33 minutes ago, Christopher Low said:

Approaching a default airport is a criminal offence on my PC. I steer well clear of them.

#metoo

Never landed on an default Airport since years *snobish ahem* 

On 6/21/2018 at 5:06 AM, Avidean said:

 to serious flight simmers who have cut their teeth in the air for real and your differing opinions are respected as such but those in the flight sim community who have not seat behind the yoke or stick and heard the words "you have control" at least, should probably keep their opinions about how real flight sim is to themselves. And beyond that if this is your hobby and you do not take control of a real aircraft at least once a year you are missing out big time, if only to hear the instructor say "your full of it! I know you have far more flying experience than you are letting on!"

My opinion is that improved performance in Prepar3D whether it is V4 or V5 is the most important issue. As a real world pilot I would say that the suspense of disbelief is paramount or put another way, immersion is by far the most pressing issue for Sim hobbyists and that is NOT about flight dynamics. Its about a smooth, stutter free, crisp texture experience. That should be the priority.

 

I know what you mean if you compare our simulators vs. real flight. I would also call our sims as procedure trainer at the best. However, this strongly depends on the hardware and the flight model you use. I have flown Cessnas and Pipers in real life and also the trijet MD11 in the real-motion simulator and the difference is mainly the "seat of the pants" and the influence of the weather. But if the sim and aircraft is modelled well and you use reasonable hardware in your sim, the difference is not mind-challenging in regard of the control of the aircraft. In fact, I was satisfied to gain the experience that the plane in the professional airliner sim can be flown and behaves in a similar manner as at home in a hardware-equipped simulator. (proper yoke, pedals, throttles etc.). This is because the muscle memory and the coordination of pitch and power did work. I must admit though that Xplane resembles this "feeling" better than P3D.

5 hours ago, ErichB said:

Everytime I approach a default  airport I get a bad migraine headache and my eye twitches.  

That'll be someone on the ground messing around with a laser pointer. Talk about realism...

2 hours ago, Cargostorm said:

reasonable hardware in your sim,

High quality hardware is probably one of the most underestimated factors on desktop flightsims.  It makes a huge difference to the experience.

2 hours ago, Cargostorm said:

I must admit though that Xplane resembles this "feeling" better than P3D.

I knew that was going to turn into X-plane is better then P3D!😁

3 hours ago, Cargostorm said:

In fact, I was satisfied to gain the experience that the plane in the professional airliner sim can be flown and behaves in a similar manner as at home in a hardware-equipped simulator. (proper yoke, pedals, throttles etc.). This is because the muscle memory and the coordination of pitch and power did work. I must admit though that Xplane resembles this "feeling" better than P3D.

Wish X-planers would (or could) not take backhanded BTW swipes at others. So I want to go on the record and state that I have flown X-plane and did not feel it measured well against P3D and by extension, the real deal. 😎

Enough said to equalize the comment. Now 🤐

A couple of years ago I flew a real aircraft with a fellow flight simmer and we both agreed that it felt a lot a like P3D (and FSX, except for poor performance). In fact I was amazed how it was no drama start to finish, and if anything, very easy if you had the instruments and controls basics already nailed down. 

My local buddies and I were also privileged to have fly a professional simulator that trains commercial pilots. When it was my turn the instructor took a hands on approach and threw a number of problems my way that I overcame and "passed with flying colours". Then the fun part came: He later came over and flew my P3D simulator and was amazed and astonished (his words) at how thrilling and realistic it was.

I am sure that most simulators do a credible job at representing the real deal to those who have practised long enough to internalize the appropriate laws of flight dynamics and applied the knowledge in real or simulated worlds. One thing for sure, flying is fun, either within the simulated world in our head, or in the cockpit in the sky.

One the human lever, machine type notwithstanding: "Once you are hooked, you are hooked for good". 🙃

Kind regards,

Stephen

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by SpiritFlyer
Tried to be less provocative and confrontational. Did it work?

