42 minutes ago, robert young said:

You don't need 1000 points or even 10 to tune very effectively for assymetrical lift.

I think it's not just about asymmetrical lift. It just gives you very detailed opportunities - if you want.

It is far too early to draw conclusions. If I were ASOBO I'd implement a possibility that just interpolates values if you want to work with less information.

To me there is nothing wrong with making things more detailed, as long as you do it right. As we can't say much about the latter with a SDK far from being final, I just take what we have - a detailed flight model. Not too bad.

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by tweekz

24 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

I have flown this 172 for months ! 

I understand the 1000 points as an upper limit, I suppose that you can use as many as you want between 2 and 1000.

It might not be obviously useful to have so many now, but your own history in flight simming as seen by one of your older users all the way from the Fly! era, is that the ingenuity of designers like you will progressively make the better of the new enhanced architecture. The default aircraft might be what default aircraft have always been, but I strongly suspect that having more smoke and more mirrors to play with will help developers to make better aircraft. Old men can dream, can't they ?

Yes agreed. It would be great to have easier tools to achieve things. My only caution about this is to keep things as simple as possible. There are tons of conflicting params as it is and they can end up cancelling each other out. There are at least 50-100 params in the current air file that could be deleted or disabled and it would make very little difference. The ideal would be proper assymetrical lift but with an elegant and simple implementation that didn't end up creating more problems than it solved.

Edited August 14, 20205 yr by robert young

I don't care how it's done "under the hood."  I just wanna fly.  I want a sim that looks and feels like I'm in an actual aircraft.

And if I get into a real Cessna 172 with my pilot buddy to go flying and he gives me the controls, I want to be able to recognize what I experience in the real aircraft from my simming experience.  That's happening already and has been for years.

The biggest difference now with MSFS is that the scenery visuals now match the real world a LOT better.

I could give some point by point examples of differences between how the real 172 acted in turbulence vs how MSFS acted, but the version of MSFS I was flying with real world weather wasn't creating any turbulence.  What I was getting from Active Sky in P3D was much closer to the real thing (pretty much identical, actually) and I had no problems controlling the real 172 in those conditions.  It felt quite familiar.

I wasn't doing stalls, spins or aerobatics in MSFS but I wouldn't typically be doing those in a normal flight in a real 172 either.  Slips, both forward and side, were possible in MSFS but could also be done in P3D in at least some aircraft with the proper flight model tuning.

I think beginners are going to enjoy flying GA aircraft in MSFS.  That's going to be important in getting newcomers into flight simming.  

Hook

2 minutes ago, LHookins said:

I don't care how it's done "under the hood."  I just wanna fly.  I want a sim that looks and feels like I'm in an actual aircraft.

 

I have neither the expertise nor the talent to make a FDE. But I  care how its done under the hood,  or rather I do care how people with expertise and talent, care how it is done under the hood. Because ultimately I will fly their aircraft. 

I am glad that beginners are going to enjoy flying the new sim . I hope that selfish old men will too 😉. 

1 minute ago, Dominique_K said:

I have neither the expertise nor the talent to make a FDE. But I  care how its done under the hood,  or rather I do care how people with expertise and talent, care how it is done under the hood. Because ultimately I will fly their aircraft. 

I am glad that beginners are going to enjoy flying the new sim . I hope that selfish old men will too 😉. 

I think even selfish old men will enjoy it ....hopefully the handwringing will subside eventually  🙂

16 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

But I  care how its done under the hood

To take it to it's illogical conclusion, do you care which algorithm the math processing uses to calculate square roots? 😄 

This isn't as frivolous an example as people may think.  COBOL had no square root function and a friend of mine was hired to move from Washington D.C. to Houston to rewrite their complete system in a language that had a square root function.  He took one look, decided he could write an "exit" (that is, an outside function call) to PL/1 to do the square root function, and he was done in a day.  He sat around reading the newspaper for a few weeks, finally quit and moved back to D.C., and they kept sending him paychecks.  He finally wrote and asked them to stop.  And it still cost them less, took MUCH less time, and was more convenient than a total system rewrite, and they didn't have to keep a PL/1 programmer on staff.

The moral of *this* story is, you could write a square root function in COBOL if you know the algorithms used to do it.  Check the standard reference, Knuth's "Algorithms", if you don't know one off the top of your head.  No need to spring for an expensive PL/1 compiler.

I don't care HOW they get it right, as long as they get it right. 😄 

Hook

3 minutes ago, LHookins said:

To take it to it's illogical conclusion, do you care which algorithm the math processing uses to calculate square roots? 😄 

This isn't as frivolous an example as people may think.  COBOL had no square root function and a friend of mine was hired to move from Washington D.C. to Houston to rewrite their complete system in a language that had a square root function.  He took one look, decided he could write an "exit" (that is, an outside function call) to PL/1 to do the square root function, and he was done in a day.  He sat around reading the newspaper for a few weeks, finally quit and moved back to D.C., and they kept sending him paychecks.  He finally wrote and asked them to stop.  And it still cost them less, took MUCH less time, and was more convenient than a total system rewrite, and they didn't have to keep a PL/1 programmer on staff.

The moral of *this* story is, you could write a square root function in COBOL if you know the algorithms used to do it.  Check the standard reference, Knuth's "Algorithms", if you don't know one off the top of your head.  No need to spring for an expensive PL/1 compiler.

I don't care HOW they get it right, as long as they get it right. 😄 

Hook

Well you speak to somebody who was once proud to program stuff for the 6502 in machine language 😄 ! Then I dropped out, so I wouldn’t know ! 

3 minutes ago, Dominique_K said:

Well you speak to somebody who was once proud to program stuff for the 6502 in machine language

It was the 6502 that taught me assembly language!  I still have a soft spot for it in my heart.

Hook