Sim vs Real

[tweekz 2,165]

In the beginning cities were too bright in MSFS. This looks quite OK right now.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,827]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

But what it won't have are buildings, fields and woods and pretty much everything else in the right place. These are also vital for VR flight so I doubt it will be at all realistic?

XP11 has buildings in the right place by using the same data as MSFS.  I find the use of the word realistic quite odd when talking of a modern sim like XP12.  The latest videos of that product are looking amazingly realistic to my eyes.

We have the best of all worlds with MSFS and XP12.  

[sd_flyer 6,032]

1 hour ago, mtaxp said:

Thats my point, if somebody is flying vfr based on "this building roof is green" or this "terrain should be brown mud" his practice is not safe imo.

If it works for southcal, great, not in my home country and many other locations I experienced that can look radically different from bing and other sources.

I think you misunderstand what prominent landmark means for flying VFR. Snow or not has little to do with that.

[Bob Scott 7,715]

46 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I guess the question we must ask is do we want our sim to look as much like the real world as possible? Or doesn't it matter?

Sure...but that pretty much always involves a trade-off.  I want a more real-looking world, but not at all cost.  There are things I won't give up, and aggravations I won't tolerate just to get better visuals.  Just in the last few minutes, a bunch of folks are posting about servers being unreachable around the world...again.  That's happening far too often to be acceptable.  The relative realism is a moot issue when you can't reliably access the scenery databases.

[sd_flyer 6,032]

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

 

Most real-world simulator training is done on platforms that do not attempt to reproduce an artistically-pleasing exterior view with accurate reproduction/placement of buildings and other infrastructure.  Terrain, user-controllable scenario parameters such as time, season and weather (ceilings, wind, and especially visibility), navaids and the airport environment are what matters outside the aircraft in a training environment, not spotting grandma's house.  I've never heard of an instructor at FlightSafety International putting the sim on pause and telling his trainees "guys, let's take a minute here to have a look at that pretty sunset."

The relative importance of fidelity in the various aspects of a simulation will vary with the user and the purpose of the simulation.  For some, a chock-to-chock procedural simulation with programmable system failures and the ability to set up approach scenarios down to minimums is where it's at.  For others, getting a bird's-eye view of some visually-pleasing scenery while sitting in a 777 fitted with a 4-engine 747 panel is the ideal experience.  Which sim platform you pick will depend on what matters to you.

Bob,

Level D sim has absolutely different focus. No one learns to fly in them!

My points is, when your student got lost or bust  airspace during solo cross-country you most likely appreciate MSFS that depict roof of grand ma house than failures.

[Bob Scott 7,715]

8 minutes ago, sd_flyer said:

Level D sim has absolutely different focus. No one learns to fly in them!

My points is, when your student got lost or bust  airspace during solo cross-country you most likely appreciate MSFS that depict roof of grand ma house than failures.

Au contraire, I used to teach USAF undergraduate pilot training students (and they are still taught) in full-motion simulators.

Like I said before, "the relative importance of fidelity in the various aspects of a simulation will vary with the user and the purpose of the simulation."  If teaching VFR map-reading/navigation is the purpose, then surface detail (but not aesthetic appearance) matters a lot.  For IFR and procedural simulation, not so much.

[evaamo 549]

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

I don't think either a $40-million level-D sim in a professional training center or a much less expensive microsimulation-based trainer are reasonably considered "just a game."

Most real-world simulator training is done on platforms that do not attempt to reproduce an artistically-pleasing exterior view with accurate reproduction/placement of buildings and other infrastructure.  Terrain, user-controllable scenario parameters such as time, season and weather (ceilings, wind, and especially visibility), navaids and the airport environment are what matters outside the aircraft in a training environment, not spotting grandma's house.  I've never heard of an instructor at FlightSafety International putting the sim on pause and telling his trainees "guys, let's take a minute here to have a look at that pretty sunset."

