Commercial Level D Sims

[smithte 12]

Anyone here who works in the commercial simulation industry and can shed some light on the quality of graphics/scenery available in commercial Level D type simulators (as used by the airlines). From just looking at YouTube videos, the realism of the outside world doesn't come close even to P3D, never mind FS2020. 

I'm sure Microsoft will be looking at commercial simulator market also with this sim or does anyone know how such agreements come in place i.e. what companies current develop the outside visuals for these commercial sims?

This video showcases some of the graphics and looks like FS2020 would blow it out of the water

Edited June 26, 2020 by smithte

[Chock 17,769]

It's not the visual realism in terms of graphics which matter so much as the way it displays that view: Each pilot must have a fully collimated exterior view which covers a minimum arc of 180 degrees horizontally and 40 degrees vertically, which means since this is for both pilots, it actually covers more than 180 degrees.

Beyond this, the controls, switches and inputs must be identical replicas of the specific model of aircraft simulated with the same travel and resistance as the real controls and they must all respond within 150 milliseconds of those of the real aeroplane's control inputs and the cockpit itself must be a fully enclosed replica of the real thing, complete with an instructor station. The sounds must replicate those of the real aeroplane in terms of volume and spatial orientation. For the highest levels of simulator models, the movement must have six DOF and has to be able to realistically replicate the buffet levels of flight modes as well as the typical flight motions.

All of the performance has to be verifiable from flight test data of the real aeroplane. There is no way a  PC flightsim such as MS FS or XPlane comes anywhere near that level of fidelity. Yes flight sims on PCs are pretty good and they do indeed look great, but the expense in making one which could be certified to replicate even one aeroplane type, let alone several, as most PC-based flight sims attempt, means it just is not a practical proposition to use on as a genuine type-specific flight training simulator.

You certainly can use the better flight sim add-ons as unofficial procedure trainers, but then again, you can also use a big poster of a cockpit for that too.

Edited June 26, 2020 by Chock

[ahsmatt7 1,213]

It depends on how old the sim is. We have some Sims at my company to where it looks like fs98. Others have satillite imagery in a higher resolution. 

The graphics for the landings lights and the runways as well as the time of day in terms of sky textures and stuff is pretty darn convincing!

[Ilari Kousa 117]

The design goals for a full flight simulator versus a desktop sim are very different. In terms of the visuals, what matters is the absolute stability of the FPS. Although nothing in principle would prevent one from building a C172 level D sim, most of the simulated aircraft tend to be designed for high-altitude IFR, which of course dictates what you prioritize. These days, however, the lack of detail is a bit of a misnomer: many of them use e.g. Aerosoft sceneries these days.

[HighBypass 2,339]

I'd take a FSI VITAL sim over a desktop PC 2020 sim any day. Level D stuff isn't bothered about walking through a detailed terminal or having a nice wing view...

Similarly - take a look at War Thunder for example - the Phantom II visuals look absolutely stunning and so real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztWKUrWyUgg

But we all know that SWS and Milviz F-4s have more accurate flight dynamics than an arcade game....

(Other aircraft are available... my choice of F-4 is biased  )

[Carts85 1,203]

But but what’s the tree size like? 😉

[2reds2whites 827]

The visuals tend to be complete garbage. The newest sims have improved a little, but there's not many of those around. That video you've linked is about as good as it gets for commercial flight sims, in fact I've never seen one in real life like that!

[tweekz 2,165]

2 hours ago, Chock said:

You certainly can use the better flight sim add-ons as unofficial procedure trainers, but then again, you can also use a big poster of a cockpit for that too.

I have to drink a lot until my posters get dynamic.

[eslader 1,822]

I had a friend who worked in the sim division at Northwest Airlines. In the pre-9/11 days employees could bring friends in to check things out, and she knew I was a plane nerd so she'd invite me down from time to time to mess with the sims.

I remember fooling around in an old Level D DC-9 sim around 2000 or 2001. It was old even then. The graphics were really bad by today's standards. Better than FS4, and in some ways FS5. FS98 blew its graphics out of the water.

Now, if you set up a night flight, it all looked pretty great, because all you really saw were things like runway lights, highway lights with moving traffic (just head and tail lights), stars, etc. The bad resolution didn't really factor into that.

But it still felt more real than even a fully kitted out p3d or XP or DCS feels today, and guaranteed FS2020 won't feel as real either.

