17 hours ago, MattNischan said:

t the team isn't flippant about regressions, they do take it very seriously.

A lot of us perceive that the team was, the recent months, focusing on shoehorning the code in the Xbox and then is focusing now on fancy products. Facts on the ground make us think that squashing the bugs (old and new), complete the unfinished features (weather etc.) avoid graphics regression (overexposure in SDR, morphing etc)  seem to be a very second priority.

You tell us that the team is not  flippant about it.  I encourage you to tell them that they would be welcome to show us just that. 

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by Dominique_K

46 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

And what do you know?  You are just some random person with no credentials in aeronautical engineering and you don't even bother to go into detail about what's wrong with the discussion there, including a discussion of the related mathematics.  Maybe if you feel confident enough, you can tell us how the details of some of the comments are incorrect and how the mathematical model is also incorrect.  But you probably can't. Looking at some of the comments I cited in that thread, it appears there are people familiar with the mathematics of aerodynamics.  Included in that discussion is Matt's explanation of the MSFS flight model:

No offense mtaxp, but your opinion is just as useless as mine (I am not a certified aeronautical engineer either).  Mtaxp, you need to start citing some details rather than claiming vaguely why MSFS's flight model isn't as good as the other home market simulator flight models.  Do what Matt did in the above quote - go into the details and explain to us the details of why MSFS's flight model isn't as good as you claim it is. Otherwise, until then, your comments have absolutely no substance.

 

Wait, what? Did I claim to be a professor of aeronautical engineering?

You and and others misinform others about how x-plane works, this is not a "who is more accurate"  this is a "you don't own x-plane so stop quoting what you think is true or what wrong info about x-plane others or MS/Asobo are spreading".

x-plane has no "resolution" in it's flight model, no "resolution" to surpass (what MSFS claims to do), THIS IS NOT HOW X-PLANE WORKS and every explanation about HOW X-PLANE WORKS that you are spreading is WRONG.

All that said is unrelated to how good or not MSFS is, you understand the tech behind X-PLANE WRONG, but as usual the gate keepers are defensive and hurry up to defend their beloved investment, even when you didn't even understand the point of the comment or no body indented to compare between the both.

 

 

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by mtaxp

5 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Wait, what? Did I claim to be a professor of aeronautical engineering?

That's exactly what I thought.

Quote

You and and others misinform others about how x-plane works, this is not a "who is more accurate"  this is a "you don't own x-plane so stop quoting what you think is true or what wrong info about x-plane others or MS/Asobo are spreading".

x-plane has no "resolution" in it's flight model, no "resolution" to surpass (what MSFS claims to do), THIS IS NOT HOW X-PLANE WORKS and every explanation about HOW X-PLANE WORKS that you are spreading is WRONG.

All that said is unrelated to how good or not MSFS is, but as usual the gate keepers are defensive.

The only person misinforming anyone is you.  I provided sources, where the flight model of MSFS is discussed in more detail.  You provide no sources and you can't even discuss the details of the issues with those other comments (ie. you can't even discuss what's wrong with Matt's comment).  

51 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

  Do what Matt did in the above quote - go into the details and explain to us the details of why MSFS's flight model isn't as good as you claim it is. Otherwise, until then, your comments have absolutely no substance.

 

I agree. If the discussion is technical we need sources and reasoning, otherwise it bears no value. But it's a discussion I would really love to have.

A.

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by ADamiani

7 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

That's exactly what I thought.

The only person misinforming anyone is you.  I provided sources, where the flight model of MSFS is discussed in more detail.  You provide no sources and you can't even discuss the details of the issues with those other comments (ie. you can't even discuss what's wrong with Matt's comment).  

Mate, read again:

I don't care about MSFS OR HOW IT WORKS and didn't claim it's GOOD or BAD, YOU don't know how X-PLANE WORKS.

Again: Not MSFS vs X-PLANE, it's WRONG information ABOUT X-PLANE.

3rd time: You don't OWN X-PLANE, so don't spread wrong information about it, regardless of what MSFS does.

4th time: YOU are the one comparing X-PLANE VS MSFS, I'm not! I'm suggesting that the way you comprehend or think X-PLANE WORKS IS WRONG.

Kapish? Should I rephrase again? Seems you are laser-locked for an MSFS VS X-PLANE debate so maybe talk to a wall or something, I don't care about that.

