5 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Ah! I see. Sorry for the blasphemy. Didn't mean to offend..😀

It could be worse, at least this kind of absolute garbage and misinformation has mostly died down (from jcomms link)

Quote

Regarding BET, MSFS’s flight model is light years ahead of X-Plane’s, and is in fact quite similar in basis, but allows many, many more surfaces to be involved in the calculations of lift and drag than X-plane does (I forget off the top of my head, over 1,000 vs 10, something like that). Unfortunately, the X-plane comparisons have been removed, but if you can find an old copy of the SDK and the description of the Flight Model, you can see what I mean.

Seems there are much more blind faith in people who don't even understand basic math on the other side... I actually feel sorry for them, because they all seem to have switched to a "wait for it to get better" mentality, which will never happen because the reason such was removed is because they were not true, and Asobo have been gradually finding the hard way that flight physics "the right way" is bonkers hard and marathon like time consuming.

All this "Austin worshiper" meme seems to come from people who don't understand that when you have your sim set up to look as good as MSFS, with 30 or 40 aircraft in your hanger that all have completely modelled systems and fly just like the real thing, the promise that Microsoft might be able to enable PMDG at some point in the distant future to do the same just isn't that exciting.

In fact a lot of the X-Plane old guard have had some very heated arguments with him over the years to get XP to where it is now, where all we are waiting for is better contrast on the planes and greener leaves on the trees.

 

15 minutes ago, mSparks said:

In fact a lot of the X-Plane old guard have had some very heated arguments with him over the years to get XP to where it is now, where all we are waiting for is better contrast on the planes and greener leaves on the trees.

In fact my point was completely serious. Which flight model is correct? The standard or the experimental? Surely they can't both be accurate? Maybe the MSFS flight model is accurate as well? Maybe any flight model is accurate and the more the merrier?

My guess is that the experimental flight model is not the one that is accurate as it is still experimental after all this time?

Edited June 6, 20214 yr by jarmstro

3 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

In fact my point was completely serious. Which flight model is correct? The standard or the experimental? Surely they can't both be accurate?

experimental is more correct when using aircraft that match their real world specifications, standard is more accurate for aircraft that were made accurate on the standard flight model.

12 minutes ago, mSparks said:

experimental is more correct when using aircraft that match their real world specifications, standard is more accurate for aircraft that were made accurate on the standard flight model.

What? Double Dutch to me? Makes no sense at all. So there needs to be umpteen flight models to suit every developer? Or are both accurate? But if planes were accurate if developed for the standard flight model what's the point of the experimental one? Or is it the case that most planes made for X-Plane do not match their real world specifications? I thought they did? It's all very confusing, And why do you need to experiment with an accurate flight model?

Edited June 6, 20214 yr by jarmstro

37 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

What? Double Dutch to me? Makes no sense at all. So there needs to be umpteen flight models to suit every developer? Or are both accurate? But if planes were accurate if developed for the standard flight model what's the point of the experimental one? Or is it the case that most planes made for X-Plane do not match their real world specifications? I thought they did? It's all very confusing, And why do you need to experiment with an accurate flight model?

FWIW, XP11 ( and surely MFS too ) are so limited, both, that they can't even do basic pitching moment due to flap deflection on most cases, hence the parameter in X-Plane's Plane Maker ( std and experimental ) to set the correct pitch up / down when these surfaces are operated...

I would guess such a "basic" aspect  could easily be glimpsed by either FM, but, most of the time it isn't, in either XP or MFS Modern FM.. unless you help with "coeficients" or "magic entries"....

BTW: interesting old discussion on this subject from a 2009 thread : https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/36427-flap-and-pitch/ and, after all these years, XP11 doesn't yet cope with it correctly, even if you take precise measurements and airfoild data from the model you're creating for it, so, you have to bake it using "tricks" in Plane-Maker or plugins, or using unrealistic data to represent your aircraft ... Same with MFS for sure, don't get me wrong....

