This Game is Impossible - Finial call

[fogboundturtle 2,708]

5 minutes ago, Andreas Stangenes said:

I love MSFS, but sometimes I hate it, too! You only have a very limited number of planes that are able to fly IFR flightplans properly. That number has increased lately, thank god! I know people love FBW a320 to bits, but it is actually pretty bad when it comes to IFR flying. And the CRJ has up until today's patch flown like a drunken sailor when it comes to LNAV pathing. The only airplane we actually got that is worth a word not allowed when it comes to IFR is Working Title CJ4. It is superb! It's also free, and has done a better job at it than Aerosoft. Goes to show that it was WT who first got a contract with MS Asobo.

 

MSFS is probably a great VFR trainer. Sure it is a game, but it can be a usefull game. Looking forward to some PMDG entering the MSFS scene soon. I cant handle the poor IFR LNAV stuff going on in the sim much more. 

WorkingTitle is working behind the scene to implement all of their code into the base sim. Once this is done, it will be 10000x better than any other sim out there. I think SU5 will be where we will see a lot more from there and SU6 will be even better. 

[mtaxp 666]

2 hours ago, sd_flyer said:

You are trying to make XP is professional tool for aviators which is not.

In real life you can't officially log flying hours neither in XP pro not in MSFS.

Did I claim that?

 I gave literal proofs, go to nasa's github, look for the tools that hook to x-plane. There is no denying here, if you want a link i'll provide.

The same for BETA technologies, LR even (not LM btw) proposes related job applications for 3pds, claim for a fraud?

Does it matter for an average pilot who logs hours? No. Does it matter to innovations trying to make the machines we use safer/better? Apparantly yes, and they even manage to succesfully fly in reality.

I mean, what other proof is needed in this discussion, more than an actual real life prototype tested in x-plane and then tested in real life, a job appilcation in washington airbase that LR offered a few months ago for the simulator used there, and another one by BETA tech a few days ago?

 

[Bobsk8 12,669]

21 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

 

I mean, what other proof is needed in this discussion, more than an actual real life prototype tested in x-plane and then tested in real life, a job appilcation in washington airbase that LR offered a few months ago for the simulator used there, and another one by BETA tech a few days ago?

 

https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=aerosp

 

From this link:

 

 The two simulators considered are X-Plane 9 by
Laminar Research and Flight Simulator X from Microsoft. Each simulator uses a different
approach to creating the simulated environment. X-Plane uses an engineering process called
“Blade Element Theory”, while Microsoft Flight Simulator X uses the more traditional
stability derivative method. In order to compare the accuracy of each of these simulations,
three flight tests were conducted in each simulator and in the actual aircraft. A Cessna
172SP was the aircraft used in each of the tests. The three tests conducted were flight path
stability, stall, and steady turns. Comparing the results, the simulations produced data very
similar to that of the actual tests; however, the data did not suggest that either simulation
was more accurate than the other. The only distinction between the two simulators that
could be made was evident in their user interfaces and ease of operation. Overall, the results
obtained in this paper illustrate the effectiveness of the modern flight simulator as an
effective testing and design tool. 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Bobsk8

[mtaxp 666]

24 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1045&context=aerosp

 

Comparing the results, the simulations produced data very

similar to that of the actual tests; however, the data did not suggest that either simulation
was more accurate than the other.  

Link did not work here so thank you for the tl;dr.

But, what was the point here? A proof for what? The actual compared results don't matter and NOT what i'm claiming.

If you are trying to simulate how an *existing* c172 fly, then values will be similar overall, but both achieve this in a radical different way. Read: If you are trying to learn how a prototype *will* fly in reality, x-plane will help predicting close enough + available research tools.

 

[eslader 1,782]

3 hours ago, Bobsk8 said:

The plane flying over the airport smuggling drugs, was in the late 70's and early 80s, and usually these planes flew there at 2-4 AM, right over the Tower, and generally at 300 ft AGL, so radar couldn't see them and they would then head for the everglades where they would usually ditch.

Sounds about right. The cartels were making insane money at that time. Escobar was pulling in 70 million per day. He was making so much money that he couldn't launder it all (guess he didn't know about the Heisenberg car wash trick). So he'd hide it in fields and old warehouses where rodents would chew up a couple billion worth a year without impacting his bottom line at all. When you're pulling in that kind of cash, it's nothing to buy a plane for a one-time-use drug run, and if it happens to crash and kill the pilot... Eh. You can always get more.

 

[Bobsk8 12,669]

14 minutes ago, eslader said:

Sounds about right. The cartels were making insane money at that time. Escobar was pulling in 70 million per day. He was making so much money that he couldn't launder it all (guess he didn't know about the Heisenberg car wash trick). So he'd hide it in fields and old warehouses where rodents would chew up a couple billion worth a year without impacting his bottom line at all. When you're pulling in that kind of cash, it's nothing to buy a plane for a one-time-use drug run, and if it happens to crash and kill the pilot... Eh. You can always get more.

 

They stole most of the planes and them ditched them out in the Everglades. Many of them are still there. 

[Bobsk8 12,669]

21 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Link did not work here so thank you for the tl;dr.

But, what was the point here? A proof for what? The actual compared results don't matter and NOT what i'm claiming.

If you are trying to simulate how an *existing* c172 fly, then values will be similar overall, but both achieve this in a radical different way. Read: If you are trying to learn how a prototype *will* fly in reality, x-plane will help predicting close enough + available research tools.

 

If you carefully  read the quote I posted, you will see that there was no more accuracy from XP than FSX. They were both about the same, blade element BS notwithstanding. 

[mtaxp 666]

31 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

If you carefully  read the quote I posted, you will see that there was no more accuracy from XP than FSX. They were both about the same, blade element BS notwithstanding. 

