No offense towards Asobo but I'm feeling uneasy at the thought of them possibly being at the task of simulating flight models and physics. Whoever is developing this aspect of the sim better know their flight simulation stuff.

3 hours ago, threegreen said:

No offense towards Asobo but I'm feeling uneasy at the thought of them possibly being at the task of simulating flight models and physics. Whoever is developing this aspect of the sim better know their flight simulation stuff.

Pardon the pun but... "It's not rocket science". A table based flight model and a basic physics model are standard things and there are also open source flight models that are more versatile than the native MSFS one (e.g. jbsim). Physics and flight model are certainly not the most complex part to code in a flight sim. Hiring an aeronautical engineer if needed, should be more than enough.

11 hours ago, Murmur said:

Pardon the pun but... "It's not rocket science". A table based flight model and a basic physics model are standard things and there are also open source flight models that are more versatile than the native MSFS one (e.g. jbsim). Physics and flight model are certainly not the most complex part to code in a flight sim. Hiring an aeronautical engineer if needed, should be more than enough.

I'm not saying it's hard to do a flight model. From what it looks like to me, Asobo are more of a game developer rather than a simulation developer. Developing games doesn't exclude someone from being capable of doing more realistic simulations, but I'm hoping they let the right people do the actual flight simulation stuff and we don't end up with something which comes short of what's already there in P3D/FSX or X-Plane. There are even shortcomings in these sims in terms of flight models. Your example of hiring an aeronautical engineer if needed is exactly my point. Even if it's not rocket science, let the right people do it.

Edited August 14, 20196 yr by threegreen

Sorry if I am uninformed on this, but is the flight model in the simulation engine software or in the aircraft software? Over the years many in this forum have complained that aircraft from some developers, Carenado is often mentioned, do not have accurate and realistic flight models while aircraft from other developers, A2A is often mentioned, have accurate and realistic flight models. I had always assumed that the simulation engine provides a model of how the environment the aircraft flies in (atmosphere, gravity, wind, altitude, temperature, runway surface, etc) behaves, and codes an interface of this behaviour to the aircraft, which is represented by its own model (weight, center of gravity, airfoils shape & dimensions, power, speeds, torque etc). So assuming the flight model is aircraft specific, I should think that developing flight models would be quite difficult and require significant expertise and time. While tables and physics models might exist, interpreting these for incorporation into a specific aircraft, with all of its specific characteristics, would be quite a challenge. Otherwise there is no reason why Carenado and A2A aircraft should not have equally good flight models?

5 hours ago, AviatorMan said:

Sorry if I am uninformed on this, but is the flight model in the simulation engine software or in the aircraft software?

Both. The simulator gives aircraft developers a "template" which they fill with their own flight model data. So the end flight model could be more or less good depending on how good is the supplied data. But since the "template" usually has many limitations (as is the case for both FSX/P3D and XP), the best developers usually tweak and twist the "template" to work around those, and so making a good flight model becomes an art more than an exact science. A few devs (like Majestic) use a completely external flight model overriding the P3D default one.

Long story short: a better "template" (default flight model) would make life easier for aicraft devs to produce a good end flight model for their products and which has less limitations.

 

On 8/9/2019 at 7:02 AM, vortex681 said:

 

To be fair, I think the 3000+ people using just the Steam version of FSX every day would disagree with you (far more than use DCS): https://steamcharts.com/cmp/314160,223750 - and there are probably significantly more than that using the boxed edition.

And there is no possible way for those stats to have captured machines like mine that use FSX Steam but have been in offline mode (literally and via the Steam interface) for months now. My machine is so old it doesn't have any games / sims on it made after around 2008 so it only ever goes online if there is some significant update to an add-on or I am buying a new add-on. Which is pretty much never nowadays.

Edited August 17, 20196 yr by JonP01