I'm a glider pilot, for more than 40 years now... None of these sims does even a "simple" glider properly ... No prop or jet wash, no CoG variation with fuel comsumption or fancy aerodynamic due to thrust asymmetry...

Edited June 6, 20214 yr by jcomm

21 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

What? Double Dutch to me? Makes no sense at all. So there needs to be umpteen flight models to suit every developer? Or are both accurate? But if planes were accurate if developed for the standard flight model what's the point of the experimental one? Or is it the case that most planes made for X-Plane do not match their real world specifications? I thought they did? It's all very confusing, And why do you need to experiment with an accurate flight model?

X-Planes flight model works by entering the dimensions of the wings, the radius of the fuselage, where the control surfaces go and how big they are etc.

X-Plane then models how that aircraft will fly.

Only it wasn't perfect, so developers would say, make the tail bigger than it should be, or add an extra set of flaps to make it fly like the real one, this is the "standard" model.

Then in 11.30 and on, they really got it more accurate, so now to get it to fly like the real one you enter the real dimensions of the wings, the radius of the fuselage, where the control surfaces go and how big they are etc, and it will fly like the real one, and more accurately than the standard one. this is the "experimental" model.

____

"table lookups" work by entering how the aircraft should fly based on control input, it "looks up" how it should fly from a table - i.e. the developer has to know before hand how it should fly, rather than the sim working it out for them.

15 minutes ago, jcomm said:

FWIW, XP11 ( and surely MFS too ) are so limited, both, that they can't even do basic pitching moment due to flap deflection on most cases, hence the parameter in X-Plane's Plane Maker ( std and experimental ) to set the correct pitch up / down when these surfaces are operated...

I would guess such a "basic" aspect  could easily be glimpsed by either FM, but, most of the time it isn't, in either XP or MFS Modern FM.. unless you help with "coeficients" or "magic entries"....

BTW: interesting old discussion on this subject from a 2009 thread : https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/36427-flap-and-pitch/ and, after all these years, XP11 doesn't yet cope with it correctly, even if you take precise measurements and airfoild data from the model you're creating for it, so, you have to bake it using "tricks" in Plane-Maker or plugins, or using unrealistic data to represent your aircraft ... Same with MFS for sure, don't get me wrong....

I'm a glider pilot, for more than 40 years now... None of these sims does even a "simple" glider properly ... No prop or jet wash, no CoG variation with fuel comsumption or fancy aerodynamic due to thrust asymmetry...

Just spot on Jose.. Bravo!!

If they cant even do such basic stuff, how can anyone expect a proper realtime simulation when you also need to add spiraling propwash, among other more complex interations, to this entire mess.

Its trying to make an Angus PrimeSteak from a BigMac 🤣

Edited June 6, 20214 yr by Alec

24 minutes ago, jcomm said:

FWIW, XP11 ( and surely MFS too ) are so limited, both, that they can't even do basic pitching moment due to flap deflection on most cases, hence the parameter in X-Plane's Plane Maker ( std and experimental ) to set the correct pitch up / down when these surfaces are operated...

I would guess such a "basic" aspect  could easily be glimpsed by either FM, but, most of the time it isn't, in either XP or MFS Modern FM.. unless you help with "coeficients" or "magic entries"....

BTW: interesting old discussion on this subject from a 2009 thread : https://forums.x-plane.org/index.php?/forums/topic/36427-flap-and-pitch/ and, after all these years, XP11 doesn't yet cope with it correctly, even if you take precise measurements and airfoild data from the model you're creating for it, so, you have to bake it using "tricks" in Plane-Maker or plugins, or using unrealistic data to represent your aircraft ... Same with MFS for sure, don't get me wrong....

I'm a glider pilot, for more than 40 years now... None of these sims does even a "simple" glider properly ... No prop or jet wash, no CoG variation with fuel comsumption or fancy aerodynamic due to thrust asymmetry...

That's what I thought. It's a PC sim. Nothing is real and who would expect it to be for £59? So let's just drop the flight model superiority stuff please. Near enough is good enough for me.

