Sign in to follow this  
Von Target

11.30 will be Even Better !

Recommended Posts

In a message exchanged with Austin a couple of days ago where I was asking something regarding rotary wing dynamics, I was told he's deeply working in the fine tuning of X-Plane 11 overall rotor flight dynamics, bringing nice updates for XP11.30 :-) 

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

I'd be happy with the Vulcan updates 🙂
 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, not sure Vulkan will make it's way into it.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish an update would be made to the X-15.  I cannot get it to gain altitude after the B52 drop, even on full thrust.

I emailed Austin about it but he could not reply.

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Awaiting Vulkan with a Vulkan Ready AMD GPU . I did read somewhere that Vulkan will be introduced in 11.30 

The other thing would be the rotor FDM 

Edited by HumptyDumpty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather they fixed the broken aircraft dynamics, especially ground handling and crosswind interaction, before starting work on other areas.

Chris

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, tutmeister said:

I'd rather they fixed the broken aircraft dynamics, especially ground handling and crosswind interaction, before starting work on other areas.

Laminar isn't a large company, but it has enough staff to work on several things at the same time. My understanding is that Austin does most (if not all) of the work on flight and engine modeling, while others are working on Vulkan and Metal Api integration, VR support, scenery updates, etc. Improvement in one area doesn't necessarily come at the cost of something else. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, tutmeister said:

I'd rather they fixed the broken aircraft dynamics, especially ground handling and crosswind interaction, before starting work on other areas.

Chris

I agree, but Austin confirmed he's at it. We will be able to use the alternative flight dynamics as an option too as far as I can understand from his message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats good to know, I wish they would do something with stock weather generation and cloud textures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, Paraffin said:

Laminar isn't a large company, but it has enough staff to work on several things at the same time. My understanding is that Austin does most (if not all) of the work on flight and engine modeling, while others are working on Vulkan and Metal Api integration, VR support, scenery updates, etc. Improvement in one area doesn't necessarily come at the cost of something else. 

This is my point exactly. Instead of fixing the flight and ground dynamics he leaves it and goes off on a tangent rather than concentrating on ground handling until it is fixed, then concentrating on cross wind until it is fixed etc. I fully understand other people work on other features like fms or avionics or Vulcan or vr or any number of other things. However, it is the dynamics that are broken while the other things are nice to have but Austin only works on what ever he is in the mood to work on.

I must admit that better weather would be nice too though. If only hifi would get involved! I’m not sure if X-Plane can handle that many levels and vertical modelling even with third party add ons.

Getting impatient! I just want it to hurry up and get better!

Chris

Edited by tutmeister

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2018 at 2:39 PM, tutmeister said:

This is my point exactly. Instead of fixing the flight and ground dynamics he leaves it and goes off on a tangent rather than concentrating on ground handling until it is fixed, then concentrating on cross wind until it is fixed etc. I fully understand other people work on other features like fms or avionics or Vulcan or vr or any number of other things. However, it is the dynamics that are broken while the other things are nice to have but Austin only works on what ever he is in the mood to work on.

I must admit that better weather would be nice too though. If only hifi would get involved! I’m not sure if X-Plane can handle that many levels and vertical modelling even with third party add ons.

Getting impatient! I just want it to hurry up and get better!

Chris

 

But Chris....

The FDM uses the sophisticated blade element momentum theory. This is the unobtainium tech that Eurocopter, Airbus and Boeing have never evolved from during the past 50 years and the implementation of which in X-plane we do not know anything about. After all, the EC145, A350 and 787 are no better than the S46, A300 and 707 aerodynamically because the same methods are used, hence the same results are obtained. No one could ever improve BEMT because this is already pure perfection, so why should Austin devote time to that?

The name sounds fancy and it impresses the unsuspecting crowds so it has to be the right way and the real deal even if you cannot land in a crosswind. Crosswind landings that you see everyday at airports worldwide are just a mirage, an illusion of the fifth kind. These airplanes, they never land safely as the aircraft always end up in ditches along the runways. You just do not realize it. What you see or what you believe you see when an aircraft taxi to the gate is a mere illusion. They all end up in ditches, like the Fedex MD11 at Narita. Make no mistake.

