Major simulation flaws in P3Dv4

[NorwegianAviator 60]

3 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

Although it would great if LM would address all those legitimate complaints, doing so goes against their general product philosophy. It is clear to me that they rely on 3rd party developers to fix issues like those mentioned. Many of the items in the list do not affect either high end 3rd party aircraft or good 3rd party airports. 

The navdata issue is fixed by a combination of subscriptions to Navigraph and fsaerodata. Although not mentioned, VOXATC fixes the  simpleton ATC and AI aircraft behaviors.

Anyone who thinks that for $20 or $60 US they are going to get a perfect flight simulator, well to them I say best of luck. All of them have major worts and deficiencies of some kind and at least with P3d and XP those flaws can be remedied if one has a bathtub full of cash. Either buy add-ons or learn to live with the issues in the base sim.

The fact is that is DOES affect 3rd party aircraft. In P3D there's only 1 realistic turboprop airplane, and that is the Majestic Q400, where the turboprop engine works as it does in real life. The reason being that Majestic take all the engine simulation and flight dynamics outside P3D and have developed their own. Very few developers have the resources, knowledge or capability to do this. Try to taxi Aerosoft's Twin Otter on floats out of a harbour. It is a nightmare due to broken water dynamics and broken turboprop simulation.

An improved ATC would be nice, agree with you there. But that should come after the basics has been correctly simulated.

I'm not demanding a perfect flight simulator, but for a professional product you pay 200 USD for, yes I do expect the basics to be simulated correctly. Even if you have the $60 dollar academic license. I have no idea what type of engine they try to simulate in P3D in regards of turboprops, but it's certainly not a turboprop. X-plane is a $60 "entertainment" product that comes with a quite descent turboprop simulation along with way better physics, ground handling etc. It's not perfect, but it's atleast many years ahead of P3D even though it has its flaws too. So yes, in a flight simulator and especially a professional product that P3D claims to be, I do expect that the fundamentals of a flight simulator is simulated atleast somewhat realistically.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, tooting said:

When will you lot realise they couldn't give a fig about the flightsim community, it's chicken feed compared to military contracts.

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.

[NorwegianAviator 60]

5 minutes ago, tooting said:

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

I used to have the same opinions that you have. But from what I have seen recently after the release of P3Dv4, I think us flight simmers are more important that we would like to think. Otherwise they would not have cared to work so closely with several 3rd party developers for v4.

[NorwegianAviator 60]

8 minutes 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.

Agree with you Rob.

[NorwegianAviator 60]

 

15 minutes 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.

Absolutely. But X-plane simulates the turboprop engine realistically, no ground friction bug, way better physics etc. That being said, X-plane lacks in other areas and has a tendency to exaggerate and "oversimulate" things. You might be right about the ability to bypass p3d's physics engine and create your own. But, how many developers are willing to do this? Or have the resources and knowledge? I think not very many.

I'm not looking for a physics model that is so advanced that it requires it's own GPU core. But I do want something that is atleast close to what X-plane can offer. But it doesn't have to be down to the most extreme detail.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

33 minutes ago, JanReidar said:

The fact is that is DOES affect 3rd party aircraft. In P3D there's only 1 realistic turboprop airplane

You mean a passenger turboprop. The RealAir Turbine Duke is as good as it gets in any sim. And it wasn't even designed for P3d4. And as a comparison I fly both the TD and the RW Designs Royal Turbine Duke for XP11 and if anything the RealAir version seems to handle in a slightly more realistic fashion. But what do I know?

I'm not going to get into another prolonged discussion of flight models, as until we have readily available VR with high resolution (and the ability to see our hands at work plus maybe a consumer full motion chair), no desktop flight simulator comes close to mimicking real world aerodynamics. They are all weak impersonations of that aspect and XP11 is just the prettiest hairless cat, in that regard.

[pmb 5,138]

4 hours ago, jabloomf1230 said:

The navdata issue is fixed by a combination of subscriptions to Navigraph and fsaerodata. Although not mentioned, VOXATC fixes the  simpleton ATC and AI aircraft behaviors.

