Spaceflight?

[RioPilot 99]

This is something I mostly write for fun. I have fond memories of Microsoft Space Simulator, and have had fun playing around with Orbiter sim and Kerbal Space Program. From what some of the developers are saying, the new flight sim won't just be a flight sim, but a platform. That could mean one day adding trains, ships, maybe also cars and trucks, all within the same platform. But how about spacecraft?

Obviously, I'd rather see helicopters and sailplanes added first. Even hot air balloons. However, it would be neat to also have the capability to include suborbital/low Earth orbit spacecraft (I'd have no expectation of visiting the moon or Mars). 

FSX did have "space" in the most basic sense of the word. However, the physics got really wonky when going up to those extremely high altitudes. There was still sound in space, and no basic orbit mechanics or rocket engine capability. I believe it was CaptainSim which somehow got a Space Shuttle add on working using some work arounds, but not in a way I'd consider particularly realistic.

So, with that said, I'm curious how extremely high altitudes will work in the new sim. A recent developer interview seems to indicate weather won't really be processed above 65,000 feet. But how will air density work above that? Could we expect add on developers to make realistic extreme altitude aircraft/spaceplanes, like a Lockheed U2 or X-15? Maybe a suborbital jaunt in the new Virgin Galactic Spaceship 2. Taking things a step further, maybe low orbit flights in a Space Shuttle or Dreamchaser shuttle?

Obviously not anything I'd expect anytime soon. But depending on how the underlying sim works at high altitudes, 3rd party developers might be able to create some cleverly created space add ons.

Edited November 30, 2019 by RioPilot

[Dominique_K 10,138]

I said a couple of times that I wished to see a U-2 in the sim (with no illusion)  because she calls for very skillful piloting for the whole flight and also because I am curious to see how the Asobo world looks like at 70,000 feet (65k will still be good enough) where the horizon is (with no refraction) at about 520 km. 

 

Edited November 30, 2019 by domkle

[Paraffin 2,197]

1 hour ago, RioPilot said:

(I'd have no expectation of visiting the moon or Mars). 

As a side note, Mars is actually very interesting from an aerodynamic design perspective. You get the benefit of low gravity, but the atmosphere is super thin. So you need either huge fixed airfoils or very high RPM rotary wing designs (like the one they'll be sending on an upcoming rover). One of the earlier versions of X-Plane included a model of Mars where you could experiment with designs in Planemaker. For some reason Laminar dropped that project, and it's not in the current XP11 version. 

Anyway, I agree it's enough in the initial release of MSFS to make sure they get the appearance and flight dynamics right for high altitude aircraft like U2 and the Blackbird.

At some point it would be nice to fly something like the sub-orbital space tourism projects from Virgin Galactic , which has a conventional aircraft component. And of course we'll want models of the classic X-15 eventually. For both of those, the dev team needs to be thinking about eventually getting rocket engine dynamics in the sim, and making sure there is a mothership/drop-ship function. 

[RioPilot 99]

4 hours ago, Paraffin said:

As a side note, Mars is actually very interesting from an aerodynamic design perspective. You get the benefit of low gravity, but the atmosphere is super thin. So you need either huge fixed airfoils or very high RPM rotary wing designs (like the one they'll be sending on an upcoming rover). One of the earlier versions of X-Plane included a model of Mars where you could experiment with designs in Planemaker. For some reason Laminar dropped that project, and it's not in the current XP11 version.

Indeed. A long term dream of mine was always to see a next generation Flight Simulator (like the one Microsoft is now clearly making), combined with the space characteristics of Orbiter sim, and the expansiveness of Space Engine.

I picture a day where I can load up a car at my house in the sim, drive to a train station, take a train to the airport, fly a private jet to to the Kennedy Space Center, launch a shuttle to a (theoretical, yet plausible) nuclear powered spacecraft in orbit, and take that craft to other planets within the solar system, or even beyond.

Maybe even include a highly hypothetical design for the NASA warp shuttle, like the one seen HERE, so that the entire universe could be explored, as per the current SPACE ENGINE software, which allows you to explore virtually an infinite number of procedurally generated galaxies, solar systems, exo-planets, etc (including all the documented real ones). Meanwhile, within this infinite universal sandbox, you would of course have a realistically modeled Earth (like we've seen), with it's realistically modeled atmosphere, etc.

Simply more musings on my part! Perhaps something we could see with the release of Microsoft Universe Simulator 2044.

 

 

[Mace 1,909]

5 hours ago, domkle said:

I said a couple of times that I wished to see a U-2 in the sim (with no illusion)  because she calls for very skillful piloting for the whole flight and also because I am curious to see how the Asobo world looks like at 70,000 feet (65k will still be good enough) where the horizon is (with no refraction) at about 520 km. 