The test was done in a c172, how it flies is already known, an aircraft that exists.  

2 students solve a test got an A+, one cheated and knew the answers, one got to the same results but didn't know the answers. Which student is better and better in what he does?

If you are not able to comprehend the difference i'm talking about (which again, to us home uaers rarely matters), then i'm done, but please don't accuse me of "not reading carefully" since I perfectly explained with examples and now a metaphor.

 

[Janov 2,383]

3 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

Once this is done, it will be 10000x better than any other sim out there. I think SU5 will be where we will see a lot more from there and SU6 will be even better.

It might even be 100000x better, from what I heard.

41 minutes ago, Bobsk8 said:

If you carefully  read the quote I posted, you will see that there was no more accuracy from XP than FSX. They were both about the same, blade element BS notwithstanding.

If you carefully read what mtaxp wrote he was not talking about replicating the behaviour of an existing airplane (by replicating its flight-tested behaviour) but predicting how an aircraft will fly that has not been built yet. That is something that no flightsimulator of the Microsoft franchise was able to do with the lookup-table based approach (which IS fine for existing aircraft!). The new MSFS might be different, from the technical description we got from Asobo it seems that it is employing the same method (finite blade elements) that X-Plane used all along (correct me if I am wrong!).

[sd_flyer 6,037]

 

2 hours ago, mtaxp said:

Did I claim that?

 I gave literal proofs, go to nasa's github, look for the tools that hook to x-plane. There is no denying here, if you want a link i'll provide.

The same for BETA technologies, LR even (not LM btw) proposes related job applications for 3pds, claim for a fraud?

Does it matter for an average pilot who logs hours? No. Does it matter to innovations trying to make the machines we use safer/better? Apparantly yes, and they even manage to succesfully fly in reality.

I mean, what other proof is needed in this discussion, more than an actual real life prototype tested in x-plane and then tested in real life, a job appilcation in washington airbase that LR offered a few months ago for the simulator used there, and another one by BETA tech a few days ago?

 

Yes IRL hour matter for currency and toward particular certificate/rating. Just saying.

I'm sorry just, see one thing some people prefer one platform to another. MSFS is relatively young to do any prototyping, we yet to see where we end up 

[sd_flyer 6,037]

46 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

The test was done in a c172, how it flies is already known, an aircraft that exists.  

2 students solve a test got an A+, one cheated and knew the answers, one got to the same results but didn't know the answers. Which student is better and better in what he does?

If you are not able to comprehend the difference i'm talking about (which again, to us home uaers rarely matters), then i'm done, but please don't accuse me of "not reading carefully" since I perfectly explained with examples and now a metaphor.

 

Here my question to you! I own 172P, I have also flown and instructed in B, M, N, P, R, S. The are kind of the same, yet different! "B"comes with continental 6 cylinder  145hp! "M","N","P" with Lycoming 160HP and 40 degrees flaps (except "P" it only limited to 30 degres max flaps). "R" comes with de-rated to 160hp fuel ejected  Lycoming 180hp engine. Finally "S" model comes with pure 180hp. 

172s with carburetor engines   require carb heat to be applied during descent, landing or any time PRM drops below green arc! Some 172s have max flaps extension speed 85kts, and some allow drop 10 degrees of flaps earlier at 110 kts. In earlier model 172s pilots must use stool and mini ladder in order reach check oil door, and often they forgot to remove them before starting engine! Some 172 equipped with climb prop, some have cruise props. For example I change my 172 porop half half as my student often overrev rpm with climb prop I use so have.

 Furthermore, some 172 can cause slight buffeting when slipped with full flaps some don't. I can continue because much longer .

If we talk the test is done in 172 I beg the question which one? Because one can't get serious result unless it specific to particular make model and even serial number!

Finally we don't have convince each other. I choose MSFS for my own reasons. If you happy with XP please do stay with whatever you please.  I don't have urge to go to XP forum and convinced anyone how great in my opinion MSFS. Really who cares? Hence as I mentioned beofre it's preference not a cult! I know what I know. And I got my own my bells, and my own whistles. So I stick with MSFS and have no problem with others choosing XP or DCS!

[Tierborn 188]

On 6/2/2021 at 12:19 AM, NZAA said:

I've kept my opinion to myself, had an open mind and given it a crack all while on Facebook many many others have rubbished this game (Yes Game. It's not a Sim). 

I'm still getting the odd desktop crash. No idea why, it's random but happens often for a bit then it's fine for a few weeks.

Almost daily I'm getting to a point in my trip where I either stop following the flight plan and just carry on in any particular direction, normally directly to the airport or I just do circles around one. 

Before I land, I'm check up my peddles are even so I head straight down the runway on touchdown but the moment I hit the runway I jerk off to the left or right and that's reflected in my pedals. Nothing like sliding down the runway sideways to make for a realistic experience.

I'm using FBW A320 as the default one is useless. I've set the deadzone to 20%.  I've tweaked this to the point where my Saitek yoke unit handles like a go-cart.

Are there any final tricks before I mothball this sim for several months. The graphics and scenery are mind-blowingly good so I will be back but for now it's painful. 

you lost credibility what you said, "its not a sim

[OSM 683]

Everything was fine with the X-Plane marketing "blade element" myth until the two different companies released the same BN-2 at the same time and people began to compare them in the Plane Maker. 😁😁😁

Edited June 4, 2021 by OSM

[Janov 2,383]

10 hours ago, OSM said:

Everything was fine with the X-Plane marketing "blade element" myth

And everything was fine with the MSFS "1000 data points" myth until the simulator was released and people started flying the "airplanes" 😁😁😁

[styckx 1,871]

I'm surprised this thread is still open. This is classic old school AVSIM "My sim is better than yours" cancer which  they've worked hard at eliminating. This dreck should be shut down at this point.