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by mtaxp

9 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

Mate, read again:

3rd time: You don't OWN X-PLANE, so don't spread wrong information about it, regardless of what MSFS does.

Kapish?

Stop being a ****.  This is the MSFS forum, we can discuss the MSFS flight model if we want. I cited Matt's comment which you seem to have issues with (and Matt did refer to X-Plane in his comment). Stop spreading misinformation yourself.  Matt doesn't spread misinformation, you do.  If you don't have any expertise, use sources you **** ****.

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by abrams_tank

4 minutes ago, abrams_tank said:

Stop being a ****.  This is the MSFS forum, we can discuss the MSFS flight model if we want.  Stop spreading misinformation yourself.

******* CHRIST!

Did I claim something about MSFS?! Did I say don't talk about MSFS? You just don't comprehend, I commented on the fact that the explanation about X-PLANE, read again X-P-L-A-N-E, NOT MSFS, X-PLANE, IS WRONG.

NOT MSFS, X-PLANE.

I give up, laser locked word not allowed indeed.

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by mtaxp

@mtaxp You will never make him understand.  Let him believe what he wants to believe.  

 

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by GoranM

2 hours ago, ADamiani said:

Finally, if by level D you mean airline training simulators, are you sure that they are single CoG point with no airmass simulation?

Aerotim makes heavy use of the blade element theory to develop flight models for their Level D flight simulators, approved by EASA and used by Airbus, and some of them come with atmospheric model with variable wind and turbulence models.  

https://www.aerotim.com.tr/services/flight-dynamic-models/

https://www.aerotim.com.tr/products/flight-dynamics-model-libraries/r44-raven-ii/

I think Matt and his colleagues should get some education on these subjects if his employer is willing to fund it instead of investing resources into silly, useless game toys like Reno Air Race and Vodoocopter (or is it Volo?). A good developer should always be learning: https://www.aerotim.com.tr/services/short-course-and-education/

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by EvidencePlz

1 hour ago, EvidencePlz said:

Aerotim makes heavy use of the blade element theory to develop flight models for their Level D flight simulators, approved by EASA and used by Airbus, and some of them come with atmospheric model with variable wind and turbulence models.  

https://www.aerotim.com.tr/services/flight-dynamic-models/

https://www.aerotim.com.tr/products/flight-dynamics-model-libraries/r44-raven-ii/

I think Matt and his colleagues should get some education on these subjects if his employer is willing to fund it instead of investing resources into silly, useless game toys like Reno Air Race and Vodoocopter (or is it Volo?). A good developer should always be learning: https://www.aerotim.com.tr/services/short-course-and-education/

I always said that when I quit teaching I want to go back being a student. I'll keep these links ready for my retirement, the courses look very interesting. Thank you.

A.

5 hours ago, mtaxp said:

x-plane has no "resolution" in it's flight model, no "resolution" to surpass (what MSFS claims to do), THIS IS NOT HOW X-PLANE WORKS and every explanation about HOW X-PLANE WORKS

XP takes a finite number of slices along the axis of a defined flying surface to integrate during the integration stage. This number is not particularly high. I'm not saying it always gets bad results, on the contrary, but it is only slices on the cross section. MSFS uses a grid sampling method and the number of samples is greater in number as well as in dimensions. In XP modeling at the limits is often difficult because you may not be picking up exactly where the wing is stalling, for example. There are plenty of designers who have opined on this in the past, and most of the big ones end up feeding values into datarefs to tweak this stuff as the plane flies.

No method is perfect, of course, and it all totally depends on the skill of the flight model config designer.

4 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

I think Matt and his colleagues should get some education on these subjects if his employer is willing to fund it instead of investing resources into silly, useless game toys

I think the community here should really stop and consider if the extremely small set of individuals who make up the hardcore sim community, who often find it a point of pride to purchase anything and everything from anyone _except_ the sim developer, are really a sufficient revenue source to continue to develop a high quality simulator of this technical complexity with ongoing infrastructure and data costs.

Then also consider why Laminar and Lockheed has but a small staff, and the FSX series was discontinued.

Perhaps instead of being entitled and insular, the community should consider and embrace their brethren less devoted to the art of pushing buttons in the correct sequence but no less devoted to the joy of flight. 😉

4 hours ago, EvidencePlz said:

Aerotim makes heavy use of the blade element theory to develop flight models for their Level D flight simulators, approved by EASA and used by Airbus, and some of them come with atmospheric model with variable wind and turbulence models.

