Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Guest tdragger

Flight models in FSX and videos

Recommended Posts

Guest Jimbofly

Hi fellow simmers and ACES team!I'm interested to know if the physics model and flight models of the aircraft in FSX will be enhanced/improved to the ones in FS9. If you can't answer this just say so and I'll understand!Also, moreso than screenshots I'd like to see videos of FSX. I'm not asking to rush any as I'm wise enough to know that you won't, but even an indication as to when to expect some (not solid dates, but ballparks) would be great!I'm really looking forward to the release of what I'm sure will be an MS masterpiece!James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tdragger

>> I'm interested to know if the physics model and flight models of the aircraft in FSX will be enhanced/improved to the ones in FS9.yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW..this is a biggie that everyone was complaining about and now that it is confirmed that its improved, so few responses..yo yum! We are only good at complaining I guess..lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

That's one of the reasons I thought of posting the question. I think it's laughable that people have been winging about eye candy at the expense of better flight models, yet haven't even bothered asking.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

>That's one of the reasons I thought of posting the question.>I think it's laughable that people have been winging about eye>candy at the expense of better flight models, yet haven't even>bothered asking.>>Jameswell, I've become used to that. Was the exact same thing with FS2004 and FS2002 as well.In either case kids saw the preview screenshots and concluded that the only changes were to the eyecandy (and that those changes would be minimal)...Many wouldn't listen to arguments that you can't tell FDE changes (and weather engine changes in large part) (for example) from a screenshot...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tdragger

Well, not too suprising, since we "enhance & improve" the FMs with every release. The reason there are so few responses is probably because no one's suprised by that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

I've noticed that every version has better physics and flight models etc, but I swear that that reality escapes some people.I remember not long ago reading a thread where someone actually argued that FS98 had better flight models than FS2002!!!Anyway, now no-one can complain that the flight models have been sacrificed for eye-candy.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freff

>Well, not too suprising, since we "enhance & improve" the FMs>with every release. The reason there are so few responses is>probably because no one's suprised by that.It is very good to hear that flight model enhancements are confirmed. Any chance that we will get physics processor support? You could probably do a lot of interesting things if the flight model was partly or entirely moved to dedicated hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember FS98's flight dynamics. They were OK, but crosswinds were unrealistic. Position a 747 on the the apron in FS98 and add a 20kt crosswind ... the 747 starts to weathercock and slide across the tarmac :-lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Peter Sidoli

>Anyway, now no-one can complain that the flight models have been sacrificed for eye-candy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

if flight models had been sacrificed for eyecandy (as some people claim) they'd been getting less and less realistic in time as the sim started to look better and better.This is obviously not the case, as the flight modelling has gotten better and better along with the visuals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jimbofly

I remember reading somewhere that there would be no physics processor support for FSX. I'm pretty sure it was from one of the ACES team but I don't exactly remember.James

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me a little early to be supporting such a new technology.It's one thing to say you (AGEIA) can do something. Totally different actually proving it'll work. And I imagine you're talking years of work integrating it into the FS engine. Not to mention that, what percentage of the population will actually go out and buy this chip? So FS will still have to do its own calcs. Supposedly, they also can do software only, but, geez, I'm not holding my breath waiting for support on this one.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest freff

I wouldn't think that it would take that much work if the flight model is properly abstracted the way that other things such as graphics are. I've heard that graphics cards are planning to build the physics chip on board. If the chip provides the kind of FPS and fluidity improvement that it should by removing all of those real-time, repetitive calculations from the cpu then I think a good portion of the hard core simmers would adopt it. I suppose the multithreading and dual core support that they've hinted at will make a difference also. Maybe we can get a 64 bit version too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>I wouldn't think that it would take that much work...You aren't a professional programmer, right? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dan G Martin

Hello there "Freff" I like some others here have to ask if you have any idea of how much work it would indeed take to add the above to something like Flight Sim at this stage? What you are referring to is now "built in" to some of the newest Video cards via additional instructions in each GPU's instruction set. You need two cards to do it and both cards have to have the instuctions built in them. Thus allowing one card to perform the math for things like flight dynamics and the other second card to "do" the rendering. But the above would have to be added to both the games code and added to Direct X's API as well. In other words it is NOT a "simple" thing to do. The core of an app like flight Sim is something to behold it is truly an art to perform all the the low level tasks with all the needed math that has to be done and then to get the apps internal task switcher to alot each and every task (and their are a LOT of 'em)it's time to do it's thing, all without breaking anything else is again simply amazeing.EVERY time I run an app like FS I just shake my head a little as it does it's thing and "simply" gives us what one sees on the screen. Dan Martin Team Flight Ontario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest tdragger

Go search and find my post about this. We looked at it but it really won't help much. Just because it says "physics" doesn't mean flight physics (unless of course you want your aircraft to fly like exploding zombies. )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest grapesh

It definitely means no exploding zombies are going to be in FSX. Darn! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, Peter and everyone.You are not alone in your quest of better Flight modeling / dynamics. I think every self respecting real Pilot that desires a more realistic simulation experience would see, and having a difficult time ignoring, some of the errors in the flight dynamics.While I agree that MS had made changes to this area, in every version, not all changes were for the better. It is my opinion, and many other developers that seek a realistic model, that from MSFS2002 to MSFS2004 in some ways things were changed that actually made realistic modeling more difficult. I, personally, had a model in2002 that was somewhat acceptable in Slow flight, Spin and Cruise but with 2004 / FS9 I was not able to achieve the same result in one single file combination. To get all three phases I ended up with at least 2 models, one for Cruise, the other for Slow flight.I am not sure to what extent MS has control over the Flight dynamics development? I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,Flight models have been sacrificed. There used to be a prop effect on the elevator, for example. That has been removed. This keeps taildraggers from getting up off their tails as fast as they should on takeoff (ironic when FS2004 added so many!).Hope this helps,--Tom GibsonCal Classic Propliner Page: http://www.calclassic.comFreeflight Design Shop: http://www.freeflightdesign.comDrop by! ___x_x_(")_x_x___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you wouldn't believe the work it takes just to get the math to work properly, given that you are taking an analog system and converting it to digital. Certainly going from 8 bit to 64 bit number representation has been extended, but it's still not perfect. You cannot represent every number digitally, so roundoff error and lots of other issues crop up. And that's the simplistic explanation from somebody who doesn't really know what he's talking about.Thomas[a href=http://www.flyingscool.com/FC_StartJava.html] http://www.flyingscool.com/images/Signature.jpg [/a]I like using VC's :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...