January 14th, 2021 - Development Update

[iFlySimX 748]

43 minutes ago, Tuskin38 said:

There's no rules against it as far as I know, but it's really annoying.

You could actually contribute to the thread or explain why it's boring instead of just drive by posting.

Wow you guys are something...

[Dreamflight767 312]

The response to these Developer Updates is becoming less and less.

Any improvements/fixes to the King Air, TBM, and/or Longitude?

[arsenal82 120]

7 hours ago, Dreamflight767 said:

The response to these Developer Updates is becoming less and less.

Any improvements/fixes to the King Air, TBM, and/or Longitude?

Exactly

fix the bugs and finish the sdk

more interesting than marketplace news

Edited January 17, 2021 by arsenal82

[steve310002 1,198]

Still no update on their long awaited node based particle system. There is a question submitted about that on the official FS forums for the upcoming Q&A. Please vote it up.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

Out of curiosity has supersonic flight been requested or discussed? Is it feasible in a sim where all the scenery has to be downloaded on the fly?

How difficult is it to modify the ‘engine’ to allow speeds up to Mach 2.06 for example?

[HiFlyer 9,343]

1 hour ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

Out of curiosity has supersonic flight been requested or discussed? Is it feasible in a sim where all the scenery has to be downloaded on the fly?

How difficult is it to modify the ‘engine’ to allow speeds up to Mach 2.06 for example?

 

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

@HiFlyer, I’ve seen that before and no way is that aircraft travelling at Mach 1.5. Not even supersonic.

Mach 1 = 11 miles per minute or 1 mile in 5.5 seconds. Does anyone remotely believe that video is a valid claim?

[HiFlyer 9,343]

3 minutes ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

@HiFlyer, I’ve seen that before and no way is that aircraft travelling at Mach 1.5. Not even supersonic.

Mach 1 = 11 miles per minute or 1 mile in 5.5 seconds. Does anyone remotely believe that video is a valid claim?

As far as the video, supersonic flight in other sims i've used hasn't appeared to move noticeably faster than this.

In fact, at these speeds, the buildings in P3D for instance, often appeared late and showed up as black rectangles until the textures could load, often causing hitching/stuttering.

Msfs seems to be depicting the sensation of speed quite well for me.

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

17 minutes ago, HiFlyer said:

As far as the video, supersonic flight in other sims i've used hasn't appeared to move noticeably faster than this.

In fact, at these speeds, the buildings in P3D for instance, often appeared late and showed up as black rectangles until the textures could load, often causing hitching/stuttering.

Msfs seems to be depicting the sensation of speed quite well for me.

MSFS isn’t capable of supersonic flight. That’s why I asked the question if any news was forthcoming. The limit is M0.95 apparently.

Flying at supersonic speeds will cause the temperature of the airframe to increase dramatically. Concorde’s nose could reach 127°C at 40,000ft and higher. I guess the modelling in those sims isn’t very accurate. If it was then flying at low altitudes would cause the airframe to overheat with disastrous consequences.

At least the P3D engine is capable of supersonic flight.

 

[HiFlyer 9,343]

5 hours ago, Ray Proudfoot said:

MSFS isn’t capable of supersonic flight. That’s why I asked the question if any news was forthcoming. The limit is M0.95 apparently.

On this subject, I keep hearing different things.

On the one hand are people who say that the sim is incapable of supersonic flight. Full stop.

On the other hand are people saying aircraft in the sim are perfectly capable of moving at supersonic speeds, but that currently the flight models at that speed are not accurate.

One person wrote:

Quote

They’ve (Asobo) included a table for you to populate the drag forces approaching and past Mach 1. You just have to do all the math yourself to figure out the data to populate the table.
What isn’t included/working is is a lift table for Mach. But even without that, it still flys pretty close to how the math says it should.
The real bummer for me, is Asobo hasn’t given developers access to particles yet, so I can’t make vapor cones when near and above Mach.

 

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

@HiFlyer, so it would appear to be a grey area. Given it's such an important aspect of flight simulation I would expect MS / ASOBO to make a definitive announcement about it. Expecting users / developers to work it out for themselves without assistance is not realistic.

[Victoroos 205]

Wait... a glider? 🙂 how? which? 🙂

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

Regarding that video above claiming to show a jet flying at Mach 1.5 over New York. I timed how long it took from passing the Statue of Liberty to passing the new World Trade Centre. It was 11 seconds. The distance according to Google Earth is 2.324 statute miles.

Divide 2.324 by 11 and you get 0.2112 miles per second. Multiply that by 3,600 (seconds in an hour) and the answer is 760 which just happens to be the speed of sound at sea level. So our friend's claim he's flying at Mach 1.5 is wrong. And my timings may be slightly off as I was doing it myself and not using a stopwatch. The limit in MSFS would appear to be around Mach 0.99 or something very close.

[W2DR 1,859]

Your absolutely right Ray. It's subsonic. I used the distance from the Statue of Liberty to the Empire State building which is 5.12 mi. (8.25 km.). The best timing I could over three runs was an average of 25.1 seconds. Plug that in with a temperature of 70F (21C) at sea-level and the answer comes up 737 mph (1,187 kph). At that elevation and temperature Mach 1 is 769 mph (1224 kph). Even if we're both a little off on the timing (a certainty) the error can't be big enough for that speed to be anywhere near Mach 1.5 ...........Doug

[Ray Proudfoot 8,929]

@W2DR, thanks for confirming. I shall post my findings in his comments section and see what he has to say. I suspect he’s a teenager obsessed with showing off. 😁