Any new info on XP12 ground scenery / autogen?

[SAS443 1,723]

5 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Its those skills that result in "the miracle of the Hudson "

IMHO That was years of experience and fantastic CRM.
Not average-Joe PPL-holder who knows how to fly a heading off a whiskey compass and can count minutes.

7 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Using nav radios is part of an IFR qualification, plus they arent always switched on.

Nope. Not sure what school you went to.... I spent hours under the IR-hood  doing VOR/NDB/ILS/GPS procedures . It's mandatory in the EASA PPL(A) syllabus.
What you talk about is a sub-set found under the Navigation exercises "!ow altitude navigation". I did mine at 500ft with compass, clock and navlog+ sectional with minute marks. This is also when you realize that a precise turn of an track angle >90 degrees is easier performed as a procedure turn.
.

I had my PPL checkride in MVFR (moist february weather, warm front in winter = poor VFR flying in Scandinavia). My School would not release any students who were poor in dead reckoning/low alt navigation skills.

 

[flying_carpet 657]

1 hour ago, mSparks said:

during "normal" flight thats fairly easy, you can use a gps receiver, radio nav, tablet.

Instead its about developing accurate visual navigation under "worst case" situations - e.g. flying alone and all your electronics have failed and visibility is poor.

Although I don't agree 100% of the time with you, but here you nailed it. Why do pilots (usually) earn a good amount of money? Not because they are able to feed an FMC and fly from A to B, but because they can handle emergencies.

[mSparks 2,086]

44 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

I spent hours under the IR-hood  doing VOR/NDB/ILS/GPS procedures . It's mandatory in the EASA PPL(A) syllabus.

PPL radio navigation requirements are theoretical only afaik

061.08.03.00 VOR

061.08.03.01 Principles x x

061.08.03.02 Presentation and interpretation x x

061.08.03.03 Coverage x x

061.08.03.04 Range x x

061.08.03.05 Errors and accuracy x x

061.08.03.06 Factors affecting range and accuracy x

RNAV stuff is IFR/CPL - doesn't mean you wont learn/use it, - just its not tested in flight for PPL.

No one on the core MSFS team got that far.....

44 minutes ago, SAS443 said:

My School would not release any students who were poor in dead reckoning/low alt navigation skills.

I wouldn't say I had any problems with it - but I did a large number of hours in XP practising it and learning all the reasons why the VOR/NDB doesn't appear right in front of you after 15 mins+ coping with turbulence in poor vis.

Not being in the sim was never one of those reasons...

One of my favourite feelings in the sim was when they would persistently pop out of the fog a couple of degrees left or right. 

 

 

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by mSparks

[andy1252 3,851]

Well, I took a look at this based on the thread title.

Fast forwarded through most of it, but saw a couple of videos that, if they really are accurate for what's coming for XP12, got me enthused. I still use XP11 occasionally - (visual) aspects of it I still prefer over MSFS. I particularly love the road/rail network in XP, and with a bit of decent aftermarket care (Forkboy, True Earth and various other bits and pieces) I still really enjoy most of the US West Coast, particularly with things like the MV-22 and some of the helis available.

So I am definitely looking forward to XP12. I thought I saw mention of a demo version - has anything been said about when this might happen?

Still don't understand though why people feel the need to get so tribal about these sims. I don't see why folks can't just run all the ones they want regardless. I've still got FSX, three versions of P3D, two copies of XP as well as Aerofly FS/FS2 and various other oddities on my sim pc. Nowadays I spend most of my time in MSFS but I don't feel my identity is in any way tied up with it.

[OlliePen 88]

27 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

Still don't understand though why people feel the need to get so tribal about these sims. I don't see why folks can't just run all the ones they want regardless. I've still got FSX, three versions of P3D, two copies of XP as well as Aerofly FS/FS2 and various other oddities on my sim pc. Nowadays I spend most of my time in MSFS but I don't feel my identity is in any way tied up with it.

This. People get all twisted up when you ask pointed questions about their particular sim of choice.