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 8:06 PM, Avidean said:

My opinion is that improved performance in Prepar3D whether it is V4 or V5 is the most important issue. As a real world pilot I would say that the suspense of disbelief is paramount or put another way, immersion is by far the most pressing issue for Sim hobbyists and that is NOT about flight dynamics. Its about a smooth, stutter free, crisp texture experience. That should be the priority.

 

As a real world pilot for over 45 years, I agree with everything you said in your post...but it goes out the window with your last paragraph quoted above.

The last paragraph says the issue is immersion for SIM HOBBYISTS.  Again...P3D is NOT DESIGNED as an entertainment platform.  All of your "issues" about P3D needing to increase immersion, crisp texture experience, etc, are NOT A REQUIREMENT in most training simulations.  I do NOT need 30 CM texture resolution for the scenery next to the runway I am attempting to teach a student pilot to land on safely.  I do not need 3D grass waving in the wind to teach a tank commander how to conduct a land based tank battle to destroy an enemy tank before it destroys my tank.  Heck, I don't even need to see clouds in a flight simulation to teach IFR flying.  I can just as easily display a one-color simulated "hood" view in the simulation that prevents me seeing out the front cockpit window, thus eliminating ALL need for my CPU or GPU to process ANY outside the cockpit scenery graphics until the very last moment when breaking out of the undercast at the Missed Approach Point.  And even then, the "scenery" I see out the front cockpit window does not have to be 30 CM resolution or display "crisp" or "clear" for an LOD Radius of 6 in front of my aircraft.

P3D works now as the "base" platform for "realism".  For a realistic training scenario for a particular aircraft or ground vehicle (tank, etc) or water vehicle (submarine or surface vessel), LM will most likely NOT be the developer of those simulator objects.  It will be an outside contractor developing them, such as something like PMDG creating a "study sim" Boeing aircraft.  And that will be what is really used for the "realism training" that will be done in a commercial or military training program.

Your last paragraph above are all the gripes and complaints of the "SIM HOBBYIST" community users of P3D.  None of the items you list would be "show stoppers" for commercial or military training providers training students on the operation of PLATFORMS (aircraft, ground vehicle, or water vehicles).  The training takes place for the student to learn how to use the PLATFORMS.  Not to teach the student what grass blowing in the wind or clouds look like in the "real world".  For commercial or military simulation training, it IS the "flight dynamics" of the aircraft that need to be "real".  Or the dynamics of the tank or submarine or surface vessel. Would YOU trust a training environment that said, "Well, our airplanes don't simulate what the real world airplane will really fly like, but our scenery graphics are outstanding!  You'll learn what grass and clouds REALLY look like!"

 

 

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by FalconAF

1 hour ago, FalconAF said:

it IS the "flight dynamics" of the aircraft that need to be "real"

OK, let me rephrase. There are the flight dynamics of the real aircraft in the real world. Then there are the flight dynamics of the virtual aircraft in the virtual world of flight Simulator A and the flight dynamics of the virtual aircraft in the virtual world of flight Simulator B. Lets say these 2 simulators are the 2 most popular Flight Simulators on AVSIM for example. Lets also say that "accurate" flight dynamics is one attribute that a "realistic" Flight Simulator should have among many. My point is that when comparing these 2 simulators to real flying their flight dynamics although generated in completely different ways are no further off the real thing than any of their other attributes like weather, time of day, lighting etc. So in effect the difference in flight dynamics in the case of these 2 sims is irrelevant. In other words they are both good enough. On the other hand I believe about 80% of our perception is visual so in my opinion if what you are seeing in the sim is not consistent with what you see in real world you will not be engaged fully in it. So its seems to me that crisp sharp textures and fluid motion are far more lacking than good Flight Dynamic in desktop simulator.

