Real 737 pilot praises Zibo flight model.

[jarmstro 2,406]

6 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

The joke worked because of Bing maps and Blackshark AI to make things pretty.

There is enough information to make straight and level flight work just fine. A piper warrior is as mundane as it gets. So is a 737 on autopilot. But when you stomp on the 737 rudder and nothing happens in PMDG, you don't have to look very far to understand why.

In fact the correct answer was that I do not have a Warrior in X-Plane for her to compare it to.
 

However the MFS flight model is not a joke. It's good enough for most people including most real world pilots many of whom seem to use it for videos on YouTube. As I said, it's absolutely fit for purpose.

Edited May 19, 2022 by jarmstro

[Dermot McClusky 540]

I personally have well over 1000 hours piloting a 2018 VW Golf Sportwagen and can say with utter and complete authority that none of the major sims come close to modeling the fight dynamics correctly.

So, that should just about settle this argument once and for all.

[jarmstro 2,406]

1 minute ago, Dermot McClusky said:

I personally have well over 1000 hours piloting a 2018 VW Golf Sportwagen and can say with utter and complete authority that none of the major sims come close to modeling the fight dynamics correctly.

So, that should just about settle this argument once and for all.

It does. 

[blingthinger 672]

15 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

PS I do not "lie".

Note that I did not label you a "liar". Also, reread your first Piper Warrior statement and I was indeed in error. I apologize about that, but given the nature of your tit for tat there, we'll have to settle for "manipulator".

 

17 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

I would suggest you stick to X-Plane and avoid at all costs getting so stressed about the MFS flight model. If you use XP it doesn't matter

Oh, I'm quite happy with a simulator as opposed to a xbox game. Believe me. What I do find interesting is how the different programs approach aerodynamics. I prefer reading SDKs as opposed to fussing about over photogrammetry and shiny textures.

Actually, I'm very confused as to what you are doing over here in XP land to begin with. Why are you so curious about the Zibo vs. PMDG debate? You seem to be perfectly happy with the other sheep!

[jarmstro 2,406]

2 minutes ago, blingthinger said:

Actually, I'm very confused as to what you are doing over here in XP land to begin with

Because I've used X-Plane for many years and have it installed on my PC.

[blingthinger 672]

43 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

it's absolutely fit for purpose.

 

6 minutes ago, jarmstro said:

Because I've used X-Plane for many years and have it installed on my PC.

So why would you be bothered if I refer to the MSFS model as a joke? "Fit for purpose" for me is that I can tear into the aerodynamics at will and point out exactly why it is inferior. Maybe still good enough to get PMDG to many of the numbers, but still inferior. Less information for the developers to work with (by design). Lower fidelity in force calculations. Less fidelity in unsteady dynamics (autopilot off). The list goes on. Sure, it's 'good enough' for the masses, but that doesn't stop me from laughing at the joke all the way to XP12 and even more aerodynamic goodies to play with.

[mjrhealth 864]

1 hour ago, blingthinger said:

Any proof? Web site link? Blog post? 

Read the MSFS SDK. The aerodynamics are a joke. No wonder PMDG had to inject their own model. And it still falls short. Because the fundamentals are weak:

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/mergedProjects/How_To_Make_An_Aircraft/Contents/Files/Flight_Model/Basic_Aerodynamics.htm

"The use of geometric information and a surface-based simulation reduces the need for aerodynamic performance data to the strict minimum"

This is a pathetic attempt at explaining away the following:

A) compatibility w/ legacy FSX models and developer know-how

B) Xbox-friendly

C) relatively rapid software development by a group of people who had to use XP to learn how to do aerodynamics.

When building a model of this fidelity, be it blade element theory, or the joke described above, you NEED aerodynamic performance information. You do not restrict it to a "minimum". What's more, the "geometric information" the developer must then specify would work well for a toy wood airplane. Joke.