[mSparks 2,086]

45 minutes ago, andy1252 said:

Still don't understand though why people feel the need to get so tribal about these sims. I don't see why folks can't just run all the ones they want regardless. I've still got FSX, three versions of P3D, two copies of XP as well as Aerofly FS/FS2 and various other oddities on my sim pc. Nowadays I spend most of my time in MSFS but I don't feel my identity is in any way tied up with it.

 

16 minutes ago, OlliePen said:

This. People get all twisted up when you ask pointed questions about their particular sim of choice.

IMHO, people get very very vested in their flight sim - and not just because getting them set up is a complete nightmare time sink even when "ease of use" is very high priority (which isn't a criticism - it is absolutely true - imho - that MS sims have a much lower barrier to entry than XP probably ever will, and that is great for those first few hours ever in a flight sim, or just "something different").

Easy to get overly defensive to

"flight sim politics" is probably the most extreme of any computer related politics, but very different than something like XBOX vs Playstation - mostly because on balance its old timers bringing the pitchforks out, rather than teenagers..

Doesn't mean we can't navigate it, and all try hard to be objective trying to understand the best way to get the most out of all this awesome tech.

[Claviateur 789]

After I read what is written above, since I do not belong to any company or sim, have no agenda or anything to promote or sell, I will leave this conversation because I was here to talk about XP12 autogen and scenery tech... I think I shared my objective views and thanks for the discussion...

I will evaluate the autogen and scenery tech in XP12 vs XP11 when I will get the early access version to see what can be done in it more than what we did for XP11... 

Cheers!

 

[SAS443 1,723]

2 hours ago, mSparks said:

PPL radio navigation requirements are theoretical only afaik

So you mean I could refuse all radio nav exercises at my ATO and still request a skill-test, and during that skill-test I can refuse to perform item 3.e "Use of Radio Navigation Aids" during the en-route portion (passing mark is a rather generous +/- 10 degrees)

Also do keep in mind the AMC1 FCL.210.A PPL(A) — Experience requirements and crediting:
 

Spoiler

Exercise 18c: Radio navigation:
(A) use of GNSS: (a) selection of waypoints; (b) to or from indications and orientation; (c) error messages.
(B) use of VHF omni range: (a) availability, AIP and frequencies; (b) selection and identification; (c) OBS; (d) to or from indications and orientation; (e) CDI; (f) determination of radial; (g) intercepting and maintaining a radial; (h) VOR passage; (i) obtaining a fix from two VORs.
(C) use of ADF equipment: NDBs: (a) availability, AIP and frequencies; (b) selection and identification; (c) orientation relative to the beacon; (d) homing.
(D) use of VHF/DF: (a) availability, AIP, frequencies; (b) R/T procedures and ATC liaison;(c) obtaining a QDM and homing.
(E) use of en-route or terminal radar: (a) availability and AIP; (b) procedures and ATC liaison; (c) pilot’s responsibilities; (d) secondary surveillance radar: (1) transponders; (2) code selection; (3) interrogation and reply.
(F) use of DME: (a) station selection and identification; (b) modes of operation: distance, groundspeed and time to run.

Yes it's an AMC and not an IR, but most AMCs are interpreted as mandatory by ATO's, to safeguard compliance.

I've been involved in at least 4 different ATO's, and none treats "radio navigation"-exercises as theoretical only. You will need to be signed off on any radio navigation item by either the FI or Head of ATO (or similar). 

[mrueedi 702]

16 hours ago, mSparks said:

grab the - i believe freeware, but I suspect the site that came up #1 in google might be a pirate site so I wont link it - r44 for msfs

set your weather to mvfr

turn off any gps or moving maps (during training you dont use them)

depart lybe, fly to OBR,

at OBR fly magnetic heading 207 at 90kts groundspeed for 14 minutes 50 seconds.

at VAL turn to and hold magnetic heading 331 and fly 90kts groundspeed for 30 minutes 13 seconds to SMI

at SMI turn magnetic heading 76 and fly 90kts groundspeed for 6 minutes 40 seconds to land safely at LYSM

Dont land safely at LYSM = you failed, maybe died, get lost is costing you $750 plus an hour to find where you are. 

no cheating. you can bring a 1:250k printed map with you if you do get lost - but good luck using it when you need both hands to fly.. 

here's all that and a bit more in a table

I don't understand all of this. Val VOR is clearly visible and realistically standing out, so doing this exercise in the sim is as hard as doing it in reality.

