On 2/11/2022 at 6:34 AM, rka said:

So when will it be acceptable to talk about ground textures, scenery and stuff?

I like to chat about scenery, but I really do cringe when the discussion is to criticise an early alpha build - especially one where the developer acknowledges certain things need improvement.

My primary question is why XP12 is still in "early alpha" because I want it and I want it NOW!

 

(This is not a setup for a "That's what she said" joke.)

On 2/11/2022 at 7:23 PM, Andistio said:

No accident it's FAA certified

Unfortunately, FAA certification is more about the integration of hardware representative to the plane being simulated than the underlying software. P3D is still very heavily used in the ATD market...and believe me, It's not for the flight modeling 😄

2 hours ago, snglecoil said:

to the plane being simulated than the underlying software

Its mostly about the software and response tolerances, hardware is mostly about how its all hooked up and what you can and cant use it for training. 

CCAA docs for it are here if you are actually interested.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/publications/flight-training-devices-tp-13799/section-1-part-iv-flight-training-devices

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/publications/aeroplane-rotorcraft-simulator-manual-tp-9685

 

Edited February 14, 20224 yr by mSparks

On 2/12/2022 at 8:41 AM, MrBitstFlyer said:

I like to chat about scenery, but I really do cringe when the discussion is to criticise an early alpha build - especially one where the developer acknowledges certain things need improvement.

It's not an issue to acknowledge they have a lot of work ahead of them. If they didn't want people to criticized their alpha build than don't show it to the whole internet. This is a screenshot I grab from the video. You can see that there is still a whole lot of XPlane 11 autogen and only the airport as the icing model. There is no snow anywhere else.  This is not a good look for them. That's not being bias against LR and it just observing what was showed to us. This alpha or build they are using is in a pretty rough state if I my base my judgement of what is shown below. 

Edited February 14, 20224 yr by fogboundturtle

29 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Its mostly about the software and response tolerances, hardware is mostly about how its all hooked up and what you can and cant use it for training. 

CCAA docs for it are here if you are actually interested.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/publications/flight-training-devices-tp-13799/section-1-part-iv-flight-training-devices

https://tc.canada.ca/en/aviation/publications/aeroplane-rotorcraft-simulator-manual-tp-9685

 

I’m not Canadian….but thanks

One of the most difficult technical challenges for the team with regard to snow coverage is going to be transition zones between snow coverage and no snow coverage.

It's one thing to swap out ground and tree textures across an area for the "snow covered" versions to get it to blend in with the new runway textures.

It's another deal all together to get the transitions between snow coverage and no snow coverage looking realistic, keeping in mind you have to take in elevation into account.  Mountains can have snow coverage above a certain elevation, the lower slopes do not.  In really advanced scenarios it has to take into account the actual weather engine, where it is currently heavily snowing and where a front hasn't passed through.

This is a difficult challenge.

Pardon me for an image from the "other sim" but it illustrates what I'm talking about.

Not even this is not perfect, with snow on the roads and not in the fields in the transition zone but it gets towards "reasonably close".

Edited February 14, 20224 yr by Gulfstream

I thought they were showing off the Evolution to the Internet and not the snow textures. Michael makes it very clear at the very beginning of the video that 'it's not done'.

Laminar has published other pictures and videos that show snow over the terrain. Obviously, in this build (or at this region), the terrain mask for snow has not been implemented.

 

4 hours ago, snglecoil said:

I’m not Canadian….but thanks

They are fundamentally all the same, all the avitation laws are basically harmonised under icao, but still need writing for each country, US FAA and European EASA basically set them and the others take them into their individual statutes, of which that is an example.

24 minutes ago, mSparks said:

They are fundamentally all the same, all the avitation laws are basically harmonised under icao, but still need writing for each country, US FAA and European EASA basically set them and the others take them into their individual statutes, of which that is an example.

And? The software side still doesn’t exactly set a high bar for certification. The implied argument is that Xplane’s flight modeling capabilities somehow open this magic door to certification by where other “inferior” platforms fail. Every Redbird ATD to which I’ve subjected my students runs some version of P3D. It’s not exactly the most pleasant experience…but, the hardware is representative of the Cessna 172 that it aims to replicate, and the “flight model” hits book performance numbers. And yes I have briefly looked at the FAA criteria for certification to see what it would take to certify a one-off home setup. I don’t remember at what point I threw my hands up and concluded it wasn’t worth pursuing, but that’s the conclusion I quickly came to. 

21 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

The software side still doesn’t exactly set a high bar for certification.

The flight characteristics actually have to be signed off by a test pilot.

You can use pretty much any hardware you want for that, as long as it meets the specifications needed.

21 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

runs some version of P3D

yes, because they had the flight model for their certified aircraft signed off by a test pilot.

21 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

but, the hardware is representative of the Cessna 172 that it aims to replicate

doesn't actually have to for anything other than counting time towards a type rating or cockpit procedure training, and for cockpit procedure training you can use a cardboard cut out of the cockpit panel.

Edited February 14, 20224 yr by mSparks

21 minutes ago, mSparks said:

you can use a cardboard cut out of the cockpit panel.

Sweet, that’ll make logging instrument currency a heck of a lot easier! 🙄 

 

To everyone else…sorry for the derail. 

15 minutes ago, snglecoil said:

that’ll make logging instrument currency a heck of a lot easier! 🙄 

You can get hardware that has previously been certified for xplane from here

https://flypfc.com/shop/all/x-plane-professional-software/

Edited February 14, 20224 yr by mSparks

6 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

It's not an issue to acknowledge they have a lot of work ahead of them.

Unless they actually don't have a lot of work ahead of them.

6 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

If they didn't want people to criticized their alpha build than don't show it to the whole internet.

Then they deal with, "Why aren't they showing us anything.  It's taking too long.  XP12 is vaporware."

6 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

This is a screenshot I grab from the video. You can see that there is still a whole lot of XPlane 11 autogen and only the airport as the icing model.

The showcase was the aircraft.  Not the scenery.  I've had a ton of stuff done on add ons I've made, and refused to show it.  Totoritko did streams of the 650 with a completely grey, basically modelled, untextured panel.  On my end, the panel was about 90% complete.  

6 hours ago, fogboundturtle said:

This is not a good look for them. That's not being bias against LR and it just observing what was showed to us.

What is being shown to you, and what they want you to focus on, are 2 very different things.

 

10 minutes ago, mSparks said:

And these meet the FAA’s definition of either a Basic or Advanced Aviation Training Device?