Here is a link for a crystal clear panorama of a CRJ700.  Check it out.

Cockpit Bombardier CRJ-700 :: 360° VR Panorama :: IVRPA

Regards,

Ray

10 hours ago, raymar said:

Here is a link for a crystal clear panorama of a CRJ700.  Check it out.

Cockpit Bombardier CRJ-700 :: 360° VR Panorama :: IVRPA

Wow... that's truly amazing!

The view into the cabin almost looks like a RL picture.

Edited December 29, 20205 yr by tweekz

10 minutes ago, tweekz said:

Wow... that's truly amazing!

The view into the cabin almost looks like a RL picture.

Ehm, it IS a RL picture?

11 hours ago, highflyer2020 said:

Because they don't have the SDK tools yet to port over their code but from what I've read that doesn't mean the SDK doesn't have all the features yet to build something complex using the new tools.

From just barely testing the water in plane design (I mean barely) and having read some threads over at the dev forums, well the SDK has some physics issues. They are right on that point, there is some missing stuff that could be fairly critical to produce completely accurate modeling. Now how much that specifically affects PMDG's ability to model the physics or whether or not responsive physics can be handled out-of-process by a custom engine, that i have no idea and have not looked into.

I just read some stuff from a well known 10+ year tweaker of plane physics in sims that certain things are very hard to adjust, not just that it is undocumented, but unexpected or does not even work, hence ignoring values.

So I'd say probably some truth to what SOME of the 3P plane developers claim, but more applies to PMDG than most, because most of them never had accurate enough modeling to worry about every specific or unique physics response, other than a handful.

Could be that PMDG doesn't want to release within a sub-par physics model and ruin their reputation, for now giving them benefit of the doubt.

Edited December 29, 20205 yr by Alpine Scenery

14 minutes ago, Alpine Scenery said:

Could be that PMDG doesn't want to release within a sub-par physics model and ruin their reputation, for now giving them benefit of the doubt.

I see moslty flight sim addon dinosaur companies complaining;

The work of the FlybyWire and Working Title teams doesn't seem to produce "sub par physics model(s)" (within the limitations of the current state of MSFS). 

Maybe these old-school companies are waiting for some state of nirvana to emerge where everything is just right. They'll be waiting a long time. 

12 minutes ago, Ricardo41 said:

Maybe these old-school companies are waiting for some state of nirvana to emerge where everything is just right. They'll be waiting a long time. 

Market disruptions always lead to some companies being able to ride the next s-curve and some are left behind. Even market leaders can just fall behind and disappear after a disruption. Anyone remember Nokia?

 

44 minutes ago, AnkH said:

Ehm, it IS a RL picture?

Ahaha... well, fair enough. See what MSFS has done to me. 😄

1 hour ago, Ricardo41 said:

I see moslty flight sim addon dinosaur companies complaining;

The work of the FlybyWire and Working Title teams doesn't seem to produce "sub par physics model(s)" (within the limitations of the current state of MSFS). 

Maybe these old-school companies are waiting for some state of nirvana to emerge where everything is just right. They'll be waiting a long time. 

It is not at PMDG level or even Majestic, or A2A accusim and many others. Not their fault, just the fact that there are limitiations. Plus if PMDG makes it, I don't think they can hide the physics, so anyone can just copy it anyways. That's an issue, as once they give all that critical info away, it nullifies their most protected IP. It's now a free for all as any of the other designers can now more easily produce a higher-fidelity copycat (freeware or otherwise), and they could say "dont copy it", but anyone can technically just cut and paste the values and no-one could really say it's IP because it was the only correct way to do it. Until Asobo changes that, I don't see PMDG or the others with all that physics IP releasing it, as it will not only hurt any near-term MSFS sales, it will destroy all their future sales, potentially across all platforms. They would essentially be charging you for the modeling of the 737 and some systems improvements, but everything else would be a free-for-all.

The smaller or more unique designers can release it as-is, but they don't have a reputation to protect, the reputation being "the Cadillac of physics", which is what PMDG is, and of systems too of course. They have rep to protect, or they are nothing but someone trying to make money off their name.

There are issues in the SDK, some are fairly critical and getting a plane up to a PMDG level 'Cadillac' design is nearly impossible at this point without reworking so many different things.

Engine issues from another forum

"-N1 above 100% just does not work. Folds back to less than 100%.
-N2 above 100% works, but not in the correct way... "corrected_n2_from_ff_table" is ignored as well. You now have PID values for the FF gain. The jet engines are currently seriously bugged, and limited. "

Trim float issues.... Physics table issues, where it totally ignores the value. Problems with landing physics and incorrect ground effect as well.

 

Edited December 29, 20205 yr by Alpine Scenery

Aerosoft never comments on framerates or performance you notice? I'd expect 15 to 20 fps tops with stutters thrown in as a bonus

8 minutes ago, JETPETER2 said:

Aerosoft never comments on framerates or performance you notice? I'd expect 15 to 20 fps tops with stutters thrown in as a bonus

they have YT videos from alpha testing. Not that many developers do this, so feel free to watch them and see yourself how the plane performs in sim

1 hour ago, carlito777 said:

Anyone remember Nokia?

 

Yes - I remenmber very well. Micro$oft hijacked Nokia with Stephen Elop.

1 hour ago, JETPETER2 said:

Aerosoft never comments on framerates or performance you notice? I'd expect 15 to 20 fps tops with stutters thrown in as a bonus

Maybe not in numbers on the corner of the screen, but, descriptions like “buttery smooth gauge movement” from a most experienced active real-world CRJ pilot that has been flight testing the model might be an even better description.

This is while flying in and out of clouds and approaching an upgraded large airport.

Then again that guy is running a 10700K with RTX3090.

3 minutes ago, ryanbatcund said:

Then again that guy is running a 10700K with RTX3090.

Isn't everyone?

Just now, raymar said:

Isn't everyone?

Haha is that facetious?  I'm not.  I think there are plenty on older systems with lower video cards.  My 1080Ti does a pretty good job still though.  It's my 4790K that's holding me back these days.