 

Not with standing the awesome video earlier in the Thread sowing the 737 cross wind landing. I have to see how it appears in P3D. likely not as good

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by Guest

14 minutes ago, Avidean said:

So its seems to me that crisp sharp textures and fluid motion are far more lacking than good Flight Dynamic in desktop simulator. 

You should switch over to flying in GTA V then. It has outstanding graphics, and a good variety of different airplanes and helicopters 😄

1 hour ago, FalconAF said:

For commercial or military simulation training, it IS the "flight dynamics" of the aircraft that need to be "real".  Or the dynamics of the tank or submarine or surface vessel. Would YOU trust a training environment that said, "Well, our airplanes don't simulate what the real world airplane will really fly like, but our scenery graphics are outstanding!  You'll learn what grass and clouds REALLY look like!"

Totally agree. When I did my type-rating in a full motion level d sim, the graphics were horrible at best. It was all about the flight dynamics and characteristics of the real plane and the realistic simulation of all the systems and procedures. While not everyone here are real pilots, some are using P3D just for fun. But that doesn't defend the fact that LM is still simulating stuff completely wrong, if at all. It aims to be a professional training platform. Then I have to admit I'm really questioning that statement. I don't expect everything to be simulated perfectly, but at least somewhat realistic is what I would expect in a platform like P3D.

I wrote positive things about XP in earlier posts, and also about DCS World. While not everything is perfect or optimal in XP either, they're at least TRYING to simulate everything as close to reality as possible. And I think they deserve good credit for that. LM on the other side, seem to really don't care. I have personally reported all issues I could find in detail with the wrong simulation of various things to them without even a reply. Except "happy customers" with no real life experience defending the sim and how realistic the simulation is. And suggesting buying dozens of addons to fix basics. I don't really know what to say 😛

Does P3D have environmental sounds?  Sounds likely but I don't remember hearing them.

 

Thanks
bs

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by bean_sprout

On 6/20/2018 at 5:37 AM, Daedalus said:

I see many posts of people mentioning that P3D v5 is coming soon

These posts are usually intended to "hunt for information" hoping something might fall out of the cracks from those that know 😉

Not too surprising this turned into another XP11 vs P3D thread ... but I will take exception at the "LM... don't care" ... how long did it take for Austin to fix flaws in Blade Element Theory and there are still plenty of flaws (think tail draggers and taxi and crosswinds).  Both LM and LR care and they do make changes.  I'm not going to get into "flight dynamics" ... some aircraft types work better in XP11 and others work better in P3D ... P3D does allow for the aircraft developer to replace the "Built-in" flight dynamics ... here is a thread on XP11 flight dynamics which is fairly accurate: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/139883-flight-factor’s-dev-opinion-on-xplane-flight-dynamics/ sadly Flight Factor's name (thread closed down) was used misleadingly but context is mostly accurate.

None of these simulators are "good enough" to provide exclusive certification as a training tool, they ALL require "real flight time" and more training in real aircraft.  It will be many more years/decades before your average consumer will have access to enough computing power to get a more accurate simulation of ALL the physics involved with flight.

But the good news is that the fundamental physics are a known entity and don't really change and it has been that way for a long time ... it's really just about implementation and adding to that implementation over time ... also have to consider how making changes to flight dynamics can and will impact EVERY aircraft add-on (expect those that manage their own flight dynamics) already in existence/sold ... the "Breaking changes" that might upset a large chunk of the FS community.  So LR and LM have and do proceed very carefully when it comes to changing core flight dynamics.

Back on topic, P3D V4.x soonish (per Adam's public comments), P3D V5.x ... looking forward to it. 🙂

Cheers, Rob.