Just like in X-Plane 11 with the fancy BEMT corrected for tip losses, hub losses, Prandtl Glauert compression effects, and possibly low Reynolds numbers for small trike vehicles.What are you thinking?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Minos said:

 

But Chris....

The FDM uses the sophisticated blade element momentum theory. This is the unobtainium tech that Eurocopter, Airbus and Boeing have never evolved from during the past 50 years and the implementation of which in X-plane we do not know anything about. After all, the EC145, A350 and 787 are no better than the S46, A300 and 707 aerodynamically because the same methods are used, hence the same results are obtained. No one could ever improve BEMT because this is already pure perfection, so why should Austin devote time to that?

The name sounds fancy and it impresses the unsuspecting crowds so it has to be the right way and the real deal even if you cannot land in a crosswind. Crosswind landings that you see everyday at airports worldwide are just a mirage, an illusion of the fifth kind. These airplanes, they never land safely as the aircraft always end up in ditches along the runways. You just do not realize it. What you see or what you believe you see when an aircraft taxi to the gate is a mere illusion. They all end up in ditches, like the Fedex MD11 at Narita. Make no mistake.

Just like in X-Plane 11 with the fancy BEMT corrected for tip losses, hub losses, Prandtl Glauert compression effects, and possibly low Reynolds numbers for small trike vehicles.What are you thinking?

Austin has always acknowledged the limitations of XP native flight model (after all, who's better aware of them, but the person who codes it?), and infact he has constantly worked on it, on every XP version, to make improvements.

Admittedly, in some areas like the crosswind forces on bodies like fuselage and others, it should have been further improved for years (although it is currently being worked on). Same for water physics, etc.

Also, you would be very naive to think that the designer of a 3rd party aircraft is not the crucial element in determining the accuracy of its flight model. Plane-maker allows designers a lot of control over the aerodynamic forces acting on the aircraft, so if their creations act unrealistically in a crosswind, blame firstly them for not making enought test flights (unless the culprit is the modeling of ground friction, but in this case your discussion about flight model and BEMT is not relevant, because we're talking a completely different aspect of the physics modeling).

Regarding the sarcastic remarks about the "fancy sounding BEMT impressing the unsuspecting crowds", shall I remember you that most (all) of the newer generation flight sims with a focus on accurate flight models use some form of BEMT (DCS, IL-2, Condor Soaring, etc.)? Evidently it's not just a fancy name, but has some merits to it.

Of course (and differently from XP which has a very different nature as an "open" sim), in all of the above flight sims each different flight model is painstakingly tweaked and tuned to give them the required accuracy compared to the real aircraft. Something that people often forgot.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Murmur said:

Regarding the sarcastic remarks about the "fancy sounding BEMT impressing the unsuspecting crowds", shall I remember you that most (all) of the newer generation flight sims with a focus on accurate flight models use some form of BEMT (DCS, IL-2, Condor Soaring, etc.)? Evidently it's not just a fancy name, but has some merits to it.

 

Oh yes. Don't get me wrong. I use it or some flavor of it everyday for my work. But just like everything in life, there are many flavors to it. In particular, there are good and bad implementations of it. There are plain vanilla BEMT that barely work and there are sophisticated ones that do work. And even then, BEMT does not always work i.e. descent and VRS for helicopters. 

What is wrong is hiding behind some fancy names that impress the unsuspecting crowd to refuse to fix glaring and elementary flaws in the ground dynamics / flight dynamics. It is unfortunate and painful to watch all the comments about these glaring flaws and to realize that nothing is done year after year. How many years did it take to fix the rolling issues / P factor issue or whatever it was that was crippling Xplane 11? 

But there was no issue. BEMT , of which we know nothing about the implementation, was perfect because this is the state of the art and it cannot be wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well,

I kind of agree with some of your remarks Minos regarding the over-hyped by many X many years on X-Plane's "Ultra Realistic" flight simulation.