Personally, I am a map guy. I would look up the route on a good map, memorize dozens of places, roads and rivers (for a foreign area, around my homebase I know everything pretty far out from heart) and consider all these visual references in addition. When I fly in areas, that I know a bit, I have all the times these "this I remember from this trip and over there, we visited these people and on this road we drove in year such and such and this railway route is described in my book xyz"-moments.

Should you not know the area better than finding a VOR after 83km? What if you have to avoid some clouds and depart again and again from the ideal route? You would never find that VOR again unless you know other references pretty well. Follow roads, reach a river and be able to find a known city, things like that. For this, MSFS is perfect. There must be hundreds of places in multiple continents which I knew before and which I recognized immediately when I visited them in the sim.

 

Edited June 6, 2022 by mrueedi
One more sentence...

[mSparks 2,086]

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

I don't understand all of this. Val VOR is clearly visible and realistically standing out, so doing this exercise in the sim is as hard as doing it in reality.

The key factor is MVFR, I even bolded it for you, nothing clearly stands out - even 3d objects, you can barely see the ground directly underneath you and nothing further than about 3 nm away.

1 hour ago, mrueedi said:

Should you not know the area better than finding a VOR after 83km?

As I said - its NOT about the navigation - its a question flying accurately and precisely when all you can see of the area is soup and you have no other aids to assist you. 

And no, you are not going to remember 100 VRPs on a 300nm trip you never did before, there may not even be one for 100nm or more, huge chunks of the world are just 100s of miles of non descript fields, hills and forests with no civilisation of note and you are out of radio contact while you are there.

Justify to yourself that such basic "aviation buildings" were so low on their priorities list they still are not in years after launch with only 6 months left of budget all you want. Just dont expect me to call it a serious innovative flight simulator created by people that had the first clue about aviation, Im too busy spending time on a flight simulator that is both serious and innovative, created by awesome people with decades of experience of pushing the entire genre forward, who have saved countless lives doing so and also offer all of that at a price even teenagers with no income other than a paper round can afford.

Edited June 6, 2022 by mSparks

[Daube 353]

So MSFS is not a serious simulator because the VOR antennas are not in 3D ? Then, when an addon appears adding 3D antennas for VORs everywhere in the world, it will be a serious sim ?

[Humpty 751]

aviate navigate communicate !

 

[mSparks 2,086]

36 minutes ago, Daube said:

So MSFS is not a serious simulator because the VOR antennas are not in 3D ? Then, when an addon appears adding 3D antennas for VORs everywhere in the world, it will be a serious sim ?

 

45 minutes ago, mSparks said:

Justify to yourself that such basic "aviation buildings" were so low on their priorities list they still are not in years after launch with only 6 months left of budget all you want.

 

[Gulfstream 416]

17 hours ago, mSparks said:

at OBR fly magnetic heading 207 at 90kts groundspeed for 14 minutes 50 seconds.

at VAL turn to and hold magnetic heading 331 and fly 90kts groundspeed for 30 minutes 13 seconds to SMI

at SMI turn magnetic heading 76 and fly 90kts groundspeed for 6 minutes 40 seconds to land safely at LYSM

Dont land safely at LYSM = you failed, maybe died, get lost is costing you $750 plus an hour to find where you are. 

 

And if there is any wind at all pushing you off these courses, none of this will work and you will be hopelessly lost.

That's why nobody flies MVFR like this.  

[mSparks 2,086]

Just now, Gulfstream said:

And if there is any wind at all pushing you off these courses, none of this will work and you will be hopelessly lost.

That's why nobody flies MVFR like this.  

correcting for wind and turbulence is exactly why it takes a lot of practice.

Also entirely possible to fly a helicopter a lot of sideways even with no wind.