The motion helps, of course. If you've never been in a level D sim that's up on motion, it's really amazing how they can mimic every phase of flight. Acceleration on the takeoff roll feels absolutely real. You feel every expansion joint in the runway. You get pressed back in the seat from the thrust (in real life the sim is just tilting back, but you don't know that from the inside). Turbulence in storms feels... Like turbulence!

But what really interested me were the times we couldn't use the motion system. You could only use motion if a sim tech with the proper certifications wasn't doing anything and was willing to hang out with a couple of yahoos fooling around, so most of the times we flew without the motion component.

And it *still* felt real! Not quite as real as on motion, but probably 80% as good. The whole trick was that you're sitting there in a completely enclosed box, and the only visual cues you get are things sliding past the windows as you're flying along. It's like IMAX theaters - you're not actually moving in those either, but because it absolutely looks like you are, your brain gets confused and concludes that you must, in fact, be moving.

So, wanna make 2020, XP, p3d, or even FS4 feel almost real? Build a box around your rig and have enough monitors that you can have a forward and side views at the right angles.  Or just go VR. Whatever you have to do to remove any visual information that your brain can pick up on and recognize that you aren't moving, but just watching motion on a screen.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by eslader

[FlyingBubbles 15]

Not sure why people seem to care so much about visuals. Sure, it makes the sim soooo pretty but then again, the only time I actually used a Level-D sim was for my IFR and my MCP / ATPL ratings where 90% of the time I was staring at instruments, checklists, charts and communicating and generally being a good "office manager" and button pusher rather than looking out of the office window and admiring the (mostly non existent) IFR view. A Level-D sim seems like a rather expensive option for VFR training, an hour on one + instructor usually ends up by costing more than an hour flying around in your C172 or whatever GA aircraft you use.

Edited June 26, 2020 by FlyingBubbles

[cwburnett 1,809]

I spent an hour in an AA 727 Full Motion sim in 1994. The visuals were limited to, well, runway lights. It was always night time in the sim and all that showed were runway lights. They looked about like the default P3D v5 runway lights. Just white dots. 😉

The motion and fully real cockpit made up for it. I'll have you know I landed safely.

[WestAir 2,530]

I used to hate the sim. I remember back when I went to ERAU-Prescott we had C172SP sims and the A320 family Level-D (From Air France I believe). Have to check my logbook but I have to at least have 10 hours in that 172 Sim and ~4 in the '320. In both the taxi physics were garbage. In the 172 sim the stalls ALWAYS developed into a spin.

The motion and peripheral vision was really convincing, though. I don't remember the graphics being bad on either.

With my most recent job at at airline I got a lot of sim time. Posted some videos to youtube. Here's one of us flying through Vegas. (I'm the person with the really annoying voice)
 

 

[Wanderkroete 31]

5 hours ago, Ilari Kousa said:

The design goals for a full flight simulator versus a desktop sim are very different. In terms of the visuals, what matters is the absolute stability of the FPS. Although nothing in principle would prevent one from building a C172 level D sim, most of the simulated aircraft tend to be designed for high-altitude IFR, which of course dictates what you prioritize. These days, however, the lack of detail is a bit of a misnomer: many of them use e.g. Aerosoft sceneries these days.

A couple of years ago (in 2016) I have been in contact with somebody from the internet who works at CAE and asked about this because I was frustrated with my X-Plane graphics. I was told, that CAE uses a custom- in house developed visual solution. The certification of the Level D simulator requires the frame rate to be locked at 60 apparently.

So this conversation was in 2016 and I was linked a example video which was from 2013.

But I think for 60 fps in 2013 this looks really good... Although compared to what MSFS2020 I lack for proper words to use.

 

Edited June 26, 2020 by Wanderkroete

[smithte 12]

Thanks for all the responses, it's a really interesting discussion. I've been in a few fixed 737 home sims (no motion, not certified, running FSX as the outside world) and I find them even fantastic. I suppose it really is the physical environment of actually being in the exact physical replica of the cockpit that you can never come close to on a home PC setup (VR perhaps is getting closer).

This guy has been a fantastic setup for a home cockpit....

 

Wouldn't it be amazing (perhaps not required though) to see the latest level D sim with the FS2020 outside world engine - it would truly be "as real as it gets".....

[Wanderkroete 31]

Of course this would be amazing. The question is, how easy/hard it would be to implement only the visuals of MSFS2020 into a sim that is LEVEL D certified. I guess for money it is possible of course but as a "nice to have" feature this is probably not worth enough to companies.

I've also been in a fixed base 777 simulator running FSX. It was amazing but sadly had performance issues in some situation as well.