3 hours ago, tweekz said:

Hello guys!

As there is some intense discussion going on about flight simming and the software engineering involved, I decided to open up a dedicated thread for that.

There might actually be some interesting stuff to discuss, if we can keep it civil.

@b737800, @mSparks and Co ... this is for you guys.

Cheers!

 

I am a software engineer for 30 years who has done his fair share of graphics programming in game engines.

I'm also a commercial rated pilot.

What do you want to know?   From the videos I can almost guarantee you that they are using the trueSky engine to render those clouds.   They aren't using the Unity/Unreal engine plugins for trueSky, they'd be using the raw engine API as this simulator is not using those engines, it is using its own custom engine developed in-house.

What specifically do you want to know from the engineering side?

Note:  I do not work for Asobo but I can discuss/debunk a lot of the nonsense that is discussed on these forums, such as what hits FPS, what is likely on the CPU versus the GPU, how this is NOT the FSX engine with enhancements, etc.

Edited February 2, 20206 yr by Gulfstream

12 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

What specifically do you want to know from the engineering side?

Thank you for the offer. Not sure if this one if for you as you mentioned the graphical side rather than flight dynamics.

My questions are... what are the main hurdles Asobo would have faced with the flight model and what compromises might they have made which the likes of CAE would not be able to get away with on a Level D simulator?

33 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

From the videos I can almost guarantee you that they are using the trueSky engine to render those clouds.

How can you be so sure ? There are lot of papers on how to render 3d volumetric clouds in realtime, or maybe they came up with their own approach of the problem.

35 minutes ago, Gulfstream said:

I do not work for Asobo but I can discuss/debunk a lot of the nonsense that is discussed on these forums...

Considering that most forum debates are like watching pre-schoolers arguing about where babies come from, any truly informed opinions are welcome but may not be as helpful as you hope. 🙂  

Hook

PS.  Next month is 44 years for me.

55 minutes ago, LHookins said:

Considering that most forum debates are like watching pre-schoolers arguing about where babies come from, any truly informed opinions are welcome but may not be as helpful as you hope. 🙂 

If the main motivation is to derail and you bail out as soon as someone actually wants to profit from your knowledge, then I agree. But I appreciate a heated up discourse if it is reasonable! 🙂

 

1 hour ago, b737800 said:

Thank you for the offer. Not sure if this one if for you as you mentioned the graphical side rather than flight dynamics.

My questions are... what are the main hurdles Asobo would have faced with the flight model and what compromises might they have made which the likes of CAE would not be able to get away with on a Level D simulator?

That being said, I +1 that.

The real time simulation of .5 million particles in real time thanks to Cuda, aré only pointclouds in a dynamic simulation,  Is not a final visual outcome as those particles needs to get a volume, a shade and react to a light source.

34 minutes ago, mpozzi said:

The real time simulation of .5 million particles in real time thanks to Cuda, aré only pointclouds in a dynamic simulation,  Is not a final visual outcome as those particles needs to get a volume, a shade and react to a light source.

In case you were replying to me (this wasn't clear), I was indeed referring to the rendering, not the simulation. Google real-time volumetric cloud rendering, tons of methods out there. So it's not necessarily trueSky based. 

Now we see what happens when they don't get the weekly couple of screenshots of MSFS fix. 

2 hours ago, tweekz said:

If the main motivation is to derail and you bail out as soon as someone actually wants to profit from your knowledge, then I agree. But I appreciate a heated up discourse if it is reasonable! 🙂

I agree, but consider what a pre-schooler argument about where babies come from is like.  Everyone has their own opinion, no one wants to hear the truth (which is the least likely possibility from their point of view), and their only objective is to force their opinions on everyone else.

You can see plenty of this behavior in certain other threads.

Hook

7 hours ago, b737800 said:

My questions are... what are the main hurdles Asobo would have faced with the flight model and what compromises might they have made which the likes of CAE would not be able to get away with on a Level D simulator?

You are overrating the quality of civil Level-D sims. They are not much more than motion equipped procedure trainers. Many are simply way off when close to, or beyond the edge of their usual operating envelope. Even worse, sometimes functions in the real aircraft aren't even simulated in the multi million dollar Level-D sims, see MCAS.

Handling often noticeable differs from their realworld counterpart and the tiny lag of the motion system can induce motionsickness when you are relying heavily on visual cues, e.g. during a circling or visual approach and even during taxiing.

  

Edited February 3, 20206 yr by FDEdev

3 hours ago, FDEdev said:

You are overrating the quality of civil Level-D sims. They are not much more than motion equipped procedure trainers. Many are simply way off when close to, or beyond the edge of their usual operating envelope.

  

Thanks for that. My "knowledge" is secondhand at best. 15 or so years ago I had the pleasure of using United's training facilitiesin Denver (737 classic, A320 and others). The sims were run by a third party and I asked about the fidelity. The instructor said something along the lines of:

"The flight model is purchased / licensed from the aircraft manufacturer and it costs in the region of a million dollars. To get Level D certification, the sim manufacturer has to prove to the FAA that it mirrors the real aircraft behaviour to X? precision".

That is totally from memory and as mentioned, was at least 1 degree removed from the actual sim developers.

23 minutes ago, b737800 said:

"The flight model is purchased / licensed from the aircraft manufacturer and it costs in the region of a million dollars. To get Level D certification, the sim manufacturer has to prove to the FAA that it mirrors the real aircraft behaviour to X? precision".

That's what they usually told us of course as well.  I had the honor to fly a few month with a brilliant Dash8-300 test pilot and it was an eye-opener during that time to learn how dangerously wrong even a Level-D sim can be.

I remember at least 2 aircraft types where it took you a few minutes during every simulator check to get used to the noticeable more sensitive and spongy handling of the sim. If you were flying the real thing the day before, you inevitable rotated right into the stickshaker during the first takeoff if you tried to fly it like the real one.

 

Being not a pilot nor a software engineer, I’ve the qualifications to ask a silly question. 

Knowing the complexities of today flight simulator programming but also the powerful computers in our homes, would it make sense to have the whole flight model in a .txt format for an easy access to all, said .txt files being compiled by the sim at run time ? Same for sceneries files. Nothing hidden in binary files.

I remember the relatively easy tweaking of Fly! sceneries after some terrascening and, I think, FDE were open too. But that was more than 20 years ago.

 

6 minutes ago, domkle said:

Knowing the complexities of today flight simulator programming but also the powerful computers in our homes, would it make sense to have the whole flight model in a .txt format for an easy access to all, said .txt files being compiled by the sim at run time ? 

Designing a flight model in x-plane and FSX/P3D is actually easy and accessible to everyone. Designing a high quality flight model is the problem.

8 hours ago, LHookins said:

I agree, but consider what a pre-schooler argument about where babies come from is like.  Everyone has their own opinion, no one wants to hear the truth (which is the least likely possibility from their point of view), and their only objective is to force their opinions on everyone else.

You can see plenty of this behavior in certain other threads.

Hook

True. Even intelligence doesn't seem to save you from that.

And I know that I am having my own flaws. 😉 Like becoming too involved in a discussion when I think my coutnerpart doesn't listen to me. 😄