4 minutes ago, mSparks said:

I watched someones "PC vs XBOX" review for MSFS today, pretty much expecting to be buying an xbox x in the next year or so.

I was unsold in the first minute when I found out XBOX has no VR support..... 

VR support makes up single-digit uses on PC, and the XBox market is massive.

That means that VR users become a fraction of a fraction of a percentage.

While I love VR, this is not something that companies being in the business of making money are willing to pay much attention to.  The only reason I could see to put effort into VR would be to differentiate yourself, but again only to a very small subset of users.

1 hour ago, Gulfstream said:

You'll notice there are no major outcries from the sim community regarding flight dynamics, even with some of the more complex aircraft coming in like the PMDG DC-6.  You can find some sporadic issues inherent to any platform, but you'd think if this was a major issue, there would be cries of "LOL!" regarding how the aircraft flies.  There are not.

I don't spend a lot of time in the other forum here on Avsim, but between that and flying the other sim I think there are some gaping holes in Asobo's approach that they haven't yet filled. I don't get the impression that they have a good handle on the code they're working with in many areas. 

The most glaring example is lack of a dedicated helicopter flight model, but there are other things. Icing has always been wonky, and now I think they included a setting to just turn it off. I don't think they've managed a supersonic flight model yet, which is important for mil jets. AFAIK, the turboprop engine model is still lacking, compared to what Auistin had built into XP.

It's not that Asobo can't eventually fix these things, again it's just an impression that they don't have a handle on their own sim the way Laminar does as a result of the maturity of the code, and experience of Austin and the Laminar team. Gradual improvement of a mature product may always be a step ahead of a dev team working with, and to a degree struggling with, a "new" sim engine that's at least partially built on FSX code they didn't develop themselves.

There is also a question of how much Asobo's work may be hindered by having to develop for a game console in parallel with the PC version. There are some indications that this is causing problems (the LOD degradation and then revert to a prior version just now), but I think we can't tell anything definitive about that yet. It will take more time to evaluate. Laminar has a mobile version, but I don't think we can point to anything about that being a problem on the PC side. 

 

1 hour ago, Gulfstream said:

VR support makes up single-digit uses on PC, and the XBox market is massive.

That means that VR users become a fraction of a fraction of a percentage.

While I love VR, this is not something that companies being in the business of making money are willing to pay much attention to.  The only reason I could see to put effort into VR would be to differentiate yourself, but again only to a very small subset of users.

And PC makes up single digit uses to mobile. Both arguments completely irrelevant.

2D will never match the feeling of speed, distance and motion you get from a 3D title, I mean sure, XP is not quite up to the graphics of yesterday:

but its already very very close in VR. 2D is more of a downgrade from VR than PC is to mobile.

EDIT:Also, those numbers are going to change significantly once Warthunder comes to PSVR2......

Edited August 8, 20214 yr by mSparks

12 hours ago, Paraffin said:

I don't think they've managed a supersonic flight model yet, which is important for mil jets. AFAIK, the turboprop engine model is still lacking, compared to what Auistin had built into XP.

Super / hyper - sonic flight is being added.

Turboprop model is, in some aspects actually superior to what we have in XP11.

I would say the major limitations stem from the more lmited amount of details one can presently model when designing an aircraft for MFS, compared to bare bones Plane Maker.

But both these sims are under active development, MFS / ASOBO has followed a slightly different approach from X-Plane, but it is still valid, and one thing we can't say is that ASOBO isn't trying to do their best to continue to support developers and comply with users wishes at a remarkable pace.

So... the future, AFAIC, is mostly XPNG amd MFS....

A pitty both lag behind IL2 and DCS in terms of aerodynamics and overall physics modelling details ...

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by jcomm

13 hours ago, mSparks said:

I watched someones "PC vs XBOX" review for MSFS today, pretty much expecting to be buying an xbox x in the next year or so.

I was unsold in the first minute when I found out XBOX has no VR support..... MS has a veerrryy long way to go to catch up with even XP11 gfx, the new XBOX doesnt even have the basic features of my PS4 while Sony is actually moving onto truly next gen too (PSVR2 purported to be 2k per eye).

