45 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

  What you are asking for would essentially break EVERY SINGLE existing 3rd party aircraft ...

Well, LM could amend the SDK to create a new aircraft type that went beyond the basic SimObject. P3d used to have an external model type but that's been deprecated. But why bother?

In any case, either 3rd party developers can create an aircraft with its own custom aerodynamics or a user can buy Airwrench and tinker with the guts of any AIR file.

There is a revised friction coefficient patch that someone from AIG developed for P3d4. But it would make sense for LM to expose that table via the SDK. Then somelike Simbol could write a utility that could adjust the coefficients.

16 minutes ago, Skywolf said:

I hope LM has some sim improvements on functionality for 4.2 release.  It is time to let go of the legacy stuff, the sim already is now 64bit.  Legacy stuff is holding everyone back.

 

Please post this on LM forums too. 

Maybe FSW will save the day for all of us........

Just now, Bobsk8 said:

Maybe FSW will save the day for all of us........

Yeah it's not in need of any add-ons😜

Excellent topic with lots of very good points.

I remember when 64-bit was a sin, and to suggest that 64-bit should have been implemented in FS9 or at least FSX was sacrilege and stupid. Well we are here with 64-bit and we are not all dead. Some growing pains, but the rewards are very much worth it.

Now we are back talking about backwards compatibility vs realism (or fixing long standing issues). Like I have always said, its much better to have a realistic simulator and suffer some compatibility loss, rather than kick the can. 

LM should get all issues fixed. Flight simulation third party developers are excellent at what they do; we will understand any reasonable expense incurred because we are not unreasonable.

11 minutes ago, pracines said:

Well we are here with 64-bit and we are not all dead.

64bit should have happened in FSX (at the time 64bit computing was about 67% market share).  I was very vocal about that topic and 3rd party were very vocal about that NOT happening.  From their perspective it was more work for no or very little revenue in return.  From my end user perspective it was setting a very solid foundation from which to build ... just think of where we could have been today (some 12 years later after FSX release) if there was a 64bit FSX back in 2006.

LM did fix one very small issue and it caused problems with 3rd party vendors that had "compensated" for the bug, fixing the bug caused their product/aircraft to no longer work correctly requiring they provide an update (more work).  The product vendors were not happy and didn't see the "need" for the bug fix.

Point being, if you want LM to tackle this area, then you'll NEED to get 3rd party ON-BOARD or else it'll not go far at all.

Cheers, Rob.

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

Majestic Q400 taxi behavior is great in my opinion. 

 

I forgot to mention the Q. Never tried cutting one engine on it but it's a awesome addon, ground and flight dynamics are excellent..

 

only problem is no matter how hard a dev tries your still going to be limited by the cheap consumer grade non loading controls we have

4 minutes ago, mikea76 said:

I forgot to mention the Q. Never tried cutting one engine on it but it's a awesome addon, ground and flight dynamics are excellent..

 

only problem is no matter how hard a dev tries your still going to be limited by the cheap consumer grade non loading controls we have

I have flown a couple of sims made by CAE in Montreal. They are very realistic, and if anyone  has an extra $30,000,000 laying around, they  can get one themselves. 

"To keep compatibility, LM would have to code two entirely different physics models that the end user would have to select from or provide the option for aircraft developers to have a trigger value that if not present would indicate old physics and if present would indicate new physics ... but even with that, all AI aircraft would operate completely differently and would also need to be updated."

This is quite clearly the best solution. Any upgrade cost re physics models would be optional for the vendors/buyers. LM providing two models. AI to me becomes secondary - the primary issue is realistic flyability.

1 hour ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Well, LM could amend the SDK to create a new aircraft type that went beyond the basic SimObject. P3d used to have an external model type but that's been deprecated. But why bother?

In any case, either 3rd party developers can create an aircraft with its own custom aerodynamics or a user can buy Airwrench and tinker with the guts of any AIR file.

There is a revised friction coefficient patch that someone from AIG developed for P3d4. But it would make sense for LM to expose that table via the SDK. Then somelike Simbol could write a utility that could adjust the coefficients.

The external SimConnet model still exists.

Simbol 

Edited January 21, 20188 yr by simbol
Update info

43 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have flown a couple of sims made by CAE in Montreal. They are very realistic, and if anyone  has an extra $30,000,000 laying around, they  can get one themselves. 

$30,000,000 (30 million)?! I'd think one could about buy the airplane for $30 million.

2 hours ago, Skywolf said:

I hope LM has some sim improvements on functionality for 4.2 release.  It is time to let go of the legacy stuff, the sim already is now 64bit.  Legacy stuff is holding everyone back.

 

Please post this on LM forums too. 

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.

 

1 hour ago, Bobsk8 said:

I have flown a couple of sims made by CAE in Montreal. They are very realistic, and if anyone  has an extra $30,000,000 laying around, they  can get one themselves. 

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.

1 hour ago, Lenny777 said:

"To keep compatibility, LM would have to code two entirely different physics models that the end user would have to select from or provide the option for aircraft developers to have a trigger value that if not present would indicate old physics and if present would indicate new physics ... but even with that, all AI aircraft would operate completely differently and would also need to be updated."

This is quite clearly the best solution. Any upgrade cost re physics models would be optional for the vendors/buyers. LM providing two models. AI to me becomes secondary - the primary issue is realistic flyability.

Agree with you. Like I said previously, it's time to move on. Look at X-plane. X-plane will be the new market leader in the near future if LM doesn't take action and move the platform towards todays standards.

LM don't need to take action. Their biggest client is the military.  When will you lot realise they couldn't give a fig about the flightsim community, it's chicken feed compared to military contracts. 

A friend of mine works for a cargo outfit that has military,  and space x and airbus defence contracts, they are worth MILLIONS 

Theres just not enough money in flightsims, which is why people are looking at xplane. It's heartbreaking but its the hard truth

6 minutes ago, JanReidar said:

Look at X-plane. X-plane will be the new market leader in the near future if LM doesn't take action and move the platform towards todays standards.

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.