2 minutes ago, ErichB said:

It is still an FSX core base, but obviously a very different sim.  

Concerning visuals yes, looking at the flight model (e.g. the spin video) it doesn't look too convincing/different right now.

1 minute ago, FDEdev said:

Concerning visuals yes, looking at the flight model (e.g. the spin video) it doesn't look too convincing/different right now.

What would you consider 'different'?   The entire flight physics system has been turned on its head from previous versions.  

I wouldn't place too much faith in a 5 sec clip. There are just too many variables at this stage (not to mention when that video was actually shot) to make a judgement on the merits or de-merits of the flight physics system.   I respect your knowledge on the subject and always follow your posts with interests.  I'm just saying that more objectivity overall is probably the better way to judge things right now.

9 minutes ago, ErichB said:

It is still an FSX core base, but obviously a very different sim.  

Can you hear the screams of horror as those who have advocated a completely new sim realise it’s still an ESP base? But if they can utilise the best bits from that then that makes developers lives much easier. 👍

It's unfortunate that this needs repeating, but apparently it does.

The new simulator is NOT using the FSX/ESP flight model. The old system is there for LEGACY and COMPARISON purposes only.

"For each of the (1000+) surfaces, there is now an aerodynamic simulation which is more complex than the whole plane in FSX".
 

 

12 minutes ago, viz said:

It's unfortunate that this needs repeating, but apparently it does.

The new simulator is NOT using the FSX/ESP flight model. The old system is there for LEGACY and COMPARISON purposes only.

"For each of the (1000+) surfaces, there is now an aerodynamic simulation which is more complex than the whole plane in FSX".
 

Unfortunate,huh?  Just because there are (1000+) surfaces and it's more complex (of course with more surfaces) it doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with the previous table method.

 

29 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

Unfortunate,huh?  Just because there are (1000+) surfaces and it's more complex (of course with more surfaces) it doesn't mean that it has nothing to do with the previous table method.

 

What part of David Dedeine's emphatic "it was not even the same system" are you struggling with?

Edited October 30, 20196 yr by viz

Suggest to simply disregard my posts.

7 hours ago, ErichB said:

What would you consider 'different'?   The entire flight physics system has been turned on its head from previous versions.  

I wouldn't place too much faith in a 5 sec clip. There are just too many variables at this stage (not to mention when that video was actually shot) to make a judgement on the merits or de-merits of the flight physics system.   I respect your knowledge on the subject and always follow your posts with interests.  I'm just saying that more objectivity overall is probably the better way to judge things right now.

As far as I'm concerned,  his knowledge is of the fde tables and .air files which are gone.  I enjoy the conversation but I ignore people that know everything from a 5 sec video. 

50 minutes ago, Casualcas said:

As far as I'm concerned,  his knowledge is of the fde tables and .air files which are gone.  I enjoy the conversation but I ignore people that know everything from a 5 sec video. 

It's almost funny how people who know nothing about flight models, aerodynamics and flight model designers, feel the need to post something, apparently just for the sake of posting.

Maybe some of you didn't watch the whole video since it actually lasts 29sec. 

Edited October 31, 20196 yr by FDEdev

Hmmmm, it won't fly as good as my WT - that's for sure!!!

I do not want this topic locking because some posts are disrespectful. Think before you post please.

It's way too early to be able to infer anything useful about this subject.

We should wait for Episode 3 - Aerodynamics.

All we know is that we now have, just as in many other flight simulators, multiple entities that are used to build up an aircraft model, and can infer that each one will probably be able to contribute with lift / drag / thrust into the final resultant.

As Murmur pointed out above, we do not know how they plan to make this various entities interact with each other, so that the final resultant isn't as simple / basic / useless as a vector sum, but rather something more detailed that can take into account shadowing effects, effects on the airflow that will on it's turn change what other entities further downstream will "see", etc...

Each entity can by itself be table-driven for some of it's parameters, and that's actually what most flight simulators do, including X-Plane where Plane-Maker and Airfoil-Maker are used to combine various types of bodies and wings and control surfaces. Airfoil Maker's interface isn't more than a GUI for a table-based representation of airfoil data.

 

 

 

Edited October 31, 20196 yr by jcomm