Edited June 6, 20214 yr by jarmstro

1 hour ago, jcomm said:

No prop or jet wash, no CoG variation with fuel comsumption or fancy aerodynamic due to thrust asymmetry...

hmmm, did you see austins series on the 11.30+ changes?

There was a fair bit of glider stuff in there

micheal browns youtube

And gliders don't seem that neglected:

 

Edited June 6, 20214 yr by mSparks

3 hours ago, jarmstro said:

In fact my point was completely serious. Which flight model is correct? The standard or the experimental? Surely they can't both be accurate? Maybe the MSFS flight model is accurate as well? Maybe any flight model is accurate and the more the merrier?

My guess is that the experimental flight model is not the one that is accurate as it is still experimental after all this time?

I think it's like this. 

The standard model probably didn't include prop wash and a few other things  for e.g. , where the EFM  might include it.

XP still doesn't do asymmetric wing or slat loading. (correct me if i am wrong)

It's a sim it never be real , just enjoy it. 

 

 

Edited June 6, 20214 yr by HumptyDumpty

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

hmmm, did you see austins series on the 11.30+ changes?

There was a fair bit of glider stuff in there

micheal browns youtube

And gliders don't seem that neglected:

 

Have asked jozeh (jcomm) to try the gliders in XP many times , he simply says its rubbish , no argument there, he has more than 30 yrs of experience. 

But the rotary class is fun, how real it is i have no idea but i enjoy the helis in XP..

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

@Janov, I agree with most of what you write, but a few posts above I read you post about ground physics in mfs and landing in a xwind.... well, we all know we shouldn't throw stones at our neighbours roofs when our's made of glass 😁

Let me know which airplane you would like to see me land at the maximum demonstrated or certified crosswind limit - I will have the video ready for you tomorrow.

4 hours ago, HumptyDumpty said:

he simply says its rubbish , no argument there, he has more than 30 yrs of experience. 

There are folks whose judgement about a flightmodel I would trust. Others I wouldn´t.

8 hours ago, jcomm said:

this great post today can make xp fans also gain space in their hearts for mfs... why not ?

i remember when, not far away, austin was confronted with crossflow modelling, aka 3d vs 2d airfoil theory...

https://forums.flightsimulator.com/t/developing-a-blade-element-theory/407516/2?u=jcommflight

Well, that topic was very funny to read. I chuckled at many replies: "MSFS is better because it uses 1000 surfaces instead of 10", "MSFS uses a panel method", "MSFS flight model is light years ahead"... None of which is true.

On the other hand, it's specular to those people that say that XP is necessarily better just because it uses BET, or just because it's used to predict the flight model of hypothetical aircraft.

One thing said in that thread was correct though, i.e. the fact that XP flight model has had decades of improvements, whereas MSFS is less than a year old, so it has a lot of room for improvement. Although, I'm not really convinced that the approach they've taken for the MSFS flight model is the right one. From how it is described in the SDK, seems like it's a bit of a mess.

I think MSFS flight model manifests itself as the result of the work of a physicist with no experience in aerodynamics, whereas I think it should have been designed by an aerodynamicist.

Now on the other hand, it's true that no flight model is perfect, and XP itself has only recently (i.e. months) improved in several lacking aspects, and it still has flaws. A 100% comprehensive flight model would require too much resources (both human and hardware), in particular in aspects like aeroelasticity, supersonic, post stall, etc.

Anyway, I don't have any flight sim installed right now due to lack of interest. Not necessarily because of said flight model limitations, but mostly because of a general lost of interest in virtual things.

X Plane flight model calculations are collection of highly complex physics and mathematical equations. Sounds impressive until you know that outside environment forces are not correctly modeled in the sim and have been overlooked and the effects are often far too excessive or just absent altogether. It does not consider air flows over or between terrain, for instance up and down and around mountains. In terms of that the FM gets an F. It Must drastically improve in XP12.