29 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

99% sure that this will not happen. If the basics are correct there's simply no need to produce a 'moving target'.

In the first x-plane version you couldn't even perform a loop!

Hoping for MS (or ASOBO Studio) to get everything perfect with the flight model, engine and systems modeling on first release of the sim, doesn't seem realistic to me.

I've never seen something as complex as a flight sim that didn't need work after initial release. Especially if it's based on a completely new engine, as some here are hoping. 

1 hour ago, Paraffin said:

Hoping for MS (or ASOBO Studio) to get everything perfect with the flight model, engine and systems modeling on first release of the sim, doesn't seem realistic to me.

I've never seen something as complex as a flight sim that didn't need work after initial release. 

How many signifcant changes in the FDE (SDK) have you noticed between FSX and P3D?

7 hours ago, FDEdev said:

The blade-element theory is in no way superior to the table based simulation method (which is being used by 'real' Level-D sims).

All flight sims praised for their flight models (DCS, IL2, soaring sims) use some form of blade element theory.

Flight Unlimited 3 included wake turbulence twenty years ago.....

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2019 at 2:09 AM, Murmur said:

All flight sims praised for their flight models (DCS, IL2, soaring sims) use some form of blade element theory.

Not quite. DCS flight models either use full CFDs, (as one Boeing engineer put it, BET is like putting a couple tufts on your plane and saying you have enough datapoints for a full CFD model), or they use tables, but much higher resolution and covering more of the aircraft.

5 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Not quite. DCS flight models either use full CFDs, (as one Boeing engineer put it, BET is like putting a couple tufts on your plane and saying you have enough datapoints for a full CFD model), or they use tables, but much higher resolution and covering more of the aircraft.

Full CFD is unfeasible in real time (and will be for many years to come), so no, DCS is not using full CFD. It's using a BET model but more customised and ad-hoc compared to the XP one.

Table/BET is not a black and white matter as often it is made to be. One can see a table lookup FM as a BET FM having only a single element; or at the contrary, one can see a BET FM as a table lookup FM with lots of tables.

A flight model can be good or bad either if it's a standard lookup table or a BET one. I agree with FDEdev that XP flight model has some issues in its design phylosophy. It should allow easier "tweakability" for tuning.

I would be (pleasantly) surprised if MFS will use a BET-like flight model, which allows an easier modeling of a few secondary aerodynamics phenomena, but a well made table lookup flight model (similar to the present one, but ideally improved with more tables and parameters) would be absolutely fine and appreciated.

Edited September 3, 20196 yr by Murmur

Mixed feelings on my end.

In theory,  a large rewriting of FDE programming environment sounds like a great idea. On the other hand, for the last 15  years, a stable environment has allowed FDE developers to really deepen their knowledge and skills. 

Do we want to start a new cycle with a new environment that will not be mastered for a few years ? Better the devil we know or the devil we don’t ?

5 minutes ago, domkle said:

Do we want to start a new cycle with a new environment that will not be mastered for a few years ? Better the devil we know or the devil we don’t ?

Yes. We already have the devil we know. If all we're going to get is more of it, then what is there to get so excited about apart from the pretty pictures? 

3 hours ago, domkle said:

Mixed feelings on my end.

In theory,  a large rewriting of FDE programming environment sounds like a great idea. On the other hand, for the last 15  years, a stable environment has allowed FDE developers to really deepen their knowledge and skills. 

Do we want to start a new cycle with a new environment that will not be mastered for a few years ? Better the devil we know or the devil we don’t ?

Many developers have reached the point where they are thoroughly tired of the limitations and are either doing their flight models entirely out of the sim or wishing they had the skills to do so.

DCS is now also modelling wake turbulence in more detail. There's a recent update on that at the ED forums.

DCS FDM is closer to FSX than to X-Plane though. It's mostly table-based. IL-2 Battle of... does use a closer to X-Plane's BET approach as we can infer from some initial deeveloper texts ...

I don't believe FLIGHT SIMULATOR 2020 will bring anything other than what the was working on when they were "forced" to divert to MS FLIGHT... But MS FLIGHT did show some advances compared to FSX.

5 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Many developers have reached the point where they are thoroughly tired of the limitations and are either doing their flight models entirely out of the sim or wishing they had the skills to do so.

Exactly. But to achive this MS doesn't need to re-invent the wheel. If they (greatly!) improve an FSX like SDK, I'd be already happy. 

10 hours ago, JB3DG said:

Many developers /.../ are either doing their flight models entirely out of the sim  

Are you talking piston/turbine engine modeling (A2A, Majestic etc.) or pure aerodynamics ? Which aircraft have an externalized FDE ? Just curious.

Both. MJC and Milviz ADV models are pure aerodynamics external. I think there is the Dodosim 206 as well.

On 8/30/2019 at 10:31 PM, PhilipG said:

Don't know about P3D, but X-Plane has wake turbulence.  The developer of X-Plane is also real world pilot, and takes the flight model very seriously.  I hope MSFS's flight model can come close to this:

 

Thank you for letting us know about the x plane developer. 

Are they detailed renders of the flyable planes that will be included in XPlane 12?

Edited September 5, 20196 yr by Christopher Low