I guess you where not around when they tried to flog there lovely was i the DC6. Nice plane, that was there test in the xplane market. I think it was too much Criticizm, and so they left for an easier one. Really dont care if you believe me or not. You asked I told you.

[jcomm 6,095]

This is a useless discussion IMO for two reasons:

1) X-Plane 12 is the NEXT incarnation of Austin's BeT and as he himself has stated, the base code was rewritten from fresh, enhancing and fine tuning a LOT of "stuff", so, as he himself puts it, let's forget about what XP11 was / is, and focus on what XP12 will bring, and from what I read it is shapping up in a rather promissing way !

2) MFS / ASOBO i certainly not a piece of trash, nor graphics and nor flight dynamics wise. It is wider in the kind of user base i appeals to, given the xBox-friendly approach, BUT ! the team is very dynamic, active, and willing to make it better in many respects, and honestly while looking at some of the details of the flight dynamics engine can rise many doubts, stuff like not being possible to define ( geometrically ) bplanes / tripolanes, aircraft with various weirdinesses in terms of geometry, truth is that some of them they "taste" acceptably to me so far, and I see ASOBO announcing really interesting areas of detail to come with SU10 and beyond...

So... let's try to give up on spending useless energy trying to justify to ourselves why one is better than the other by shouting out in the forums the ugly and the nice in your and mine preferred toys, and instead, enjoy what we have.

I myself, His Majesty the Uninstaller, am olding my finger strongly against the temptation to hit UNINSTALL, and instead am making really enjoyable flights in the FBW A32N and PMNDG 737-700 in MFS, and in the 757 Pro and Toliss A319 in XP11, and couldn't ask for more, specially now that I am a rather happy Navigraph user too !

Enjoy guys ! Life s short !  Gals are all nice, and sims too... ( oops, for the gals in the community I can rephrase "boys are all nice...")

Edited May 19, 2022 by jcomm

[jarmstro 2,406]

In terms of simulating realistic flight it seem to me that modelling a planes flight dynamics is not the problem.

One only has to look at a flag on a flagpole fluttering and moving in the wind to understand that the difficult bit is accurately modelling the atmosphere. And that is something that no sim can hope ever to do. 

Edited May 19, 2022 by jarmstro

[jarmstro 2,406]

2 hours ago, blingthinger said:

So why would you be bothered if I refer to the MSFS model as a joke?

Because it is untrue, childish and was deliberately said to inflame people.

(I expect you thought you'd gain brownie points from your fellow cult members but I very much doubt you will.)

Edited May 19, 2022 by jarmstro

[mjrhealth 864]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

cult membe

I didnt know that religion was allowed to be discussed on this forum, but than everyone has there opinion right or wrong.

[mtaxp 666]

1 hour ago, jarmstro said:

Because it is untrue, childish and was deliberately said to inflame people.

(I expect you thought you'd gain brownie points from your fellow cult members but I very much doubt you will.)

"MSFS flight model is a joke"

VS

"You are a cult member"

Just for some perspective, next time x-plane users get accused of being hostile or ruin discussions. One refers to a software ("inflame"), one always revert to personal insults

Edited May 19, 2022 by mtaxp

[2reds2whites 827]

6 hours ago, blingthinger said:

@2reds2whites

So were they decommissioned C/D sims? Any websites? I'd like to visit them if possible. Any of them 737? I want to compare back to these desktop 737 models.

I'm fairly confident you wouldn't be paying the $4000 an hour to fly the simulators I fly, not that you'd be allowed to anyway.

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Any proof? Web site link? Blog post? 

Read the MSFS SDK. The aerodynamics are a joke. No wonder PMDG had to inject their own model. And it still falls short. Because the fundamentals are weak:

https://docs.flightsimulator.com/html/mergedProjects/How_To_Make_An_Aircraft/Contents/Files/Flight_Model/Basic_Aerodynamics.htm

"The use of geometric information and a surface-based simulation reduces the need for aerodynamic performance data to the strict minimum"

This is a pathetic attempt at explaining away the following:

A) compatibility w/ legacy FSX models and developer know-how

B) Xbox-friendly

C) relatively rapid software development by a group of people who had to use XP to learn how to do aerodynamics.