I was never convinced of it, since, for instance, I am yet to be able to model or experiment an add-on, free or payware, of a "vanilla" glider that satisfies me... It puzzles me why even a "simple" powerless, totally propwash or whatever wash unaffected aircraft can't be modelled acceptably, and yes, I've seen implementations of it in Silent Wings and Condorsoaring that really please me ( even more in SW ). In X-Plane I can't properly match the RW glider performance, maneuvers like "simple" sideslips don't feel right, flight beyond stall in gliders that have, for instance, a "mushing" type of stall aren't reproduced, etc.... All features that I do see very acceptably reproduced in Condor, SW, and even AEFS...

OTOH I have seen potential in some add-ons, and regarding rotary wing modelling, and while I do not understand because I am not an aeronautical engineer or have experience in the use of professional flight dynamics / CFD tools, I did use helicopters in previous versions that portrayed rather acceptably the effects of VRS, translational lift, translating tendency, transient power droop, weathervane instability ( well, that's actually true of all aircraft in XP11 🙂 ), loss of tail rotor effectiveness, TRVR and the like... Unfortunately we lost it along XP11, but Austin is working on bringing those features back.

He's also working actively on fine tuning ground physics.

Having no real alternative in the civil sim world right now (*), and having get fed up with using otherwise useless ( for me ) combat flight simulators like DCS amd IL-2, IL-2 being IMH simply the most enjoying experience in as far as "feel of flight" in a sim goes, I will have no other option but to wait for whatever 11.30 and upcoming version updates bring.

(*) unless it's P3Dv4 for the FSLabs A320 which uses an external FM engine, but the fact is that even in X-Plane it's FF A320 which also uses such an approach that better pleases me....

Edited by jcomm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also agree with many points.

But I don't think LR ever hid or said that simply because XP uses BET, then its flight model is flawless.

It's true that in several instances, Austin took too long to acknowledge some significant issues of XP flight model, like the torque bug or the crosswind behaviour, and that is not a good thing.

Regarding sideslip (and crosswind) behaviour, I would never use a virtual fuselage in Plane-Maker, since it gives very little control over its aerodynamic forces, but rather use an airfoil where the degree of control over aerodynamic coefficients is much more fine grained. But I don't know if there's any aircraft designer that does that.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2018 at 8:33 PM, Minos said:

No one could ever improve BEMT because this is already pure perfection, so why should Austin devote time to that?

BET is only perfect if the aircraft model it uses is also perfect (not just close) down to things like surface textures, rivets and so on. It's also incredibly difficult to troubleshoot problems with models based on blade element theory - if you think you've got the model correct and the aircraft doesn't fly as expected, what do you do? There's a reason why full sized commercial flight sims usually use table-based flight models as they're much easier to tweak to make them more accurately match the real aircraft.

Edited by vortex681

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

BET is only perfect if the aircraft model it uses is also perfect (not just close) down to things like surface textures, rivets and so on.

This is a common misconception with regard to how BET is conceived to be used. BET, as used by current flight sims, is not (of course) a fully fledged, real time CFD solver, able to predict the aerodynamic forces of rivets, vortex generators, etc. The main difference compared to a conventional table-based FM is that, instead of having a single aerodynamic object with a single set of aero coefficients, you have multiple objects with multiple sets of aero coefficients, and they interact with each other. 

So, modeling the effect of vortex generators and the likes, is correctly done simply by considering their effect in the global aero coefficients of the surfaces where they are (wings, stabilizers, etc.).

53 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

It's also incredibly difficult to troubleshoot problems with models based on blade element theory - if you think you've got the model correct and the aircraft doesn't fly as expected, what do you do?

This may be partly true, but also depends on several other factors. For example, knowing the details of how BET is implemented in a given flight sim. Or, having extensive output of the actual forces calculated by the flight model when flight testing. Fortunately, the latter is present in XP, with the numeric and visual data output and the cycle dump of the flight model.

But yes, generally speaking, troubleshooting a BET flight model requires more steps, it's just a thing that comes with it.

53 minutes ago, vortex681 said:

There's a reason why full sized commercial flight sims usually use table-based flight models as they're much easier to tweak to make them more accurately match the real aircraft.

Also true. But each type of flight model can be more or less suitable for any given application. The fact that table based flight models are used for full sized sims, doesn't mean that they're the best choice for a military, soaring, aerobatic, etc. PC flight sim.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this