 

An XBox is a no for me as well. For add ons you are limited to what's available on the in-game store. For both XP and MSFS installing and trying out community built freeware adds so much to the enjoyment of the sims. (Also, I do not imagine that She Who Must Be Obeyed would in any way be prepared to grant me exclusive access to the telly!😩)

25 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

For add ons you are limited to what's available on the in-game store. For both XP and MSFS installing and trying out community built freeware adds so much to the enjoyment of the sims. (Also, I do not imagine that She Who Must Be Obeyed would in any way be prepared to grant me exclusive access to the telly!😩)

You need a games room.

For my games room I want near zero time trying out, updating or working out how to fix things. Thats the whole point of the console. It should just work, and everything be impeccable quality. 

We've had great family evenings with family and friends even on the highly limited VR content that comes with Ace Combat 7. Fire it up, everyone has a go. 

I really had quite high hopes after they announced they would add VR support, a lot of doubt (which I voiced), but this really could have been a good addition to the games room. That doesnt need a perfect flight model, or tons and tons of content.

In fact the best VR experience for that I have is the London Heist shooting range

lot cheaper than

And more fun.

Plus with VR, she who must be obayed can watch the tele while someone else has the headset on - the TV doesnt have to show what you are doing.

Its 2021, no VR support is such as massive downgrade from whats currently available - and has been for years - it's basically a crime of false advertising to call the xbox a next gen console.

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

You need a games room.

That would be pushing my luck far too far. I've already been granted the garage for my motorbikes and the stable for my workshop!😀 A tiny spare bedroom has to do for my PC. And I don't know quite why but I don't fancy VR or a console and telly.

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

I've already been granted the garage for my motorbikes

Make it yours with a TV, couch and console 🙂 (but not yet, because PSVR2 might be rubbish, and last gen is EOL)

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by mSparks

On 8/5/2021 at 12:47 PM, jcomm said:

VORs have mag, not true, reference, that the operators maintain as current as possible.

Actually most VORs in the US are not current in terms of variation - not even close. 

When a VOR is constructed, the zero degree “north” radial is aligned to magnetic north as it exists at the time of construction, and once set, it may very well never be changed or updated again.

For example, in he US state of New Mexico, every VOR (with two exceptions) is aligned to the magnetic North Pole as it existed in 1965, and there is a 5 to 6 degree difference between the north radial of the VORs in New Mexico and current magnetic north. ABQ VOR’s zero degree radial is set to 15E, which was the 1965 bearing to the magnetic pole.

The actual variation today at Albuquerque is 8.3E. You can easily verify that the zero degree radial of ABQ is still pointing 15 degrees right of true north by using a plotter and sectional chart.

Many pilots and even some flight instructors are under the misapprehension that a VOR radial represents the magnetic course to fly in order to track the radial, (in a zero-wind condition) but this is not (necessarily) the case. The numeric value of a given radial represents the number of electrical degrees that the radial is rotated clockwise from that specific VOR’s north reference radial.

The “course” parameter of a VOR radial on a published chart (when it defines an airway), is not the magnetic bearing of the radial - it is the OBS setting to use in order to track that radial.

The VOR itself does not “know or care” where magnetic north actually is. Because a radial defining an airway represents the number of degrees that the radial is rotated from the VOR’s own zero degree reference radial, the path over the ground that the airway follows does not change, no matter how much magnetic variation may change over the years. As long as a pilot sets the OBS to the published airway course, and tracks the radial with a centered CDI needle, the aircraft path over the ground will be exactly the same as shown on a sectional chart (which shows underlying terrain).

Even if a given VOR is aligned to current magnetic north, the only time the aircraft heading indicator would match the OBS course setting while tracking the radial would be in a zero wind condition - with any amount of crosswind, there will be a left or right wind correction angle that will cause an offset between the OBS course and the required heading to track that radial.

The primary reason why a VOR’s north radial is rarely (if ever) changed once set, is because VOR’s are not “standalone” navaids. They define airways that connect to other VORs, and if you “change one, you have to change all”. This would change the OBS course of every published airway at both ends, which would affect every published chart referencing said airways. It would open an enormous “can of worms”.