29 minutes ago, Rob Ainscough said:

These posts are usually intended to "hunt for information" hoping something might fall out of the cracks from those that know 😉

Not too surprising this turned into another XP11 vs P3D thread ... but I will take exception at the "LM... don't care" ... how long did it take for Austin to fix flaws in Blade Element Theory and there are still plenty of flaws (think tail draggers and taxi and crosswinds).  Both LM and LR care and they do make changes.  I'm not going to get into "flight dynamics" ... some aircraft types work better in XP11 and others work better in P3D ... P3D does allow for the aircraft developer to replace the "Built-in" flight dynamics ... here is a thread on XP11 flight dynamics which is fairly accurate: https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/139883-flight-factor’s-dev-opinion-on-xplane-flight-dynamics/ sadly Flight Factor's name (thread closed down) was used misleadingly but context is mostly accurate.

None of these simulators are "good enough" to provide exclusive certification as a training tool, they ALL require "real flight time" and more training in real aircraft.  It will be many more years/decades before your average consumer will have access to enough computing power to get a more accurate simulation of ALL the physics involved with flight.

But the good news is that the fundamental physics are a known entity and don't really change and it has been that way for a long time ... it's really just about implementation and adding to that implementation over time ... also have to consider how making changes to flight dynamics can and will impact EVERY aircraft add-on (expect those that manage their own flight dynamics) already in existence/sold ... the "Breaking changes" that might upset a large chunk of the FS community.  So LR and LM have and do proceed very carefully when it comes to changing core flight dynamics.

Back on topic, P3D V4.x soonish (per Adam's public comments), P3D V5.x ... looking forward to it. 🙂

Cheers, Rob.

It was not my intent to turn this into a P3D vs XP discussion. I was drawing comparisons between those platforms, since they are the biggest flight sims and what flightsimmers use. Yes, like I said, XP still has it's flaws regarding the flight dynamics, but still overall way better than P3D. Especially GA airplanes, helicopters and regional turboprops etc (I personally don't own any airliner in XP). They're continuously working on improving this and many other issues, as well as introducing new features. New and improved flight dynamics are being introduced in the next point update, as well as many other very interesting features like the new particle system, new turbine simulation, different types of jet engines etc. XP is far from perfect, but the progress seems to be way better for the end user. 

What I really want LM to do is not to simulate EVERY single aspect affecting flight dynamics etc. But I want long standing bugs fixed that's been on the platform for 10+ years and been reported so many times over the years. And also to correct incorrect simulation like the RPM/MP issue and also the leaning issue for piston airplanes to name a few. This is pretty basic stuff, and should have been implemented correctly from the beginning (this was misunderstood and wrongly modelled by MS back in the FSX days, and maybe even earlier). We also need significant improvements to the turboprop engine (startup, beta range ++) and especially the PT6 engine, which is widely used by turboprops. The way things are now, it's plain impossible to fly and operate turboprop airplanes in P3D and only leads to frustrations. Not to speak about helicopters.

Since XP has made it possible to include both old and new flight dynamics, why isn't this possible in P3D? I also think that at some point we need to skip backward compatibility and move on when it comes to P3D. Regardless what the developers say. Otherwise the platform will not evolve past a certain point and will be exceeded by competitors.

I fully agree with a lot of people here saying LM should focus on graphics etc. But I still think they should focus on fixing and improving incorrect simulation etc before doing so. Makes much more sense. The way I understand it using external flight dynamics, you still face certain limitations in P3D? I might be wrong. Anyways, using external flight dynamics is not something the regular fs developer is capable of doing. Only a very few selected developers do this. With great success, but it comes with a price. Majestic spent how many years to develop their Q400? 😛

1 hour ago, bean_sprout said:

Does P3D have environmental sounds?  Sounds likely but I don't remember hearing them.

 

Thanks
bs

Certain addon airports does include environmental sounds. But regarding default airports, no I don't think so. Except for ground vehicles you can hear while on the apron.

2 hours ago, JanReidar said:

You should switch over to flying in GTA V then. It has outstanding graphics, and a good variety of different airplanes and helicopters 😄

Thanks for the advice but I've tried it and it doesn't meet my expectations re Flight Dynamics. I can't quite put my finger on it. I think it's too X-planey for my liking.😜