This fixes the navdata - with most recent ILS pointing to hard-coded (visible) runways from 2004 which may have been removed/rebuilt or whatever long ago.

Kind regards, Michael

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

1 hour ago, simbol said:

The external SimConnet model still exists.

Simbol 

It hasn't been supported for at least 4 years now (from the LM official forum):

Quote

Post by Adam Breed » Fri, 07 Nov 2014, 14:00

Hello,

ExternalSim is not directly supported and no future enhancements are planned for it. What is documented in the Learning Center covers the extent of its capabilities.

You might want to consider developing an ISimObject. The ISimObject capabilities can be considered the second iteration of ExternalSim. Developing an ISimObject is the recommended path forward for external simulation developers.

http://www.prepar3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=81269

That means use at your own peril, which I've always interpreted is meaning don't do it.

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

11 minutes ago, pmb said:

This fixes the navdata - with most recent ILS pointing to hard-coded (visible) runways from 2004 which may have been removed/rebuilt or whatever long ago.

Kind regards, Michael

fsaerodata moves the obsolete ILS objects far away from the airport, a common ADE "trick" also used by 3rd party developers coping with the same issue. But your point is well-taken about the archaic runway and taxiway geometry of stock P3d4 airports. The developer of fsaerodata has posted recently on his official forum that he is working on updating major stock airport geometries. I'm sure what "major" means, but I spend my idle hours with ADE and I've updated for personal use almost all of the biggest 100+ NA stock airports as to runways, taxiways, gates and airline parking codes. It's actually a fun exercise and have the utmost respect for Burk Renk, the developer of My Traffic 6, as he did the same for literally thousands of stock airports (now of course, out of date). Although my effort sounds like a giant nerd-out, if one uses fsaerodata, Navigraph and VOXATC in combination, this is almost an imperative.

[btacon 1,827]

Perhaps I missed it, but germane to this topic is what version is being expected to “behave as a professional simulator”?

p3d Academic or Professional. On the latter the OP makes a reasonable assertion. On the former. Just hyperbole.

my 2cents,

-Braun

[NorwegianAviator 60]

26 minutes ago, jabloomf1230 said:

You mean a passenger turboprop. The RealAir Turbine Duke is as good as it gets in any sim. And it wasn't even designed for P3d4. And as a comparison I fly both the TD and the RW Designs Royal Turbine Duke for XP11 and if anything the RealAir version seems to handle in a slightly more realistic fashion. But what do I know?

I'm not going to get into another prolonged discussion of flight models, as until we have readily available VR with high resolution (and the ability to see our hands at work plus maybe a consumer full motion chair), no desktop flight simulator comes close to mimicking real world aerodynamics. They are all weak impersonations of that aspect and XP11 is just the prettiest hairless cat, in that regard.

Being a turboprop pilot I can tell you that it's not realistic in the Realair either. But, it's better than most other turboprops in P3D taking into consideration all the limitations. And, they have fixed a few errors that you will find in other turboprop airplanes for P3D. But the way the engine handles is way off. But like they say in the manual, it's as good as it can be taken into account the limitations in P3D. When you add a little bit of power in a turboprop, the power is there more or less immediately. There's almost no "spool up" time. Also, beta range is not simulated at all in P3D. This is way better in X-plane 11.

Besides this, I agree that a desktop sim flight dynamics will never be the same as in a real airplane. But, there is plenty of room for major improvements and fixes to make the simulation in P3D mirror the real world more precisely and realistically.

[NorwegianAviator 60]

5 minutes ago, btacon said:

Perhaps I missed it, but germane to this topic is what version is being expected to “behave as a professional simulator”?

p3d Academic or Professional. On the latter the OP makes a reasonable assertion. On the former. Just hyperbole.

my 2cents,

-Braun

There's no difference in the simulation between those two versions as far as I know. It's just a license thing.

[simmerhead 885]

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. 

[btacon 1,827]

My point remains valid

-Braun

[jabloomf1230 2,445]

9 minutes ago, JanReidar said:

Also, beta range is not simulated at all in P3D

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?