The reason that most VORs in the western US are based on 1965 variation, is that was the year that the FAA last did a “grand harmonization” of all VOR zero degree radials to the (then) current magnetic north location. This was part of a major change in the structure of US airspace and airways that took place in that same year.

This will likely never be done again, especially as more and more VORs are decommissioned in favor of using GPS as a primary nav method.

If an existing VOR transmitter is upgraded or replaced by a newer model, (at the same location),  in the process of calibrating it, the engineers will set the zero degree radial to the already- existing “published” variation from true north - not to the actual heading to the current location of the magnetic north pole. About the only time a VOR north radial will be set to the actual current heading of the magnetic pole is if the VOR is truly “new” - i.e. there was no VOR at that location before.

TL:DR Although updating the worldwide magnetic variation model of a sim like XP is (in general) a “good thing to do”, it will really have no effect at all on any simulated VOR’s in the sim world.

Well Jim, ofc VORs were just an example.

Also here in Europe ( under EASA ) the updates are done a lot more frequently, and in Portugal in particular:

- during the first trimester of every year ending in 0 or 5.

Declination data is also kept updated for the runways at every aerodrome with the same update period.

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by jcomm

55 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Well Jim, ofc VORs were just an example.

Also here in Europe ( under EASA ) the updates are done a lot more frequently, and in Portugal in particular:

- during the first trimester of every year ending in 0 or 5.

Declination data is also kept updated for the runways at every aerodrome with the same update period.

VORs certainly could be updated more often - but every time that is done, all published charts and airways have to be updated to match any resulting change in OBS courses. Europe (or at least some counties as in your example) may be more willing to do that. In the US, the FAA does not want to go through that process, so VOR variation is rarely changed once set.

Runway headings (and numbering) and related ILS localizer courses do depend directly on variation, and will be changed as needed if variation changes significantly.

The magnetic North Pole is drifting to the northwest, and the speed of the drift is accelerating every passing year. As it happens, here in the US northeast, the variation change from year to year is very small, because the linear direction of the pole drift is directly “away” from this area. The variation at my local airport has only changed 0.3 degrees in the last 20 years. 

In the western US, the year-to-year change in variation is much more substantial.

In P3D, I update the magnetic variation file every year with the annually- updated model provided by Hervé Sors.

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by JRBarrett

Jim,

I believe this will also become possible after the next major update, maybe still during XP11, because Austin is going to allow for a manual update using a magvar file with a 2 deg step on Lat / Lon.

The easiest way is to use the WMM / NOAA source / calculators.

Edited August 9, 20214 yr by jcomm

23 hours ago, jcomm said:

Jim,

I believe this will also become possible after the next major update, maybe still during XP11, because Austin is going to allow for a manual update using a magvar file with a 2 deg step on Lat / Lon.

The easiest way is to use the WMM / NOAA source / calculators.

Great! Super! That'll make all the difference to the majority of XP users like me who have no idea what you are waffling on about.😂

This sort of thing makes me think that Meyer has no respect whatsoever for the vast majority of his customers which he uses as cash cows whilst pandering to the professionally obsessed.

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by jarmstro

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Great! Super! That'll make all the difference to the majority of XP users like me who have no idea what you are waffling on about.😂

This sort of thing makes me think that Meyer has no respect whatsoever for the vast majority of his customers which he uses as cash cows whilst pandering to the professionally obsessed.

Well, actually, it will not make it's way into XP12 after all ...

I asked him instead for the modelling of substructural harmonics through a fast Fourier transform algorithm.

He told me I could only get one among the three, the thrid being an updated Runge-Kutta based on time stepping and a blend of second and fourth differences to control oscillations and provide background dissipation.

I believe you agree with me doing both would be asking too much, so, I'll stay with the Runge-Kutta implementation.

 

 

Edited August 10, 20214 yr by jcomm

6 minutes ago, jcomm said:

I'll stay with the Runge-Kutta implementation.

I think that is a big concession of yours towards easy gameplay for the unwashed masses! 😄

I personally lobby at LR for implementation of correct nutation of the earth axis. It is the one big omission that is holding back total domination of the flightsim market - and all of the fancy graphics of the competition can not compete with a killer feature like that!