Flight Dynamics - Faith

[nudata 10]

At the risk of being repetitive I would like to raise the level of interest in flight dynamics relative to the the visual enhancements of FSX. I am not a "real pilot" so my simulated flights rely entirely on the Faith that Microsoft is providing an as real as reasonably possible simulation of flight. I can easily verify the visual aspects - panels, scenery, clouds, etc... However, flight dynamics must be accepted on pure Faith. I believe that the majority of Microsoft's customers fall into this category.Now we are faced with one of those opportunities that comes once every few years to ask Microsoft to balance the importance of flight dynamics with visual enhancements. This balance is based upon budgetary limitations, i.e. money. It does not take an expert in marketing to see that the primary lure of Flight Simulator is the visual aspect. This is very easily measured by the commentary in forums and the development of addons within the community. The customer focus is biased toward the visual. After-all Joe Six-Pack looks out the window in awe at the scenery or flies along side the aircraft marveling at its beauty and his ability to manage such a thing. This majority customer simply has Faith that Microsoft is providing a realistic airplane flight.So, the bottom line is do you want/demand the maximum reasonable flight dynamics? How important are they? Of course you say they are a must. However, the "community at-large" seems to be much more inclined to discuss visual functions. Why, because they simply do not have the background to critique flight reality versus the proper looks of some GMax model. We, the majority customers, must rely on real-pilots to come forward with specific desires for flight improvements. We must then support these requests to show that simply admiring the scenery, or counting rivets, is really not our purchasing objective. Having Faith that your simulated flight is as real as it gets is not enough. You must support the critiques by real pilots to send a message to Microsoft that you EXPECT the best simulation of flight that is reasonably possible! Dick Boley near airport 5G8

[Shaka 2]

>At the risk of being repetitive I would like to raise the>level of interest in flight dynamics relative to the the>visual enhancements of FSX. I am not a "real pilot" so my>simulated flights rely entirely on the Faith that Microsoft is>providing an as real as reasonably possible simulation of>flight. I can easily verify the visual aspects - panels,>scenery, clouds, etc... However, flight dynamics must be>accepted on pure Faith. I believe that the majority of>Microsoft's customers fall into this category.I'm not a real pilot either, and I have to agree that most of us probably can't comment on the "feel" of an aircrafts flight dynamics. However, certain aspects of flight are quantifiable. Things like sevice ceiling, stall speed, maximum speed, etc are easily checked. Sometimes, balancing these against one another is a challenge for a FDE designer, so at least this much we can say is realistic or not.Then there's the other parts, things like stability, and "smoothness" and torque which (realistic or not) we desire in FS aircraft. Some of these are affected by the users settings, so we sort of trust him to work with us. Many users say they want more realsitic flight dynamics, but have their realsim settings turned way down anyway. I'm not a big aircraft designer, but I've had two comments regarding my FDE from users. The first was trying to be helpful, by sending me a new FDE which was totally unrealistic in terms of performance (Socata TB-9 can not travel at 400 knots...). The other was complaining about there not being enough torque on the Pilatus PC-9, but he had his realism settings turned down.So, I guess there's room for improvement in flight dynamics, but maybe more in the tools that MS gives us to create them. I'm not sure we need a whole lotmore in terms of ey canady right now, but there's lots of other aspets of the sim that probably needs fixing more.- Martin

[LAdamson 240]

>I'm not sure we need a whole lotmore in terms of ey canady>right now, Actually, I'd like crisper photo-like textures with more of a gloss photo appearence. Use Google Earth and zoom into Monument Valley, Ut to see those photo gloss red rocks, for example.Bring back the airflow over the elevator while "ground" bound, and a bit smoother trim, that doesn't want to constantly wander without precision tuning. Staying level for a minute or two, would beat a half second. :D But, since I do fly real airplanes FOR the scenery, what I see below as well as clouds/weather remains a high priority also.L.Adamson

[frankla 44]

I couldn't agree more! I do fly for real also to have a different prespetive about the world below, so scenery is really important!