The relative importance of fidelity in the various aspects of a simulation will vary with the user and the purpose of the simulation.  For some, a chock-to-chock procedural simulation with programmable system failures and the ability to set up approach scenarios down to minimums is where it's at.  For others, getting a bird's-eye view of some visually-pleasing scenery while sitting in a 777 fitted with a 4-engine 747 panel is the ideal experience.  Which sim platform you pick will depend on what matters to you.

This should be pinned in the front page!

[sd_flyer 6,032]

28 minutes ago, Bob Scott said:

Au contraire, I used to teach USAF undergraduate pilot training students (and they are still taught) in full-motion simulators.

Like I said before, "the relative importance of fidelity in the various aspects of a simulation will vary with the user and the purpose of the simulation."  If teaching VFR map-reading/navigation is the purpose, then surface detail (but not aesthetic appearance) matters a lot.  For IFR and procedural simulation, not so much.

I can't comment on Air Force, I only flew with military pilots who wanted to transition to civilian airplane. There were certainly some  gaps we had to cover . But then again not every student pilot is a military cadet  preselected by government for expedited intense training.  I would dare to say majority are not!

[jarmstro 2,402]

1 hour ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

XP11 has buildings in the right place by using the same data as MSFS.  I find the use of the word realistic quite odd when talking of a modern sim like XP12.  The latest videos of that product are looking amazingly realistic to my eyes.

We have the best of all worlds with MSFS and XP12.  

But at the present time we have XP11.

Edited May 14, 2022 by jarmstro

[jarmstro 2,402]

1 hour ago, Bob Scott said:

Sure...but that pretty much always involves a trade-off.  I want a more real-looking world, but not at all cost.  There are things I won't give up, and aggravations I won't tolerate just to get better visuals.  Just in the last few minutes, a bunch of folks are posting about servers being unreachable around the world...again.  That's happening far too often to be acceptable.  The relative realism is a moot issue when you can't reliably access the scenery databases.

It's horses for courses. There may be moments when the servers play up but for me, as I use sims for entertainment, visual fidelity trumps everything. And I have no doubt that Meyer, if he had the means to do it, would incorporate streaming scenery into X-Plane despite his denials.

Edited May 14, 2022 by jarmstro

[mtaxp 666]

1 hour ago, sd_flyer said:

I think you misunderstand what prominent landmark means for flying VFR. Snow or not has little to do with that.

Yes I do.

Tell me, if this "prominent" photogrammetry landmark is under some rennovation and now it's surroundings now look different than MSFS, can you count on it? 

I agree, it can help preparing for a flight, it might help when getting lost, but frankly if you are teaching your students to navigate based on photogrammetry or orthos, it is imo a horrible and unsafe practice and I mean it the nicest way possible.

What is more improtant for VFR? Roads/mesh/water bodies/vectors/towns/cities OR the colors of the ground and the roofs (those are not even in maps...)?

Edited May 14, 2022 by mtaxp

[MrBitstFlyer 3,827]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

But at the present time we have XP11.

Yes, and it's great!  XP12 will be another step forward for flight simulation enthusiasts.  

[jarmstro 2,402]

3 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Yes, and it's great!  XP12 will be another step forward for flight simulation enthusiasts.  

I still have XP11 installed and am longing for XP12 because it has been surpassed from my point of view.

[MrBitstFlyer 3,827]

Just now, jarmstro said:

I still have XP11 installed and am longing for XP12 because it has been surpassed from my point of view.

Good for you, after all we all have a personal choice.  Nobody has yet seen the final version of XP-12, so I will keep an open mind and continue to be excited at the prospect of another flight sim being updated with modern graphics. 

[jarmstro 2,402]

4 minutes ago, MrBitstFlyer said:

Good for you, after all we all have a personal choice.  Nobody has yet seen the final version of XP-12, so I will keep an open mind and continue to be excited at the prospect of another flight sim being updated with modern graphics. 

I will certainly second that.