 

Do you recall the screenshot with a panorama of clouds far, far below?  That looked like 65,000 feet (or more) to me.

The image i'm referring to is in the following link, scroll down to the second image:

https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/30/flight-simulator-2020-hands-on-pre-alpha/

I think that image was released with the weather preview Microsoft had.  What altitude do you think that is taken from?

[Theboot100 404]

7 hours ago, Mace said:

Do you recall the screenshot with a panorama of clouds far, far below?  That looked like 65,000 feet (or more) to me.

The image i'm referring to is in the following link, scroll down to the second image:

https://www.engadget.com/2019/09/30/flight-simulator-2020-hands-on-pre-alpha/

I think that image was released with the weather preview Microsoft had.  What altitude do you think that is taken from?

65000 feet is the limit to the atmospheric modelling

.de: The weather comes in real time from a weather service. Is there a storm, a cloud or a hurricane where every pixel is reproduced, or do you have some kind of wind shader?

Neumann: We divided the world into squares with a side length of 64 meters each, up to a height of 65,000 feet. For each of these cubes there are values for humidity, air pressure, which particles float around and other sensor data. This also means that the air is moving in the right wind direction and strength.

[Noodle 626]

It's possible he's not referring to a hard limit at 65,000, but rather acknowledging the tropopause, above which the stratosphere is far more stable and homogeneous. Hard to tell given the translation.

While understandable, it would be disappointing if the maximum altitude in the sim was limited to 65,000 feet.

[Theboot100 404]

13 minutes ago, Noodle said:

It's possible he's not referring to a hard limit at 65,000, but rather acknowledging the tropopause, above which the stratosphere is far more stable and homogeneous. Hard to tell given the translation.

While understandable, it would be disappointing if the maximum altitude in the sim was limited to 65,000 feet.

Serious question, what planes fly above 65000 feet?

[FDEdev 955]

U-2 and SR-71 but the SR-71 isn't flying any more since more than 20 years and NASAs ER-2 operates between FL200 and FL700. 65000ft is definitely sufficient IMO.

Edited December 1, 2019 by FDEdev

[Kilo60 660]

24 minutes ago, Theboot100 said:

Serious question, what planes fly above 65000 feet?

All my KSP scramjets do!!!

[Noodle 626]

U-2, SR-71, most fighters built since the late1950s when zoom climbing for a high-altitude intercept, and modern fighters without much effort at all. Other airplanes routinely get pretty close, like the WB-57, RQ-4, and a few others.

[FDEdev 955]

38 minutes ago, Noodle said:

...most fighters built since the late1950s when zoom climbing for a high-altitude intercept, and modern fighters without much effort at all. 

Interesting. Do you have an example?   Even clean and at minimum weight e.g. neither a F-104, F-15 or F-16 can get up to this altitude and the Typhoon just barely.

Edited December 1, 2019 by FDEdev

[Noodle 626]

They can't stay there, but they'll get there. There's a story in Code One magazine about just how high an F-16 went once. There's HUD tape of a Venezuelan F-16 attempting an intercept against a U-2. The F-104, F-105, and F-4 could all easily zoom to those altitudes. The F-15A, although stripped down for the purpose, went from brake release to 98,000+ feet in 3 minutes.

It's not as uncommon as one might think.

[FDEdev 955]

26 minutes ago, Noodle said:

1. There's HUD tape of a Venezuelan F-16 attempting an intercept against a U-2

2. The F-15A, although stripped down for the purpose, went from brake release to 98,000+ feet in 3 minutes.

1. Just watched the video and I didn't find a point where the F-16 did even reach 60000ft.

2. But you do know that the F-15 only coasted to this altitude with both engines shut down and at 35kts with basically no airplane control.

Again, that's very uncommon and since no aircraft except the U-2 and the SR-71 have measurable performance above this altitude, I'd say that the lack of a precise atmosphere simulation above 65000ft is negligible. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by FDEdev

[Dominique_K 10,138]

10 hours ago, Mace said:

 

I think that image was released with the weather preview Microsoft had.  What altitude do you think that is taken from?

Really don't know the altitude but some shots are pretty high. It might be slew I suppose

 

13 minutes ago, FDEdev said:

1. Just watched the video and I didn't find a point where the F-16 did even reach 60000ft.

2. But you do know that the F-15 went up there with both engines shut down and at 35kts with basically no airplane control.

Again, that's very uncommon and since no aircraft except the U-2 and the SR-71 have measurable performance above this altitude, I'd say that the lack of a precise atmosphere simulation above 65000ft is negligible. 

 As the story goes, the US never flew the SR71 over the USSR after the record set by a Mig 25M at 123K feet in 1977. The 25-M was designed to intercept the Valkyrie.