[Geofa 108]

A couple quick thoughts:Are not the "visuals" part of the flight dynamics?E.g. using the famous line if I pull back on the stick and the houses don't get smaller then I have not gotten the correct response to control inputs....if I can't see any houses,and proper acceleration as I move from them because they don't exist in the scenery-then perhaps I can't tell if the response to my control input was correct? I think when one speaks of flight dynamics, for me it includes the visual experience, sounds, instrument response, and even more importantly the hardware flight controls-they are all related.Since you mention real pilots-for me the non fluid avionics are more of a problem right now than the flight dynamics which for some aircraft that exist now are excellent-and this is directly related to how a fm feels/acts.If I can't get a precise airspeed,climb rate,or power setting because of jerky instruments-reality is lost. (this is one area that is on the top of my list of improvements). In the same way low fps would not reflect a brilliant flight model if the result is total jerkiness; jerky instrument response can't fully do justice to a flight model or convey the correct feeling.As Peter and I have complained-until the flight controls (hardware) duplicate the feeling of forces on the yoke in different flight regimes-can there be a really good flight model?With a 1 dimensional computer screen, will it ever really be possible to have something that truly "feels" real?The Dreamfleet Baron is extremely close to duplicating my real plane-but until I can feel the seat of the pants feeling, ,get the 3d visual immersion of real life, get controls that feel and respond like the real ones, and instruments on the panel with real world response-even better flight models will still sorely miss reality in many areas of the flying experience, imho.I always do an experiment at conventions (like aopa) and take some high time pilot friends with no simming experience to the sim booths to see how they do flying the sim. The results are always universally miserable-the sims (not just fs) just don't have the same feel/visuals these real pilots are used to. If you are an experienced simmer (like me) then it is easy to make the transition ,but it is obvious to me that the control feeling is one of the biggest problems.The complaints usually are that the sim is "twitchy".With that being said, there are lots of things that can be improved in fm's. When Avcomware mentions that slow flight is not right in a 172-that can be fixed. When I practiced on the sim 4 years ago for my commercial, the rudder pressures when doing chandelles are not correct-that can be fixed. There are always little software induced details like these that can be improved, should be improved, and surely will be improved.In answer to your question-MS has already stated that there will be improvements in flight dynamics, as there probably will be in all the other areas too (visuals too.). Will they meet the expectations of serious fm simmers? Probably not....they probably won't in the visuals either... :-)I don't thing one is being done at the expense of the other though.

[Guest grapesh]

I first flew MSFS, and then I transitioned to the real world airplanes. I can tell, that I learnt A LOT from MSFS: basic flight maneuvers, avionics, navigation. But when it comes to real landings, stalls, engine out and other near-critical pilotage, the requirements to FDE skyrocket, and MSFS simply doesn't meet them. I wish FSX will do better, and in fact, there are good indications to that: I saw a trike on preview screenshots, which means that light aircraft can make it to FSX (FDE quality is readily seen on slower flight). Of course, there is a chance that they gonna move like flying saucers, but I hope they won't :) FDE is an important part of flight simulation but scenery is also a big part of flying, especially for light aircraft, and I welcome any improvements in FSX visuals too. What I really want is to be able to do a true VFR flight in FSX, such as navigating by distinct landmarks and geographical features. The problem of flight simulation, IMO, is not just in FDE, or scenery. It is in a __perception__ of flying. To bring a real feel of a fully 3-dimensional phenomenon via 2-d screen is a technological challenge but I believe it can be met without building a full-motion home cockpit. Cheers,=S.V.=

[Avcomware 1]

Hi, Geof and everyone.>Are not the "visuals" part of the flight dynamics?Since you mention real pilots-for me the non fluid avionics are more of a problem right now than the flight dynamics which for some aircraft that exist now are excellent

[Geofa 108]

Hi Av-You talk "flight dynamics" and "flight models" as one and the same.I would define flight model as to use your own words " a set of equations that has ABSOLUTLELY nothing to do with how the airplane / visuals are".Flight dynamics-as the total picture: does it "feel" right, do the instruments "perform" right, and does the scenery/sounds/control inputs react as in reality as a result of those inputs,in addition to the flight model equations. "Name ONE that performs anywhere close, from Start, Take Off, Maneuvers and Landings?"Close is all semantics isn't it? If you are talking 100% recreation of the flight experience-then of course none. I find many that perform close in enough parameters to be useful-if they didn't-the sim would be useless and collecting dust at my house. I would assume you are still involved in the sim because something must be "close"-otherwise what would be the point of using it at all?As for your last point-seems to be a contridiction. You state "It is the response / dynamics that make for the

[Avcomware 1]

Hi, Geof.>You talk "flight dynamics" and "flight models" as one and the same.I would define flight model as to use your own words " a set of equations that has ABSOLUTLELY nothing to do with how the airplane / visuals are".Flight dynamics-as the total picture: does it "feel" right, do the instruments "perform" right, and does the scenery/sounds/control inputs react as in reality as a result of those inputs,in addition to the flight model equations.

