical Speed hold can be used in just about every real world autopilot on and off the planet without first having to pre-set an altitude to capture.  But it is not allowed in P3D.  Go figure.  So....mounds of code are required to get a KFC 200 or a KFC 225 of a KFC 300 or even a Century III autopilot to operate correctly in P3D.  Frustrating......

The flight dynamics problem is the toughest IMO.  Even the best hardware (I have PFC Cirrus stuff, which is pretty HQ) lacks the force feedback and the control throws found in the real world.  Without the proper forces and control displacements who can say whether flight dynamics are accurate, good, or bad?  With light forces and short displacements in our hardware it is virtually impossible to make the simulator behave like a real airplane.  My yoke has just less than 6" of available fore and aft stop-to-stop travel which is to be used to simulate airplanes that have twice that or more of elevator control travel.  If I build the flight dynamics to simulate the entire pitch envelope in 6", pitch control will by hyper sensitive and the simulation will not be accurate by any flying qualities measure.  So I concentrate on accuracy in heart of the envelope flying qualities and sacrifice fidelity at the edges of the envelope.  With the hardware available to the average simmer, you can't have fidelity throughout the envelope even if the simulation itself was perfect.

I heartily agree with your basic premise.  Now that we have a 64 bit simulator, it's time to review the basics and get them corrected.  How cool would that be?    

[Anxu00 176]

13 hours ago, JanReidar said:

A2A, Realair, Majestic, PMDG. The only airplanes I fly due to issues listed above.

You mean these don't have the issues you mentioned because the developers fixed them?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, harrry said:

This kind of atitude is unfortunately why I filter information from the very people I know have the ability and understanding to help us know the actual behaviour of aircraft etc we are interested in.

I don't understand this ... can you clarify, are you saying you want to filter out the people that do actually know the facts?  Not that I have any issues with that, you're free to do what  you want within the AVSIM ToS.

I'm not sure how this is an "attitude" and I haven't "stopped" anyone in this thread sharing their opinion?

I really don't understand what you are trying to say and maybe I'm completely mis-understand what you are trying to say?  The information provided by a member was simply not correct and his/her supposition that everything is about money isn't relevant nor was it substantiated with any hard evidence.

The facts are that LM do work with 3rd party, do care about the flight simulation community, and have worked on many items specifically requested by this community and other communities and have provided specific feature requests to 3rd party content providers.  That should be rather obvious from someone inside or outside of LM's Beta group going from P3D V1 to current V4.1.

I personally don't understand why someone would continue on the path of LM don't value or care about the flight simulation community, just travel along the P3D path from V1 to current V4.1 ... it should be very apparent they do care and have provided considerable support to the community which includes content providers.

Why buy a simulation engine (ESP) if you are going to completely re-write/re-work the engine?  That would be a waste of money.

Cheers, Rob.