When building a model of this fidelity, be it blade element theory, or the joke described above, you NEED aerodynamic performance information. You do not restrict it to a "minimum". What's more, the "geometric information" the developer must then specify would work well for a toy wood airplane. Joke.

 

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Congratulations on confessing your lie. Baby steps!

It is a joke. And a pathetic one compared to XP. How many real world pilots are directly comparing Zibo and PMDG back to back? I'm aware of 2. Both of them declare the Zibo flight model to be superior. It's ok to be confused here. The sparkly graphics are hard to turn away from.

Also, I agree with you. PMDG is not the joke. Asobo is. MS is just the cover story.

 

4 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Oh, I'm quite happy with a simulator as opposed to a xbox game. Believe me. What I do find interesting is how the different programs approach aerodynamics. I prefer reading SDKs as opposed to fussing about over photogrammetry and shiny textures.

Actually, I'm very confused as to what you are doing over here in XP land to begin with. Why are you so curious about the Zibo vs. PMDG debate? You seem to be perfectly happy with the other sheep!

Wow. You've really gone off the deep end.

I realise that you're some sim jockey who likely has either never flown or has rarely flown a real aircraft, and somehow has decided himself an authority because he has 'read a few SDK's.' But rather than address every single ridiculous point that you've thrown out there, as a 'real' pilot who has flown plenty of types, ranging from single engine prop, to unlimited category aerobatics, to wide body jet aircraft, your opinions are embarrassingly wrong. 

I see you've started ranting about 'blade element theory,' and various other 'aerodynamic goodies' as justification for your (flat out wrong) assertions - you'd do well to wind your neck in and realise that your average $10,000,000 commercial simulator uses the same type of lookup tables that you happily deem a joke. 

There's quite a few pilots out there who take exception to the sim crowd - I'm not one of them at all - but for you I'll happily make an exception. Take it from a professional pilot - you're clueless. 

[2reds2whites 827]

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Read the MSFS SDK. The aerodynamics are a joke.

You do not restrict it to a "minimum". What's more, the "geometric information" the developer must then specify would work well for a toy wood airplane. Joke.

 

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

They worked a miracle with a game engine. Must have been like training a brick to fly!

 

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

The joke worked because of Bing maps and Blackshark AI to make things pretty.

 

5 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Congratulations on confessing your lie. Baby steps!

It is a joke. And a pathetic one compared to XP. It's ok to be confused here. The sparkly graphics are hard to turn away from.

Also, I agree with you. PMDG is not the joke. Asobo is. MS is just the cover story.

 

4 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Oh, I'm quite happy with a simulator as opposed to a xbox game. Believe me. What I do find interesting is how the different programs approach aerodynamics. I prefer reading SDKs as opposed to fussing about over photogrammetry and shiny textures.

 You seem to be perfectly happy with the other sheep!

 

4 hours ago, blingthinger said:

Sure, it's 'good enough' for the masses, but that doesn't stop me from laughing at the joke all the way to XP12 and even more aerodynamic goodies to play with.

 

34 minutes ago, mtaxp said:

"MSFS flight model is a joke"

VS

"You are a cult member"

Just for some perspective, next time x-plane users get accused of being hostile or ruin discussions. One refers to a software ("inflame"), one always revert to personal insults

Just for some perspective, next time x-plane users get accused of being hostile? Do you have working eyes?

[mtaxp 666]

3 hours ago, 2reds2whites said:

Just for some perspective, next time x-plane users get accused of being hostile? Do you have working eyes?

If one says software is a joke, how does it make him hostile towards others? How can it be compared to personal insults?

Unless, some of you are also MS software, suffice to say🤣