[Geofa 108]

If you read my post above-I did wish for improvements-I mentioned two specifics ...If I have the terminolgy backwards-I gladly stand corrected. Substitute "model" for "dynamic"-the points still stand.Please explain then in your last sentence how FS has taken a step back in "flight models". Should that not be "flight dynamics" by your definition? Seems to me that all the externals that add to the "flight model" have for sure improved over the last version.http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[LAdamson 240]

>Name ONE that performs anywhere close, from Start, Take Off,>Maneuvers and Landings?Since you said "anywhere close", then I'll submit several RealAir models such as the SF260 & Spitfire. Haven't tried the updated Citabria/Scout yet.These are models that have rather exceptional rudder control, that I can put through aerobatic manuvers, from a cockpit view, or tower view (like R/C) and get some rather predicatable results. The SF260 will perform tailslides that look very authentic from the ground (tower view). Hammerheads, as forward airspeed diminishes, and rudder is kicked full over, work very well also.By flying these models, as one would an R/C airplane, it's easy to see how the simulated model actually acts. The RealAirs are quite amazing. But then you have to know how to fly R/C too! :D And then of course, the slip effects are exceptional, and the guages are butter smooth!L.Adamsonedit: And yes, MS has taken a step back with FS9. As I previously mentioned, the simulated airflow over the elevator while still on the ground, needs to be brought back.

[Guest jrobert]

Seeing as though I too am not a real pilot, I learn everything I know about how to fly an airplane from those I speak with online. Here's a little something I learned about flying an airplane...When landing - Shiny side up; rubber side down! ;)

[Geofa 108]

A question:If you fly the Real air SF260 using only the computer keyboard-does it feel as real and work as well as when using a joystick? How about using a "cheap" joystick vs. a high caliber one?If you were to run the Real air SF260 on a PI 166 computer-would it feel as real and work as well as when using your Pentium IV?If when using the SF260-if the instruments lagged by several seconds behind what your control inputs and expected results, or even showed wrong info, would it feel/work as real?If the scenery below had no relation to the maneuver you asked the plane to do would it feel/work as real? What if it did wrong things visually-e.g. the nose pointed down when it should point up, and the aircraft visually yawed in the opposite direction it should on rudder input-would the "flight model" feel as real? Isn't your ultimate result and performance also based on the visuals?Like a tree falling in a forest with no one to hear-my points (which are not that flight dynamics/models should not be improved!) are that the ultimate end result of a total flight model e.g. reality- is based on lots more than just the equations (dynamics). So when a non pilot asks that if more attention were given purely to the equations if fs would feel/perform more like a real plane, my answer would be-what are your controls, computer speed, and yes-are the visuals good ,do the instruments respond fluidly and correctly. In my opinion, improving especially the flight controls (of which I find none really realistic in feel/control right now) would make as much if not more a difference in translating the reality than numbers crunching. Again, that does not mean that I am against improving flight dynamics at all.When I gave the example of high time pilots not being able to fly the sim (1 is a wwII carrier pilot/korean jet/instructor, 20,000 hours) they were not testing slow flight, or stalls. They were simply taking off, trying to stay in the pattern, and come back and land. Their altitude wavered by 1000's of feet, and they kept getting into steep banks. Their response afterwords was not that they were frustrated at an inability to do specific flight parameters (like slow flight or stalls) but that the sim was quirky, jittery, and did not have the feel of real flight.This was using high end controls (I won't mention the brand) and a FAA approved sim (not ms). In the faa certification process to use a sim to log time-one of the requirements is the controls used-seems the faa seems to also recognize the importance of control input to the total picture (reality).So again, improve the flight models/dynamics-by all means.But if you are looking to duplicate real flight-I submit there are other areas that will actually make as big, if not a bigger difference now than just the equations. I also submit that everything, including the visuals, adds to the big picture.

[tgibson 11]

Hi,Some of the things that I would like to see improved/added:1. Return the prop effects on the elevator (getting the tail up on taildragger takeoffs).2. Increase the number of points in the power curves and other tables - impossible to accurately model certain aircraft with complex power controls. Old flight models would have new points interpolated when converted.3. Add support for turboprops other than the PT-6. All flight models for the Allison 501 (constant speed) and RR Dart (fuel trim) are kluged. They get close, but there are always tradeoffs.4. Add support for two stage supercharging (with controls) for piston engines. This is as simple as removing 5 minute WEP limit.5. Add support for decing the piston flight model (broken in FS9).6. Add support for reverse thrust on landing for piston flight model (Connies, etc.).7. Add support for controllable pitch and bank control for the AP that yield accurate and smooth responses.8. Move all information to the aircraft.cfg file, to allow the AIR file to be retired (or create a text version of the AIR file). This would be fully annotated in the default aircraft (and SDK), to allow easy editing.Take care,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

[Guest]

faith is one of the fundamental forces of the universe, together with hate, love, and bloodymindedness.faith causes bricks to take to the air, bloodymindedness keeps them up there.love causes them to fall back to the ground, and hate to break on impact.