Aerotim is a rotorcraft sim which uses some BET for the rotor portion. I'm not sure there's any Level D sim which has an actual 3D point sampled airmass sim (lots have turbulence and wind, but they place it at the plane center, it's a global thing), but I'd be happy to be pointed to some evidence otherwise.

-Matt

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by MattNischan

2 hours ago, MattNischan said:

XP takes a finite number of slices along the axis of a defined flying surface to integrate during the integration stage. This number is not particularly high. I'm not saying it always gets bad results, on the contrary, but it is only slices on the cross section. MSFS uses a grid sampling method and the number of samples is greater in number as well as in dimensions. In XP modeling at the limits is often difficult because you may not be picking up exactly where the wing is stalling, for example. There are plenty of designers who have opined on this in the past, and most of the big ones end up feeding values into datarefs to tweak this stuff as the plane flies.

No method is perfect, of course, and it all totally depends on the skill of the flight model config designer.

.............

Matt, do you agree that MSFS is also a bit lacking at the envelop boundaries, and are there ways to tweak the flightmodel to improve it? Also, what do you think of the ground interaction?

A.

6 minutes ago, ADamiani said:

Matt, do you agree that MSFS is also a bit lacking at the envelop boundaries, and are there ways to tweak the flightmodel to improve it? Also, what do you think of the ground interaction?

I think the realistic answer there is that it depends on the situation. It potentially has more to offer there because the number of samples that can experience the correct time displaced wave of laminar flow separation is relatively high. But it all depends on how the flight model has been configured, and what is definitely clear is that not everyone finds it intuitive to tune. It is a much, much more sound flight model than the FSX era, but this also presents its own challenges. Whereas previously you could just grab a FDE value for X, turn it to 11 and go "I want my plane to do more X", now you have to think about why a plane does X and configure the lift surfaces and curves instead.

As far as ground interaction goes, as Seb himself has noted in the QAs, the ground friction model (which has been a bane of a good many simulators) is fairly basic and taken mostly from FSX still. So there isn't enough of a true tire model yet to really give enough of a break between rolling and flying, so the change from wheel effect to rudder effect is at the moment quite fast. This is definitely an area that is being looked at. The individual per-plane flight model configs still need some tuning in the cross-controlled area, although there is now a pretty awesome ability to set individually each aileron lift and drag independently, so you can really dial in a lot of aileron drag if you need more speed drop for the slip area, or put in a good deal of aileron lift/drag mismatch if you want more adverse yaw.

-Matt

2 hours ago, MattNischan said:

XP takes a finite number of slices along the axis of a defined flying surface to integrate during the integration stage. This number is not particularly high. I'm not saying it always gets bad results, on the contrary, but it is only slices on the cross section. MSFS uses a grid sampling method and the number of samples is greater in number as well as in dimensions. In XP modeling at the limits is often difficult because you may not be picking up exactly where the wing is stalling, for example. There are plenty of designers who have opined on this in the past, and most of the big ones end up feeding values into datarefs to tweak this stuff as the plane flies.

No method is perfect, of course, and it all totally depends on the skill of the flight model config designer.

Thanks Matt for correcting mtaxp and providing him/her with more accurate information.   Cheers.

3 hours ago, MattNischan said:

XP takes a finite number of slices along the axis of a defined flying surface to integrate during the integration stage. This number is not particularly high. I'm not saying it always gets bad results, on the contrary, but it is only slices on the cross section. MSFS uses a grid sampling method and the number of samples is greater in number as well as in dimension........ 

 

I'm sorry but the whole "MSFS has higher resolution" like it's a 4k vs 2k debate really misses the point when it comes to a flight model.

There are a bunch more stuff than "how many slices" can be done and i'm sure you know, that matter to what consists of a flight model.

So any attempt to sum up all the topic with "how many slices it does" is misinformation, x-plane does way lot more than that but I won't start putting content here partly to avoid all users like @abrams_tank that I really gave up on any discussion with their almost promotional/attemp of self-pleasing behavior, but mostly because everything is available to all and has been discussed and explained already many times. 

Edited August 28, 20214 yr by mtaxp